Re: Re: Cinematic vs. Vector movement

> Among other things.  Weapons range, rates of fire,
> length of turn, distance, all these things need to be
> taken into account.

No.  Go back and reread the original post
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200308/msg00257.html

> Not to mention the ultimate goal
> of playability, which OO has nicely highlighted

If the ultimate goal is playability, why not play "scissors paper
rock"?	Call it "soapbubble kravak dreadrock" to make it
GZGverse-compliant, and there you go.

>We can, and should, strive for realism, but we should also remember
it's a game,
> and at that it's a game set somewhen we haven't reached yet

We *have* reached the point where we know what vector movement is
like.  The point of the original post was the thrust/turn//turn/thrust
movement sequence is unrealistic except in some special cases, and if
we assume those special cases, we have consistency problems with other
parts of the rules (and also force the rules to be less generic).  By
extension, we ought to fix the rules so that we have a reasonable
vector movement sequence which does not make multi-arc weapons and
advanced drives overpriced.