Re: [OFFICIAL] Fighters in Vector Thrust

I thought that it would be just as easy to give a fighter a Main Drive
of
12. A Rotation Thruster of 12. And a Thruster "push" of =ZERO= (or push
of
1 for fighter recovery). This allows fighter groups to choose any
heading,
apply Thrust, and choose any facing. The figher turn sequence should be
maintained. Fighter movement could be done on the fly, anouncing the
Rotation and Thrust before moving the figure/counter. But the Fighter
Endurance should be lengthened under this system (12 maybe?). Fighters
would launch during Fighter Movement Phase and have an initial course
and
velocity of the carrier.

Brian Bell
pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry
Is your ship design here?

----------
> From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzero.dungeon.com>
> To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Subject: [OFFICIAL] Fighters in Vector Thrust
> Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 5:10 PM
> 
> OK chaps, its late on Friday evening and I've just had an idea, so I
> thought I'd throw it out to you all now so that you can cogitate on it
(I
> think I'm allowed to say that...).
> 
> There has been a lot of discussion about how fighters (and missiles)
should
> work in a "true vector" movement system of the kind we've been kicking
> around for a while. The most "realistic" answer is to make them move
as
> ships do, with recorded velocities, vector markers etc., but for a
long
> while I've been trying to avoid doing this for fighters in order to
avoid
> the additional complexity.
> The following idea occurred to me while I was thinking about the
rationale
> behind fighter movement.
> 
> The suggested rule is this:
> Allow fighters to move "freely" as per normal FT rules (whereabouts in
the
> turn sequence you move them is not really relevant to this), but with
a
> much greater maximum move (maybe 36"?) provided they do not change
course.
> For every 1 point course change the group makes during its move,
deduct
an
> amount (6"?) from its maximum move. Course changes could be made all
at
one
> point, or spread over the move distance, at the player's choice. In
other
> words, it is actually very much like counting movement points in a
> hex-based game, and using up points to turn one or more hexsides. The
way
> the group is pointing at the end of the turn does not affect its
combat
> ability (assume all-round fire, with fighters spinning as necessary to
bear
> guns), but it DOES give the heading/course for the start of the next
turn.
> 
> Now, as I see it, this actually simulates an "abstracted" vector
movement
> quite well; the amount by which the group can alter course depends on
how
> far (ie: how fast) it is moving - a group could make a radical course
> change but not move very far, or else travel a long way without much
(if
> any) change of direction.
> I think this fits OK with the concept that the fighters would have to
> carefully use their limited fuel/power resources - they could either
stooge
> around at low speed, retaining the ability to manoeuvre easily, or
could
> commit to a high-velocity vector in the hope that their target would
be
in
> the right place when they arrived.
> One tweak that we might add is to say that if a group ends up just a
little
> too far away from a target to make an attack, it could sacrifice one
turn
> of "combat" endurance in order to make an emergency manoeuvre (perhaps
a
> bonus move of up to 6" in any direction?) to bring it into attack
position.
> Combat endurance might be upped from 3 to 4 (or 5, or more) turns if
this
> was to be used; as in MT, one combat endurance turn is expended for
any
> turn in which the fighters engage in combat (offensive or defensive);
we'd
> probably remove the time limitation for return to carrier after
expending
> all combat endurance - they can trundle back at whatever speed they
like,
> but won't be able to fight.
> 
> So, this is really just a bunch of random thoughts - the physicists
and
> mathematicians out there will probably shred it, but I'm more
concerned
> about whether anyone thinks it will work as a GAME MECHANIC rather
than a
> mathematical model!! Does it feel "right"?
> 
> Over to you... :)
> 
> Jon (GZG)
>