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

In a message dated 99-02-01 15:37:01 EST, you write:

<< 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 >>
If you think about it FT is 3D, Time, Forwards/Rewards and Left/Rite. 
The
idea of alowing ships to go over and under is good idea.
-Stephen