Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT] Quiet in here, isn't it.

Thanks Roger and Indy for your quick responses - everyone else feel free
to chip in when you read this - you don't have to be a regular FT player
now, if you've EVER played, no matter how long ago, I'd like to hear any
relevant comments on this question!  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

On 20 Oct 2015, at 12:08, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:43:23AM +0100, Jon Tuffley wrote:
>> What Movement System do you use, or have you used in the past when
you've been actively playing FT? Just the basic Cinematic movement? One
of the Vector options, and if so which one(s)? Which do you prefer, and
why?
>> Have you modified any of the published (officially or fan-done)
systems to your own tastes, if so how, why and did it work?
> 
> I like cinematic for big games, vector for small ones. Vector takes
> longer per ship, both to plan and to execute, but is more satisfying
> because it gives more real-feeling results. The problem with cinematic
> for me is the way fast-moving ships can blip all over the map; once
> they get up above about speed 15-20, the chevron enclosing the areas
> they can reach stretches across the whole table. There's no point in
> trying to engage them with fighters or missiles, and all one can do is
> hunker up in a fist of death and hope to avoid defeat in detail.
> 
> Generally I use vector as amended by FB2, or for really small battles
> my custom vector system that's even slower but physically realistic,
> as noted at
>
http://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2014/04/Painfully_Realistic_Vector_Mov
ement.html
> . I wouldn't want that with more than 2-3 ships per side.
> 
> My last tabletop FT game was probably about five years ago but I
> played quite a lot before then. (These days I'm playing tabletop
> Harpoon, so you should not use me as a guide to what the typical
> wargamer would like!)
> 
> R
>