Vectored Thrust Questions - Reply

Lewis asked:

>I am new to this list, so I apologize if these questions 
>have been asked before.

Don't apologise -- if they ain't in the FAQ, any reasonable question is
valid here.
Right, people?

>I am interested in playable Vectored thrust rules. I have 
>looked at the trial "official" ideas from GZG. I have 
>some questions:

1)  How long is a round meant to be in FT?

I think it's variable, so as not to tie the rules down too much to one
particular
scale. This avoids the SFB "a turn is 1/30th of a second?!" problem.

>The reason for the above is I want to calculate what 
>sort of rotation rate is feasable. For big ships, the 
>angular acceleration can get quite out of hand and 
>rip the ship apart.

Depends if your drive is inertial or not (see later) and where the big
masses are.
But you have a point -- B5 fans will remember the quite fast 180-degree
rotations
made by the EA ships in Severed Dreams to leave when confronted by
Delenn
and the Minbari Cruisers. JMS has admitted that the turns were rather
too fast,
but they were limited by available screen time. Slower turns = less plot
time.

>2)  (More of a comment than a question) Given the 
>distances involved in FT,

Whatever they are -- this, again, has been left vague by Jon, and
rightly, IMO.

>I doubt whether small rotational thrusters could be used
>to signifantly alter the movement vector of the ship.
>Frex. If the main engine was capable of an acceleration 
>of 6 then the 3(?) auxilary thrusters would have a total 
>mass of half that of the main engine to provide an 
>acceleration of 1 in any direction (except backwards).

IIRC, the aux. thrusters are used only for rotation. The velocity vector
of the ship
is altered by the main drive. The rules would have to be altered to
allow for
off-axis thrust.

>Actually, with the design of many of the FT models, I 
>doubt whether they could support accelerations sideways;
>their structure would fail... Imagine NAC CA (or more) 
>with broken neck.

Depends, as I said, if the drive is inertial. ISTR that the standard FT
drive
system (i.e., in Jon's universe) is more of a field-type drive (or so I
assume from
the description of the problems with rear arc firing), in which case
there is no
problem because manoeuvring does not cause any stress on the structure.
Every atom of the structure accelerates in whatever direction at the
same rate
and there are no loads on the ship at all.

>Anyway, this is just a request for the current ideas on 
>vectored movement. What I want is a simple system 
>which I can believe!

Don't we all... Seriously, one of the beauties of FT is that it is
general enough to
be adapted to a variety of SF premises with minimal (or extensive, if
that's what
it takes) modification. Make your own decisions/assumptions regarding
the
technology involved and tweak the rules to fit. No-one here will say you
can't do
this or that -- we may not agree with the way you do something, but it's
your
game!

Have fun!

Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I think... I think I am!	     |	  I think _I_ am:
 Therefore I am... I think..?"	     |	   Phil Atcliffe  
   -- The Moody Blues		     |	(p-atclif@uwe.ac.uk)