Re: New FTJava Scenarios

[Tony Christney <tchristney@xxxxxxxxx>]

To do 2) or 3) is actually a fairly big job. What makes it
difficult is that ship systems have no knowledge of which
ship they are attached to, i.e. one way linkage.

As a developer this has frustrated me on more than one
occasion. It would be a fairly big job to change though, but
I vow it shall be fixed in the next major version (2.0)

On 10-Jul-06, at 6:45 AM, Noam Izenberg wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification! I have no excuse other than laziness,
> since I have the FB1 pdf file on my computer.
>
> This does underline the point that bases at least should have no A
> arc restriction in FTJava.
>
> How big a tweak is it to:
>
> a) Make bases capable of A-Arc fire at all times
> b) Add in the Official optional rule as a FTJ game setting (which
> would make three possible game modes in all: 1) Aft arc fire always
> allowed; 2) Aft arc fire never allowed (except for no-thrust bases);
> and 3) Aft arc fire allowed if movement orders are "0".
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:
>
>> Noam wrote:
>>
>>>> Unfortunately it doesn't look like the code takes this into
>>>> account. Shouldn't it also take into account whether or not
>>>> the drives have been used that turn? I thought that drifting
>>>> ships can fire to the aft arc.
>>>
>>> That's a house rule.
>>
>> No, allowing fire into the (A) arc if no thrust is used is an
>> [Official]
>> Optional rule (FB1 p.4). The FTJava option where (A) arc fire is
>> *always*
>> allowed is a house rule though :-)
>>
>> /Oerjan
>> oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Life is like a sewer.
>>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
>> -Hen3ry
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---
>
> ?I have yet to see a problem, however complicated, which, when looked
> at in the right way, did not become still more complicated.? ? Poul
> Anderson
>
>
>