Movement types (was:RE: Savasku Questions)

> We just latched onto it so quickly, that it became standard around here

Glad to hear you like the vector system; any experience yet as to how
newcomers to the game get on with it at first?

> On 20 Jul 98 at 19:20, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> >We just latched onto it so quickly, that it became standard around

Everyone I game with picked it up within minutes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Glad to hear you like the vector system; any experience yet as to how

The reason I bought FT MT and FB1 was to have a playable game (unlike Battle
Rider) with a vector movement system (unlike Starfire).

I adapted Battle Rider's movement and scenario generator to Starfire, and kept
the original thrusts and turns. We did have to figure out
relativistic effects - fighters were often near the speed of
light...talk about spectacular collisions.

Most people who have any experience with science pick it up quickly. The
average casual gamer - somebody who wanders by at a con or demo and
decides
to try - takes about 3-5 turns to learn it, and a game or 2 to refine it
-
with Beth's aforementioned spectacular 'colocations' being common for a
while.  The arrow-bumping problem has been seen occasionally, but wasn't

too bad.  I use some 1/2 standard thickness arrow counters from ICE's
Star Strike, and we make a lot of our own counters for detectable effects
(active sensors, streaming atmosphere, afire, tumbling, etc.). Those stick to
a StarScape mat really well. B5 fans pick up on the vector system
pretty well, too.  They're used to seeing Star Tige- Furies (sorry :)
manuver in that fashion. I'm so used to it now that I'm shocked when a
Minbari/Vorlon uses the other manuver style.

[quoted original message omitted]

Yeah, the only FT-type product I own is the EFSB- which uses the Vector
system (except for those scary Minbari ships). I doesn't seem too hard to me,
except for one thing: When you move the arrow up parallel to the tape measure
(to determine velocity and course), sometimes the arrow doesn't point to an
exact clockface direction. Should you 'round' it to the nearest clockface, or
leave it be?

G'day all,

> Glad to hear you like the vector system; any experience yet as to how

As a newcomer I'd say fairly well. I'd picked up how to execute movement
within a couple of turns, though figuring out exactly how to go where I wanted
took a couple of games and a few spectacular collisions with
planets/enemy ships/my ships :)

Must admit that one of the other guys here had great troubles with it, but
then again he has great troubles with cinematic movement too. Yes he is a
worry - he's one of those guys who always moves last and his ships seem
to have this miraculous ability to follow your movements exactly...

Overall though I wouldn't say that people find vector movement difficult
-
though for the purposes of huge fleet battles cinematic movement may still be
the better option, especially with regard to keeping track of courses etc.
(bumped arrows could become a nightmare once there's a heap of ships on the
table). One solution my husband figured out to the bumped arrow problem was to
clearly specify one side of the table as 12 and then use
numbered counters (1-12) which are placed next to your ship indicating
which course you're on (your ship placement still indicates facing), when you
move you leave it at the start point so you can work out your new course at
the end of the movement then you pick up the old one and put the new one down
next to your ship (its proved to be fast and essentially tamper proof).

Cheers

Beth

> Yeah, the only FT-type product I own is the EFSB- which uses the Vector

In the vector rules for the FB, we state you should leave it - the 12
courses are too granular for vector movement, though they ARE still used for
ship facing.

Ok, thank you! That's what I suspected, just wanted to check.