Prev: Re: Fighter Balance Issues (LONG) Next: Re[2]: Dimension

Re: Dimension

From: "Noam R. Izenberg" <izenberg@j...>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 08:20:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Dimension

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

After more thought, that's at the heart of my hankering for 3D. While I
think the fleet level implications of 3D are very interesting (imagine
having 360 degrees of flanks to guard or attack instead of just left and
right side) it's individual ship maneuver that I was initially thinking
of. When I used to play SFB, I would just die wanting to roll 180 to
face undamaged shields or blast away with a fresh volley of charged
weapons. I made up a set of roll pitch and yaw rules to that effect,
which worked decently, I think.I understand that 3D can add a a great
deal of complexity, which is why I thought that putting it in a play aid
like FTmap would be the easiest way to incorporate it. The trig would be
automated, so attitudes, facing, bearing arcs, and ranges could be spat
out pretty easily, and the graphics could be modified relatively easily
to show 3-space. I understand this begs the question of miniature use,
which is what most folks on this list do.

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

A most excellent idea. That adds both more flexibility, and in a way
more firepower to most ships.


Prev: Re: Fighter Balance Issues (LONG) Next: Re[2]: Dimension