Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question to you all.....

Charles Taylor schrieb:
> 
> # Return to the FB1 concept where the Main Drive just produces 
> accelleration in the direction the ship is pointing, and there are 
> separate 'manoeuvre' thrusters that can turn/push the ship as 
> described in FB1. Pushes foward ARE allowed unless otherwise 
> mentioned.

I have nver played vector, so this is all theory, mainly argued from a 
physics plausibility and general game streamlining point of view.

I too, think there should be little problem in separating main thrust 
engines and rotational thrusters. Even where in configurations where the

main drive is used for rotation, there must be extra arrangements to 
allow it to exert the neccessary torque. So there is no conceptual 
problem in costing rotational (and sideways) thrust separately.

An additional SSD icon for the rotation ability doesn't seem overly 
cumbersome.

If you want to keep the present point values, you could say that the 
default rotation is the same as the main thrust and costs 0 points, 
while slower turning gives you a point bonus and faster turn costs more.
But aren't points cost going to be revised anyway to remove the 
excessive advantage for large ships ?

To make the chance of a hit depend on the amount of rotation before the 
shot sounds like a reasonable balancing mechanism, but might be too 
cumbersome in play - testing this will be neccessary. The question also 
is for which weapons this will be used. Or should this depend rather on 
the quality of the fire control equipment ?

Another question is how much this really is a problem in vector. I see 
it clearly is a problem in one-on-one encounters, but with multiple 
ships per side, wouldn't there be many instances where side arc weapons 
come in handy ?

Greetings
Karl Heinz

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l