Can't we have just this much -><- 3D in FT?

OK, I understand (and agree now that I'v played for a while) that 3D is
basically abstracted out of FT. The only place where this _really_breaks
down is around planets. Forget big basketball sized planets - they're
too cumbersome. I mean normal 1-2" size planets. 

A space simulation really fails IMHO if you treat a planet as an
impassable object. There should be such a thing as 'above' or 'below' a
planet, when it's a) easy to deal with in FT (even with minis) and b)
adds interesting tactical variety to a game

Simple (top of the head) rules for flying over or under a planet.
1) When writing thrust orders, declare whether you're going over or
under the planet. Cost do do so is 1 thrust. If you don't actually reach
the planet, the thrust is lost. If you don't pay the thrust and touch
the planet, you crash.
2) You are considered over or under the planet if you are less than 1"
from the limb. Beyond this distance the 3D aspect can be abstracted
away.
3) Ships that are over the planet can't fire at ships that are under it
and vice versa. There are no other fire restrictions.
(4) 'Planetary batteries' that are on the 'top' or 'bottom' of the
planet shouild be able to buy 360 degree arcs.

Noam R. Izenberg		noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu