From: Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Mark Reindl wrote:
> Since vector movement allows a ship with any thrust rating to rotate
Why bother
> trying to get your fleet behind that Komarov SD when it can just
Then amend the vector movement rules to requre a thrust point for each
rotational change. A smaller more maneuverable ship should be able to swivel
around much faster than a big dreadnought.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
- - Ryan Montieth Gill
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is the timescale. The average turn is something like 20 minutes.
Even a low thrust will let you rotate around (whee!) like a top in that time
frame. Within the granularity of the timescale and the thrust ratings, 1 point
to rotate as much as you want makes sense.
If you play vector, you play vector. If you play cinematic, you play
cinematic. Basically it means you have to be aware of the
risks/character of the system you use. For example, we have found it
very hard for the FSE to make a dent in the NSL in Vector, because their high
thrust is less of an advantage (it still helps, but it is less of an advantage
given the burst radius change for SMs). The solution I think that will be
tried (and probably to good effect) will be a 4" burst radius for SMs in
vector. That should nicely even things out for the FSE. We sort of proved
<with some math> that the coverage envelope for SMs needs upped a bit in
vector or the only thing you'll ever hit is a thrust 2 ship or luckily a
thrust 4. Never a six. Up the burst radius to 4" and those numbers change to
be more in line with the level of effectiveness you expect from SMs in
cinematic.
Basically, in any event, points only go so far. Attrocities can be committed
<A huge SMR ship for example> that defy the points system. The scenario ref or
the players collectively have to have a sense of the balance of things. And
accept that every so often, they'll hooch
it badly... ;)
> >If you play vector, you play vector. If you play cinematic, you play
will
> >be a 4" burst radius for SMs in vector. That should nicely even
Only if you are dealing with 1 SM. 4 covers a 6 inch circle fairly well with
significant overlap. You get better coverage if you have some clue what your
opponent is doing. (He is advancing, it is unlikely he is going to retreate,
suddenly 2 gets coverage.)
What, you want to hit with all your SM's? They are far too cheap and take up
too little mass if you can hit a decent opponent 50% of the time.
Personally, I like 6 inches in vector, it means I won't miss anything with
thrust 6 or lower.
Often you don't need different rules, you need to look at your tactics and
make sure your ships and tactics work well together.
Here, try this on, in cinematic I am going against someone that will start
within 24" and have speed 5. I have two SMs and he will have thrusts 8. With
this setup I can bracket every possible point he can be IF he turns by even 1
point. I cover everything other than a decel by 5 and no turn with an accel of
6 7 8.
I'm betting he turns. If I can catch him against a planet I can have a sure
thing.
My mission, destroy one of opponents ships and escape. I have 300 points and
he likes small fast ships.
T.Barclay pens:
[...]
> If you play vector, you play vector. If you play cinematic, you play
In the Fleetbook it does not say that you are required to change the SM burst
radius in the vector system, only that i "strongly suggests" it (2nd
paragraph, page 9, left column). I have found the 3 mu radius too limiting and
last year was lamenting this to KR. He said his group had opted to retain the
6 mu burst radius because of this and it seemed
to work okay, balance-wise (now, whether they still use it or not I
don't
know; this data is a year old ;-)
Just some other input.
M 'back to lurking for now' k
__......................................................................
...__
McCoy: "Angry, Mr Spock? Or frustrated, perhaps?"
Spock: "Such emotions are foreign to me. I am merely testing the strength of
the door."
McCoy: "For the 15th time?"
- ST:TOS, 'Bread & Circuses'
> In the Fleetbook it does not say that you are required to change the
In the Vectored Thrust game I ran at GenCon, we kept the 6" radius, and it
worked just fine. Granted there was not a huge number of SMLs (about 8
launchers on the table total).
----------
> Från: Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us>
will
> > >be a 4" burst radius for SMs in vector. That should nicely even
Under the FB vector rules you're only guaranteed to hit thrust-5 or
slower ships; thrust-6 can still get away (full main thrust + full
lateral thrust > 6 mu) :-/
> Here, try this on, in cinematic I am going against someone that
Sure. Unfortunately my opponents usually fly at speed 20+ (OK, 14-20
with the thrust-2 barges) instead of being immobile, which makes this
example look like someones' wet dream in my eyes -/ (Um, yes - I'm an
anorak, at least mentally. Didn't you know? <G>)
I've seen a target moving at less than speed 8 only once the last year, and
that was a space station...
Regards,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
How big a table do you fight/fly on? If I tried speed 20+, I'd
be off the edge of the world in five turns...
Maybe that's something that should be looked at. It's harder to balance
systems when game velocities can average < 15 for one group, and then be > 20
for another group. High relative speeds in cinematic can really mess up SMLs,
as has been observed on the list.
J.
> Sure. Unfortunately my opponents usually fly at speed 20+ (OK, 14-20
IIRC, Oerjan flies in centimeters, which makes a world of difference as
opposed to inches! ;-)
Mk
> Jerry Han wrote:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Sorry, amend my above sentence to "I've seen a target moving at less than
speed 8 in cinematic movement only once the past year, and that was a space
station". Though, to tell the truth, I can't recall flying
that slow in Vector either :-/
My table is 120 * 80 cm, so for you inch-measurers it corresponds to
10' * 6'8" or somewhat larger than a table tennis table. The only units in
danger of leaving the table are those with thrust 3 or less, and even they can
fly at up to 20 without serious danger. I also don't subscribe to the "rim of
the universe" theory; if it is possible to use a floating table to keep all
units in the fight, we do so.
Yes, size matters a lot, if it's the gaming area we're talking about.
I'm able to maneuver my forces for 2-3 turns before reaching weapon
range :-/
Regards,
> On 17-Aug-99 at 15:53, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
> Under the FB vector rules you're only guaranteed to hit thrust-5 or
Hey, I hadn't thought of that. I'll make sure to not point it out to my
opponents.
It doesn't matter anyway, I may have to drop SM's. My esteemed opponents have
decided that my SM's MUST BE STOPPED so I'm facing capital ships with 20 PDS's
and ADF's.
> > Here, try this on, in cinematic I am going against someone that
The random scenario generator specified speed, my opponent had no choice.:) Of
course, I didn't get to use it, he ran his cruiser into the planet and I ran
my two destroyers away from his battleship.
> My table is 120 * 80 cm, so for you inch-measurers it corresponds to
120 x 80 cm is ~ 3.9' x 2.6' - 30cm ~ 1'
304 x 203cm is ~ 10' x 6.8'
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> My table is 120 * 80 cm, so for you inch-measurers
You know, I've always considered it a contradiction of my existence that I use
metric for everything except playing games and writing reports. (i.e. it's not
a 5 cm border, it's a two inch border)
> The only units
Floating tables are good, as long as you can keep the battles close enough. If
there are two different fights going on at the same time, you eventually still
get problems.
> Yes, size matters a lot, if it's the gaming area we're talking about.
I know this goes against the spirit of GZG in a big way, but maybe there
should be some sort of official ruling as to what a 'tournament' table size
should be. I don't know, maybe I'm making a big deal over
nothing. (I'll blame it on all the HTML I wrote today. (8-) )
J.
> My table is 120 * 80 cm, so for you inch-measurers it corresponds to
Tim, you are misunderstanding Oerjan, methinks.... what he means is that
playing on a 120x80 table when you're using CM as measuring units is round
about equivalent to playing on a 10' x 6.8' table using INCHES.
> -= tim jones =-
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Most of the reason that we still use imperial measurements in our games is
that I personally find cm a bit fiddly when moving miniatures on a table. With
inches you can still eyeball and fudge it a bit and get away with it. Or maybe
I'm just getting old. The other reason is we sell mainly to the UK and US,
where inches are still quite acceptable (we put in cm conversions for the sake
of those too young to understand inches, or from those countries that don't
use them at
all).
Jon (GZG)
> The only units
Tim Jones misunderstood:
> >My table is 120 * 80 cm, so for you inch-measurers it corresponds to
As Mk pointed out I don't measure in inches, which makes your calculation
invalid. The correct figures are.
Me: 1 mu = 1 cm: 120 x 80 mu = 120 x 80 cm
You: 1 mu = 1": 120 x 80 mu = 120" x 80" = 10' x 6'8"
which makes my statement above correct. A table tennis table is IIRC 9' x 5'
in size.
Regards,
Regards,
> On 17-Aug-99 at 15:53, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
Not quite true, though almost. This assumes that your placement is perfect
- right where the ship would move if no thrust were applied. However,
GZG's "no ruler" rule and human error make it a bit more dicey, more so the
faster a ship is moving.
> On 17-Aug-99 at 15:53, Oerjan Ohlson (oerjan.ohlson@telia.com) wrote:
Urrrr....what 'no ruler' rule?
Mk
__......................................................................
...__
McCoy: "Angry, Mr Spock? Or frustrated, perhaps?"
Spock: "Such emotions are foreign to me. I am merely testing the strength of
the door."
McCoy: "For the 15th time?"
- ST:TOS, 'Bread & Circuses'
> On 20-Aug-99 at 11:02, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
You are going to have to point this one out. This is one thing I was watching
for and didn't see it. It doesn't make sense anyway, if I can shoot at you
then my computer knows how far away you are.
> Urrrr....what 'no ruler' rule?
No measuring ranges. Though it specifies only weapon shots, I take the
spirit of the rule to include estimation of another ship's movement - in
this case for SML placement.
I'm going to have to agree with the "No ruler, or pre-measurment" rule
for games which I play in. Heck you can do what you like in your games;) Does
your computer "really" know where I am if your shooting at me. I imagine my
computers are engaging in a wide variety of Electronic Counter Measures
(sending ghost signals, throwing up random walls of static, and the like). By
pre-measuring a certain amount of any game's strategic challenge is then
removed. I like that nervous feeling of not knowing weather to continue to
close or to begin the attack, or even guessing I should be over there in about
a turn or so but I hope he just ends up over there. Ahh, but that's just my
opinion.
Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> on 08/20/99 08:04:53 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Aron Clark/AM/Avid)
Subject: Re: Vector Movement
> On 20-Aug-99 at 11:02, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
You are going to have to point this one out. This is one thing I was watching
for and didn't see it. It doesn't make sense anyway, if I can shoot at you
then my computer knows how far away you are.
Roger
> On 20-Aug-99 at 11:02, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker (schoon@aimnet.com)
wrote:
> >Urrrr....what 'no ruler' rule?
And where you might end up in the next movement phase, etc.
I couldn't find the 'no measuring ranges' rule anywhere in the FT books,
either. But then I've always had a real hard time subscribing to the 'no
measuring ranges' in FT. Computers can plot and chart and target enough
things fast enough for purposes of the game to allow pre-measuring
anything (this isn't historical miniatures, after all, where they didn't have
computers to tell them ranges to opponents). Yes, there's going to be a lot of
ECM stuff going on, but there's going to be just as much ECCM stuff
happening right back - as far as I'm concerned, unless you have a
specific
ECM suite on your ship(s) (see also MT), then the ECM/ECCM effects
cancel each other out.
But, each to their own, naturally.:)
Mk
On 20-Aug-99 at 11:47, Aron_Clark@digidesign.com
(Aron_Clark@digidesign.com)
wrote: >
> I'm going to have to agree with the "No ruler, or pre-measurment" rule
> Does your computer "really" know where I am if your shooting at me. I
Ahh, but
> that's just my opinion.
When I play Fantasy Rules! I agree with this, if I were playing the ground
combat GZG games I again would probably agree with you. Now starship (or even
modern navel games) I disagree. Aside from reality (if my fire control
computer doesn't have a solution it can't fire) there is the additional
fictional problem. "Weapons officer, when he enters beam range fire, when he
enters the missile envelope fire missiles." If the person doesn't know what
the range is how does he know when to fire.
Anyway, house rules are fine, but if it is a house rule you should state it as
such, not write it as if it is Official.
(So, do modern tank commanders guess at the range before they fire?)
On 20-Aug-99 at 11:59, Okay, new day. Time to be happy. (- Cat)
(KOCHTE@stsci.edu) wrote: > >On 20-Aug-99 at 11:02, Sean Bayan
Schoonmaker
> (schoon@aimnet.com) wrote:
I've always been a bit bothered by the "I am expert at eyeballing distances so
I have a significant advantage" school of miniatures wargaming anyway. Does
the fact that you can judge distances on a gaming table to the millimeter mean
you are a better commander? I've often wondered if those that push the "no
measure" rule are the same ones that are good at guessing the distance.
In a message dated 8/20/99 12:07:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:
<< So, do modern tank commanders guess at the range before they fire?)
> [quoted text omitted]
No, they do not. They use lager range finders giving them range within
centimeters. Lager range finders are also man portable though bulky and are
used to call in accurate artillery fire and starlight devices give range
within a meter or two. If you've read "Rainbow Six" by Tom Clancy a tech
device currently available can triangulate and locate on video display the
electromagnetic field generated by a human heart it does NOT read chimpanzees,
monkeys or gorillas either just humans with computer displays utilizing IFF
personnel devices geo postioning sattelites can pin point and display all the
friendlies in the area. Counter battery radars and ladars can pinpoint
artillery battery locations within milliseconds of the first round revealing
itself to the sensors. Not to allow range measurement in
sci-fi
games borders on the silly.
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> No, they do not. They use lager range finders giving them range within
That device is grossly overrated, having played with it myself. It's range is
effectively a couple of meters and comes in handy in a building (given certain
construction constraints also). While there's no reason to assume it won't get
better ver time there is also no reason to assume countermeasures won't be
develped to return things to their equilibrium.(stealth suit)
> chimpanzees, monkeys or gorillas either just humans with computer
This is all how it works on TV, and in Clancy's fantasy books, which I enjoty
too, not in real life. It's all about hurrying things along and capturing the
mental confusion. I can see letting vehicles and certain qualities of troops
pre measure but still there's plenty of uncertainty in hitting targtets and
that's what it's all about, uncertainty in the game. But here's a better idea.
You can
pre-measure whatever the hell you want but you have only one minute to
complete you squad action. I don't wanna play with some idjit that's gonna
spend ten minutes on each move. (Unless it's my wife <grin>)
Anyway it's really what everyone agrees upon before hand.
Cheers...
In a message dated 8/20/99 1:59:41 PM Central Daylight Time,
los@cris.com writes:
<< You can
pre-measure whatever the hell you want but you have only one minute to
complete you squad action. I don't wanna play with some idjit that's gonna
spend ten minutes on each move. (Unless it's my wife <grin>) >>
BINGO!! And I will defer to your judgement on whether or not to irritate your
wife, I would warn you not to irritate mine (for safety's sake).
As to Clancy fantasies, I enjoy them to. Detection and spotting devices
ALWAYS improve - but then on the other hand stealth technology and
discipline ALWAYS improves. I'd a lot rather see infantry heavy games moving
ina
:fog:
and vehicles which can lug around the heavy devices having excellent range
finding and detection abilities from mid-long range - but up close it's
time to pay the penalty for living in a lead suit.
> You are going to have to point this one out. This is one thing I
Sadly, it's not anywhere I can find in the rules (if anyone knows that it IS
in fact in there, then let me know too), but it's how we've played the last
two years of tournaments and Gen Con scenarios.
> No, they do not. They use lager range finders giving them range within
I've gotta raise a possible BS flag on this one. The EM field generated by the
human heart is very weak and attenuates rapidly with distance. Not to mention
that it can be blocked by things as simple as clothing.
As for the second point, counterbattery fire is only that effective under
ideal conditions, which in my experience happen only rarely.
Neither of these take into account the human factor either - which
accounts for much of the "fog of war." In order for all of these wonderful
toys to work properly, they need to be turned on and pointed in the right
direction.
In a message dated 8/20/99 10:11:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
> schoon@aimnet.com writes:
<<
As for the second point, counterbattery fire is only that effective under
ideal conditions, which in my experience happen only rarely.
> [quoted text omitted]
If it's so ineffective why is modern artillery doctrine based on the "shoot
and scoot" principle?? Talk with some of the artillery school people at Fort
Sill - they'll give you an education.
In a message dated 8/20/99 10:11:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
> schoon@aimnet.com writes:
<<
Neither of these take into account the human factor either - which
accounts for much of the "fog of war." In order for all of these wonderful
toys to work properly, they need to be turned on and pointed in the right
direction.
> [quoted text omitted]
True enough. However outside of an ambush scenario, just what are you
simulating on the table?
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> If it's so ineffective why is modern artillery doctrine based on the
The problem with US artillery doctrine nowadays is that the branch practically
feels that good old fashioned fire support, the kind where a platoon leader or
a company commander can get on the radio and just call for artillery is
practically beneath them. Sure maybe your company or bn is the point of an
attack and has a direct support battery on call but the vast majority of
fighting units don't have that kind of dedicated support and everyone is vying
for the few assets there are..
Artillery officers are more interested in fighting "The Deep Battle". This way
artillery, fighting it's own fight doesn't have to work for anyone else, they
are their own boss. So they concentrate on deep strikes artillery raids (we
saw a lot of that in the Gulf) counterbattery and interdiction. This was a big
grumble for artillery and armor guys in the gulf and remains so today. Just
like you can't get air force to drop bombs for you anymore. They're always
busying dropping bombs on their won targets or managing their own kill boxes.
Plus you have to be some kind of wizard to penetrate the maze of special commo
gear and frequencies and procedures to get that support, which would have
needed to be laid on in advance anyway.
Counter battery fire is effective WHEN YOU HAVE THE ASSETS available and
uninterrupted to dedicate to them. That includes both Counter battery radar
and sufficient artillery laying around unassigned to put onto counter battery
fire. Remember as you said it' s standard porcedure to relocate after firing.
This automatically either drastically reduces how often you have assetts
available to fire or ensures that ythere is a much higher requirement for lots
or arty assetts. This is fine and dandy when you're refighting the Normandy
invasion of the invasion of Klendathu, but what about most of the smaller
actions being modelled in SG? The premise that lots of SG games are built on
usually revolve around smaller operations, battalions landing on planets to do
raids, or small operations etc etc. Heavy lift outside of all out major
invasions will always remain at a premium, so artillery assets, while more
capable might well be more scarce, with al kinds of tasks to do at once.
What a lot of wazoo tech is accomplishing is add information overload to a
commander's worries. It's not like our brains are being upgraded at the same
pace. Also while any given piece of wazoo tech is fine, it's rare to see it
all being used at the same time at once due to a whole range of assets
including
availability, compatibility, and of course enemy counter-actions.
In fact now that we're on the subject we should have a good discussion on the
foreseeable future and roll of artillery on some of these planetary operations
and how it impacts SG.. (Too late for me, gotta sleep!)
Somewhere back in a Jane's Defense Weekly I saw an article on the Dragon
automated mortar system. It was basicly a trailerized 120mm(?) mortar that
could process support requests and deliver rounds to the desired coordinates.
The idea was that a company would have some of these assigned to them as their
regular TO&E. Granted an 120mm mortar is on the short end of Arty but better
than nothing and could possibly be assigned down to the platoon level. This
would give us some organic artillery support for a SG2 game.
> In fact now that we're on the subject we should have a good discussion
In a message dated 8/21/99 2:01:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
los@cris.com writes:
<<
What a lot of wazoo tech is accomplishing is add information overload to a
commander's worries. It's not like our brains are being upgraded at the same
pace. Also while any given piece of wazoo tech is fine, it's rare to see it
all being used at the same time at once due to a whole range of assets
including
availability, compatibility, and of course enemy counter-actions.
In fact now that we're on the subject we should have a good discussion on the
foreseeable future and roll of artillery on some of these planetary operations
and how it impacts SG.. (Too late for me, gotta sleep!)
> [quoted text omitted]
A company task force rarely has more than its own mortar assets permanently
dedicated, battalion and brigade assets are usually pre-assigned to
support operations as per the operations order. We've always been more
flexible than the old soviet doctrine where artillery assets and air support
were obtainable only by higher level commanders. To move toward that model
would be a terrible loss of flexibility in a tactical sense when we are
already overburdened by a lack of "numbers" of assets to put in the field in
the
first place. In the tactical requirements of raid and counter raid some sort
of light artillery on the ground would be a good choice OR an "ortillery"
launch platform - either solution should be controllable by a FST
officer or vehicle assigned to the raiding unit to make sure that limited
assets are used to the maximum of their capability.
When I design a SG or Dirtside unit's TOE, I put light artillery assets right
with it, usually some variety of multi-barrel rocket launcher or mortar
vehicle.
In a message dated 8/21/99 4:28:38 AM Central Daylight Time,
> nma@kda.attmil.ne.jp writes:
<< on the Dragon automated mortar system. It was basicly a trailerized
120mm(?) >>
A good suggestion, some kind of system though I think it should be
self-propelled rather than towed for a unit operating offensively.
The Russian (Soviet) BN has a battery of 120mm mortar attached while the REGT
and above have the artillery of 122mm and 152mm. With DS2 I like
the light arty or mortars and when used line-of-sight can outshoot
almost all weapons.
> A company task force rarely has more than its own mortar assets
> The Russian (Soviet) BN has a battery of 120mm mortar
Watch your topics, please, this is no longer vector movement. Makes it tough
for those of us who go through the archives.
> If it's so ineffective why is modern artillery doctrine based on the
Oh, don't get me wrong. It's not completely ineffective either. It just
doesn't give pinpoint accuracy. Odds are the enemy will know approximately
where you are, which is why it's a good idea to scoot.
However, you generally cannot track an incoming round and immediately
determine its exact point of origin for counterbattery fire.
> Schoon wrote:
> >Urrrr....what 'no ruler' rule?
I can find no such rule in FT2, MT or FB1.
Regards,
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/21/99 4:28:38 AM Central Daylight Time,
da; a self-propelled, short-range artillery piece, tied in to low-level
comm nets and automatically servicing fire requests would be a fantastic force
multiplier.
since we don't have a term for this, can i suggest 'autillery'?
tom
> On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> Oh, don't get me wrong. It's not completely ineffective either. It
Its my understanding that a good team and good equipment can have the counter
mission in the air before the observed red force rounds have splashed.
In a message dated 8/23/99 8:56:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
> monty@arcadia.turner.com writes:
<<
Its my understanding that a good team and good equipment can have the counter
mission in the air before the observed red force rounds have splashed.
> [quoted text omitted]
Quite true - IF you have more than one radar tracking. The computers
cvan triangulate and have rounds one the way within seconds
At the risk of getting my head bitten off, here is a possible solution to
the vector-turn-burn-fire problem (as in some players do not consider it
a "realistic" portryal of vessel movement and firing),
Why not limit non-advanced drive ships to one rotation burn per move,
and
leave advanced drive ships as they are. That way A-drive ships can still
rotate-burn-rotate to bring single are k-guns into play (which may look
strange but then again the drives are advanced!), whilst the standard drive
ships can only rotate once which means they may not be able to bear directly
upon their targets at turns end, thus they still have a reason to use
multi-arc weaponry.
Regards,
> Matt Tope wrote:
> At the risk of getting my head bitten off, here is a possible solution
No decapitation, but...
1) At the risk of picking nits; the problem is not rotate-burn-fire, but
rather rotate-burn-ROTATE-fire.
2) Advanced Grav Drive ships do not have this problem in the RAW. Since
they can thrust in ANY direction as is, they do not need to perform a second
rotation to keep the target in their sights.
So, for example, a T4 KV ship is on course of 12 and facing 9. Its target is
at the same speed, but the player suspects that the target
will accelerate, so the KV thrusts 4 in direction 12 (MD4/12) to keep
pace. A T4 human ship in this situation could, under the current RAW, rotate
to heading 12, burn MD, then rotate back to facing 9 (R12, MD2, R9). Or, using
a loophole, simply thruster push with the port thrusters
(PS2). Note that the two options for the human ship result in exactly the same
change in vector.
This does bring to mind a question, however:
Can a KV (or other AGD ship) thrust in a direction other than one of the
12 standard course directions? E.g. at 45 degrees instead of 30 or 60
(direction 1:30 or 1.5). If not, then can an AGD ship thrust in two
directions in the same game turn? E.g. "MD2/9, MD2/12".
J
Sorry, should have been more clear, I was refering to the
rotate-burn-rotate-fire. Thats to say that for standard drive ships only
allow them 1 rotate per turn. This then provides a reason for 3 arc weapons.
Advanced drive ships still get to do their normal fancy stuff and thus their
engines are worth the additional cost. Just a thought to keep the flavour of
the different drives in vector without resorting to a bucketful of
mathematics ;-)
Regards,
Matt Tope
[quoted original message omitted]
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 1) At the risk of picking nits; the problem is not rotate-burn-fire,
This is the *esthetic* problem Jared has with the current Vector rules.
Unfortunately neither it isn't the *game balance* problem he intended his
proposal to solve :-(
> A T4 human ship in this situation could, under the current RAW, rotate
In the FB2 Vector rules a "PS2" order is illegal for Standard-engined
drives, since the side and retro thrusters are only allowed a single
1-pt
push each per turn.
Regards,
> On 9/2/2003 Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
Actually, this is the root cause of the problems (symptoms) that I am trying
to solve, namely that AGD does not give enough extra benefit in
Vector to justify its higher cost and that multi-arc weapons are also
not useful enough to justify the extra cost. By allowing ships to rotate twice
in a game turn, it makes them much more maneuverable and
reduces the long term (multi-turn) tactical planning necessary to be
successful in the encounter.
> A T4 human ship in this situation could, under the current RAW,
Upon rereading the rules, you are right, I originally misread the rules
addendum. However, the human ship could rotate to facing 6, retro thruster 1,
rotate back to facing 9 and then thruster push with the port
thrusters (R6, PA1, R9, PS1).
Anyways, for ships with low thrust (which happen to be the larger
ships), this means that the single-side thrusters are often close to
half as powerful as the main drive. Huh?
Further,
> On 8/28/2003 Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Unfortunately for your suggestion, you haven't correctly identified
> the FB1 and FB2 development :-/ )
Then what is the root cause of the problem?
> What your suggestion does is to prevent the narrow-arc ships from
> special case of the real problem - and removing this special case
> continuous fire *at all*, as opposed to Cinematic where narrow-arc
But in vector, narrow arc standard drive ships should be able to keep the
enemy under continuous fire if they forego accelerating in any direction
except towards the enemy. I.e. the ship is sliding "sideways"
and remains pointed at the target. The whole point is that the current
rules allow the player (the "captain") to rotate the ship 60-120
degrees, burn the MD on a parallel course for 1/2 to 1 minute and then
rotate back to bring the target under fire again. This, combined with your
"while accelerating away from him" results in the majority of cases, rather
than the "special case", as you said. Accelerating toward
the enemy and then rotating (once) to keep him under fire is reasonable to me.
> The reason why wide-arc weapons cost more than narrow-arc weapons is
> over the course of a (Cinematic) battle than narrow-arc weapons do.
And the same should be true for vector, where, if a target passes your ship
obliquely, you can track it with your gun turrets while continuing to
accelerate on your desired heading or you can rotate to track him with your
main (forward) gun(s), but not both.
> (Kra'Vak pay the extra points for better engines instead of for extra
However, on the turn after you have pointed your ship at the target, you
should have to make a choice between keeping the target in the engagement
basket or continuing your acceleration, rather than being able to do both.
> Apart from the player screwing up the exception is if the ship's
But, if the player (ship captain) had to chose between pointing at the target
and turning to accelerate in a direction 60 degrees or more from the target,
then the ability to, for example, travel course 12 with a target at bearing 3,
face heading 5 to both decelerate and converge on the target (bearing 3) and
still be able to fire at that target with batteries that bear into your port
broadside is worth the additional points and mass.
> Because of all this limiting the ship to one single rotation per game
> ship a close-to-100% probability of acquiring a target for its
The problem is not that the single rotation can acquire the target once, or
even continuously, the problem is that multiple uses of rotations allow the
ship to keep the target engaged while simultaneously pulsing the MD for brief
bursts of acceleration.
If the ship coasts while pointed at the target, then he has given up the
maneuver initiative in favor of an attempt at overwhelming (with his maximum
firepower) the target before the target can redefine the maneuver situation,
while the opposite is then also true (giving up firepower in order to
maneuver).
> Since we'd very much prefer to use the same design system for Vector
> ability to point single-arc weapons in any direction you like in
> rate that screw-up right down there with the FB2 Sa'Vasku... <sigh>)
Actually, I think the FB1 rules work well, with the provision that the
effect of thruster pushes should be reduced considerably, i.e. to 1/2 or
1/4. I think that the problem lies in the FB2 change to allow multiple
rotations in exchange for maneuvering thrust (of all types) to be taken from
the same "pool" of points as MD.
> >...what this comes down to is how long a turn represents. In several
> either case thrust-1 is ~1 g.
I had only seen the ~20 minute figure, but I am fine with the shorter game
turn.
<snip catastrophic failure discussion>
> (FWIW quite a few of the larger ships destroyed in B5, particularly in
> the Narn-Centauri conflict, blow up as a result of secondary
Unless you consider rerolls to represent those secondary explosions.:)
> Of course, in films and TV shows there's also the problem with time
Yep, so that each 5-10 second exchange of volleys on-screen could be
considered to represent one 2-6 minute FT game turn. So the
Narn-Centuari single ship duel in "A Day in the Strife" (for example)
lasts several FT turns. Sounds good to me.
<snip more game turn length discussion>
> I once calculated how long it'd take for a Renegade Legion [Leviathan]
> Shiva-class battleship (IIRC 2.5 km long, and rather slow - in FT I'd
> course the transverse stresses on its bow section would be quite
> at quarter strength' concept with the 'in the GZGverse thrust-1 ~ 1 g'
> scale you still get twice the effective thrust to spin the ship with
From FB1, pg. 3, right hand column, "Rotation" section, 1st para.: "...(the
only difference between rotating 30 degrees and rotating 180 degrees is simply
that, once the thrusters have started the ship spinning, the ship is allowed
to rotate for [a] longer [period of time] before the thrusters burn again to
cancel the spin)..."
So, IIUC, FT thrusters are probably more than 1/4 g, probably closer to
1 g, but only on for a brief burst, then 0 g coast, then short ~ 1 g
counter-burn.
Further, if I understand the assumptions behind your math, you are assuming
MD1 ~ 1g over a full game turn, but if you rotate twice, taking
1/2 of the game turn (total of 2x Rotate), then MD1 ~ 2g because the
time that the drive is on is much less.
> When even huge ships like an Omega or a Shiva could potentially rotate
> this fast, even the fastest "GZGverse scale" with its 100-second game
> single turn and still leave time for a main drive burn and/or firing
But I would not want to be in a DCP, or a SBA, or etc. (and therefor not
strapped into a shock couch) when the ship makes a 1g rotate burn, 0g
coast, 1g counter-burn, (total 30 sec) 2-4 g MD burn (40 sec) (could be
as high as 8-12g on a destroyer or corvette), 1g rotate burn, 0g coast,
and 1g counter-burn (another 30 sec), all in a 100s game turn.
BTW, ships in backgrounds where ships are not as tiny as the GZG-verse
(like a star destroyer, battlestar or EA Omega/Nova classes), the
capital ships are probably mass 100,000+ compared to the FB ships, which
are all smaller than the 1920s "treaty battleships" (capped at 35,000 t
"standard load", which worked to 40-45,000 t full load). The smallest
would be the ST:movies Enterprise at TMF c. 2,000 (ST:TNG Ambassador
class Ent-C TMF 37,000+, Ent-D 60,000+). Even the Space Battleship
Yamato ("Starblazers") would be c. TMF 700+ (built on the hull of HIJMS
Yamato)
J
Jared Hilal wrote.
1) At the risk of picking nits; the problem is not rotate-burn-fire, but
rather rotate-burn-ROTATE-fire.
This is the *esthetic* problem Jared has with the current Vector rules.
Unfortunately neither it isn't the *game balance* problem he intended his
proposal to solve
Actually, this is the root cause of the problems (symptoms) that I am trying
to solve,
No, it isn't - at least not if the problems you're trying to solve are
the
game balance problems of Advanced drives and wide-arc weapons being
badly overpriced in Vector. I already explained this in the post you replied
to further down in this
post, but here it is again in a shorter form:
Manoeuvre in Full Thrust is only really important in that it allows your
ships to (or prevents them from) getting into positions where they can fire
their weapons at the enemy, and/or into positions where the enemy ships
can't return fire effectively.
In Cinematic, with its quite limited abilities for ships to change facing,
wide-arc weapons are easier to point towards the enemy (and thus more
valuable) since you don't need to change course as much to do so as you
would if you used narrow-arc weapons. Similarly Advanced drives improve
your ability to change facing, thus giving you advantages similar (though
not identical) to those you get from wide-arc weapons.
FB Vector allows *any* ship can rotate to bring its narrow-arc weapons
to
bear on the enemy, due to its any-angle rotations. The *number* of
rotations in Vector matters very little, if at all, to the relative
worthlessness of Advanced engines and wide fire arcs in Vector; the
important difference is that in Vector a thrust-2 ship can turn 180
degrees in a single turn while in Cinematic that same ship could only turn 30
degrees per turn.
It is the *angle* a ship can rotate which is by far the most important factor,
since that is what determines whether or not you can bring your weapons to
bear against the enemy, not the *number* of rotations it can make. As long as
you allow any ship is able to rotate the full 180 degrees in a single turn no
matter what its thrust rating is you'll have these game
balance problems with wide-arc weapons and Advanced drives being
overpriced.
Anyways, for ships with low thrust (which happen to be the larger ships),
this means that the single-side thrusters are often close to half as
powerful as the main drive. Huh?
All of the single-side thrusters taken together are close to half as
powerful as the main drive on its own, yes. Is there a problem? (BTW,
towards the end of this post you're actually - though accidentally -
arguing that the FB1 background blurb describes precisely this kind of
powerful single-side thrusters :-/ )
Unfortunately for your suggestion, you haven't correctly identified the
problem. (Unfortunately for GZG, neither did we playtesters during the FB1
and FB2 development :-/ )
Then what is the root cause of the problem?
I explained this in detail in the post you're replying to. Your question
here suggests that you didn't actually read what you replied to - is
that correct?
What your suggestion does is to prevent the narrow-arc ships from
keeping the enemy under continuous fire (ie. shooting at him every turn)
*while accelerating away from him*. Trouble is, this is merely a special case
of
the real problem - and removing this special case while leaving the real
problem unsolved won't make wide-arc weapons any more useful.
The real problem is that the narrow-arc ships can keep the enemy under
continuous fire *at all*, as opposed to Cinematic where narrow-arc ships
tend to make an attack run and then spend several turns during which they
can't fire on lining up for their next attack run (or else come to a full
stop, in which case they can rotate freely but make themselves very easy
missile targets and also allow the enemy to control the range).
But in vector, narrow arc standard drive ships should be able to keep the
enemy under continuous fire if they forego accelerating in any direction
except towards the enemy.
From an *aesthetics* point of view I don't disagree with your "should". I
thought so too both five and three years ago; that's why I pushed so
hard -
and, unfortunately, successfully - for allowing ships to rotate through
any angle for a single thrust point in the FB1 and FB2 movement systems.
(Funny though; you're the very one who listed a number of examples where
vector-moving ships in a certain TV show did *not* rotate to keep their
narrow-arc weapons trained on the target continuously in spite of not
attempting to get anywhere in particular ;-) )
It's just that these any-angle rotations are precisely the root cause to
the *game balance* problem: they are the very reason why wide-angle
weapons and Advanced engines are badly overpriced by the FB ship design system
if you play Vector.
If you want to solve these two game balance problems you only have two
options: either devise a completely different set of ship design rules for
Vector movement (ie. lower the price of wide-arc weapons and Advanced
drives to match their value in Vector), or restrict the angle a ship can
rotate in a single turn (ie. increase the value of wide-arc weapons and
Advanced drives to match their price).
(Of course there's a third option, namely to ignore the game balance and
the ship design rules entirely, but since that doesn't actually *solve* the
problems and it wasn't what you said that your proposal was intended to do I'm
leaving that option out for now.)
This, combined with your "while accelerating away from him" results in the
majority of cases, rather than the "special case", as you said.
From an aesthetics point of view, sure. But according to your previous post
your proposal was intended to solve the *game balance* problem (namely
that wide-arc weapons and Advanced drives being overpriced in Vector),
and from the game balance point of view you're completely wrong.
Accelerating toward the enemy and then rotating (once) to keep him under
fire is reasonable to me.
Reasonable or not, it won't help making those wide-arc weapons and
Advanced drives worth their cost in Vector. You're confusing aesthetics with
game
balance.
The reason why wide-arc weapons cost more than narrow-arc weapons is
that
the wide-arc weapons *in Cinematic* have a much better chance of having
a target in arc and thus on average get to fire more shots each over the
course of a (Cinematic) battle than narrow-arc weapons do. Fewer weapons
firing more shots each per battle give about the same damage-dealing
capability as more numerous weapons firing fewer shots each, so for a given
amount of points you get fewer wide-arc weapons than you could've gotten
narrow-arc weapons of the same type and class
And the same should be true for vector,
It *should* be true for vector, yes. On that we both agree. So why do you
propose something which doesn't allow it to *be* true in Vector?
(Kra'Vak pay the extra points for better engines instead of for extra fire
arcs, but the end result is the same: they get fewer guns which get to fire
more shots each than the same points value of single-arc human weapons
on
human-engined ships.)
However, if 1 thrust point in Vector is sufficient to rotate the ship to
any facing it likes - and in the FB Vector rules it is - then you can
almost always rotate the ship to point your single-arc guns at where the
target will be after movement.
However, on the turn after you have pointed your ship at the target, you
should have to make a choice between keeping the target in the engagement
basket or continuing your acceleration, rather than being able to do both.
If you want to continue the battle, keeping the target in your engagement
envelope is FAR more important than continuing your accelleration.
[...]
But, if the player (ship captain) had to chose between pointing at the target
and turning to accelerate in a direction 60 degrees or more from the target,
then the ability to, for example, travel course 12 with a target at bearing 3,
face heading 5 to both decelerate and converge on the target (bearing 3) and
still be able to fire at that target with batteries that
bear into your port broadside is worth the additional points and mass.
This seems to be where you go wrong: you assume that being able to accelerate
away is as important as being able to fire your weapons, but it isn't. Being
able to fire your weapons is far, *far* more important, so the "choice" you're
talking about is trivial.
If the player has to choose between pointing *two* wide-arc weapon
batteries at the target while accelerating away, or point *three*
single-arc weapon batteries of the same type at the target and not
accelerating away, the three batteries almost invariably beat the two. No
matter which armament you choose, if you play Vector the armament it will
almost certainly point at the enemy throughout the battle - so the
single-arc ship effectively has 50% more firepower than the wide-arced
one *throughout the battle*.
In Cinematic the choice is quite different: due to the much lower turning
ability ships have in Cinematic, you get the choice between on one hand
three single-arc weapons which probably *won't* point at the enemy most
of
the time, and on the other, and on the other two wide-arc weapons which
will probably *will* point at the enemy most of the time. Here it isn't a
matter of slowing down the enemy's rate of closing; instead the question is
whether or not your weapons will get to fire *at all*, and the 50% extra
firepower the single-arc weapons get on the few occasions they do manage
to fire is just about enough to even the odds against the more numerous shots
the wide-arc weapons fire during the battle.
[...]
The problem is not that the single rotation can acquire the target once
,
or even continuously,
Then could you please explain why complaints about wide-arc being
overpriced in Vector weapons appeared about three months after *FB1* was
published, and have continued ever since? FB1 Vector only allows a single
rotation per turn, so according to you it should've been free of this
particular game balance problem?
If the ship coasts while pointed at the target, then he has given up the
maneuver initiative in favor of an attempt at overwhelming (with his maximum
firepower) the target before the target can redefine the maneuver situation,
while the opposite is then also true (giving up firepower in order to
maneuver).
You forget that manoeuvres in Vector are far more limited than they are in
Cinematic. In Cinematic giving the manoeuvre advantage up often means that you
don't get to use your higher firepower to full effect; but in Vector
the target can't re-define the manoeuvre situation much anyway so giving
up a small advantage in manoeuvrability to gain a massive advantage in
firepower is usually not a very hard choice to make.
Actually, I think the FB1 rules work well,
Since they have exactly the same game balance problems wrt. wide-arc
weapons as the FB2 ones have, I don't think they work well.
<snip catastrophic failure discussion> (FWIW quite a few of the larger ships
destroyed in B5, particularly in the
Narn-Centauri conflict, blow up as a result of secondary explosions
rather than as an immediate effect of the incoming fire. The only way this can
happen in FT is if the Power Core fails catastrophically.)
Unless you consider rerolls to represent those secondary explosions.:)
I don't. If a ship is destroyed by re-rolls it can't fire any more
afterwards, but at least two of those B5 ships (Centauri battlecruisers)
kept firing for a while after the enemy had stopped shooting (in one case due
to starting to explode itself, in the other because the Narn ship had entered
the jump gate).
<snip more game turn length discussion>
> From FB1, pg. 3, right hand column, "Rotation" section, 1st para.:
"...(the only difference between rotating 30 degrees and rotating 180 degrees
is simply that, once the thrusters have started the ship spinning, the ship is
allowed to rotate for [a] longer [period of time] before the
thrusters burn again to cancel the spin)..."
So, IIUC, FT thrusters are probably more than 1/4 g, probably closer to
1 g, but only on for a brief burst, then 0 g coast, then short ~ 1 g
counter-burn.
If they're that powerful (close to 1 g), then they're also powerful enough
to push the ship sideways at a fairly considerable acceleration :-/
You're the one arguing against such powerful lateral thrusters, not me.
Further, if I understand the assumptions behind your math, you are assuming
MD1 ~ 1g over a full game turn, but if you rotate twice, taking 1/2 of
the game turn (total of 2x Rotate), then MD1 ~ 2g because the time that the
drive is on is much less.
Not exactly. *Manoeuvre thrusters* need to be able to make ~2g burns or more
in order to push a ship sideways or backwards during a turn in which the ship
rotates once or twice (which means that the ship is able to rotate
even faster - isn't that nice? <G>). *MD1* (Main Drive 1) doesn't
however, since a ship capable of both rotating twice and making an MD burn in
a single turn must have at least MD3 (each rotation uses up 1 thrust point) so
you can safely assume that its "MD1" burn represents a shorter burn at a
higher thrust level.
(This is why FB2 Vector rotations use up thrust points from the MD pool,
BTW. Of course this assumption screws up the nice "true Newtonian Vector
Movement" concepts you and others have discussed recently, but that's
another discussion :-/)
When even huge ships like an Omega or a Shiva could potentially rotate this
fast, even the fastest "GZGverse scale" with its 100-second game turns
clearly allows a ship to make two 180-degree facing changes in a single
turn and still leave time for a main drive burn and/or firing weapons
:-7
But I would not want to be in a DCP, or a SBA, or etc. (and therefor not
strapped into a shock couch) when the ship makes a 1g rotate burn, 0g
coast, 1g counter-burn, (total 30 sec) 2-4 g MD burn (40 sec) (could be
as
high as 8-12g on a destroyer or corvette), 1g rotate burn, 0g coast, and
1g
counter-burn (another 30 sec), all in a 100s game turn.
Sure. This is exactly why the GZGverse canon claims that gravitic compensators
provide such a powerful combat advantage... and why most other
SF backgrounds featuring space combat have similar devices too :-/
Regards,
Sorry about the lack of reply markers in the previous post; I have no idea
what happened. Since the absence of those reply markers make it rather
difficult to follow who said what when, here's a corrected version It
should've looked like this:
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> 1) At the risk of picking nits; the problem is not rotate-burn-fire,
No, it isn't - at least not if the problems you're trying to solve are
the
game balance problems of Advanced drives and wide-arc weapons being
badly overpriced in Vector, and that's what you said they were... I already
explained this in the post you replied to further down in this post, but
here it is again in a shorter form:
Manoeuvre in Full Thrust is only really important in that it allows your
ships to (or prevents them from) getting into positions where they can fire
their weapons at the enemy, and/or into positions where the enemy ships
can't return fire effectively.
In Cinematic, with its quite limited abilities for ships to change facing,
wide-arc weapons are easier to point towards the enemy (and thus more
valuable) since you don't need to change course as much to do so as you
would if you used narrow-arc weapons. Similarly Advanced drives improve
your ability to change facing, thus giving you advantages similar (though
not identical) to those you get from wide-arc weapons.
FB Vector allows *any* ship can rotate to bring its narrow-arc weapons
to
bear on the enemy, due to its any-angle rotations. The *number* of
rotations in Vector matters very little, if at all, to the relative
worthlessness of Advanced engines and wide fire arcs in Vector; the
important difference is that in Vector a thrust-2 ship can turn 180
degrees in a single turn while in Cinematic that same ship could only turn 30
degrees per turn.
It is the *angle* a ship can rotate which is by far the most important factor,
since that is what determines whether or not you can bring your weapons to
bear against the enemy, not the *number* of rotations it can make. As long as
you allow any ship is able to rotate the full 180 degrees in a single turn no
matter what its thrust rating is you'll have these game
balance problems with wide-arc weapons and Advanced drives being
overpriced.
> Anyways, for ships with low thrust (which happen to be the larger
All of the single-side thrusters taken together are close to half as
powerful as the main drive on its own, yes. Is there a problem? (BTW,
towards the end of this post you're actually - though accidentally -
arguing that the FB1 background blurb describes precisely this kind of
powerful single-side thrusters :-/ )
> Unfortunately for your suggestion, you haven't correctly identified
> FB1 and FB2 development :-/ )
I explained this in detail in the post you're replying to. Since you replied
to it, I do hope that you read it as well.
> What your suggestion does is to prevent the narrow-arc ships from
*while
> accelerating away from him*. Trouble is, this is merely a special case
> continuous fire *at all*, as opposed to Cinematic where narrow-arc
From an *aesthetics* point of view I don't disagree with your "should". I
thought so too both five and three years ago; that's why I pushed so
hard -
and, unfortunately, successfully - for allowing ships to rotate through
any angle for a single thrust point in the FB1 and FB2 movement systems.
(Funny though; you're the very one who listed a number of examples where
vector-moving ships in a certain TV show did *not* rotate to keep their
narrow-arc weapons trained on the target continuously in spite of not
attempting to get anywhere in particular ;-) )
It's just that these any-angle rotations are precisely the root cause to
the *game balance* problem: they are the very reason why wide-angle
weapons and Advanced engines are badly overpriced by the FB ship design system
if you play Vector.
If you want to solve these two game balance problems you only have two
options: either devise a completely different set of ship design rules for
Vector movement (ie. lower the price of wide-arc weapons and Advanced
drives to match their value in Vector), or restrict the angle a ship can
rotate in a single turn (ie. increase the value of wide-arc weapons and
Advanced drives to match their price).
(Of course there's a third option, namely to ignore the game balance and
the ship design rules entirely, but since that doesn't actually *solve* the
problems and it wasn't what you said that your proposal was intended to do I'm
leaving that option out for now.)
> This, combined with your "while accelerating away from him" results in
From an aesthetics point of view, sure. But according to your previous post
your proposal was intended to solve the *game balance* problem (namely
that wide-arc weapons and Advanced drives being overpriced in Vector),
and from the game balance point of view you're completely wrong.
> Accelerating toward the enemy and then rotating (once) to keep him
Reasonable or not, it won't help making those wide-arc weapons and
Advanced drives worth their cost in Vector. You're confusing aesthetics with
game
balance.
> The reason why wide-arc weapons cost more than narrow-arc weapons is
> course of a (Cinematic) battle than narrow-arc weapons do. Fewer
It *should* be true for vector, yes. On that we both agree. So why do you
propose something which doesn't allow it to *be* true in Vector?
> (Kra'Vak pay the extra points for better engines instead of for extra
> weapons on human-engined ships.)
If you want to continue the battle, keeping the target in your engagement
envelope is FAR more important than continuing your accelleration.
[...]
> But, if the player (ship captain) had to chose between pointing at the
> the target, then the ability to, for example, travel course 12 with a
This seems to be where you go wrong: you assume that being able to accelerate
away is as important as being able to fire your weapons, but it isn't. Being
able to fire your weapons is far, *far* more important, so the "choice" you're
talking about is trivial.
If the player has to choose between pointing *two* wide-arc weapon
batteries at the target while accelerating away, or point *three*
single-arc weapon batteries of the same type at the target and not
accelerating away, the three batteries almost invariably beat the two. No
matter which armament you choose, if you play Vector the armament it will
almost certainly point at the enemy throughout the battle - so the
single-arc ship effectively has 50% more firepower than the wide-arced
one *throughout the battle*.
In Cinematic the choice is quite different: due to the much lower turning
ability ships have in Cinematic, you get the choice between on one hand
three single-arc weapons which probably *won't* point at the enemy most
of
the time, and on the other, and on the other two wide-arc weapons which
will probably *will* point at the enemy most of the time. Here it isn't a
matter of slowing down the enemy's rate of closing; instead the question is
whether or not your weapons will get to fire *at all*, and the 50% extra
firepower the single-arc weapons get on the few occasions they do manage
to fire is just about enough to even the odds against the more numerous shots
the wide-arc weapons fire during the battle.
[...]
> The problem is not that the single rotation can acquire the target once
Then could you please explain why complaints about wide-arc being
overpriced in Vector weapons appeared about three months after *FB1* was
published, and have continued ever since? FB1 Vector only allows a single
rotation per turn, so according to you it should've been free of this
particular game balance problem?
> If the ship coasts while pointed at the target, then he has given up
> order to maneuver).
You forget that manoeuvres in Vector are far more limited than they are in
Cinematic. In Cinematic giving the manoeuvre advantage up often means that you
don't get to use your higher firepower to full effect; but in Vector
the target can't re-define the manoeuvre situation much anyway so giving
up a small advantage in manoeuvrability to gain a massive advantage in
firepower is usually not a very hard choice to make.
> Actually, I think the FB1 rules work well,
Since they have exactly the same game balance problems wrt. wide-arc
weapons as the FB2 ones have, I don't think they work well.
> <snip catastrophic failure discussion>
> the Narn-Centauri conflict, blow up as a result of secondary
I don't. If a ship is destroyed by re-rolls it can't fire any more
afterwards, but at least two of those B5 ships (Centauri battlecruisers)
kept firing for a while after the enemy had stopped shooting (in one case due
to starting to explode itself, in the other because the Narn ship had entered
the jump gate).
> <snip more game turn length discussion>
If they're that powerful (close to 1 g), then they're also powerful enough
to push the ship sideways at a fairly considerable acceleration :-/
You're the one arguing against such powerful lateral thrusters, not me.
> Further, if I understand the assumptions behind your math, you are
Not exactly. *Manoeuvre thrusters* need to be able to make ~2g burns or more
in order to push a ship sideways or backwards during a turn in which the ship
rotates once or twice (which means that the ship is able to rotate
even faster - isn't that nice? <G>). *MD1* (Main Drive 1) doesn't
however, since a ship capable of both rotating twice and making an MD burn in
a single turn must have at least MD3 (each rotation uses up 1 thrust point) so
you can safely assume that its "MD1" burn represents a shorter burn at a
higher thrust level.
(This is why FB2 Vector rotations use up thrust points from the MD pool,
BTW. Of course this assumption screws up the nice "true Newtonian Vector
Movement" concepts you and others have discussed recently, but that's
another discussion :-/)
> When even huge ships like an Omega or a Shiva could potentially rotate
> this fast, even the fastest "GZGverse scale" with its 100-second game
> single turn and still leave time for a main drive burn and/or firing
Sure. This is exactly why the GZGverse canon claims that gravitic compensators
provide such a powerful combat advantage... and why most other
SF backgrounds featuring space combat have similar devices too :-/
Regards,
Oerjan Ohlson schrieb:
> It's just that these any-angle rotations are precisely
> wide-arc weapons and Advanced drives to match their price).
A thought that I don't think has been discussed yet in this thread:
How about using 1 main engine thrust point per 60 - degree change of
facing in vector?
Less restrictive than allow only one change of facing, but it rather limits
fancy maneuvers.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> KHR wrote:
> A thought that I don't think has been discussed yet in this thread:
That's essentially the solution we playtesters are looking at for FT3. It
remains to be seen whether or not Jon accepts it though <g>
OO said:
> Sorry about the lack of reply markers in the previous post; I have
You're probably replying to Jared's HTML/RTF mail.
Jared, you might do better to send List mail as plain text.