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-l<de-lurk>

I guess this is where I should put in my two cents.

I have both AV:T and SITS, and I have actually tried using the SITS
segmented vector movement in FT.

Ken Burnside is right that the movement is much more complicated to
explain than to do.  My personal opinion is that the chocolate-candy
rally race tutorial is actually more difficult than maneuvering against
another ship for shooting.  <shrug>

On AV:T and SITS
They use the same segmented movement, but AV:T also tracks fuel
consumption, heat build-up, and power management.  This is too fiddly
for me.  C- or D+

SITS uses vector movement with eight move segments per turn.  Scale is
125,000k per hex/MU (Earth-Moon distance = 3 hexes), 7.5 min per turn
(<1 minute per move segment), 1 thrust point = 119.5g (applied for a
full 8-segments = +2 velocity and 1 displacement).  But you can
obviously change the scale to whatever you want if you adapt the
movement system to FT.  Basically the s=a(t^2)/2+vt+s calculations are
reduced to a table that you follow telling you which segments accumulate
velocity and displacement.

The game time scale translates into energy weapons that fire every
segment and missile launchers launch up to 5 times per segment
(depending on launcher cycle time, all launches at same target), but the
missiles might take up to three segments to get to the target (including
the launch segment).  Energy weapons are fired and resolved before
movement, missiles launched before movement, but impact after movement
(targeted at future position marker).

Ships fall into the same classes as Full Thrust.  The basic game box
included ships up to battlecruiser size, which are monsters that crush
the other smaller ships.  The damage system breaks down once the scale
reached capital ships (a SDN might be 8-10 times bigger than a BC,
equivalent to a Full Thrust 2400 TMF SDN next to a 240-300 TMF BC and
the 24-30 TMF DDs from the Fleet Books) and so...

There is a new edition of SITS, "SITS 2.0" with revised (simplified)
movement and damage systems.  I haven't tried it yet, but from the
promotional material the new move system is start-point, mid-point, and
end-point; so three segments.

On using SITS 2D vector movement for FT
We tried this and I think it is far superior to the FB vector system,
but we did it a little differently than any one else on the list talked
about.

Take the movement system from SITS 1.0.  FT thrust equals SITS thrust
(both max 8).  FT maneuver thrust (1/2 MD thrust) is used for rolls and
rotations only, no pushes.  Main Drive thrust follows the SITS rules
and thrust chart for acceleration, velocity, displacement, drift, and
vector consolidation.  Maneuver thrust can be applied every segment. 
Rolls are at a rate of 60 degrees (2 clockface points or AVID windows)
per maneuver point.  Rotations, yaw (and pitch in 3D), are at a rate of
30 degrees (1 clockface point or AVID window) per maneuver point.  This
includes starting and stopping.  Continuous rolls or rotations induce a
first segment change of the above rates, but carry over an angular
velocity of twice that.  E.g. spend 1 point rotating in the plane of
the table equals 1 clockface facing change, but with 2 clockface
points/segment rotational velocity carried to subsequent segments.

This method eliminates the FB vector turn-burn-turn-fire that I really
despise.  It also means that point-and-shoot ships are less effective,
and brings KV advanced drives with their ability to thrust in any
direction to their proper value.

The real difference with what people on the list were talking about is
that we have a full turn of FT weapons fire every segment.  <evil grin>

If you want to try this movement system in FT, I would recommend that
you limit your first games to energy batteries, pulse torpedoes, and
K-guns to keep weapons simple.  I would add that weapons listed in the
Fleet Book construction system as 6-arc should be reduced to 5-arc. 
Missiles and  fighters need some fiddling to make them work (notably
fighters move as ships with Thrust 12 and unlimited rolls/rotations, no
secondary move, shoot at range 6 as per FT2/MT), and area-effect weapons
are completely out of the question because of the more limited maneuver
envelope and precise knowledge of future positions.

On 3D maneuvering
The flaw in most 3D systems is that they allow really wide firing arcs
in the vertical axis. SITS (and AVT) seriously limit those arcs.  This
makes maneuvering and (especially) orientation much more important.

J

----- Original Message ----
From: Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 3:31:36 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] FT Vector: Alternative Fire Resolution Distance

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