RE: Thoughts on FB3

I don't have the FB2 yet, but I thought that this was addressed
(somewhat)
in vector by making rotations and thrust come out of the same pool (I
assumed that rolls counted as a rotation).

In cinematic,  a roll counts as a 1 pt turn. So it is not at "no
penalty".

While we are on the subject of maneuvering and its effects on combat,
how do
people play the "no fire through the aft arc" rule in vector?
 - Cannot fire through rear arc of ship (as it is oriented during the
firing
phase).
 - Cannot fire through the arc that was aft when MD was used.
Since a ship can rotate (even 180 degrees) after firing MD, it makes
quite a
bit of difference. I don't use the "aft arc prohibited except when MD
isn't
used" rule, but wanted to know how others played it.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft/	 
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Leary [SMTP:john_t_leary@pronetusa.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 11:32 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: Thoughts on FB3
> 
> Laserlight wrote:
> > 
> > AEBrain's IF design comments
> > 
> >
> ...
> > >
> > >I have a twofold problem with these ships:
> > >Firstly, off-centre firing arcs seem contrary to the spirit of
> > the other designs.
> > >It's very minimaxing to have a "spiral of doom".
> > 
> > I play vector almost exclusively--as my teammembers in the
> > ongoing PBeM can testify, sorry guys--where this is not an
> > issue.  It would be good to have more feedback on how these
> > designs work for cinematic.
> > 
> ...
> 
> I think the problem here is that the three arc offset and the
> ability to roll the ship without any penelty allows five arc
> coverage with a three arc cost (in both points and mass).
> I should also note that the mass saved by this system can
> be used to install more weapons or higher thrust, another
> advantage that comes with minimal cost.
>	If the ship could not fire while rolling, I would not 
> object to having to deal with this design concept.
> 
> Bye for now,
> John L.