Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT] Quiet in here, isn't it.

Well recently I have been farting around with Power Projection which is
the
Traveller Centric conversion of FT that uses vector. I also have been
playing with GDW's Mayday which is also Vector using hexes and
positional
counters. So lots of Vector recently, but I have been pondering the
cinematic movement for the next round, mostly to simplify for the boy
and
his crowd, who haven't played a lot of space games.

To the extant of the later I have been pondering a hex based fork of the
cinematic with a more freeform movement phase i.e. turn-modes for
different
hull size and engined ships. But this is still just back of the notebook
sorts of musings up there with skill based fire resolutions....

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Ray Taylor <falkon1313@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm on the side (seems to be the minority) for whom vector is easier -
it
> just feels natural.  I tried cinematic a few times, but I remember it
as
> feeling unintuitive and more complicated.  Perhaps it was simulating
the
> difficulties of commanding a fleet, but I liked having more control. 
So I
> mostly used the FB1 vector rules with FB2 amendments.  Oh also without
> requiring the ships to stick to 30° clock points.  (Actually, I
should go
> back and try cinematic with that adjustment.)
>
> I've wanted to experiment with missiles/fighters moving like ships
(using
> vector movement), but haven't actually tested that out yet.
>
> The last time I actually played was last winter (or early spring).  I
> usually play with groups of around 8-12 ships per side give or take a
bit
> and not many fighters/missiles.
>
> Loosely related - I've always liked written sci-fi (including hard SF
and
> military SF); but not so much hollywood sci-fi.  Could be why vector
feels
> more right to me.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> OK, so let's get the ball rolling and get folks talking about things
that
>> may be useful contributions towards the (eventual) publication of FT3
(FT
>> Third Edition)!
>>
>> First, a small disclaimer: I realise that this is essentially an open
and
>> public list, BUT that notwithstanding, I'd ask you all to please
limit
>> discussions of FT3 to this list, and not to re-post things about it
>> anywhere else - at least for the time being. When I get to the stage
of
>> actual firm concepts for testing then I will be looking to set up a
small
>> closed group to discuss things in more depth, with NDAs and such
where
>> appropriate. For now, this will be a general discussion between those
of us
>> on this list who are still interested!
>>
>> Right, so my first question to you all: MOVEMENT SYSTEM(S) IN FT?
>>
>> What Movement System do you use, or have you used in the past when
you've
>> been actively playing FT? Just the basic Cinematic movement? One of
the
>> Vector options, and if so which one(s)? Which do you prefer, and why?
>> Have you modified any of the published (officially or fan-done)
systems
>> to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?
>>
>> When you reply/discuss, please let me have some background on your
gaming
>> so that I can tell which ideas are theoretical and which are
table-tested -
>> do you still play FT (and if so, which version?), have you played
actively
>> in the past, are you an interested spectator or Armchair Admiral? ;-)
>>
>> Obviously the new edition will retain the basic cinematic movement
system
>> as per the current FT Light rules - what I'm looking to discuss is
whether
>> it will also necessarily have a Vector system option (and if so, what
>> version) as part of the new basic book, or whether that should be
saved for
>> an advanced rules supplement?
>>
>> OK, over to you all……  ;-)
>>
>> Jon (GZG)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Evyn