I've got a problem with the vector movement system, which was somewhat
addressed in the B5 Wireframe system: both a thrust 2 SDN and a thrust 8
corvette can bring their guns to bear with an equal chance of success. Granted
that the corvette can do a bit extra in the maneuver department, but
estimation of enemy position can take precedence over good maneuvering.
I think that this is why many still favor the cinematic movement system.
So I propose this potential solution:
It takes alot more umph to push a SDN than it does a CT, so limit the number
of facings that a ship can rotate with each thrust point. Say...
Mass 0-4: Unlimited
Mass 5-16: 6 per point
Mass 17-64: 3 per point
Mass 65-256: 2 per point
Mass 257+: 1 per point
This brings maneuver more into play without violating physics.
> Mass 0-4: Unlimited
It's been brought to my attention that this might be a trifle limited, so I'll
put out this alternate chart as well. You can decide which one you prefer...
Mass 0-4: Unlimited
Mass 5-16: 12 per point
Mass 17-64: 6 per point
Mass 67-256: 4 per point
Mass 257+: 3 per point
> It takes alot more umph to push a SDN than it does a CT, so limit the
Say...
> Mass 0-4: Unlimited
Sadly it does violate physics big time. At the distance and time scales
commonly assumed for FT (1 inch = 1000 km, and 1 turn = 20 minutes), the force
needed to rotate a starship, even a big one, is trivial compared the the force
needed to produce the accelerations seen.
If playing in a B5 universe then the turns will probably me much shorter and
the distances rather less and so something akin to what you suggest would
possibly be more acceptable.
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> I've got a problem with the vector movement system, which was somewhat
Seconded, at least in principle (see below for comments on the exact
mechanics)
In our first games with the vector movement system we misunderstood the rules,
and limited ships to the same number of rotation points as their thrust. This
seemed to work fine to us, and it wasn't until much later that we realised our
mistake.
> I think that this is why many still favor the cinematic movement
Say...
> Mass 0-4: Unlimited
Six rotation points are needed for a 180 degree turn, which is the most you
should ever need at one go. So, if I understand the above table correctly, a
mass 65-256 ship (a range which covers most capital ships) could do a
120 degree rotation if it has thrust 2. This isn't actually much of a
limitation IMHO. I would be inclined to be even more drastic and go with our
'misunderstood' system above of one rotation per thrust point. It shouldn't be
necessary to bring the ship's mass into it (after all, the ship's mass has
already been taken account of when buying the manouevre engines).
Steve spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Sadly it does violate physics big time. At the distance and time
Yes, given 20 minutes to rotate, even a slow beastie can manage the trick
(ponderous though that turn may be, that is outside the granularity of FT).
Mind you, small craft seem to lack the manoevre advantages you'd expect.
/************************************************
> Sean Bayan Shoonmaker wrote:
> >Mass 0-4: Unlimited
and
> It's been brought to my attention that this might be a trifle limited,
Um... why would you want to turn *12* clock facings? 6 should be enough
-
if you want to turn more than that, turn the other way instead...
Before the FB playtests, I experimented with a flat cost of 2 thrust points
per point course change. It worked, sort of... but it made those
thrust-2 ships completely impossible to maneuver (speed 3-4 was the
norm)
and thrust-4 ships merely very clumsy (speed 10, tops).
I didn't fight very hard to defend the limited course change in the
vector rules during the FB playtesting :-/
Later,
Daryl spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Full Thrust 2.5's vector system is still a little odd about turning.
I didn't think (or at least we seem to have always ruled) that you could only
rotate up to your thrust. So a thrust 8 ship could thrust 8, rotate 8. A
thrust 2 could thrust 2, rotate 2. Thus big ships are ponderous enough that
the small ships can run rings around them and 360 degree weapons are
terrifying.
> The other odd thing, I just spent most of my turn facing the wrong
> Two rules which I've been pondering using next time I get my brother
Even a huge ship should rotate in combat faster than that. But you can assume
if someone bought a thrust 2 ship, that ponderous was what they sought.
> 2. You can't perform a Rotation after using more than 1/2 your Main
Or not. I measure range bands from where I end up. Not from where I was
throughout the turn. I'm not penalized for the fact that my guns are out of
range most of the turn... it only matters where they are during firing. Maybe
this represents the fact that no one has enough ammo or power to fire over the
WHOLE turn in any case. Maybe it is just a simplification. But if you start
penalizing people for facing like this, I want to see you penalize people who
go from out of range to in range, or who change range bands during a turn
too.... what about people who face away from the enemy for a goodly chunk of
the turn, then turn into them near the end.... are they not allowed to shoot?
Or do they shoot with a penalty? I think what you are speaking of introduces a
whole can of worms.
> Oh well, just some random thoughts,
And some back.
You always get into a problem when you dilate time to have useful movement
turns. Play harpoon (Larry Bond had to do with this one!)
sometime - the board game. Watch what happens as you close ranges -
time dilates and you go to shorter and shorter turns. When you are real close
in, they are only seconds long (or something...pardon if my memory is
inexact). What this means is, once you've reached that
scale, manoevre by the ship is almost a non-entity. The missiles are
closing far faster than your ship can manoevre, and consequently what comes
into play is your point defence or countermissiles, not your manouvre. This is
probably a somewhat real depiction as once you get inside a certain lethal
radius, guns will just go to continous fire (rapid cycle) and it won't just be
a pot shot here or there, but a wall of energy and missiles and railgun
rounds. Which means that you would fire over the entire turn, but I also
suspect this would lead to a game more like EFSB where ships go POP very
easily.... and where
(once you've closed to beam/gun range and you've got a firing
solution) your enemy and you both die fast.
If you are going to play in turns measured in the tens of minutes, and
distances measured in the thousands of kilometers, you are sacrificing
granularity for manoevre. Trying to get it back only
introduces other issues. Instead, assume smaller time/distance scales
and then rules based on such matters make more sense. Not being able to spin
even my SDN around 1080 degrees in 20 minutes seems silly to me. In reality,
rotation is a trivial component in a 20 minute turn where the space you travel
through could be 20,000km easily. Rotating even a couple of kilometers is
miniscule by comparison, even if done with smaller thrusters. FT is not a game
for intimate cruiser duels normally. It allows fast paced resolution of small
and large fleet engagements. It makes a number of rules to keep things simple.
Does anyone want to figure out that you were in the longest range band for 33%
of your turn, the next shortest for a further 13% and then figure out what
that does to your fire? Or how all missiles happen to detonate as you arrive
(since you've just moved... rather than some arriving where you will end up
ahead of you?). Things happen in granular atomic time increments called turns,
and that brings with it some 'flaws'. We can tinker with them, but really we
won't solve the problem, just change it.
Play FT for what it is. If you wish to fight cruiser duels with lots
of the feel of big ship/small ship, using the proposed size
targetting mods, use rules to control manoevre, and assume a shorter timescale
and a smaller distance scale.
Tom.
/************************************************