I saw somewhere that Jon plans to incorporate the 'Realistic movement rules'
in the new FT edition. Good!
Some thoughts:
First, on course changes. Inspired by Adam D., I allow ships to use their
manouvering thrust to change facing - I've played with 2 clock facings
change per manouvering thrust points, where escorts have a manouvering thrust
rating of 3, cruisers 2 and capitals (usually) 1. This makes the
smaller ships nimbler than big ones - and I think they need it.
Second, the rules Jon and Mike put on Mark's Page only cover starships.
However, I think the same rules should apply to missiles, fighters and Nova
Cannon rounds (...of course, NC rounds don't accelerate...) IMO -
otherwise the perennial (for me, at least) problem of high speed escorts vs
speed 12 (or 18) fighters takes the fighters out of play.
What I've played with is:
* Fighters and missiles start with the movement vector of their mothership on
the turn they're launched. They have no 'manouvering thrust'
as such (ie, no side-slips) but can change their facing in any way
they like. Missiles and most fighters have a main thrust of 12, while Fast
fighters have a main thrust of 18. This can be a bit powerful, but coupled
with the fighter endurance rules it makes it bloody easy to over-shoot
or even disappear off the table completely... I've also tinkered with 'launch
tubes' (as an integral component of the
missile/fighter bay, so no extra mass expended) which would give the
launched item an initial vector of 6 mu in the direction of the launcher (in
addition to the vector of the mothership, of course). The launcher
could then face forward or to the sides. I don't know if it is good, but they
fit the launch scenes in B5 (and missile descriptions in Weber's books) fairly
well.
* Nova Cannon rounds cannot, of course, accelerate; but their launcher gives
them an initial vector of 12 mu in the direction of the launcher
(ie, the facing of the ship!) in addition to the vector of the
launching ship itself. A high-speed ship which fires a Nova Cannon
perpendicular to its vector can be pretty scary... (but sinceI use cm as mu, I
I have problems hitting anything with NC or WG rounds anyway!)
Finally... Mike, you said something about Jon wanting to go to a purely
mass-based design system. Any ideas of how to represent engines in such
a
system (without _really_ screwing battlecruisers or light cruisers)?
(...I don't know if it's very realistic, but I like the idea of
high-thrust escorts and slow capitals...)
Later,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Personally I think that the realistic rules should be an optional rule. It
would make the game much more appealing to new players if the
normal "semi-vector" rules were still there. I just taught my 11 year
old cousin how to play, and I think that the trying to grasp concepts like
vector movement might drive him MAD.
Later,
> In message <32E3A8E4.145F@csd.uwm.edu> you wrote:
> Personally I think that the realistic rules should be an
I had great problems trying to grasp the FT movement rules when I first
started playing. It just seemed so unnatural, and I kept planning tactics in
terms of 'real' movement for several games.
I still prefer realistic movement to FT movement, but then my brain has been
hardwired into Hard SF from an early age!
> Mark Siefert. wrote:
I Agree. It's fun to use, but should be optional. I can see new players having
the same feelings as your cousin.
> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Mark A. Siefert wrote:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
I agree fully. The realistic rules should be in the 'advanced' section of the
rules. However, if they are included at all, they need polishing...
> At 07:00 PM 1/20/97 +0100, you wrote:
> I agree fully. The realistic rules should be in the 'advanced' section
Here's another vote. Make it optional.
> However, if they are included at all, they need polishing...
Wouldn't know. I haven't tried it.
Good ideas. As for fighters, I like your ideas but also remember fighters
still have a cost benefit over escort class vessels.
Paul
In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.970117144808.17678C-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> you
wrote:
> I saw somewhere that Jon plans to incorporate the 'Realistic movement
> change per manouvering thrust points, where escorts have a manouvering
> thrust rating of 3, cruisers 2 and capitals (usually) 1. This makes
I had a few realistic movement games over Xmas, and the rule we used was that
a ship can accelerate in any direction (backwards, sideways, whatever),
regardless of facing. At the end of its movement, it can turn to face any
direction it wants.
(the basic idea behind this, is that since drives are reactionless,
there's no reason why they _have_ to be pointing in the direction
they're thrusting. It also simplifies things greatly - and you still
have an exposed rear arc).
Your other ideas on fighters, missiles & nova cannons sound good.
> Finally... Mike, you said something about Jon wanting to go to a
I would assume each point of mass gives X thrust. Once the ship has been
designed, divide the total thrust by the mass of the ship to get its
acceleration. Would make for much more interesting ship design (do you
sacrifice performance to squeeze in one more pulse torpedo?).
Kra'vak should possibly get a higher amount of thrust per mass of drives. Even
better would be to bring in tech levels for each of the various technologies
(but I can already hear cries of "simplicity!" from some of you lot:)).
> At 10:00 AM -0800 1/20/97, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
I dunno, back in 1978 we cut our teeth on Starfire and Star Fleet Battles
(ziplock baggies, $4.95). Shortly thereafter, 1980 or so, we
were playing Vector-3 from SPI. Since no one here other than a few
old-timers remember that, it involved vector based movement in 3-D.
Real vector mechanics, 3-d tactics, tractor beams et al. No real
tactics unfortunately. At that point we were 10-14 years old. So there
must still be a few kids who can handle real 3-d movement left in this
world. God, I hope so.
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> I had a few realistic movement games over Xmas, and the rule we
Well... my thought on the realistic movement rules is that the drive
_isn't_ reactionless - of course, it all depends on your gaming
background!
> > Finally... Mike, you said something about Jon wanting to go to a
> > (...I don't know if it's very realistic, but I like the idea of
Yes, BUT this means capitals will have the same main thrust ratings as
escorts - they pay just as much mass... What I found necessary was a
sliding scale (which I haven't been able to figure out yet) where a small ship
can use a smaller percentage of its mass to get a certain thrust rating than a
big ship does... or else the speed 6 or speed 8 dreadnoughts (which I don't
like too much, since I'm a firm believer in fast small and slow big ships...)
crop up again.
> Kra'vak should possibly get a higher amount of thrust per mass
Or more efficient manouver thrusters, allowing them to turn their ships
faster. Perhaps.
Later,
In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.970123114232.18615J-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> you
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
In which case you should really be bringing limited delta-vees
into the equation. Since FT doesn't use this, then I assume drives are
reactionless. But yes, I'd prefer reaction drives myself.
Having drives use reaction mass (and assuming it takes up a significant
portion of the ships mass when fully 'fueled'), means the ship's acceleration
will change over the course of the battle, as their mass drops. This is easy
enough to model (with almost no slow down of play), but adds some maths to the
initial design stage (merely a few simple logarithms).
> > I would assume each point of mass gives X thrust. Once the ship
> Yes, BUT this means capitals will have the same main thrust ratings as
Again we run into the disagreements between the people who believe small ships
should be fast (you), and those who think big ships should be as fast, if not
faster (me for instance).
You should see my rules for working out the effects of armour on the ships
performance. It's a factor of the surface area of the ship, which for a big
ship is proportionally less relative to drive volume than for a small ship.
Armoured big ships work out much faster than armoured small ships.
> What I found necessary was a
It seems very strange to me that you're wanting to add in a big
kludge to force the game to be unrealistic - not just in terms of
the real world (though this point is what we're disagreeing over I guess), but
in relation to itself.
X amount of drive mass produces XY amount of thrust seems a perfectly simple
and sensible way to have things. To then bring in extra complexity to force it
to fit a mould it shouldn't be fitting into seems a really wierd way of going
about things.
> (which I don't like too much, since I'm a firm believer in fast small
I'm a firm believer in designing a set of rules which make sense from a
technological perspective. Then the fun is taking these rules to their logical
conclusion and see what sort of tactics they require to use that technology
effectively.
If after doing all the maths, and checking the science, it works out small
ships are inefficient, then they are. Fighters are the ultimate
small ship, so they often work out useless as well (_especially_ if
you're using reaction drives, in which case they often work out to
have toally pathetic delta-vees). The fun is finding this out, and
then finding ways to make them efficient (through new tactics).
Of course, I can see lots of people disagreeing with me over this.
> Michael Carter Llaneza wrote:
> I dunno, back in 1978 we cut our teeth on Starfire and Star Fleet
But then there was also Battlefleet Mars (again by SPI). I must disagree about
the tactics though: when raiding, for example, a space station, you must make
sure your exposure time is limited (or you take many casualties). This means a
high relative velocity closing the station. But then you run into the
screening force, which will often disable your drives to some degree, so you
can't slow down enough when you get
there...
The trick was to "sucker" the enemy fleet into taking a vector off your main
line of advance, disabling his drives, while retaining a vector
that would bring you to the required position/velocity even if your
drives were shot up.More difficult in 3-D than 2-D, but not much more
so.
hmmm
sam says...
> Having drives use reaction mass (and assuming it takes up a
but this would only be true if the amount of reaction mass consumed during an
action is significant as well as being a significant portion of the ships
mass, depending on the acceleration applied to it the amount of mass ejected
may be trivial.
> At 06:42 PM 1/23/97 +0100, you wrote:
With X thrust divided by Y mass = Z acceleration, that means the big ships
will have to buy more engines per point of accelleration....which means they
will cost more, and high speed dreadnoughts are prohibitivly expensive. High
speed also cuts down on the armarments the dreadnought can carry anyway....so
it all balances in the end...I love rules like that!
> On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, hosford.donald wrote:
> With X thrust divided by Y mass = Z acceleration, that means the big
Yes, compared to other slower dreadnoughts. However, a speed 8 mass 70 DN will
spend exactly as much mass as 5 speed 8 mass 14 DDs on its engines... which
makes the DDs much weaker than the DN.
Samuel, I'm not as much after full-blown realism as after variety. If
small ships are inefficient they won't be used very much in set-piece
battles - they'll be useful as scouts, couriers etc in a campaign, but
not elsewhere.
Regards,
> In message <n1358016613.26865@uow.edu.au> you wrote:
> hmmm
Very true, but if that is the case, and we're still getting any
decent acceleration out of the drives, then we're talking _really_
incredible technology.
You can have high thrust, or you can have high efficiency. Having both tends
to require really silly amounts of power.
Unless of course, you go for an Orion design. Hmm...
Orion Stardrive
Mass: Armoured plate equal to 10% mass of ship. Acts as armour versus all
attacks from the rear arc.
- 3 levels of armour (equivalent)
- Reduces damage from missiles by 6 points.
- Equivalent of 3 levels of screens versus EMP attacks.
- Halves pulse torpedo damage (round up).
Thruster bombs. You get 100 bombs per 1 mass. A mass X ship must use XY bombs
to get Y thrust that turn. Point cost is free, but you must spend the mass.
Special option: Gamma ray pulse bombs. Each costs 2 points, and replaces a
normal bomb. When used for thrust, the nuke powers a powerful gamma ray laser
which may be aimed at any
target in rear arc. Does damage as a beam weapon, 3d6/2d6/1d6
in 3"/6"/9" range. No more than one bomb in 100 can be of
this type (for purely game balance reasons).
In message
<Pine.SUN.3.91N2x.970124110657.22176C-100000@byse.nada.kth.se> you
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, hosford.donald wrote:
Also remember this subject started because Jon Tuffley is thinking of dropping
points from ship design, so expense doesn't come into it.
> Yes, compared to other slower dreadnoughts. However, a speed 8 mass
Except the DDs can be in five places at once. They're harder to take out with
missiles and wave guns (since then can be much more dispersed).
> Samuel, I'm not as much after full-blown realism as after variety. If
> not elsewhere.
I'd disagree - given the rule I suggested, then they still have
their uses. They provide more targets for the enemy to split fire between.
They can't all be crippled with a single bad set of threshold rolls. If
they're mounting limited fire arc weapons such as pulse torepdoes, they've got
a greater chance of being able to hit a target.
It just means they no longer have monopoly on the ability to get in close with
the enemy quickly.
Thinking about it, there's also an argument for this allowing for greater
variety. The NSL might go for heavily armed ships, with 15% of their mass
devoted to drives to make room for those extra weapon systems (think of
Maulers from EE Smiths Lensmen series). The NAC might go for lightly armed
faster ships, with much higher proportions of mass devoted to drives.
> At 11:12 AM 1/24/97 +0100, you wrote:
Well that depends on what you do with the DD's....Those 5 DD's are going to be
creamed by the DN. But the DN will probably be badly hurt in the process.
What it does is puts all the ships on the same level. 5% of hull dedicated to
engines on an Escort, results in the same speed as the 5% of engines on a DN.