Re: Re: Cinematic vs. Vector movement

***
> Not to mention the ultimate goal
> of playability, which OO has nicely highlighted

If the ultimate goal is playability, why not play "scissors paper
rock"?	Call it "soapbubble kravak dreadrock" to make it
GZGverse-compliant, and there you go.
***

Doug said:
>I was with you most of the way til there, LL. By "ultimate", I don't
think
he necessarily means "only", and perhaps really should have said
"paramount".

Paramount means "highest rank" so I'd have disagreed with that too.  I'd
agree that "playability is a major concern"; but I'd say that
verisimilitude is more important (otherwise why not play "scissors..."
etc).  I've seen people (not necessarily including Brian) argue
"Playability Is All, therefore let's ignore this problem that makes it
unrealistic"--i.e. "we won't bother to come up with a solution".

>I'd even argue that, while vector mechanics has a long history and is
fundamentally a complete science, advanced tech space war based on
vector
mechanics would be more fuzzy than one would first imagine.

I'd agree that you have to make some postulates on ship size, drive and
maneuver capability, and such.

>After I'd had my kidney ripped out in December, I spent a good deal of
time
on my back watching B5 almost as steadily as Oerjan recently

Hmm...I saw half of  B5 pilot, once...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .