Re: Vector movement

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> 
> > > On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> > > 
> > > > It is far more difficult to figure out where you're going to end

> > > > up with the old FT rules
 
> > > Not really. Your turning radius is roughly r = 2v/p, where v is
your 
> > > velocity and p is the points you put into turning.
> > 
> > Which still means that you have a fairly limited set of points to go
to, 
> > and going at higher speeds those points will be pretty far apart. 
> 
> Care to check what I was replying to?

The discussion was about how easy it is both to get where you want and
to
predict where you're going, in the old movement system compared to the
vector one. Your reply concerned the second of the to questions.

I'll clarify my statement:

In both sets of movement rules, I have a discrete set of points to go
to. 
For a thrust 2 ship in the regular rules this set consists of 11 points;

higher thrust ships have larger sets. The figures vary a bit for the 
vector movement, but it too has discrete sets of points the ship can
move to.

The difference between the two systems lies in how those points are
distributed. In the vector system, they are distributed in a cone in
front
of, or (for easily turned ships) in a circle around the ship. The area
covered by these points isn't that large, but the distribution of the
points is fairly even over this area. This is what I call "good 'local'
control" of where you're going. 

It isn't much different for low-thrust ships in the regular rules.  For
higher-thrust ships, or just ships going fast, the possible points I can
go to are spread over a large area - but they are gathered in clusters
rather than being spread evenly. One such cluster is the "4 pt. turn
starboard", then comes a gap, then the "3 pt. turn starboard" cluster,
and
so on. When moving at higher speeds, these clusters are rather far 
between; this is what I call "poor 'local' control" of where you go.
...
> > Sure. You never fly your thrust 2 SDs at speeds over 4, I can
tell...
> 
> Ahem. "Brakes & turn" is feasible under FT since you can take a
maximum
> turn and still decelerate at half thrust.

Yes. With the thrust 2 SD you turn one clock facing each turn, and you
slow down 1 speed point each turn with the SD above. If you want to turn
any large amount - often because you have single-arc weapons you want to
use, like Pulse Torps or suchlike - it usually takes even longer than
stopping completely and then turning any number of arcs; especially if 
you move at some speed (since the turn will take you a long way away
from 
where you started).

> It's also a simpler solution --
> you start turning in the desired direction immediately. Whereas with a

> slow turning ship under newtonian, you'd have to calculate a few turns

> ahead where you want your main thrusters pointing by the time you've 
> slid for X turns.

"Calculate". You usually know if you want to turn left or right; when
you
write your orders you can see if you have to turn some more - and if so,

how much -  before you light up your main drive. 

If you mean "you'd have to plan a few turns ahead to get where you want 
to", that is equally true for the regular rules.

> > Using the normal movement system, I usually fly my ships at speeds
of 5-8
> > times their thrust rating. 
> [Chop] 
> > Using vector movement, I rarely fly faster than 4 times the main
thrust 
> > rating; 
> 
> So, you *do* agree the regular FT system is easier to control?

I know for a fact that it is easier to change the direction of travel in
the regular movement system, which means that you can go faster and
still
be able to stay on the table. My floor is to cluttered to use for
gaming.
 
It is easier to go in the direction you want in the regular rules - but
usually not in the "lateral" position you want. Eg, if I go a short way
(ie, not all the way to the pole) north from Stockholm I end up in a
completely different position than if I go the same distance to the
north
from Helsinki, but I'm still going in the same direction. If my enemy is
in the vicinity of Stockholm, being able to change my direction of
travel
won't help me much if the turn takes me to Helsinki. With the vector 
rules, I'll end up in Sundsvall instead <g>

(...sorry for these geographical notes, to all of you
non-scandinavians...)

Depending on what rules you use for turning ships in the vector rules,
it 
may or may not be harder for the regular rules to achieve the _facing_ 
you want. Usually it is harder - Jon's and Mike's rule on the Page allow

any ship to turn to the facing they want; I allow capitals to turn 2 
points, cruisers 4 and escorts 6. In both these cases, the vector rules 
give you better control over your facing than the regular rules.

The vector movement rules gives me much better control of going to the
exact point I want, when I'm in the general area I want to be. I have to
be more careful in getting to that area than in the regular system - 
except in the (common) case where that general area falls between two of

the clusters of points I can go to.

Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
 -Hen3ry