Hi everyone,
Just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts re: the current talk on vector
(newtonian) movement systems, with particular reference to FT/B5 (ie the
Babylon Project ship rules).
First off, we've done several sessions of testing on the "true vector" system
for FT itself that we posted to this list some time ago (I think they are
still out there on some of the web pages); most of the players liked it a lot,
and one got so good at it by just the second game that he managed to slide his
cruiser round, just grazing the table edge, then pouring on the thrust to
bring him back into a lovely tactical position right behind the enemy....
Nearly all the testing group (I was observing, not playing) felt that the
system worked well, was easy to use after just a couple of practice sessions
and gave a whole new feel to the game; we will be using it as an ALTERNATIVE
to the "normal" FT movement, NOT as a replacement. The key thing is that you
DON'T need to do any calculations at all (unless you consider measuring one
distance and rounding it to the nearest inch to be a "calculation"...!), nor
do you have to refer to any tables or charts; you also don't need to measure
angles at all.
I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling you
that the FT/B5 rules are using BOTH movement systems; the EA and other
"young" races get to use newtonian vectors, while the Minbari etc. use a
development of the original FT movement to simulate their "grav" drives. The
Centauri use the vector system but with some tweaks of their own, as they
retain some of the more advanced technology from their imperial heyday.
While I agree that the vector movement does require some degree of forward
planning in order to put your ship where you want it, surely that is part of
the fun (as well as the "realism", which IMHO in SF terms means being as close
and faithful as possible to your source material). In any case, I've seen a
few players make some awful mistakes in navigation using the regular
FT rules...:)
Before I took up Full Thrust, I was an avid player of SF ship games. But in
nearly all cases, I converted the movement rules to a carbon copy of the old
Triplanetary rules (mentioned in previous posts). Very Newtonian, no angles to
measure, but difficult as the very devil to line up that wave gun shot! Just
my two cents.
> At 22:18 17/03/97 +0000, you wrote:
you
> also don't need to measure angles at all.
Can you please post this again or refer me to it.
> I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling
drives.
> The Centauri use the vector system but with some tweaks of their own,
Good idea.
> While I agree that the vector movement does require some degree of
Ohhhh yes!!
Well there ya go!! Best of both worlds and consistancy with the show's
universe.
Can someone post the "real" vector rules for FT again here or point to the
site that has them. I know of at least three different versions out there and
it would be nice to try the "real" ones. Thanks again for a great game GZ and
I look forward to the next edition.
Paul
----------
From: Ground Zero Games[SMTP:jon@gzero.dungeon.com]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 1997 2:18 PM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Vector movement
Hi everyone,
Just thought I'd throw in a few thoughts re: the current talk on vector
(newtonian) movement systems, with particular reference to FT/B5 (ie the
Babylon Project ship rules).
First off, we've done several sessions of testing on the "true vector" system
for FT itself that we posted to this list some time ago (I think they are
still out there on some of the web pages); most of the players liked it a lot,
and one got so good at it by just the second game that he managed to slide his
cruiser round, just grazing the table edge, then pouring on the thrust to
bring him back into a lovely tactical position right behind the enemy....
Nearly all the testing group (I was observing, not playing) felt that the
system worked well, was easy to use after just a couple of practice sessions
and gave a whole new feel to the game; we will be using it as an ALTERNATIVE
to the "normal" FT movement, NOT as a replacement. The key thing is that you
DON'T need to do any calculations at all (unless you consider measuring one
distance and rounding it to the nearest inch to be a "calculation"...!), nor
do you have to refer to any tables or charts; you also don't need to measure
angles at all.
I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling you
that the FT/B5 rules are using BOTH movement systems; the EA and other
"young" races get to use newtonian vectors, while the Minbari etc. use a
development of the original FT movement to simulate their "grav" drives. The
Centauri use the vector system but with some tweaks of their own, as they
retain some of the more advanced technology from their imperial heyday.
While I agree that the vector movement does require some degree of forward
planning in order to put your ship where you want it, surely that is part of
the fun (as well as the "realism", which IMHO in SF terms means being as close
and faithful as possible to your source material). In any case, I've seen a
few players make some awful mistakes in navigation using the regular
FT rules...:)
Jon's and Mike's vector movement system can be found on Mark's Page. (URL...
don't remember, but do a net search for "Full Thrust space combat")
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> First off, we've done several sessions of testing on the "true vector"
While I haven't become that good at it, your test results agree with my
experiences too. Easy to use, once you've learned not to go to too high a
speed <g>
> ...we will be using it as an
Very good.
> The key
Well... "calculation" could be interpreted as "pre-planning" too <g>
You certainly need that with both the Full Thrust movement and the vectorial
system...
> I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling
drives.
> The Centauri use the vector system but with some tweaks of their own,
As long as it stays simple, it's good. Mixing the two systems can give really
fun results! (...battles between my GW Eldar "solar sailing" ships vs any
others have featured this mix. It gets a bit hard to determine where
the enemy will go when you use another movement system yourself <g>)
> ...I've
<grumble> Like placing the enemy capitals in the rear arc of my
pulse-torp destroyers rather than the other way round >:(
Later,
On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 at 6:58:14 AM, Oerjan Ohlson <f92-ooh@nada.kth.se>
wrote:
> Jon's and Mike's vector movement system can be found on Mark's Page.
http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu/FT/thrust.html
The onmly Full Thrust URL you need...not because the other pages aren't good,
but because this page points to them all!
> Jon Tuffley wrote:
> "young" races get to use newtonian vectors, while the Minbari etc. use
drives.
> The Centauri use the vector system but with some tweaks of their own,
This is great news! I am very glad to hear it, and I am really looking forward
to seeing it come out.
Ever since I read this I have been trying to connect to the Chameleon Eclectic
website to find out when the EarthForce Sourcebook is due out, but I have been
unable to get connected. Does anyone know what CE's target date is? (CE
target date + 6 months = earliest ship date)
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> Ever since I read this I have been trying to connect to the Chameleon
(CE
> target date + 6 months = earliest ship date)
Yeah, I can't through either. I asked the propritor of my local game store (Oh
yeah, I never mention the name: Adventure Games Plus, Greenfield Wis.) when
the EF Sourcebook is expected. He told me that I shouldn't push my luck and
that I should
be happy that they went out of their way to get us copies of the RPG. (They
actually sent someone to drive down to Blackhawk Hobbey Distributors and bring
back a huge box of them. They were sold out in 15 miniutes.)
Later,
Great news that the vector movement system will be in FT3!
I used the "semi-official" rules as the basis for a vector-based
game in my last battle and it was a lot of fun. I did things a
little differently than the "semi-official" way, though, as I didn't
want to redesign the ships to have thrusters.
I'll attach the rules I used, but some of the more interesting points in them,
or that were later brought up by the players:
1) I use the main drive for both thrust and rotation. 2) I hate it when I have
to ask another player a question whose answer should be obvious, like "how
fast are you going?". So I made a bunch of counters with various speeds and an
arrow printed on them. These serve as visual aids as well as the placeholder
when executing movement. [I could probably make a postscript file available if
anyone's interested.] 3) Players have the option of rounding either up or down
when computing their new speed, which gives them a little more control. 4)
Fighters also use these rules! They rotate for free and get thrust
equal to their old speed. I really like this -- it makes playing
fighters very interesting. (I also use the More Thrust rules of having them
move after orders are written but before ship movement.) 5) Kra'vak ships
rotate easier. 6) Some players really thought they should be able to apply
"negative thrust" (in the opposite direction of their facing) so they don't
have to turn around to slow down. Others (and I) thought it was fun having
only positive thrust. You could accomodate both crowds
by making it a different kind of engine system -- most of the FT
minis look like they have centerline engines pointing out the back, which
leads me to guess "positive thrust only"; but a configuration like the Star
Trek enterprise might be able to turn its drive field around without blasting
the crew out of their seats. 7) You could have other engine types also, like
thrusters in the
"semi-official" rules; rotational thrusters that can only apply
rotation; engines or ships that get more rotation per thrust point expended;
etc. 8) For correct physics, you'd want to handle angular momentum too. So, if
you apply "rotation 2" one turn, you're going to do
"rotation 2" the next turn too unless you apply "rotation -2".
Personally I think that's too far over the playability-realism line.
But I don't think any game has handled that correctly, and it might fun. Some
playtesting would tell. 9) I make missiles move at least 6" each turn so they
don't "park" if they're disrupted by ECM.
Daryl
---------
My Alternate FT Vector rules: Instead of movement and turning as described in
the FT books, use the following system:
Terms: Heading is direction the ship is moving Facing is the direction the
ship is pointing (out the front) (These may or may not coincide.)
A drive system of a certain power can divide its power between providing
rotation or applying thrust. Thus, a "5 drive" could spend two points on
thrust and three points to rotate; or 5 points rotating; or whatever, as long
as the *sum* is five or less. Thrust is always positive and gets applied in
the direction the ship is facing.
When writing orders, it's necessary to write the number of points rotated, the
direction thereof, and the thrust applied.
A small counter with an arrow and a number is placed next to the base of the
ship. This counter shows the ship's heading (the direction it's currently
travelling) and speed. The counter should be placed "behind"
the base with respect to the direction of travel -- thus if travelling
in the 2:00 direction, the counter will be placed at the 8:00 position with
the arrow pointing through the center of the base toward the 2:00 position.
Execute the following steps when moving: 1) Leaving the counter stationary,
move the ship in the direction of its *heading* (current direction of travel,
as shown by the counter) a number of inches equal to its current speed. 2)
Rotate the ship a number of points based on its orders. 3) Move the ship a
number of inches in the direction of its *facing* equal to the thrust
specified in the orders. 4) Measure the closest distance from the counter to
the base of the
ship -- that will be the ship's new speed. Most of the time this
distance will be in between two inch markers. The player has the option of
choosing whether to round up or down. If the distance
hits an inch marker exactly (such as a 3-4-5 right triangle), the
player can use that inch or the one lower. Players should not spend more than
a second or two deciding and should not take the time to look around the table
to see what others are doing. 5) Take a counter corresponding to the ship's
new speed. Place the new counter so the arrow is touching the base and is on
the line
between the old counter and the center of the base -- corresponding
to the ship's new heading and speed. Pick up the old counter.
Fighters: Fighters also use these rules! Consider fighters to have thrust
equal to their maximum speed under the old rules (12, 18 for fast fighters)
and to be able to rotate to any angle for free. The turn
sequence in "More Full Thrust" is recommended -- where fighters move
after orders and missiles but before ships, and they need no orders
themselves.
As before, ships launching fighters or using certain heavy weapons can apply
no thrust or rotation during the turn. The intention to launch must be
included in the orders.
When launched, fighters are placed on the playing surface at the immediately
after the carrier moves. Fighters start with the same speed and heading as the
carrier. Facing depends on the carrier type, but unless otherwise specified
will be the same as the carrier. (The ship sheets could designate this by
pointing the "fighter triangle in the direction of launch.) On the turn of
launch, they should be moved in the direction of
facing until their base just touches the carrier's base -- they move
no further that turn.
When two fighter groups approach within 6" of each other, either side may
challenge to a dogfight. If accepted, move the bases toward each other until
they touch. They retain their headings and speeds, though. Facing does not
matter in a dogfight. The following turn, if the fighter group has enough
thrust to slow to speed zero, it can remain in the dogfight, and the fighter
group remains where it is at speed zero. Otherwise it is considered to have
withdrawn from the dogfight as outlined in the rules, and it moves normally.
Special cases: * Ships with engines fully down may still apply one point of
rotation. * Missiles continue to move under the old rules, with this
adjustment
-- they must move at least 6" each turn.
* Kra'vak ships are highly maneuverable and can rotate up to two points per
power spent turning.
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
(CE
> target date + 6 months = earliest ship date)
That reminds me of a piece of folk wisdom a German friend told me-
"The 2-Hour Rule:"
Everything takes 2 hours longer than you thought it would,
even if you allow for the 2-hour rule...
cheers,
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> First off, we've done several sessions of testing on the "true vector"
I checked it out and it looks nice enough.
> thing is that you DON'T need to do any calculations at all (unless you
you
> also don't need to measure angles at all.
I mean no disrespect, but I feel I'm repeating myself here:
To find out where you end up when you turn X and thrust Y, you don't need
calculation, tables or measure angles. It's the other way around: To end up
where you want to be, you need to calculate and measure angles.
Example:
You're moving at velocity 10" straight "north". If you do nothing, you end up
10" north of where you are. But you don't want to be there. Let's say there's
an asteroid right there. You want to be at a point 1" further north and 1" due
east. How much thrust to apply in which direction?
Easy (this was meant to be a simple example): Turn 45 degrees due east and
thrust sqrt(2)".
Now tell me how you can get there *without* measuring (or calculating) the
angle (45 degrees) and without calculating the square root of 2?
> I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling
drives.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. The FT system is easier but not necessarily
more flexible. I think free spinning dreadnoughts need to be examined
thoroughly.
Heavier ships already hold the edge in weapon range. If they can spin around
as nimbly as lighter vessels, it's going to be very difficult to exploit the
blind rear arc.
> On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 at 1:56:54 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling
> > you that the FT/B5 rules are using BOTH movement systems; the EA and
> > other "young" races get to use newtonian vectors, while the Minbari
> > "grav" drives.
These are the Minbari, Shadows, and Vorlons -- I think that's the idea.
<grin>
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> > Heavier ships already hold the edge in weapon range. If they can
Exactly. That's why THEY should be more nimble, not the low tech Earth ships.
Figure this: An Earth dreddie and Minbari War Cruiser both have a small
destroyer on their tails.
Minbari follows FT rules and does a painful 2-pt. turn. The DD easily
follows and stays in the rear arc. The Earth dreddie just spins 180 and blast
the little critter.
And the argument holds for general backgrounds as well. Free spinning makes
bigger ships more powerful, since the little fish are coming to them anyway,
they just have to bring weapons to bear.
> maxxon @ swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) wrote:
> To find out where you end up when you turn X and thrust Y, you don't
> calculate and measure angles.
> Example:
> You're moving at velocity 10" straight "north". If you do nothing, you
> Easy (this was meant to be a simple example): Turn 45 degrees due east
> and thrust sqrt(2)".
> Now tell me how you can get there *without* measuring (or calculating)
Simple, you look at where you're going to be if you do nothing (splattered all
over the asteroid) and you look at where you want to be. It looks somewhere
between 1 and 2 units away from the asteroid in a direction somewhere between
10 o'clock and 11 o'clock. You decide to play on the safe side and go for 2
units in direction 10.
I know this isn't exactly on the spot you designated, but I think most people
are
happy with the 12 point direction system, and with keeping thrust/speed
in integers.
Now, try doing it in the normal FT system without any calculation.
> > I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling
use a
> > development of the original FT movement to simulate their "grav"
drives.
> I'm not sure that's a good idea. The FT system is easier but not
I agree, I think the older races should be able to switch between systems as
they see fit (by turning the grav systems off?). There might be a case for
limiting the ammount a ship can turn to its thrust rating (but not actually
using any thrust to turn).
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Robert Crawford wrote:
> Easy -- you apply 1" thrust east and 1" north. Don't worry
How do I do that? I can only thrust main drives in a direction dictated by my
facing.
Or maybe you meant: thrust 1", spin 90, thrust 1"? That's not the optimal
solution, and it assumes I can split
spinning/thrusting in any way I like.
> I wrote:
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> ships. Figure this: An Earth dreddie and Minbari War Cruiser both have
Duh -- you're right, of course. This can be fixed by (1) limiting the
rotational capabilities of the big ships (which makes sense), (2) by getting
rid of the blind arcs for the older races, or (3) allowing the older races to
have the best of both worlds, i.e., they can spin, too.
I read all four sets of vector-based rules last night (two versions from
Jon Tuffley, Mark Langsdorf's, and Daryl Poe's) and I don't remember any of
them discussing the rotational system as a ships system which could be
damaged. Having an actual system (or, more likely, several systems) would have
the
advantage of adding another interesting design tradeoff -- do I add that
extra rotational system to guarantee a backup, or do I add another weapon?
> >
Surely you could just give them the option of which movement system they
wanted to use, giving them the flexability to peform manouvers that a less
advanced ship would find impossible.
> Minbari follows FT rules and does a painful 2-pt. turn. The DD easily
However it really has no reason to do this.... Most B5 ships have reasonable
fire arcs, and would just blast it with the rear guns Ask Clarkstown (cf
Severed Dreams). I would not allow ships to spin "freely" as it were, but a
typical Capital (say thrust 2) has half this available in manouvering
thrusters.... It ain't gonna turn round too quick. If it continues to
accelerate it's turn, then it can have spun 180 in 3 turns, but that's a long
time to have a DD on your tail, and will take another three turns to correct
the spin.
-Michael
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Now tell me how you can get there *without* measuring (or calculating)
Experience, usually earned the hard way. Exactly the same way as you calculate
how you get where you want to go in the normal Full Thrust
rules...
But the one (sorry, I don't remember the name:() who said "think in
components" was correct, at least for "calculating" this turn's movement
orders: You see where you are going, you see where you want to go, you note
the distance X between the two points and the direction Y from where you're
going to where you want to go. Now write your movement orders so you apply X
thrust in direction Y.
It is far more difficult to figure out where you're going to end up with
the "old" FT rules, and (at least for me :/ ) neigh on impossible to get
to where I want to be <g>
Planning ahead is IMO about as hard in both systems.
Regards,
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> It is far more difficult to figure out where you're going to end up
Not really. Your turning radius is roughly r = 2v/p, where v is your
velocity and p is the points you put into turning.
Correcting mistakes under FT system is easier: You can always "slam brakes and
hard turn" whereas a ship under Newtonian movement must first spin to correct
facing before they really do anything about anything. Depending on the amount
of spinning allowed, this might take over a turn, essentially giving you a
"moving target" to shoot for.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970318202650.4043C-100000@swob.dna.fi> you
wrote:
> Now tell me how you can get there *without* measuring (or calculating)
1.414213562. What? You mean no one else has sqrt(2) memorised?:)
--
Be seeing you, ARM not Intel. Sam. Acorn not Microsoft.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970321182617.20023B-100000@swob.dna.fi> you
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
And that's easier? I find vector movement much easier to work out than FT
movement, since the latter is so unnatural.
> Correcting mistakes under FT system is easier: You can always "slam
> over a turn, essentially giving you a "moving target" to shoot for.
That's the fun of vector movement - you have the choice between
getting there fast, and taking forever to get home again, or moving in
slowley. Under FT, you can head in towards the enemy
at 30"/turn, and then turn around and be coming back home at
30"/turn within two turns (assuming 6"/turn or more thrust). It's
all a bit silly and limits your options (there's not that much advantage in
keeping slow, since it's so easy to turn).
In a message dated 97-03-17 17:15:23 EST, you write:
<< While I agree that the vector movement does require some degree of forward
planning in order to put your ship where you want it, surely that is part of
the fun (as well as the "realism", which IMHO in SF terms means being as close
and faithful as possible to your source material). In any case, I've seen a
few players make some awful mistakes in navigation using the regular
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FT rules...:)
> [quoted text omitted]
How can you see me all the way from England?? :-)
I haven't managed once to get my light strike boats behind the enemy heavies
. . :-(
Don
> On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Which still means that you have a fairly limited set of points to go to,
and going at higher speeds those points will be pretty far apart. With the
vector movement system you also have a limited set of points to go to, but
they will be gathered in a smaller area giving you better "local" maneuver
control.
> Correcting mistakes under FT system is easier: You can always "slam
Sure. You never fly your thrust 2 SDs at speeds over 4, I can tell...
Using the normal movement system, I usually fly my ships at speeds of
5-8
times their thrust rating. (...no, I've not flown any escorts at speed 64.
Yet. My capitals often fly at speed 15-16, though.) That's the number of
turns it'll take to "slam brakes" to a full stop to allow me to do a hard
turn.
Using vector movement, I rarely fly faster than 4 times the main thrust
rating; I allow escorts to turn up to 6 clock facings, cruisers up to four and
(most) capitals up to 2. This is enough. With the smaller ships, it's easy to
get back on the intended vector if you want to; with the capitals, you can't
go too far astray.
Some thoughts:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Daryl Poe wrote:
> 1) I use the main drive for both thrust and rotation.
IMO this gives either very clumsy, or very maneuvrable ships depending on your
thrust rating. Also, depending on the ship design, it can be more or less
realistic. <shrug>
> 2) I hate it when I have to ask another player a question whose answer
This is even more true for the original movement rules. Yes, it's a pain; good
idea.
> 8) For correct physics, you'd want to handle angular momentum too.
I simplified this by stating that a turn of X clock facings included both the
first impulse to start the rotation and the second to stop it. Spinning ships
were hard to maneuver <g>
> 9) I make missiles move at least 6" each turn so they don't "park"
If a missile is disrupted it continues on it's vector... vectorial missile
movement isn't any harder than vectorial fighter movement. <shrug>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > Not really. Your turning radius is roughly r = 2v/p, where v is your
> > velocity and p is the points you put into turning.
Care to check what I was replying to?
> Sure. You never fly your thrust 2 SDs at speeds over 4, I can tell...
Ahem. "Brakes & turn" is feasible under FT since you can take a maximum turn
and still decelerate at half thrust. It's also a simpler solution
> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > > > up with the old FT rules
> > > Not really. Your turning radius is roughly r = 2v/p, where v is
The discussion was about how easy it is both to get where you want and to
predict where you're going, in the old movement system compared to the vector
one. Your reply concerned the second of the to questions.
I'll clarify my statement:
In both sets of movement rules, I have a discrete set of points to go to. For
a thrust 2 ship in the regular rules this set consists of 11 points;
higher thrust ships have larger sets. The figures vary a bit for the vector
movement, but it too has discrete sets of points the ship can move to.
The difference between the two systems lies in how those points are
distributed. In the vector system, they are distributed in a cone in front of,
or (for easily turned ships) in a circle around the ship. The area covered by
these points isn't that large, but the distribution of the points is fairly
even over this area. This is what I call "good 'local' control" of where
you're going.
It isn't much different for low-thrust ships in the regular rules. For
higher-thrust ships, or just ships going fast, the possible points I can
go to are spread over a large area - but they are gathered in clusters
rather than being spread evenly. One such cluster is the "4 pt. turn
starboard", then comes a gap, then the "3 pt. turn starboard" cluster, and so
on. When moving at higher speeds, these clusters are rather far between; this
is what I call "poor 'local' control" of where you go.
...
> > Sure. You never fly your thrust 2 SDs at speeds over 4, I can
Yes. With the thrust 2 SD you turn one clock facing each turn, and you slow
down 1 speed point each turn with the SD above. If you want to turn
any large amount - often because you have single-arc weapons you want to
use, like Pulse Torps or suchlike - it usually takes even longer than
stopping completely and then turning any number of arcs; especially if you
move at some speed (since the turn will take you a long way away from where
you started).
> It's also a simpler solution --
> slow turning ship under newtonian, you'd have to calculate a few turns
> ahead where you want your main thrusters pointing by the time you've
"Calculate". You usually know if you want to turn left or right; when you
write your orders you can see if you have to turn some more - and if so,
how much - before you light up your main drive.
If you mean "you'd have to plan a few turns ahead to get where you want to",
that is equally true for the regular rules.
> > Using the normal movement system, I usually fly my ships at speeds
I know for a fact that it is easier to change the direction of travel in the
regular movement system, which means that you can go faster and still be able
to stay on the table. My floor is to cluttered to use for gaming.
It is easier to go in the direction you want in the regular rules - but
usually not in the "lateral" position you want. Eg, if I go a short way (ie,
not all the way to the pole) north from Stockholm I end up in a completely
different position than if I go the same distance to the north from Helsinki,
but I'm still going in the same direction. If my enemy is in the vicinity of
Stockholm, being able to change my direction of travel won't help me much if
the turn takes me to Helsinki. With the vector rules, I'll end up in Sundsvall
instead <g>
(...sorry for these geographical notes, to all of you
non-scandinavians...)
Depending on what rules you use for turning ships in the vector rules, it
may or may not be harder for the regular rules to achieve the _facing_
you want. Usually it is harder - Jon's and Mike's rule on the Page allow
any ship to turn to the facing they want; I allow capitals to turn 2 points,
cruisers 4 and escorts 6. In both these cases, the vector rules give you
better control over your facing than the regular rules.
The vector movement rules gives me much better control of going to the exact
point I want, when I'm in the general area I want to be. I have to
be more careful in getting to that area than in the regular system -
except in the (common) case where that general area falls between two of
the clusters of points I can go to.
> On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> The discussion was about how easy it is both to get where you want and
And you replied to the first point, which I had not commented in that
particular paragraph. If your reply has nothing to do with what I said, please
delete the quoted section.
> it usually takes even longer than
Oopsie... I've never played with that rule... guess I forgot about it.
> "Calculate". You usually know if you want to turn left or right; when
But if you can't turn enough in one turn, you have to calculate which course
of action is best: Make a beeline for the target, or coast along until you can
turn enough to burn straight for it. Calculating whether you can close the
spiral or end up in an elliptical course is not trivial.
> I know for a fact that it is easier to change the direction of travel
Agreed.
> It is easier to go in the direction you want in the regular rules -
True, but general direction is typically more important.
> In both these cases, the vector rules
Which I don't necessarily like. Big ships with longer ranged weapons are
not necessarily going anywhere. They're waiting for targets to come along and
trying to bring all weapons to bear. I'm not sure I want to see BBs hurtling
through enemy formations at top speed, spinning 180 and waiting
for the poor suckers to try catch up with it.
OTOH, if they can't turn that nimbly, they have a lot bigger risk flying
off to blue yonder inadvertly. "Due to navigational error, your flagship
just exited the battlefield. Sorry, you can't bring it back, the rules say
so."
Original FT rules make them IMHO suitably clumsy but still capable of
controlling their direction of travel.
Just ran a FT demo at local game shop, and was rather delighted with
response--even pulled some people away from the Magic games that had
overrun the place. But am concerned--major 'selling' point for the
game is simplicity. As I put it, if I can teach it to an 8-year old at
2 AM on 2nd day of a Con, I can teach it to anyone. But movement system took a
wee bit to explain to a few people. How much additional complication does the
vector system add to the game? I know I try to think about moving a ship in
three directions at one time and my eyes glaze over. How much does the vector
system detract from the incredibly simple nature of the FT rules?
Hello All
The vector system does add some complication, but not much, AND it makes it a
much better game as well. The range of manoeuvres increases, position becomes
much more important, and whole areas of new tactics are opened up. The extra
work and complication is not great, and the benefits are. When I run demos I
will be using the vector system, and emphasing the "realism" of the system as
opposed to "cinematic" movement of the ST type.
Peace and Love
> On 2 Jun 1998, Geoffrey Stewart wrote:
> The vector system does add some complication, but not much,
True, but my finding at last year's Ropecon was that the movement system
is already too complicated for a con demo. The only sensible games I
managed to play were with players who already knew the system -- even
though I had made a large cheat sheet describing the procedure and format of
the orders.
> AND it makes it a
I'm not too thrilled with the vector system. I passed my high school physics,
so it is painfully obvious to me that the system abstracts away
even the basic laws of dynamics.
At least the cinematic system honestly says what it is.
The problem is that with a real realistic system, you soon end up playing the
ship's navigational computer instead of the captain.
> On 2 Jun 1998, Geoffrey Stewart wrote:
I find this surprising. At all the demos we've run, we've never had more than
a tiny number of players (of all ages, from 8 or so upwards) that have had any
problem with grasping the move and order systems within a couple of turns at
the most.
> AND it makes it a
The extra
> work and complication is not great, and the benefits are. When I run
I'm going to regret asking this (and if it gets too lengthy we may have to
take it to private email for the sake of the other list members' bandwidth and
sanity), but I'd be interested to hear your (simplified?) reasoning on this,
and how you would improve on it while retaining playability?:)
> At least the cinematic system honestly says what it is.
Agreed, which is why we feel the current vector system is close enough for the
right sort of "feel" without simply becoming a piece of unpleasant maths
homework....
> Just ran a FT demo at local game shop, and was rather delighted with
John - yes, the vector system is a bit more complicated (a bit, not a
lot),
though it does require a change in your way of thinking about movement.
However, don't lose sight of the fact that it is still (and always will be)
COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. Even when we do FT3 it'll still have BOTH systems, to be
used at players' choice. For newbie groups and young players I'd stick to the
basic "cinematic" system, which we've seldom found anyone having problems
grasping.
On Tuesday, June 02, 1998 7:54 AM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio
[SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi]
wrote:
> The problem is that with a real realistic system, you soon end up
Or you have an auto-pilot (as in I-war, Frontier Elite etc)
that basically abstracts the game back to the cinematic type movements for the
captain.
> On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> I find this surprising. At all the demos we've run, we've never had
Actually, writing legal orders was the difficult part, perhaps because that's
the part you're doing alone.
> I'm going to regret asking this (and if it gets too lengthy we may
bandwidth
> and sanity), but I'd be interested to hear your (simplified?)
reasoning on
> this,
Very simply put:
> From the realism standpoint: Instant acceleration and instant turning.
Spin is not retained. Inability to thrust and turn at the same time (and get
the realistic result).
> From gameplay viewpoint: Cheap turning for slow behemoths. As you may
I am going to give it a try though.
> and how you would improve on it while retaining playability? :)
As I promised, I'm thinking about that one. I think I can manage at least
a semi-playable version with precalculated results tabulated.
> Agreed, which is why we feel the current vector system is close enough
It's rather good, I'll give you that, and I can't name a (non-computer)
game that does it better. I just can't help the nagging feeling that it isn't
quite right.
To summarize: It doesn't feel like playing Asteroids.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> How much additional
I don't have the FB, but assume that the vector movement rules are similar to
the ones he posted last year.
While there is a little added compilcation in writing the movement orders, I
find that it is MUCH easier to predict where your ships will end thier
movement than with the cinematic movement. This actually SIMPLIFIES the game
for me.
So don't use it when showing the game to newbies. When you graduate to
grognard status have at it.
Los
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Just ran a FT demo at local game shop, and was rather delighted with
> How much does the vector system detract from the
It adds a bit in complexity - as several others have already pointed
out, but I think that it more than makes up for the fact with realism.
For those who want that "hard sci-fi" feel, these rules are essential.
For those who want as simple as possible, stick with the cinematic system.
IMO, the vector rules add more to the game than they detract from it in
complexity, but they definitely do force a slightly different way of
thinking - one that isn't always intuitive to new players.
> John Atkinson wrote:
It does detract, by adding some complications. So does the reroll rule for
d6s, and the whole concept of the SMB.
I guess what it comes down to is what you feel comfortable with. Jon has
always emphasized in the Introductions to every game he's written that the
important point is to have fun, and to not use the rules that you don't feel
comfortable with.
Some universes I feel a vector system is required: B5 or Honor Harrington for
example. My current FT Racing. Others, a cinematic feel is more appropriate:
Star Wars or Star Trek.
What it comes down to is what your preferences are for simplicity vs. realism.
Do whatever you want to do. The GZG MIBs won't break down your
door. I think. (8-)
The only recent con game I've run worked out really well using EFSB vector
movement. On the flip side, it was only two people, and both of them
were pretty hard-core. For demo games, I'm inclined to say use
Cinematic, unless you're also using a Universe draw and need to preserve that
flavour. (The idea of an Omega turning like the Enterprise... Hmmmm. And no
B5 vs Enterprise arguments, please. (8-) )
J.
In message <3573D8FE.E573DEF7@axom.com>
> Brian Bell <brian.bell@axom.com> wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
Have to add a definite 'me too' in here. I always thought that the FTII
movement system was an unnecessary overcomplification, when a vector movement
system is just so simple to understand.
The only bit where the FTII movement is simpler is that you don't need an
extra marker for direction seperate to facing.
On Tuesday, June 02, 1998 5:12 PM, Jerry Han [SMTP:jhan@idigital.net] wrote:
> I guess what it comes down to is what you feel comfortable with. Jon
Don't play the rules, play the game
> (The idea of an Omega turning like the Enterprise... Hmmmm.
We used cinematic in 'A call to arms' Mk's B5 PBEM and although there was a
bit of plug holing, It never occurred to me that
it felt that wrong. This was pre-EFSB.
'Nimrod station' Tom's PBEM used the RT rules and you did have to think
harder, he also added in some extras such as warp jump pods that made it very
unpredictable.