> On Tue, 29 August 2000, "Robert W. Hofrichter" wrote:
> Furthermore, the vesse's structural members would have to have the
Geez, forgot about that! It's been more than 15 years since I took physics,
but more than 20 years since I took "mechanics and strength of materials".
You're right, though, that the "pointy" vessels would be better for straight
line acceleration. This, of course, is in NO way modelled in FT. In fact, the
way FT works, the higher thrust ships have the higher spin rate due to spin
and turn thrust being based on main drive thrust.
Sean Schoonmaker mentioned, a little while ago, that he'd like to see FT with
different main drive and turn thrust capabilities. I have to say I'm beginning
to agree with him. It would allow for a lot of options. I'm just not sure if
it would work well with the current vector movement that allows a ship to spin
any number of hex facings for one thrust point.
I wonder if a simple rule change might make things more interesting. When
spinning in vector movement (or if a ship is sitting still in cinematic
movement) it costs 1 thrust point to spin one or two points, and 2 points to
spin three turn points. That is, to spin up to 120 degrees costs one point,
and to spin 180 degrees costs 2.
I could even happily try 1 thrust point per turn. A 1 point turn costs 1 spin
point, a two point turn costs 2 points, etc. If you have a big, old NSL ship
with thrust 2, you simply are NOT going to be able to spin it 180 degrees in
one turn.
I'm not sure what this would do to existing Fleet Book designs.
how about this: One point of thrust buys you a spin rate of 1 faceing 60
degrees of spin, you keep spinning till you apply counter thrust.
So if you put 2 into spin right you spin 120 degrees to the right that turn.
if you spend 1 points on left spin the next turn you spin 60 or 90 degrees
(your choice) right.
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day Allan
> I could even happily try 1 thrust point per turn.
Makes them look like the admirals (particularly the NSL) were on moon juice
when accepting the designs;)
Basically it becomes very easy for fast ships to stay in the back arcs of the
monsters with impunity. I know rear arc tailing is pretty common in cinematic
so I'm guessing there's ways around it, but it just felt wrong
(that could be a bias or lack of experience thing with it though).
Cheers
Beth
This was discussed several months back (last year?).
I had suggested that engines have double rating: T for Thrust and M for
Maneuver). T be massed at 2% ship mass * T and M at 6% ship mass * M. To
avoid min-maxing, add T and M masses together (including fractional
part) and then round to get engine mass, then cost if figured.
A mass 100 ship with a MD of 4 in the Fleet Book (such as the NSL Maximilian
BC) now has a MD mass/cost of 20m/40c.
Under the new system it would have an engine rating of 4T/2M. T of 4
(8m/16c) and M of 2 (12m/24c).
T give 1 point of acceleration per T used.
Under cinematic 1/2 T may be used for deceleration instead of
acceleration. Under cinematic M gives you 1 point turn per M used. Under
vector M give you 2 point face change per M used. Under vector Pushes are
eliminated (or limited to 1).
For advanced drives (KV) use 2.5% for T and 2.5% for M.
These rules do not effect the SV.
The advantage of this system is that it does not negate any of the FB1
designs. Assume all FB1 (and Phalon) designs have engines rated at T = MD
and M = 1/2 * MD. Assume all KV designs have T = MD and M = MD.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
[snip]
> I wonder if a simple rule change might make things more interesting.
When
> spinning in vector movement (or if a ship is sitting still in