Re: Modeling Honor Harrington Ships.

Rand said, presumably in studied tones:

>1. 3-d movement

Nice if you can figure out an elegant way to do it.  No one has
that I'm aware of.  This actually presents two problems: 1)
implementing the physical representation of changes in Z axis
(each ship gets a rod with a sliding platform?); and 2) carrying
out the calculations for 3D movement and ranges.  If you can
solve 1, then 2 is a lot easier--just physically measure it.  If
you use a flat board with an elevation marker, then you have to
do the math every time you want to see where you really are.

>2. Accurate modeling of Newtonian physical movement

Not difficult if you keep in mind the difference between
"instant acceleration" as in FT and "sustained acceleration" as
in Real Life.  "Next turn you have your previous vector plus
TWICE what you moved this turn".

>3. Accurate distance scale

For what?  Miniatures very rarely have the ground scale match
the figure scale, and I see no obvious reason why they should
here.

>Projecting a cone for both open aspects of the wedges.  (Cone
projection
>is not an easy bit of math)

Cake, if you stick to 2D.  If incoming fire passes through the F
or A aspect, you don't get shields.  Otherwise you do.	You can
tweak it a bit, but that's the basic solution.

>As an aside, after talking with many designers, and doing some
studying,
>I've decided that one of the designers I talked with
extensively was
>right.  Good books do not generally make good games, and good
games do not
>generally make good books.

Right--but I think the idea is not quite to reproduce the books,
but rather to reproduce the universe in which the books are set.