Re: [GZG] what's the latest news on Full Thrust

On Tuesday 14 December 2010 18:21:21 Eric Foley wrote:
> And keep in mind, I'm saying this and I don't even _like_ vector. 
I've
> always played cinematic and enjoy doing so.  However, it's got a flaw
here
> that I don't like that doesn't exist in vector.  I just think that if
> you're going at Ludicrous Speed, you shouldn't be able to turn just as
> well as you can if you're barely moving at all.  Let's not even go
into
> the issue of what happens with an advanced drive 4 instead of a normal
> drive 4 at these speeds.  Even at 20 MU, thrust 4A gets pretty stupid
to
> try to hit.

Turning costs 1pt per facing per 10" of speed or part thereof. Or some
other suitable number if 10" doesn't work for you. It will mean some
ships will have to slow down in order to turn at high speeds, or you'll
need to allow fractional facings, but that's getting complex.

Or you could just use vector :-)

I've run vector games where even fighters and missiles used vector
movement, and it worked reasonably well, and made it harder for
ships to outrun fighters and missiles.

But the huge turn arcs you can get in cinematic has always put me off
cinematic movement.

As a matter of interest - for those who use cinematic movement at
high speeds, do you enforce exactly 12 facings? We've always played
things that a 1pt turn is a turn up to 30 degrees, but I know some
groups play things where they enforce strict facings, so you can't
make a 15 degree turn. Would make a big difference at high speeds.

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