Re: New FTJava Scenarios

[Tony Christney <tchristney@xxxxxxxxx>]

Right. I guess I've been "OA"ed <g> That wasn't so bad <G>

What I meant was that to modify 2) to allow aft arc
fire for the special case of zero-thrust/no main drive
ships is just as hard as case 3).

The fundamental problem is that firing is resolved at the
weapon level, and weapons have NO knowledge about the
ship they are mounted on. So when the ability to fire into
a target arc is determined, the weapon cannot check the
owning ship's movement orders or its drive system status.

Tony.

On 10-Jul-06, at 10:11 AM, Oerjan Ariander wrote:

> Tony Christney replied to Noam:
>
>>> 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".
>>
>> 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.
>
> Last time I played FTJava games variant 2) - ie., the FT2/FB default 
> rule -
> was already implemented as an option for ships, so it shouldn't be too 
> hard
> to add <g>
>
> Variant 3) would use each ship's latest Movement Orders as the flag
> determining which of code variants 1) and 2) to use, instead of having 
> a
> single flag set at the start of the battle that applies to the entire 
> game.
>
> (Note that the FB1 optional rule allows ships to change course and 
> still
> fire through the (A) arc; IMO this is *far* too lenient since at least 
> in
> Cinematic course changes tend to be more important than speed changes.)
>
> /Oerjan
> oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry
>
>
>