Re: Babylon 5 Wars (LONG)

On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 at 11:34:42 AM, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:

> In regards to the space movement system that B5 games uses, I have a
very 
> effective system that models Newtonian physical movement quite well
and 
> designed a Babylon 5 Fightter Simulation game from it and had a bit of
a 
> following at SoCal Game conventions. 
>    When I offered to show it to the folks at AoG they refused.  I
can't 
>    blame them given the legal issues that could arise.  But I'm
saddend 
>    that they did not build an effective Newtonian movement system,
given 
>    that it is one of the major apeals of the show. My Newtonian system

>    can be employed in a Phased system where maneuvers can be conducted

>    during the turn (mostly for fighter to fighter combat) or at a 
>    macro-scale similar to real thrust.  Newtonian physics is not that 
>    difficult as long as you remember what those laws actually say. 

I offered them mine as well -- the _only_ condition was that they
mention my 
name in the credits.  They responded with something to the effect of "we

decided vector movement was too complicated and we don't believe
anybopdy whop 
says otherwise".

A rough draft of my rules (well, maybe a detailed draft of the concepts
<g>), 
including conversion rules for the B5W and a detailed explanantion of
what my 
group thought was wrong with the movement system, are at http://
www.wizard.net/~caw/vms.htm.  I would REALLY like feedback from anybody
who 
can take the time to read this over.

Phil: If you're prepared to make your rules publicly available, I would
be 
happy to put them up on the site.  One of my goals is to disseminate
this 
stuff as widely as possible, even ideas that are in the early stages of 
development -- because I don't have _time_ to design my own games, I
would be 
happy to give somebody else the ideas so I could buy the game when they
are 
done.  <grin>

On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 at 3:47:13 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> > My apologies -- I did not state the problem clearly. The rotation 
> > rules (i.e., ships spinning around their center of gravity) are 
> > different from the turning rules.  
>  
> Ok, I wasn't aware they had rules for that. Most games just ignore
it... 
>  
> > The rotation rules limit a ship that is coasting to turning EXACTLY
180 
> > degrees which takes EXACTLY three turns.  Ships are allowed to apply

> > thrust ONLY when facing their direction of travel or 180 degrees
away 
> > from their direction of travel.  The movement system cannot handle a

> > rotation of, say, 120 degrees, followed by thrusting.  Note that
ships 
> > at dead stop CAN rotate in place, using a different procedure 
> > entirely.  
>  
> Now, THAT sounds contrived. I'm beginning to understand your gripes
:-) 

The entire movement section is like that.  I would be happy if they just

scrapped the current movement rules and board, and copied the FT rules 
verbatim.  I would really like the movement to be vector-based, but as a

second choice I would settle for an elegant non-vector movement system
that 
replicated the TV show.  As it is, we have an ungainly non-vector system
which 
apparently accreted over time, and doesn't let you perform maneuvers
that a 
third grader would want to perform.

And I haven't even mentioned the hyperspace rules, which make the normal
space 
movement system look like it was developed by Einstein. 

> Is it 3D or not, btw? 

Nope, not 3D.

> Different people have rather different opinions what "a little
thinking" 
> amounts to. Even though I *can* calculate newtonian movement, I don't
*
> want* to. If I end up losing every time because I didn't stop the game
to 
> break out my calculator, I won't be playing too many times. 

True -- but I think this is the equivalent of an engineering question,
not a 
science question.  The problem isn't that vector movement is
particularly 
hard, the problem is that it is difficult to do simply and elegantly on
a 
hexmap.  As a result, all of the vector movement systems to date have
had 
problems -- either too many counters (Mayday and LNL), messy markers 
(Triplanetary), trig (doesn't Zocchi's _Alien Space_ have vector rules?)
or 
just too damn complicated (Brilliant Lances).  I hate to blow my own
horn so 
much, but I think I've found solution.

> > why play tactical space games?  If the things that make a tactical 
> > space combat game different from playing _Ironclads_ are stripped
out, 
> > then why play it at all? 
>  
> Personally, I play games for fun.  If space ironclads with cutlasses
and 
> boarding actions is fun, then I play it. 

True, and I certainly enjoy FT, and I've certainly enjoyed <whisper>GW
Epic 
scale </whisper> as well. But non-vector space games are a dime a dozen.
 A 
few stand out -- Full Thrust because it hangs together very well, and
has a 
very good rules-to-effect ratio, and I like the background for Renegade
Legion 
-- but most fall into that morass of AeroTech/Silent Death/Starfire,
where 
complexity is equated with fun.

> > My point was that once you decide that science (i.e. physics) has no

> > place in the game, magic becomes just as valid. 
>  
> Hmmm... I don't quite agree. Let's look at it this way: B5 has FTL
travel 
> and psionics. As far as we understand physics, that's impossible. So,
we 
> don't have to follow physics in any other matter either. Let's add 
> Centauri Battle Spells! 
>  
> Wrong. 

FTL is a subject on which many physicists hedge their bets with "as we 
understand it, we don't know of any way to do it".  There is an old rule
of 
science fiction I've read about: an SF author can rewrite one rule of
physics 
-- any more than that, and its fantasy.  [Okay, maybe not magic. 
<grin>]

> The game world has to be consistent. In B5 I agree the movement should
be 
> as realistic as possible, because it's a big point *in* *the* *show*.
But 
> if you're doing a Star Wars/Trek game, it has to model that reality,
not 
> Real Life(tm). Just because you have to break one rule doesn't mean
you 
> get carte blanche to break every rule you like. 

I agree 100% -- if this was Star Wars, and the movement system recreated
the 
feel of the SW universe, I would have no problem with it.  I don't have
a 
problem with Star Trek games (actually, I really like FASA's, and look
forward 
to playing the FT conversion), because there is at least some
explanation as 
to why normal physics doesn't hold, i.e., warp drives.	The explanation
in the 
case of B5W, AFAIK, is _solely_ that the designers didn't want to do it
that 
way.  As a result, we have a game with bad movement rules that doesn't 
recreate the feel of the show. 

> Historical gamers tend to hold accurate simulation most important.
Fine. 
> SF/Fantasy gamers are typically looking for a game that works in its
own 
> reality. They're looking for entertainment rather than educational 
> value. 
>  
> What's wrong with that? Why is a game of lesser value than a
simulation? 

I think the "works in its own reality" is key.	If that reality is well-
crafted, and thought through ahead of time, then it works.  Too often,
though, 
the reality appears to come after the game.  This isn't a problem with
games 
that don't pretend to be somehow "scientific", e.g., WH40k.  Others,
like SFB, 
act as if they are modeling something, and keep adding layers and layers
of 
detail until the whole thing is ready to collapse under its own weight. 
As a 
result of this, I think they don't even understand the workings of the 
realities they are creating.

> It isn't -- except in the view of some narrow-minded individuals.
Chess 
> is (very loosely) based on ancient warfare. It doesn't accurately 
> simulate *anything*. Yet it's THE most respected game on earth. 

It doesn't pretend to simulate anything (anymore, at least), and it's 
abstract.  I like chess (even though I suck). 

> > Michael Friend had an editorial in a recent _Vindicator_ (http:// 
> > www.millcomm.com/~forhan/vindicator.html) arguing that historical 
> > gamers are are afriad to play something without a historical
reference 
> > point, whereas sceince fiction gamers are more daring.  
>  
> Well, there are different types of people in each sect. There are 
> historical gamers who willingly play hypothetical scenarios. There are
SF/
> Fantasy players who won't try anything not found in the Official
Rulebook
> (tm). For every SF/Fantasy gamer who won't let me field my non-GW 
> figures, there is a historical gamer who won't play with me because my

> hussars' belt buckles are the wrong color. 

ROTFL!!  Too true.  One member of my gaming group really likes
NATO/Warsaw 
Pact games, yet won't play "science fiction".  Another member of the
group 
steadfastly maintains that NATO/WTO games *are* science fiction, so if
you are 
going to play SF, why not really go for it?  The rest of us find it all
very 
amusing.  [FYI, both do modeling for a living, one at IDA, the other at
CNA.]

> > Historical gamers are not interested in such games because they are
> > not valid simulations and have no educational value.
>  
> Glad you make the distinction. Abstract problem solving always has 
> educational value, but it is true some SF/Fantasy gamers and companies

> twist the games' internal logic every time they feel the urge. 

This is exactly what I was trying (and failing) to say above.  When I
play a 
game, I want to come out with the feeling that I accomplished something
more 
significant than remembering the 187 steps necessary to play a turn of
SFB. 

I find it somehow revealing that those whom I consider to be some of the
best 
SF designers (such as Chadwick, Miller, and Costikyan) also have a
substantial  
historical game design credits as well.  Even some of the Games Workshop
staff  
have wargame backgrounds -- Jervis Johnson, for example, is an old 
_Stalingrad_ player.

[I hope this made sense -- I'm already late getting home, so I don't
have any 
time to make this tighter.  My apologies.]

-- Chris Weuve	 [My opinions, not my employer's.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
mailto:caw@wizard.net (h)		http://www.wizard.net/~caw 
mailto:caw@intercon.com (w)		Fixes for AoG's B5 game, books,
mailto:chrisweuve@usa.net (perm)	stuff for sale and more