Re: Vector Based FT III

Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> 
> In regards to Daryl Poes recent post:
>    Trouble arrives if we apply physics to the mines and missiles...

I think you can assume that mines have a small station-keeping drive
or a one-shot engine that brings it to stationary.  The whole point
of a minefield is lost if it drifts off (well maybe an orbiting
minefield would be okay).  If they're stationary, it's pretty easy
to handle -- just say that if the "new vector" (which is the old
speed on the old heading plus the thrust on the new facing) passes
within 3" of the mine it goes off.  No need to pro-rate.

While we're on the subject of mines, a couple questions to the FT
gurus out there:
  1) When two ships pass within 3" of the mine on the same turn,
     which one gets shot at?
  2) Mines seem pretty wimpy.  Shouldn't they do more damage?

Missiles are trickier -- I just punted and had them behave in a
non-Newtonian fashion (by using the old rules).  I suppose you could
have them move using the same rules, perhaps with a high thrust, 
usable for either positive or negative thrust, and
a maximum of two points of rotation.  Yes, you can pass completely
through a ship in the course of your move, but that is pervasive in
FT, and missile crossing through ships without attacking are
no worse than two ships passing in the same fashion.

Whatever the solution, I think you don't want to get into a
situation where you're pro-rating movement or moving in "sub turns".
That would torpedo the main appeal of FT -- speed and ease of play. 

>    Therefore fighters need to be able to engage missiles and mines or
get
> their mother ship massacred...  JMS saw this coming on B5.  You will
need to
> screen your ships with fighters...

Yes, it'd be fun and interesting to give fighters anti-mine and
anti-missile capabilities.  Do you send your fighters out on offense,
or do you hold them back to protect your ships?

Daryl