In regards to Daryl Poes recent post: I like the ideas and I'm glad that it
was fun. However, I see some play balance issues that open several cans...
Trouble arrives if we apply physics to the mines and missiles... Which we
should... If two objects apear to have crossed paths during the movement
sequence, then redo the movement in timely increments... (I.E. Mine with speed
12 and ship of speed 4: Move the ship 1 inch and the mine 3 inches and repeat
4 times while checking proximity at each step for mine activation.) Therefore
fighters need to be able to engage missiles and mines or get their mother ship
massacred... JMS saw this coming on B5. You will need to screen your ships
with fighters... All this means that al objects will have to move
simultaneously and be
pre-plotted. This slows the game down, but we wanted realism....
We need to find the balance between realism and playability... Phil P.
> Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
I think you can assume that mines have a small station-keeping drive
or a one-shot engine that brings it to stationary. The whole point
of a minefield is lost if it drifts off (well maybe an orbiting minefield
would be okay). If they're stationary, it's pretty easy
to handle -- just say that if the "new vector" (which is the old
speed on the old heading plus the thrust on the new facing) passes
within 3" of the mine it goes off. No need to pro-rate.
While we're on the subject of mines, a couple questions to the FT gurus out
there: 1) When two ships pass within 3" of the mine on the same turn, which
one gets shot at? 2) Mines seem pretty wimpy. Shouldn't they do more damage?
Missiles are trickier -- I just punted and had them behave in a
non-Newtonian fashion (by using the old rules). I suppose you could
have them move using the same rules, perhaps with a high thrust, usable for
either positive or negative thrust, and a maximum of two points of rotation.
Yes, you can pass completely through a ship in the course of your move, but
that is pervasive in FT, and missile crossing through ships without attacking
are no worse than two ships passing in the same fashion.
Whatever the solution, I think you don't want to get into a
situation where you're pro-rating movement or moving in "sub turns".
That would torpedo the main appeal of FT -- speed and ease of play.
> Therefore fighters need to be able to engage missiles and mines or
Yes, it'd be fun and interesting to give fighters anti-mine and
anti-missile capabilities. Do you send your fighters out on offense,
or do you hold them back to protect your ships?
> Daryl Poe <poe@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> 03/19/97 11:34AM wrote:
While we're on the subject of mines, a couple questions to the FT gurus out
there: 1) When two ships pass within 3" of the mine on the same turn, which
one gets shot at? 2) Mines seem pretty wimpy. Shouldn't they do more damage?
I use mines that do 1d6 damage (not reduced by screens) to all ships and
fighters that move to within 3" of the mine.
> At 11:34 AM 3/19/97 -0700, you wrote:
In my B5 game I have had many a good pilot use his momentum carry through on
mines and clouds of Sand to drift into the enemy. While it may not be that
hard to avoid the individual object, it plays hell with keeping formations and
breaks up firing patterns. Orbital mines and stationary mines are more usefull
in defensive postions.
> 2) Mines seem pretty wimpy. Shouldn't they do more damage?
There has been many a discussion regarding mines. After watching shielded
ships act as mine sweepers, I made my mines make their attacks as beam weapons
with 3d6. This seemed to work and made the points consistant with their power.
Others have proposed larger mines that are bigger, more expensive and do more
damage.
> Missiles are trickier -- I just punted and had them behave in a
I can see why you did this but, it creates imbalances in the turn cycle as
well as the maneuvering. This means I can come screaming in at visciuos speeds
dump my missiles and watch them dump momentum (switching to FTII flight mode)
and match my enemies velocity...
> Whatever the solution, I think you don't want to get into a
While it slows the game down, it is internally consistant and creates fewer
imbalances. I think that you have to make all objects behave in the same
manner or just play by the old rules, otherwise you are looking for trouble...
> Yes, it'd be fun and interesting to give fighters anti-mine and
Right now I mostly use fighters as a kind of mine... Since they can't really
keep up with the fleet, once it gets up to speed, I hold them in reserve until
my opponent closes with me. Since I know we'll be in close proximity next
turn, I dump the fighters out (midway through movement) and make him pay for
getting too close to me. This was very effective against a Kravak task force
once... Otherwise I use standard fighters to screen enemy fighters. With the
new speed rules for fighters and fast fighters, I may use them more
offensively. Phil P.
You could also assume that the Mine-Layer uses Tractor Beams that would
neutralize velocity/momentium.
-Justin Case
> Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
I just finished reading Jon T's latest "real" thrust rules.
I like them...nice, simple, and straight forward. I am going to have to try
this out!
To allow more thruster capability, whynot allow a ship to buy additional
thrusters at say a few spaces/percentage apeice? Then to do up Minbari
ships, allow them to buy thrusters at a better price/mass then lower
tech races...
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> In regards to Daryl Poes recent post:
Which
> we should...
We already have this very problem in Full Thrust, since fighters and missiles
move at a different time than ships do. It's just that FT ignores it for the
sake of player sanity:)
I've tried moving missiles after ships, allowing them to attack any ship
they get close enough to, but allowing any ADAF ranging on them at any point
during their move to shoot. A better variant was to send each missile (swarm)
after a specific ship, and only allowing them to attack
another ship if they _ended_ their move within attack range (I used 6
cm; I'd probably go for 3" if I played in that scale).