It's probably an old question but one that I can't seem to answer to my
satisfaction.
Imagine the scene.
Your squadron is lined up perfectly for a "fist of death" attack on a crippeld
SDN but your going rather faster than normal (say 50 MU).
Weapons primed, helm steady.
The squadron commander, though a good tactician, is not the worlds best at
estimating distances over several confused turns (especially at this speed).
He moves, flys straight past them and when its his time to fire he finds
all his ships out of range/arc on the far side of the target.
In reality, the situation would have been....
"wait for it, wait for it..................................FIRE!!!!!!"
and the target would have evaporated.
Does anyone know how to incorporate "interrupted movement" into FT without
destroying thre "simple" process that is FT.
Adrian said:
> Does anyone know how to incorporate "interrupted movement" into FT
I don't think there's a good way to solve the "interrupted movement" problem,
but when has that ever stopped me from talking?
Several approaches would be reasonably simple although not necessarily
satisfactory:
a. You could say "He was in my F arc when I started, he's in my A arc now, so
I fire at half effect" or some such. Realistically you'd have been firing all
the way in, some of it as soon as you pulled into range at 36mu, some of it at
point blank, so you wouldn't get as much
effect as if you'd spent the entire turn at nose-to-nose. Someone who
is more interested in this approach than I am could no doubt figure out how to
account for how much time was spent with the target in which arc at what
range.
b. Enforce a speed limit, either direct (the aetheric propellers create too
much turbulence in the luminiferous medium when at a speed of more than 12mu,
old boy) or indirect (you only have fuel for a total of 40mu of vector
changes).
c. Say that the gameturn is only a few seconds long, and they just didn't get
a shot off.
It's probably an old question but one that I can't seem to answer to my
satisfaction.
Imagine the scene.
Your squadron is lined up perfectly for a "fist of death" attack on a crippeld
SDN but your going rather faster than normal (say 50 MU).
Weapons primed, helm steady.
The squadron commander, though a good tactician, is not the worlds best at
estimating distances over several confused turns (especially at this speed).
He moves, flys straight past them and when its his time to fire he
finds all his ships out of range/arc on the far side of the target.
In reality, the situation would have been....
"wait for it, wait for it..................................FIRE!!!!!!"
and the target would have evaporated.
You have forgotten about the third dimension.
The spaceships in Full Thrust are moving in 3D, but for simplicity we project
the action onto a 2D table surface. You can't assume that the distances and
bearings on the table are entirely accurate, just as you can't measure sizes
and angles from a perspective drawing.
Your case can be explained as the squadron having a much higher elevation than
the target SDN. So they don't fly "though" the area around the SDN, but well
"over" it instead and can't bring weapons to bear.
cheers,
Wouldn't it be natural to assume that if the squadron commander knew how to
turn his ships around and line then up in two dimensions then he could do
something similar in the third dimension.
The nearest real life situation (though not identical since gravity is
involved) is flying. A pilot attacking a target points his aircraft at
the target regardless of where that target is in 3D relation to him. He
doesn't put himself on the same level at the target and then attack.
The problem as I see it is that if hypothetical 3d relationships are the
reason that the attacker can't fire then how come the target CAN return fire
if the attacker is unfortunate enough to over run slightly and still be in
weapons range of the target.
I naturally assume that even an average attacker could estimate where a target
will be in relationship to himself (especially if that target is static) and
would not only point his ship(s) at the target but would make sure that they
were rotated on their axis so that the theoretical "top" of the ship where the
majority of the weapons are (though this would be a
pointless design for a space ship since it doesn't have a "bottom" - I
keep imagining the "Iowa" in space which not a concept I like much) is on the
same side as the target.
[quoted original message omitted]
> > Your case can be explained as the squadron having a much
Not a sufficient explanation, because we know that they're at close
range--the vertical distance doesn't count. And they could rotate to
bring weapons to bear. And it doesn't actually solve the problem anyway.
This sort of problem can happen any time that a) ship move distance is large
relative to weapon range, and b) weapons have limited fire arcs.
So either restrict speeds or reduce the arc limits--try playing
without any restriction of aft-arc fire, for instance.
> try playing without any restriction of aft-arc fire, for instance.
But the weapons are usually defined with the rear arc blocked. Do all beams
become 360's?
I've mentioned, toy'd with, but never played with a fire opportunity at
movement mid-point, but you could STILL blow by something. You could try
proportional movement tracks, say dividing each section of movement to a
spot where you could fire most opportunely.
Restricting anything still will get cries of 'but space is huge, without
walls', though my concept of battlepass counters this, at least, in my mind.
The_Beast
Hugh,
Pardon my French, but that's a really lame assed excuse for not being able to
bring the weapons to bear. Ok, the game basically ignores the Z axis. But how
likely is it that the captains of the attacking ships, whos helmsmen are
bearing in on the targets just somehow forgot about the Z axis.
"Damn it Helmsman! Where did they go?" "They were right here sir. My monitor
showed them! We should have been
right on top of them!" "Wait... Oh, hell. You didn't factor in the Z axis!"
"Ulp. Captian, I'm sorry! It.. it.. didn't occur to me!" "Security, space the
Helmsman."
If the game is representing only two dimensions, then it does so for ALL
ships. You don't get to say, "Oh gee, well, you couldn't fire at me because my
ships must have been on a different Z level."
John
--On Sunday, July 10, 2005 4:06 PM +1000 Hugh Fisher
> <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> It's probably an old question but one that I can't seem to answer to
> --- Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> I've mentioned, toy'd with, but never played with a
I'm toying with the same. would one attach that to the initiative roll or
would this be based on 'action
points' (i'm thinking Heavy Gear/ Sil) that would
allow a controller of a fleet to stage moves /trump
moves of others?
I realize timewise the turns are large, but in at least one armour game I play
ROF is a factor in where and how often a unit may fire.
Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime!
"'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour
Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003
XT350/DOD#1890
AND don't forget: Serenity releases 30 September! Trailer at apple.com!!!
http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/serenity
The only potential method would be to include firing in movement and not as a
seperate action. The present system is "move" and then "fire" on a ship by
ship (or squadron by squadron for those using that house rule) basis. My
thought is that you could move and fire at any point in that move ie 1. move a
bit 2. fire 3. move a bit more 4. fire something else (for those weapons that
couldn't in 2 and remembering that no weapon can fire twice in a turn) 5. move
the rest of your move.
Note that movement distance is compulsory as the FT rules state.
This would allow for those cinematic epics where ships pass through enemy
formations firing as they go.
The advantage is that combat would be more "realistic" but the disadvantage is
that it might make the rules more complicated (possibly
- since your doing what you normally do but at a different time there
are no new rules to learn, just old ones to use differently).
I have no problem with fire arc restrictions or even 3d movement (in
theory any way - in practice 3d movement is headache inducing). I PSB
the 3d (to myself anyway) by saying that since movement IS 3d then the ships
will put themselves where they need to be to do what they need to do. If two
ships are at range band 2 from a target then its immaterial wether either of
them are above, below, etc or that either of them are even on the same facing
of the target.
Guys, PLEASE don't post in HTML / RTF --all messages to the list
should be Plain Text only.
> The only potential method would be to include firing in movement and
That's a pain if you're using a plain tabletop (ie not a hex grid) and
simultaneous movement -- it could work okay if you were using hexes
(not "well", but "okay"--simultaneous movement on a hex board is still
a pain) or sequential moves, but those have their own problems.
As far as restricted arcs -- I'd say that most weapons should be 180
arc if you assume that half a ship's weapons should be able to fire at any
given target and the half on the other side should be masked by the bulk of
the ship. YMMV.
As for not being able to fire into the aft arc -- I can't think of any
background except the GZGverse and Space 1889 aethership combat where you
can't fire into the aft arc. In the Honorverse, you can shoot aft, you just
don't want to have any targets in the aft arc because they can shoot back at
your unprotected stern. So A arc need not inherently be a restriction.
> On Sunday 10 July 2005 16:57, Adrian wrote:
If ships can fire at any point in their movement, then salvo missiles etc
should be able to do so as well, making them a lot harder to dodge.
It may make them impossible to dodge... stick the missile within 1" of an
enemy ship, then as soon as it begins to move it's within range of the
missile, so the missile goes off and hits it.
> 1. move a bit
Can I just say "ewwww"?
I played SFB for far too long to bring that kind of BS into my FT games. The
"fix" to these issues is not to fly around the table at some large portion of
c.
> Guys, PLEASE don't post in HTML / RTF --all messages to the list
PLEASE let me know directly, or at least by name, if I violate this. I know
I've occasionally, sometimes in reply, picked up some bad setting in the past
without even realizing it.
Thanks, Chris!
> >The only potential method would be to include firing in movement and
You can get by in cine with everyone putting down their rulers along the
path for the first part of the move, and trying a shot, at say, a quarter of
the way. A ship moving 8" would be a quarter of the 4" of that first part of
the move, or 2" from the start. A ship moving 6" would be 1.5". Now, if you
want to constantly check for the OPTIMUM point on the path, there may be a way
to work it out, but higher mathematics would seem to be involved. Especially
if you put arcs in.
Add the complexity of keeping track of which weapons fired, and maybe
initiative, and I'm singing 'let's call the whole thing off'. Optional
mid-course firing, with simultaneous damage and all firing at the same
point in the movement sounds a worthy compromise.
The_Beast
> You can get by in cine with everyone putting down their rulers
Er, 1" and.75", respectively. *blush*
> >> 1. move a bit
And the atheist in the foxhole yells "AMEN!"
The_Beast
Doug, you are posting in HTML.
Possible solution: All fire is at Mid-point.
Michael Brown mwsaber@comcast.net
(707) 763-1708
(707) 344-1075
________________________________________
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU] On Behalf Of Doug Evans
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 8:43 AM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: move and fire problem
> Guys, PLEASE don't post in HTML / RTF --all messages to the list
PLEASE let me know directly, or at least by name, if I violate this. I know
I've occasionally, sometimes in reply, picked up some bad setting in the past
without even realizing it.
Thanks, Chris!
> >The only potential method would be to include firing in movement and
You can get by in cine with everyone putting down their rulers along the path
for the first part of the move, and trying a shot, at say, a quarter of the
way. A ship moving 8" would be a quarter of the 4" of that first part of the
move, or 2" from the start. A ship moving 6" would be 1.5". Now, if you want
to constantly check for the OPTIMUM point on the path, there may be a way to
work it out, but higher mathematics would seem to be involved. Especially if
you put arcs in.
Add the complexity of keeping track of which weapons fired, and maybe
initiative, and I'm singing 'let's call the whole thing off'. Optional
mid-course firing, with simultaneous damage and all firing at the same
point in the movement sounds a worthy compromise.
The_Beast
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 7/10/05, Adrian <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> to fire you fire then continue moving". If your movement puts your
Throughout
> this the enemy gets as much chance to do something as they do in the
Why not? Can't he interrupt his movement to fire? And then we have the
spectacle of grown men shouting "But I said I wanted to fire
first!!"
I hate salvo missiles and I believe their too powerful. They should be made
half as fast, half as powerful and half as efficient with a software glitch
that makes my ships immune to them (guess who has had too many bad experiences
with them).
Actually though, they should only be fired when the rules say they should (at
the beginning of the move) since they're classed as movement and not
firing. I think their treated as a seperate unit once fired and it is more
than likely that a target would have moved by the time its their turn to do
attack.
I'm sure someone can come up with some PSB for why this is so.
[quoted original message omitted]
I'm suggesting bending the existing rules (one ship at a time from alternating
sides) not breaking them (hands up who wants to play SFB for
five year olds). ;-)
I must admit to a degree of bias since this "rule bending" allows the high
speed torpedo passes I favour.
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> My thought is that you could move and fire at any point in that move
I personally wouldn't want to go this route due to time mainly, and in
vector it could get fiddly unless you treated each "sub-turn" in the
same way you treat a turn now, which brings you back to where you started.
Likewise if you were to get pedantic about it you would continue to suffer the
"oops flew by without a shot" problem even with a subdivided turn. While I
fully understand (and sympathise) with the
intent, just don't think it will come off all that smoothly - though I'm
happy for someone to go play it and tell me I'm wrong;)
As to the solution being all fire at mid-point (I think I remember
seeing that comment in the thread), that's just moving the fire point
not solving the problem really - as then you get ships at midpoint with
no target in arc to fire at but they end in what would've been a great firing
location.
Maybe I'm coping out, but I've just accepted the "ended out of fire arc, sigh"
problem as a price to play for the fun simplicity of FT.
Cheers
> I was thinking about "you follow the standard FT movement rules but
<<<<SNIP>>>> Throughout this the enemy gets as much chance to do something
as they do in the normal game - that is NOTHING. <<<<
This proposal seems horribly one-sided, bearing in mind that all action
in a turn is supposed to be broadly simultaneous. Surely anything ship Alpha
can do to Beta, Beta should be able to do to Alpha?.
I think the example offered by the original poster was a fast missile boat
making a strike pass on a capital ship being allowed to fire at any point
along its move. For this to be fair, the TARGET would obviously have to be
allowed to fire at any point along ITS move too. If the hypothetical captain
of the missile boat is, in effect, allowed to respond to the movements of the
target to choose the ideal moment to fire, the gunnery officer on the target
should be able to do the same.
Something like this would blur the distinction between the move and fire
phases of a turn in a manner that might be more realistic, but I think it
would be horrible to play. Off the top of my head, with only two ships
involved, the sequence might be:
1. Divide the move of the slower ship by that of the faster, to calculate the
Relative Move Factor (RMF).
2. Move the faster ship 1mu, move the slower (1*RMF)mu.
3. Each skipper may declare a shot in the usual way and have damage recorded.
4. Repeat 2 & 3 until move complete.
That would be bad enough with just two ships. In a multi-ship action one
would have to allow EVERY ship to be able to fire at any point in its move
too, and my head hurts just thinking about it.
G'day,
> 2. Move the faster ship 1mu, move the slower (1*RMF)mu.
Problem is this doesn't represent simultaneous movement which would have to be
done by% of total move to be done rather than mu (otherwise get mismatch
between relative locations given relative speeds etc).
Cheers
Robert Bryett said:
> 1. Divide the move of the slower ship by that of the faster, to
It wouldn't be quite that bad, because each ship would only fire once during a
turn.
Well, each *weapon* would only fire once a turn. I suppose you could fire each
weapon in a separate impulse.
SFB, anyone?
I really think the solution to The Other Adrian's problem is "don't go so
fast".
(The Othe Adrian was the one who posted this problem. The Original Adrian, of
stargrunt.ca, is different and has *many* problems, and I'm pleased to say
I've been a cause or contributor to several of them....but not FMA Sheep I,
which never happened).
On Jul 10, 2005, at 8:11 PM, <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
Yup. For this to work you need to define how much time each turn is and then
split the turn into segments. Faster ships moving more segments each turn,
blah, blah, blah...
See SFB for a hex based game that does this pretty well.
Damo
> 2. Move the faster ship 1mu, move the slower (1*RMF)mu.
Probably right, but I wasn't seriously proposing the mechanism. I was just
trying to illustrate one of the reasons (cumbersome play) I thought the "shoot
on the fly" proposal was a Bad Idea (TM).
> John K. Lerchey wrote:
> Pardon my French, but that's a really lame assed excuse for not
No offence taken.
> Ok, the game basically ignores the Z axis. But how likely is it that
I did not say the game ignores the Z axis. I assume there is movement in the
3rd dimension going on, which can be used to explain strange occurrences in
the simplified 2D tabletop representation.
The helms of the attacking ships haven't forgotten about the Z axis, but it
imposes an additional constraint that we can't see in 2D.
In the original example, there's a squadron of fast flying ships approaching
an SDN. The ships start at 50MU and overshoot, so let's say the initial
distance is 25 MU. The SDN is either moving very slowly or not at all. On the
table it starts like:
> >
and ends with
> >
SDN > >
> >
If the attacking ships have an upward vector component as well, "gaining
altitude" if they were aircraft, and the SDN has a downward component, then
moving in a straight line will take them further away from the SDN, not
closer, and also move the SDN more into their rear firing arc. So they are
turning as well, in the vertical plane, to bring weapons to bear. In this case
though they're moving too fast and can't turn tightly enough, so overshoot.
If the action is rotated through 90 degrees around the axis running from left
to right, it would start like this
/ /
/ / SDN
/ /
be like this at the midpoint of movement
> >
SDN
and finish up as
SDN
\ \
\ \
\ \
They never get the close range frontal shot.
> If the game is representing only two dimensions, then it does so for
<Shrug> It may be a lame assed excuse. I still like it better than "your crew
collectively lost their minds for a few minutes" or "there's a fault in the
game."
Zillions of dollars are spent on training fighter pilots and R&D for air to
air missiles because it's really hard to zip about at high speed in 3D and
shoot things. If the game rules create situations where ships sometimes
overshoot and miss sitting duck targets, then I regard that as being more
realistic, not less.
cheers,