[GZG] FT vector movement systems

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l	     I just
played a short game of Attack Vector: Tactical.  At first
glance, AV:T seems to be proof positive that geeks will indulge in all
manner of cerebral abuse if it is labelled as a game.  The movement
system
is vector based, straightforward, 3D, on a hex map, and actually
playable.
What really surprised me was that acceleration chart and movement
segmentation is a very good approximation of newtonian dynamics, as
applied
to big nuclear rockets.  The vessels accumulate vectors as they
accelerate
continuously.  Accelerating in a straight line produces the results
expected from your physics class:  thrusting at A, for time T moves you
a
distance of 0.5AT^2 and you end up with a velocity of AT.  Restricting
the
facings and vertical angles to 30 degree increments allows a simple
chart to
resolve where the ship under acceleration ends up (unfortunately, this
is
only tangentially related to the player predicting where he goes). 
Changing
facing is also a time consuming process, as the ship builds up angular
momentum, swings towards the new facing, and comes to rest.  If you can
understand what will happen, you can save some time during a course
change
by thrusting while pivotting, but this really complicates predicting
where
you end up.  Having a degree in Mathematics is not necessary to use the
movement system, and I am not even sure that it helps; however, an
introductory level physics course is a definite asset.

Compare this to vector movement from FB1.  Ships change facing
instantaneously and the main drive applies thrust as a Dirac-delta
function
(infinite thrust applied for a duration of zero, but with a finite
change in
velocity).  Even cinematic movement has infinite  impulse drives.  Not
that
there is anything inherently wrong with infinite impulse drives (as a
game
mechanic).  It is much easier to predict where your ships end up, so
your
tactics are built on the formations that you want, not the ones that you
can
manage.

All that it would take to adapt this into an even more optional movement
system for FT is a set of pivot tables for changing the facing of the
ships,
possibly based on a combination of thrust and mass points-- large, low
thrust ships take the longest to come about and small, high thrust ships
pivot fastest.	But all ships should be able to swap ends in the space
of a
turn.  Kra'Vak and Sa'Vasku ships would only need to pivot to bring
weapons
into arc, but they would need to record the direction of their thrust
axis.

The scenario I played was simply to explore moving the ships. It was a
race
to build up velocity from zero and then accomplish a zero velocity, zero
distance rendez-vous with each of two markers.	We stopped after I hit
the
first marker as my opponent had realised he was way out of position and
had
built up too much of the wrong vector.	At a future date, we will race
Car
Wars style.  Eventually, we will gain enough intuitive understanding to
think tactically, as we move.