Re: Vector Rules

Excerpts from FT: 6-Oct-97 Re: Vector Rules by John Leary@sj.bigger.net 
> ROTATION OF ...:   I FEEL THAT THE ROTATION VECTOR SHOULD BE
Status: RO

>      CARRIED FORWARD AS A PART OF THE MOVEMENT UNTIL 
>      CANCELLED.   ANY SORT OF 'GIMME' REDUCES THE VALUE
>      OF THE 'TRUE VECTOR' CONCEPT.

Well, I dunno about that; all you'd have to do is *double* your thrust
for maneuver points, and then work from there. ^_-

Actully, though, a (possibly) more serious problem is using the main
engines while you're rotating.	Technically, you'd have to integrate the
thrust from the mains over the arc you crossed while firing, which seems
to be a bit complex for a (hopefully) quick game. ^_-  Assuming you
rotate, stop, and *then* fire goes much faster.  (Unless you want to
introduce the thrust as intentaneous, but that's even *less* realistic
IMO.)

>      THE SOLUTION TO THE ROTATION PROBLEM IS SIMPLE,
>      DO AWAY WITH IT!   ALLOW ANY SHIP TO FACE AS IT DESIRES
>      AND USE THE "FULL THRUST" TO ALTER THE TRAVEL VECTOR.

I *really* can't see this.  Granted I've been reading lots of Honor
Harrington recently, but even *before* I thought of battleships in the
millions of tonnes range I couldn't see it.  There's just *way* too much
inertia there to ignore, and making behemoths rotate at the same rate as
destroyers is just too much of an injustice to the lil' dudes.

> I BEG EVERYONES PARDON, THE USE OF CAPS IS A JOB RELATED 
> 'BAD' HABIT I HAVE PICKED UP AND I AM NOT REALLY TRYING
> HARD ENOUGH TO BREAK AWAY. (THIS I TRUST IS THE SHOUTING.)

Er, yes, it is... it'd be *really* nice if you would try and stop; just
for your information, I know several people who will delete -- without
reading -- messages that are all in caps, just because it's annoying. 
None of 'em are on this list, but it *is* considered 'rude' in the realm
of netiquete.  (Not a word I've heard recently, but given the handful of
chain letters I've gotten just today I wish more people paid
attention....)

[snip]
>      I SUSPECT THAT THIS IS ALL PART OF A PLOT TO MAKE MISSILES
> EFFECTIVE!   (WELL, I SELDOM DESIGN A SHIP WITH A THRUST LESS
> THAN FIVE.)

Ow, doesn't htat get expensive with capital ships?  Anyway, yes, vector
movement *does* make missiles more effective, as well as fighters if you
use the More Thrust rules where fighters move after orders are written,
but before ships are moved. <shrug>  One solution is to make PDAFs more
effective vs. missiles -- I never saw why they're so ineffective, really
-- while another is to just smack anyone who uses too many missiles. ^_-

G'night,

		    Aaron Teske
		    Mithramuse+@cmu.edu