Re: B5 and Sir Isaac - Reply

In message <s33014a3.057@wpg.uwe.ac.uk> Phillip Atcliffe writes:
> The "baffled" David Brewer, he say:
> 
> >Have I missed something? I like B5, indeed a few weeks ago I
> >sat down and watched years 2 and 3. It never occurred to me
> >that I found appeal in its display of Newton's Laws. Am I weird?
> 
> Are you weird? No (not because of this, anyway. What you do in your
own time
> is your business. B-) ) Have you missed something? Perhaps.

Or perhaps not. Let's see...

> >Indeed I'm hard pressed to recall any particular examples of
> >its display. I recall StarFuries (and perhaps the White Star)
> >rotating 180 degrees to brake or return fire... and that's it.
> >I don't recall any starships powersliding sideways or the like.
> 
> There are quite a few examples of Newtonian/3-D movement, mostly
involving
> fighters, especially StarFuries. Cases in point (from memory):

You have a good memory, BTW.

> -- "Midnight on the Firing Line": Sinclair rotates 180 degrees to zap
a pursuing
> Raider

A 180. Thrust not applied across direction of travel.

> -- "Soul Hunter": Lots of tight, close-in manoeuvring using all the
StarFury's
> thrusters as Sinclair tries to grapple the tumbling Soul Hunter ship

Not sure what to make of this... I don't have a video handy and I
don't recall it well. 

> -- "Signs and Portents": Garibaldi vectors up and out of the line of
fire of a
> Raider, then rotates nose-down to zap him as he overshoots

Thrust not applied in a direction across that of travel.

> -- "Revelations": G'Kar's fighter escort 180's to stop pursuing
Shadows

A 180. Thrust not applied across direction of travel.

> -- "The Fall of Night": The female Zeta Squadron pilot who dodges
Keffer's
> attack, then zaps him a la Garibaldi in S&P. Later, 'Furies strafe the
Centauri
> BC, rotating nose-down to fire as they fly by

Thrust not applied across direction of travel.

> -- "Severed Dreams": The EarthForce reinforcements (including 2
Omegas)
> rotate about their yaw axes to head for the jumpgate before the
incoming
> Minbari decide to attack

A 180. Thrust not applied across direction of travel.

> That being the case, there is, I believe, a strong feeling among the
members of
> this list that a B5 game should do what the series itself hasn't been
able to
> achieve completely -- namely, use a proper, correct-as-we-can-make-it,
playable
> Newtonian movement system that doesn't require a computer or a
qualification
> in navigation to use. Not an easy task, but worth the effort if we can
get it right
> or help someone else do it.

There's certainly a strong feeling coming across, and I'm not 
knocking Newtonian games in general. What has come across to me is an 
attitude that only a vector movement game can capture the "spirit" of 
B5, and I think that that assertion would be horseshit. Flying ships 
around in a vector movement system in my, perhaps limited,
understanding means rotating your ship to apply thrust across the
direction of movement, turning the ship through centripetal forces, 
sliding diagonally and I certainly haven't seen that yet on TV. So
vector-based movement would produce battles quite unlike those on the
B5 programme.

B5 uses a very limited subset of the maneouvering open to thrusting
spaceships that obey Sir I.

So, frankly, anyone that feels emphatic that *only* a vector movement 
system can capture the spirit of B5 can consider themselves scoffed 
at by Yours Truely. If B5 Wars includes 180's and gives fighters a 
good attack in all directions then that covers the Newtonian chrome. 
(Whether the rest of the game is any cop I'm in no position to say.)

I'm not saying such a B5 vector game shouldn't be played, but I don't 
see why Agents of Gaming should put up with any moaning about it 
being utterly necessary.

-- 
David Brewer