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

Actually, I've never really had problems with high speeds in game - my
issue with fighters is more conceptual than an actual problem I've had
in
play - I don't like that fighters use a completely different movement
system when they're both supposed to be in space. But as was mentioned
before - this comes from the naval model of fighters in the air and
ships
in the water. It's why I started using vector fighters. Same thing can
happen with Salvo Missiles - moving fast enough you can race past your
missiles.

In vector most people figure out pretty quickly that they're going to
overshoot their targets pretty fast if they just keep accelerating. I
could
see it being a bigger issue in Cinematic actually, moving faster makes
it
much harder to predict future positions - in vector its still pretty
clear
where all of the ships are going to end up - the envelope of possible
positions is pretty well defined.

As Damond said, most of your big standing battles are not going to
happen
in empty space where fleets are going to be passing at high velocities.
Even if it does happen in your setting, its not really worth playing out
because those battles are going to be pretty boring. I suppose setting
up a
high velocity pass on a "stationary" target is a possible risk, but its
again boring, and I think you'd be able to see it coming and be able to
put
up a deterrent - maybe this is why so many of my battles seem to happen
with a nice scattering of asteroids? Random asteroids in orbit around
your
high value target might limit the temptation to make a high-relative
velocity pass.

I'm also okay with the ships passing each other not being able to shoot
-
in vector its actually pretty close to how a lot of physics simulations
handle things - you introduce a timestep and calculate new positions
from
the last timestep. No matter how careful you are with the rules, there
are
always going to be little glitches that come from the choice of the size
of
the timestep from one turn to the next. Once ships get close enough, its
not going to be a perfect simulation. I'm also okay with not worrying
about
3D - it adds some tactical options, but not enough for the complexity it
adds to the movement system.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Exactly.  It will be a rare event to have two forces meeting randomly
in
> the depths of space.	Most conflict will occur around tactical (near a
> station, mining facility, staging areas) or strategic points (L4s,
L5s,
> Jump Gates, Worm Hole entryways, etc).  To that end you're generally
going
> to see slower speeds.
>
> If you were to game deep space fights both sides will generally be
going
> at a very high rate of speed ensuring a single high speed pass.  By
the
> time you wheel around to head in for pass two your target will be too
far
> away to catch.  If you were to happen upon a ship dead in space
> (motionless) you may or may not slow down but if you do you're going
to
> start burning hot for a while to do so.  Resulting in no speed.
>
> You want to be Really Careful(tm) about trying to bring Real Life(tm)
into
> Star Ship gaming.  Most assumptions won't hold very long at all i.e.
there
> is no sneaking in space, there is no perfect heat sinks in space, you
will
> detect "enemy" vessels giving you many hours or days to respond,
energy
> expenditure of any sort is measurable allowing you to predict intent,
etc.
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless you are defending an area or region, then it is easier to
>> justify.  :-)   Often, though, that usually involves some sort of
'space
>> terrain' (depending on scale being used, could be a base, an
asteroid, a
>> moon, or a planet), or maybe a disabled ship.
>>
>> Mk
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Roger Bell_West
<roger@firedrake.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:46:11PM -0400, Damond wrote:
>>> >I'd think the size of the table would limit practical speeds.
>>>
>>> Because space is finite? :-)
>>>
>>> (Seriously, a non-floating table is a game-ish solution, which is
>>> perhaps hard to justify.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>