[GZG] Re: [OFFICIAL] Question to you all.....

[wscottfield@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> Oerjan wrote:
> 
> Halving the range bands and velocities, or as Scott suggested doubling the 
> Thrust rating - except that *thruster* pushes (ie. sideways and backwards) 
> are still just 1 mu per thrust point (or 0.5 mu per thrust point using 
> Scott's suggestion).

Just to clarify: my (untested) suggestion was to keep all movement costs as-is, but simply double THR rating.  So a THR-6 ship has the equivilent of 12 points of thrust in vector.  Maintains the quality of vector movement, but increases the *quantity* of movement.  I think this should be combined with some sort of limit on rotation, but to be fair I'd have to play around with them more to really have a strong opinion.


> The rotating thing is what determines how easy it is to keep the enemy in 
> your preferred fire arc, and as such it is *hugely* important for the 
> balance between weapon arcs and engine power. 
<snip>
> This - the weapon arc vs engine power balance in Vector - is the main issue 
> the limited-rotation Vector proposal is intended to solve.

Well put!  <thumbs up>

Another PSB rationale for limiting rotation: in some settings, how fast you can rotate a ship might depend not just on your engines & thrusters, but also on how many Gs your crew can take without turning into jelley.  Which in turn depends on 1) how far your crew is from the center of the ship, and 2) on the strength of your inertial dampers (or whatever rubber science you use). For #1, small ships have an advantage; for #2, ships with higher THR ratings would presumably have stronger inertial dampers, and so would have an advantage.  

So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that large ships with low THR ratings should have a harder time rotating than smaller ships with high THR ratings.  No need to add a variable for ship size, since that's already included in the cost of the engines.  But charging for rotation by heading changes seems to make sense, as it "rewards" high THR ships. 

I'm sure others could (and have) come up with equally valid rationales for *not* limiting rotation.  <shrug>  To me it's really more a question of game balance, and I'm just looking for ways to justify the PSB. 


Scott "I'll be in my bunk" Field
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l