Re: Re: Cinematic vs. Vector movement

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:

> I've seen people (not necessarily including
> Brian) 

NOT including me at all.  But your original
"Paper-rock-scissors" jab certainly seemed like that's
where you were lumping me.

argue
> "Playability Is All, therefore let's ignore this
> problem that makes it
> unrealistic"--i.e. "we won't bother to come up with
> a solution".

My arguement was not intended to be in that vein
whatsoever.  Rather, my arguement is over the
definition of the problem for which a solution is
sought.

Unfortunately, I'm without access to the internet at
home, and my company's uber-anal security policy won't
allow me to view the archives.	But my original
impression of the issue was that someone thought that
the rules for movement resulted in a choice of weapons
tactics they found objectionable because they didn't
resemble what that person thought combat should look
like.  If I misunderstood, again, I'm sorry for the
error, and I'd be happy to rethink my position if
someone can present me with evidence to the contrary.

> >I'd even argue that, while vector mechanics has a
> long history and is
> fundamentally a complete science, advanced tech
> space war based on vector
> mechanics would be more fuzzy than one would first
> imagine.
> 
> I'd agree that you have to make some postulates on
> ship size, drive and
> maneuver capability, and such.

The question is, do the rules represent vector
movement accurately?  If not, i agree with you.  If
they DO, and the only problem is with how they affect
fire resolution, then I return to my stand thast
that;'s probably more an aesthetis issue and not a
realism issue.

=====
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

--Bertrand Russell

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com