Re: Vector movement

I wrote:   
> > > 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. 
> > These are the Minbari, Shadows, and Vorlons -- I think that's the 
> > idea.  <grin> 

Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> Exactly. That's why THEY should be more nimble, not the low tech Earth

> ships. Figure this: An Earth dreddie and Minbari War Cruiser both have
a 
> small destroyer on their tails. 

Duh -- you're right, of course.  This can be fixed by (1) limiting the 
rotational capabilities of the big ships (which makes sense), (2) by
getting 
rid of the blind arcs for the older races, or (3) allowing the older
races to 
have the best of both worlds, i.e., they can spin, too.

I read all four sets of vector-based rules last night (two versions from
Jon 
Tuffley, Mark Langsdorf's, and Daryl Poe's) and I don't remember any of
them 
discussing the rotational system as a ships system which could be
damaged.  
Having an actual system (or, more likely, several systems) would have
the 
advantage of adding another interesting design tradeoff -- do I add that
extra 
rotational system to guarantee a backup, or do I add another weapon?

-- Chris Weuve	 [My opinions, not my employer's.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
mailto:caw@wizard.net (h)		World Wide Weuvesite -- 
mailto:caw@intercon.com (w)		http://www.wizard.net/~caw
mailto:chrisweuve@usa.net (perm)