Re: Realistic movement thoughts & 3D

Hi, Guys (hmm.... are there any gals here?)

Anyway, JMT and I have not been in touch for a while, so I need to find
out 
what he's up to. I didn't know about the move (although it doesn't
surprise 
me) and I didn't know about the FT/MT re-issue. Well, I knew that we had

talked about about an FTIII, but I know you lot were agin it. I think
maybe 
Jon has got that message (but I'll speak to him and find out). If he is 
doing a re-issue of FT/MT then the Realistic Movement rules will
certainly 
be an option. One of the things he said to me when we last talked is
that 
he wanted to do some stuff on "what rules to use for which background".
I 
expect the vector based movement would come into that category - its 
appropriate for some backgrounds rather than others - as is the original

movement system.

More news when I get it (unless you lot hear before I do....)

Mike Elliott, GZG

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Realistic movement thoughts & 3D
Author:  SMTP:owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk/ at INTERNET
Date:	 21/01/97 09:25

Mark S wrote:

--Personally I think that the realistic rules should be an optional 
--rule.  It would make the game much more appealing to new players if
the 
--normal "semi-vector" rules  were still there.  I just taught my 11
year 
--old cousin how to play, and I think that the trying to grasp concepts 
--like vector movement might drive him MAD.

Seconded (Fithed), Mike Elliott please don't remove the old system for
movement 
do as Mark suggests make Real Thrust an option. 

Another issue to consider is 3D, I know one of the Thrusts gives reasons
for not

having it. I have tinkered with the 3D rules from Silent Death using the

interlocking hex blocks things they suggest. Firing arcs have an Up &
Down 
modifier which limits where they can fire and range is a simple function
of the 
euclidean distance plus the height of the stack. It visually appealling
and adds

a new dimension. I didn't get into rolling etc. which are too
complicated IMO 
for the level of abstraction I require.

Tim Jones
timj@uk.gdscorp.com