Re: [GZG] FT Vector: Alternative Fire Resolution Distance

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTom,

You do realize this is the first step to introducing the dreaded
"impulses"
from SFB into FT.  ;-)

And it's just as doable in cinematic as well as vector.

Mk

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
>
> I was initially looking at this simply to suit the flavour I'm looking
> for (fire throughout the round) and reasoning backward to resolution.
> Your point about it being a bit more complicated (if you mark the
> halfway point when you move the ship, its pretty easy... usually in
> vector we have at least 3 counters per ship going.... last position,
> end of drift, and current position.... having another really isn't a
> lot of extra pain to me) is fair and in one sense it might not seem to
> make much difference.
>
> The reason I keep it particular to vector is that *if you assume
> vector movements are applied across the turn*, then your position at
> the midpoint will be half your drift + half your aggregate thrust
> (which is half way along your eventual vector, oddly enough). It might
> or might not make sense in cinematic...
>
> Turn length is certainly variable - I've heard people suggest periods
> from 2 min to 20 min for an FT turn, thrusts from fractions of a G up
> to quite a few Gs, and MUs from 100 kms to 10000 kms. Depends what
> feel you are shooting for. As you say, doesn't change much with my
> argument.
>
> In refining thinking about this, I might end up trying something like:
>
> 'There are three interesting points along a ship's path during a turn.
> The start point, the end point and the mid-point. These collectively
> encapsulate the ship's movement. If you can bear on your target when
> both of you are at the same point (tgt at start and firer at start,
> tgt at mid and firer at mid, etc) for all three of these points, then
> fire is resolved as normal with the range being measured from the two
> respective midpoints. If you can see at only two of these points,
> count range as 25% more. If you can see at only one of these points,
> count range as 50% more. This range-extension represents the fact that
> weapons have a reduced envelope of engagement and are these less
> effective.'
>
> I guess what I'm looking at is a way not to have all fire seem to
> occur from a range at the end of turn that seems to reflect the final
> position of ships as if nothing else during the turn happened and you
> only shot at the end of movement. Maybe I should be averaging the
> ranges of the three points. Or something. The way FT is written, the
> fire feels like it all happens at the endpoint of movement. If so, why
> not along the path? Why can you get vector or cinematic jousts where
> you can't engage because ships fly past one another when the computers
> would have fired along the way? I'm looking for a way to make this
> make more sense and do so in a way that sort of addresses the reduced
> effectiveness of a limited window of engagement.
>
> If you picture each beam shot or pulse torpedo die roll as a single
> shot, it has a different feel and implications than if you treat it as
> the fire from an entire turn and more than one shot. The latter seems
> more likely to me to be closer to what could happen.
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>