Re: Can't we have just this much -><- 3D in FT?

>OK, I understand (and agree now that I'v played for a while) that 3D is
>basically abstracted out of FT. The only place where this
_really_breaks
>down is around planets. Forget big basketball sized planets - they're
>too cumbersome. I mean normal 1-2" size planets.
>
>A space simulation really fails IMHO if you treat a planet as an
>impassable object. There should be such a thing as 'above' or 'below' a
>planet, when it's a) easy to deal with in FT (even with minis) and b)
>adds interesting tactical variety to a game

Perhaps I'm overlooking something--why not do "one side of" and "other
side
of" the planet?  Which works with the rules as is.    What situation are
you
trying unsuccessfully to reproduce?