Re: Real Thrust Discussion

Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
>   The discussion on Newtonian Mechanics has been good and I look
forward
to playing them with someone.  Right now I am of the opinion that in
order
to do it correctly and maintain playability some alterations will have
to be
made.
>   1. Fighters move like ships and have an acceleration rate of 16 and
infinite >maneuverability.  Fighters are moved after ships are plotted
and
before ship >movement.

Are you referring to momentum conservation for moving fighters as ships?
 If
so, then I agree as the 12" range seems too limiting for fighters.  The
smaller massed objects would tend to have greater
acceleration/deceleration
ability over larger mass bodies, but lack the duration due to limited
fuel
stores.

>   2.	Missiles and Mines are not used.

Nah, there too much fun! :)  Just apply the mechanics as for any other
space-borne object.  I would just move them as per vectors without
advanced
plotting.  This would probably produce more slowly flying missiles as
players will try not to overrun an opponent.

>   3.	Looking at the rules GZG  suggested here, I recommend that the
>maneuverability a ship be equal to its current thrust rating.	For each
point >of maneuverability devoted to turning the ship, causes it to
rotate
one clock >facing.

This might work well, as I have used the current vector movement rules
from
Jon and Mike with the suggested use of half of the maximum drive thrust
for
maneuver thrust.  This produced ships flying around like pendulums near
the
edges of the game table.  It was very difficult to close on an enemy at
what
used to be normal game speeds.	We needed to slow our ships considerably
to
make any degree of combat possible.  But I must say it was a lot of fun
and
look forward to playing FT with vector rules again soon.

Mike Miserendino