Prev: Re: Fighter surviability... Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers)

Re: Dimension

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:34:59 +0000
Subject: Re: Dimension

>>> > Question:
>>> >	  Has anyone tried incorporating the 3rd dimension into FT? The
>>> > simpler rules system almost invites it, since the main problem is
>>> > navigational record keeping and visual representation.It seems
that with
>>> > great computer aids like FTmap, it might be less hard to do than
>>> > outside the virtual world. If such a thing could be done there'd
be a
>>> > final wedge driven between space sims and 2d navy or surface
>>> > sims.
>[various games that tried 3-d, and another home-attempt at 3-d here]
>Personally I think 3-d-ing it is more trouble than it's worth, but I
>toyed with the idea, esp after seeing some of those WWI biplane minis
>at some conventions. Doesn't look like it'd be that tough, but would
>a bit more time to calculate things.
>it between the minis. As for arcs, you would have to decide whether or
>your arcs cover 180 degrees 'up/down' in the direction the weapon(s) in
>question is/are facing, or if you'd need 2 new arcs: 'up' and 'down'.
>you get two new arcs and opt to make them 'blind' spots, guess you'll
have to
>'dive' your ship around to bring weapons to bear (hmmm...interesting
>exercise here...).
>Well, my $0.02 worth on the subject. Personally I'm going to stick with
>2-d abstraction and leave it at that.	:-)

Well, everyone who has read FT and MT knows my personal take on this -
3D is much less important in space games that in air games, as all
dimensions in space are the same as far as movement is concerned - not
in air games, of course, where altitude and vertical-plane performance
often MUCH mor eimportant that horizontal manoeuvre. As several have
already said, IMHO it isn't worth the hassle to put 3D into a space game
(FT or any other).

Having said that, I think if you ARE keen on doing 3D then the ATTITUDE
the ships is much more important that just their relative "height" above
the playing surface - this is something that Mark has touched on with
arc comments here, but something seldom addressed in those games that
purport to be 3D, especially those using counters (RL Leviathan, IIRC,
have limited attitude rules worked by turning the "box" counter around,
even though it was not actually 3D).

We could probably work some simple(ish) attitude rules (even just
ships to "roll" 180 degrees) into FT, without getting bogged down with
actual 3D play.

Jon (GZG)

Prev: Re: Fighter surviability... Next: Re: [OFFICIAL] Some FT background stuff (guidelines for writers)