Re: [LST] Attack Vector: Tactical RE: Stealth and Fighters

    I have a few comments on this. For the record, my connection with
Attack Vector consists of having playtested some early drafts, and
having
watched (on the sfconsim-l and ten-worlds-development mailing lists) as
the game and background developed. As such, I don't speak from a
privileged position, but I might have some background material which
could be useful.

    For reference, the PDF file under discussion can be found, as posted
in a previous message, at 
<http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/vms_vs_dv.pdf>

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004, Doug Evans wrote:

>1) Some time ago I saw and considered the cited page an attack, and I'm

>not putting quotes around that. Not entirely well thought out one, as 
>they make FT into a hex-based game, without bothering to mention the 
>fact. Usual apples and oranges repost seems quite in keeping.

    Not quite. The actual comparison was made between AV and the Vector
Movement System (VMS) developed by Chris Weuve and Arius Kauffman, which
is a hex-based system. The confusion arises from the words "ft-style"
used to describe VMS. VMS is FT-style only in that it lumps in
displacement and velocity, and was actually designed as an alternate
movement system for Babylon 5 Wars (its creators were playtesters for
B5W
and suggested the system as an alternative to the system that was
eventually used, in an attempt to demonstrate that a vector movement
system didn't have to be complicated).
    AV itself is a hex-based game, but translates fairly well to a non-
hex-based format, as it actually uses what are effectively 12 directions
of thrust (well, more, since it's 3D by default, but that's an entirely
different area of debate).
    The particular article to which you're referring was Ken's response
to a statement by either Chris or Arius on sfconsim-l that tracking
displacement wouldn't result in any real difference in where the ship
would end up, and was an example designed to show that there are cases
that it would. Full Thrust was not mentioned at all during that
particular debate, and its inclusion into the PDF is mostly for
familiarity -- more people have heard of FT than will ever hear of the
VMS, and the two systems are more similar than different when compared
against AV. Of course, the three systems (AV, VMS, and FT) are more
similar than different when compared against pretty much *any*
non-vector
movement system, something that Ken is quite willing to admit.

>2) The word new should have been in quotes also, as I've seen the game
>being demo'd and tested for quite some time, if this is the former
Delta 
>V, not to be confused with the SPI product of the same name. However,
it 
>is newly released. MSRP of $55, by the way.

    Quite true. AV was previously DV, and has been in development for
some time, although it has changed greatly since its early days (and
even
since the file referred to was created). Its scale has changed, it's
gone
entirely 3D, and AV is really not the same game as DV except for a) the
background names, b) the idea of using as accurate as possible Newtonian
movement, and c) an emphasis on being as close as possible to real-world
physics (albeit not real-world engineering).

>All and all, I find the game's producers folks I've little respect for,

>and probably will avoid in the future.

    That's something on which I must disagree with you, although that
disagreement says nothing about either you, him, or I except that we
have
different personalities. Personally, I've found Ken to be polite,
articulate, and very good at what he does. His game may not be for
everyone, and he is quite willing to admit that it is not for everyone.
    The intent of the game is to target the combined market segments of
the SFB crowd who prefer a detailed game of only a few ships, realism
nuts who prefer the physics to be as accurate as is possible, people who
appreciate the elegance of the system (whatever your opinions on the
game
itself, the underlying systems and, especially, the play aids, do a
superb job of sweeping a lot of incredibly nasty math under the carpets
so that the players don't have to deal with it), and those who enjoy the
game background (probably a small market share, as essentially no one
but
the developers have even heard of it).
    AV really doesn't compete with FT, nor the reverse. I've found the
two games to be different enough that, while I may play both, there's
never really a choice as to which I want to play at a particular time --
I'm either in the mood for something quick or something detailed.

    It was not my intent to be offensive in any of this, simply to clear
up some points which I think were being misunderstood, partly because
there was a lack of clarity in the links pointed to. I hope that I have
not caused any offence in writing this, as I have enjoyed greatly being
a
member of both the GZG community and the AV/sfconsim-l community, and
really don't see them as being competitors, or even incompatible.

    -Brian Quirt

-- 
Brian Quirt <brianq@ncf.ca>
Proud Member of the Society for the Conservation of Angular Momentum
Visit the society web site at <http://www.ncf.ca/~cy856/bio/scam.html>
Or visit my web site at <http://www.ncf.ca/~cy856/>