Re: Vector Rules

Status: RO

In response to Aaron's response to John Leary.....

[snip]
>> OVERALL THE RULES MAKE SENSE, AND CAN BE PLAYED WITHOUT ANY
>> GREAT ADJUSTMENT.   
>
>Yup.  They do all right, though turns take a bit longer to plan, I've
found.

Just a note here for any newcomers to the list who may have missed
earlier
discussions on this: I can state categorically that the Vector system is
NOT going to "replace" the original FT movement system; it will be
presented as an OPTION, for players to use or not as they wish. It will
be
possible to use any given ship design with either the "Cinematic"
(original
FT) or Vector movement without changing the ship's specs in any way, and
it
will even be possible to combine both movement systems in the same game
(eg: to reflect differing tech levels between different races). Yes, the
use of Vector movement changes the feel of the game significantly, and
does
require a bit more thought - but once the players are used to the system
it
really does not take significantly longer to actually play out a vector
move than it does a cinematic one.
>
>>	THE ONE THING I NOTICED WHILE READING THE RULES:
>> THE 'TRUE VECTOR' CONCEPT DOES NOT FOLLOW THRU FOR THE 'ROTATION
>> OF STATIONARY UNITS' AND THE 'SIDE SLIP' CONCEPTS.
>>	TO ROTATE A STATIONARY SHIP 180 DEGREES WOULD REQUIRE A SHIP
>> OF THRUST VALUE 24;	6 POINTS OF THRUSTER TO TURN,  6 POINTS OF 
>> THRUSTER TO STOP THE TURN.	(THE SHIP COULD BE THRUST 12 IF A 
>> STATIONARY SHIP WERE ALLOWED TO ALL OF ITS THRUST FOR ROTATION)
>
>I don't see this: my take on the rules (and the way I've played with
>them) is that the points allocated for rotation are for both starting
>and stopping the rotation, ie, you apply 3 points of rotation to port,
>then automatically stop it once you've done so.  This means you don't
>need to keep track of rotation between turns.	So you would need a ship
>of "only" thrust 12 to do a 180 in one turn....

Yes, Aaron, your interpretation is correct here.

>
>Alternately, I've played that you get rotation points *equal* to your
>thrust value, and a "puch" takes two rotation points.	This makes
thrust
>8 ships *very* maneuverable, which is as it should be (IMO).

This is a very good suggestion - I think it will work well.

>
>Incidentally, I don't think ships at "full stop" should be allowed to
>rotate to any facing; if you've got rotation points, use them in all
>cases.  [snip]

Agreed. With the adoption of the suggestion above re: rotation points, I
think this makes sense.

>
>>	THE SAME PROBLEM SHOWS UP IN THE 'SIDE SLIP' MOVEMENT.
>> IN 'TRUE VECTOR' ANY THRUST THAT IS USED FOR ANY REASON MUST BE 
>> CANCELLED OR IT REMAINS A VECTOR ADJUSTMENT FOREVER.
>
>Actually, it's not a problem here, and it's accounted for in the way
you
>record your movement: if you pushed one inch to port, your final vector
>includes that movement.  If you want to cancel it, push one to
starboard
>later.  Unlike rotation (if you don't consider it cancelled once you've
>used your rotation points), pushes don't add any bookkeeping to the
>system.

Again, Aaron is 100% right here. A push simply changes the ship's vector
slightly, and this effect is then automatically carried over to
subsequent
turns unless deliberately cancelled.

>
>>	NOW TO THE TRUE PROBLEM;   I FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM WILL TAKE 
>> TO LONG TO PLAY,  THIS WILL EASILY DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE GAME 
>> LENGTH.   THE TRUE VIRTUE OF 'FULL THRUST' IS ITS SIMPLICITY AND
>> SPEED OF PLAY.

This is not what we've found with our playtesting (both in-house and
"blind" tests). Once the players are comfortable with the new system,
play
proceeds at much the same speed as basic FT. At the end of the day,
which
movement system you choose will depend entirely on personal preference
and
on what specific background you're trying to simulate.

Thanks to both of you for the feedback - ALL comments are read and
noted,
and everything helps in some way to shape what we are doing in the
future.

Jon (GZG)