RE: Vector movement (cap ships)

<<<I'm not sure that's a good idea. The FT system is easier but not 
necessarily more flexible. I think free spinning dreadnoughts need
to be examined thoroughly.

Heavier ships already hold the edge in weapon range. If they can spin
around as nimbly as lighter vessels, it's going to be very difficult to
exploit the blind rear arc. >>>

Heavier ships don't have to spin as nimbly as smaller ships (and
probably shouldn't). Also, their lower thrust ratings make them less
maneuverable by default. 

While the blind rear arc does add a bit more maneuver to the game it
really is a bit silly for a space game. Modern ships don't have a blind
spot. They have areas where certain weapon platforms are masked but no
real blindspot (except against subs in some cases). With seeker weapons
I can't imagine there ever being blind spots in the future. What I'd
like to see in FT is more heavy-hitting, lighter, seeking-weapons that
could be carried by fighters and escort class ships. The advantage BBs
have today is only that they can take a few more hits than lighter
vessels and carry a bit more weapon systems. A BB's 18" guns may be
larger and longer ranged but a Harpoon is a Harpoon whether it is fired
from a PT boat or a BB. Add in the fact that the BB represents "more
eggs in one basket", has lower maneuverability, has high crew
requirements, and it is obvious why there are few around today.

I'd like to see FT shift the balance away from Cap ships a bit more.

Paul

----------
From:	Mikko Kurki-Suonio[SMTP:maxxon@swob.dna.fi]
Sent:	Tuesday, March 18, 1997 12:56 PM
To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject:	Re: Vector movement

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Ground Zero Games wrote:

> First off, we've done several sessions of testing on the "true vector"
> system for FT itself that we posted to this list some time ago (I
think
> they are still out there on some of the web pages); 

I checked it out and it looks nice enough.

> thing is that you DON'T need to do any calculations at all (unless you
> consider measuring one distance and rounding it to the nearest inch to
be a
> "calculation"...!), nor do you have to refer to any tables or charts;
you
> also don't need to measure angles at all.

I mean no disrespect, but I feel I'm repeating myself here:

To find out where you end up when you turn X and thrust Y, you don't
need calculation, tables or measure angles.
It's the other way around: To end up where you want to be, you need to 
calculate and measure angles.

Example:

You're moving at velocity 10" straight "north". If you do nothing, you
end
up 10" north of where you are. But you don't want to be there. Let's say
there's an asteroid right there.  You want to be at a point 1" further
north and 1" due east. How much thrust to apply in which direction?

Easy (this was meant to be a simple example): Turn 45 degrees due east 
and thrust sqrt(2)".

Now tell me how you can get there *without* measuring (or calculating)
the angle (45 degrees) and without calculating the square root of 2?
 
> I'm sure the guys at Wireframe/Chamaeleon won't object to me telling
you
> that the FT/B5 rules are using BOTH movement systems; the EA and other
> "young" races get to use newtonian vectors, while the Minbari etc. use
a
> development of the original FT movement to simulate their "grav"
drives.

I'm not sure that's a good idea. The FT system is easier but not 
necessarily more flexible. I think free spinning dreadnoughts need
to be examined thoroughly.

Heavier ships already hold the edge in weapon range. If they can spin
around as nimbly as lighter vessels, it's going to be very difficult to
exploit the blind rear arc. 

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 0 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Snail: Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
Http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/ 		  |