From: Paul Calvi <tanker@r...>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:12:18 -0500
Subject: RE: Vector movement (cap ships)
<<<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. >>> Heavier ships don't have to spin as nimbly as smaller ships (and probably shouldn't). Also, their lower thrust ratings make them less maneuverable by default. While the blind rear arc does add a bit more maneuver to the game it really is a bit silly for a space game. Modern ships don't have a blind spot. They have areas where certain weapon platforms are masked but no real blindspot (except against subs in some cases). With seeker weapons I can't imagine there ever being blind spots in the future. What I'd like to see in FT is more heavy-hitting, lighter, seeking-weapons that could be carried by fighters and escort class ships. The advantage BBs have today is only that they can take a few more hits than lighter vessels and carry a bit more weapon systems. A BB's 18" guns may be larger and longer ranged but a Harpoon is a Harpoon whether it is fired from a PT boat or a BB. Add in the fact that the BB represents "more eggs in one basket", has lower maneuverability, has high crew requirements, and it is obvious why there are few around today. I'd like to see FT shift the balance away from Cap ships a bit more. Paul ---------- From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio[SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 1997 12:56 PM To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk Subject: Re: Vector movement > 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.