"Why little 3D space combat and lots of 3D air combat?" Topic

Our miniatures bretheren playing air combat games usually game with 3D air rules.

Why are there so few space combat games which use 3D? Is it that we have a wet navy view of things? Or perhaps as some of the heretics playing air combat suggest, 3D is an unnecessary complication?

Al

IMHO I think it is that many SF players want a "Space Opera" game rather than a hard SF game.

Damon.

In an air combat, the height dimensions is likely to be more practical significance due to the effects of gravity.

Griefbringer

Maybe also mechanical issues (e.g., absence of a common horizon makes measurement for movement and combat difficult) and the large differences that can exist in ship size (e.g., capital v fighter) in a game. And the relationship between any two ships in space is a flat plane so why not just have everyone on a flat, 2-D playing surface and be done with it?

Partially what GB says and Bob are saying.

Altitude impacts on air combat are considerably different than in space combat.

there would not be any orientation in space, and it would be much more difficult to "simulate".

For a simple fighter game you could do it, and it would be fine. Keep in mind, up and down are the same as any other direction.

For big fleet scale just like Bob says make it more naval like to keep it playable.

Could be because "altitude" doesn't mean anything in space. Any two points are on a plane. The only real question is range of weaponry. Being "above" the enemy doesn't confer any advantage. "Diving" on him isn't going to change your energy level, "climbing" up to meet him doesn't require an increase in power, and you can all reach the same "altitude". You could muddy up a space game by using vectored thrust, moving the ship along a line representing the combination of orginal direction of thrust combined with the new direction of thrust. Full Thurst does a fairly decent job of it. As long as you don't allow ships to block line of fire you're all right.

Mikhail has it for me – in air games, the physics are totally different for the third dimension compared to the other two, so more of a necessary inclusion. In space, x,y,z are effectively all interchangeable, so dropping a dimension is less of an issue, so more likely to be deemed acceptable in the interests of playability.

"…Or perhaps as some of the heretics playing air combat suggest, 3D is an unnecessary complication?"

Despite my rabid dislike of rules that use 3D I think it's because the desire for complexity that many of us geeky nerds have enthralled as necessary for "simulations." Been there, did that, got the T-Shirt, never found the fun…

For a simualtion it maybe desireable or even necessary but for a game it is a complexity add that results in playing times increasing at a geometric progession with 3D flight games. For many this is an increase that begins to pale too quickly for those more interested in the game then the simulation.

It clearly limits the number of aircraft in the game for each player (and in total, thus indirectly limiting the number of players) along with increasing playing times. And that ignores the frequent physical complications of flight stands and potential for physical disaster as people try to maneuver thier aircraft in a furball/on a crowded table.

Unnecessary seems a bit harsh but essentially, for me, yes. For others, it is the life blood of the experience they crave.

If prefering a 2D game makes me a heretic then I embrace that title.

Gracias,

Glenn

The sequence 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13… is an arithmetic progression with common difference 2.

In mathematics, a geometric progression, also known as a geometric sequence, is a sequence of numbers where each term after the first is found by multiplying the previous one by a fixed non-zero number called the common ratio. For example, the sequence 2, 6, 18, 54, … is a geometric progression with common ratio 3.

Logarithmic.

A type of exponential progression.

An exponential progression is one in which each point relates exponentially to the next. Logarithmic progressions, when plotted on two-dimensional charts with linear scales, are curved lines. However, a logarithmic progression is a straight line when plotted on a two dimensional chart with logarithmic scales. In log base 10, the logarithm of 100 is 2, since 102 is 100.

The only thing significant about 3-D combat in space is the relative ranges between three or more objects. On the X-Y plane, Ship A could be 10km from Ships B and C, but on the Z axis she's 5km from B and 30km from C. So that's a tactical situation to consider, as are the potential orientations of a ship's weapons compared to the X,Y,Z locations of her targets. However, I've found that the record keeping and whatnot required to track that sort of thing is far clumsier than just abstracting it all to a 2D action.

"Altitude" can still be an element in a 2D space setting; it's called "Don't fly into the planet, Sparky!"

"…IMHO I think it is that many SF players want a "Space Opera" game rather than a hard SF game…"

Well, Garand/Damon, you are entitled to think that because in some cases it's true but there are people who think increasing the "hard SF" factor is increasing the "game" factor. I can't claim that applies to me accurately.

To me if it means lining up and charging to hand to hand combat becomes a fatal tactic then it's good. If it means I need special cross referencing charts or "tool" more complcated then a tape measure to compute if I can shoot at somebody then it's bad.

YMMV.

Gracias,

Glenn

i agree with what has been said regarding the different effect in the two genres (air v space). it has a huge effect in aircombat, but is simply another direction of approach in space no different than another, and so could more easily be accomodated in some fashion.

i'm definately in the camp opposite Glenn --though as long as altitude has a significant measure of impact on play/player-decisions (even if not shown directly) then it's okay by me. -not that the line of people seeking my approval for their games is very long, mind you… ; )

Allen57, I think the answer lies in the physics, which while it appears to be the same is infinitely more complex in space, where pivoting and thrusting are critical elements. Also, in space the tactics are completely different because of the physics. In space you try to deny areas of maneuver for your opponent(by using missiles, kinetic weaponry, etc.) to get them to come back into your weapons envelope in coordination with your thrusts/short duration fuel burns. Try playing Attack Vector Tactical from Ad Astra Games and I guarantee that it will be an eye opening experience! Now true, games like Full Thrust and Silent Death are far more fun, but AVT is a rude awakening to what space combat will probably be like.

I think the simplest reason is that air combat has actually happened. Thus, when you play a 2-D air combat game (the tactical kind) it is immediately obvious that it isn't representing the real thing terribly well.

Since there's never been a war in space, people can't play the game and say "that's nothing like what really happened" !
-Kle.

It's because the distances one talks about in space are so vast that whatever planes of combat there are just get strung out into 2D anyway so it's just easier.

More historical players (and time periods) than Sci-Fi?

Board games such as The Speed of Heat, AIr Superiority, Whistling Death, and Birds of Prey do a good job of simulating 3D in air combat. However, doing a group game of 5-6 players with two aircraft each inside of 5-6 hours is going to be tough unless everyone owns and understands the rules(not likely in most gaming groups). Therein lies the problem, namely more complexity and loss of speed of play to do 3D air combat. All of those games are good, but they do take some effort. Now you add everything above into space combat along with heat storage/dissipation issues, fuel management(only sufficient fuel for a few combat burns), vector consolidation, pivoting while still going in the same, initial direction, and more, then you have a pretty complex mess on your hands!

I think saying that because there is no common reference point, saying that arbitrarily the point between 2 ships will always be a plane is just that…arbitrary. As soon as you mix in more than 2 ships, that arbitrary plane ceases to exist, and maneuver in a 3d space is still important particularly if the ships have firing arcs, etc, and a desire to maneuver to take advantage of these. SO yes, the area between two ships is a plane, but add in more ships and now you have several planes to maneuver in.

Damon.

Garand, the area between two points if always a plane. Adding another point just adds a new plane. Now in space you don't have the problem of continuously applied power, like you do in air. You can shut your engines down and coast. The only real question is angle of the plane in regard to the weapon employed. Probably the optimal shape for a space warship would be a globe with weapons distributed along the latitude and longitude of the ship. Assume a beam weapon, and the speed of light, you don't have to do much "leading" of your target. A solid projectile means speed of launch vs angle off to hit the target where you think it will be. At a distance any maneuver out of the original plane will mean a miss.

I envision a weapon similar to a shotgun that puts a small spread out at a target coming pretty directly at you to firing a totally different pattern at a crossing target or one moving parallel. Changing the shape of the pattern and the velocity of the rounds to accommodate the physics of the situation could mean you don't have to put out more than something the size of a BB if you put a lot of them out at orbital speeds. In fact a paint chip put a thumbnail size hole in the window of the Space Shuttle that nearly penetrated it.

You might be better off building a fighting ship out of weapons stations and girders with a whole lot of ether between. Sort of a spider work arrangement to minimize impact. Armoring a space warship wouldn't do much good against a solid object moving at a percentage of C.

The physics of space battles are not really represented very well in our games or our movies typically.

as demonstrated here :)
link

link

link

In the end it becomes a trade off, and you have to find something that balances the issues.

It has been covered already:

air+gravity = up/down is different than right/left.

"…not that the line of people seeking my approval for their games is very long, mind you…"

Despite our differences, I think that line above displays the wide options in the game presentation that I consider a good thing for the hobby.

I still think Air War C21 is a better Game then many of the better psuedo-Simulations that use 3D. But then I could use gweirda's line above to describe my "heretical views" – shared by others – in the air war game community…

Gracias,

Glenn

Mikhail,
"I envision a weapon similar to a shotgun that puts a small spread out at a target coming pretty directly at you to firing a totally different pattern at a crossing target or one moving parallel."

Yup. In AVT the ships are armed with coilguns which fire 50-200KG kinetic projectiles in patterns to "deny" certain vectors to an enemy ship, forcing it to come back into your laser weapons envelope(lasers automatically hit-it's just a question of where and how much damage they do). However, you need to fill out a launch parameters display, then a separate diagram which shows the enemy ship which vectors are escape routes. If you think this is complex, may not be fun, takes some time, etc., the answer is yes. I think the question of the original thread should be changed to "Can a space game with true 3D combat be designed that would be quick and fun to play?" At this point I would have to say that the answer is probably not.

Ever try to model a negative Z vector on a table? I see some of you checking the prices for 8'x 4' lexan sheets and lots of little suction cups, but for the rest of us it seems impractical.

Probably because they haven't bought these:

topgunmarketing.org

They work with even the large, Battlestar Galactica diecast fighters and ships.

I plan on using mine with those, and the smaller Star Wars and BSG minis.

In my opinion, simply a must-have for twisting, turning, Spacefighter games.

Of course, you would expect me to say that.

Rob
Topgun Marketing LLC
topgunace111 AT Yahoo DOT com
topgunmarketing.org

Hi

The Stands we use in Mustangs and Messerschmitts were developed in WW1 by the USAAC for classroom illustrations.

Anyway, McEwen did a space war game specifically to use these same three d stands we use for the airplanes. I know it sold well about 35 years ago, but I don't know if the rules are still around. They were tied specifically to his and Scotty's "Starguard" universe. So I am not sure how "universal" they are.

I liked them enough in the day, but thought I could have streamlined them better if I had had a "dog in the hunt".

This is another one of those discussions that involve limited exposure. That is, 3d has been done. Gamers chose what they like.

Rocky

"…Thus, when you play a 2-D air combat game (the tactical kind) it is immediately obvious that it isn't representing the real thing terribly well…"

Um, the most polite one word answer I can use to that statement, in reference to a air combat game, playable in a reasonable time frame (2-3 hours) with more then four people controlling more then 4 aircraft each – my Holy Grail, YYMV – is "Nonsense."

Simulation rather then game? Then possibly true depending on what your philosophy on game mechanics and their representation of reality includes. Game granularity is perhaps one of the biggest driving forces…

A simulation/game that was primarily concerned in 1:1 representation of ACM (Air Combat Manuver) would possibly push the game designer to approach the game in 3D. That said, a game where each turn took 15 minutes of playing time to represent an hour of "real" time (several ground games) is much more palatable to play then a game where it takes 15 minutes of playing time to represent 15 seconds of "real" time.

If you achieve the same (or similar, depending on game granularity,) results with simpler mechanics then IMO you should use the simpler mechanics.

Garcias,

Glenn

off-subject tangent:

"…a air combat game, playable in a reasonable time frame (2-3 hours) with more then four people controlling more then 4 aircraft each – my Holy Grail, YYMV – is "Nonsense." "

Glenn, be sure to check out "Watch Your Six!" when it hits the shelves…it may not be exactly your cup of tea (or…?) but i think it will come close.

sorry for the hijack…

This might be difficult to express, but in space combat, the third dimension is somewhat represented in 2D if distances and directions are not seen as hard and fast (i.e., not relative to a fixed point), but as relative to each of the other units. Because there's really no up or down in space, actual position isn't as meaningful as relative position. So if you see the 2D representation on the playing field as relative, you have an abstraction of your third dimension.

Dervel: Thanks for the great links.

"Garand, the area between two points if always a plane. Adding another point just adds a new plane."

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Thus if you have more than 2 combattants, you now (probably) have multiple planes and thus are back at the 3D environment, since the ships in question may not neccessarily occupy the same plane relative to each other.

Damon.

But the multiple planes in space aren't the same as multiple planes in a gravity well. In air combat altitude=energy available so having someone on a plane that extends "up" means you are at a disadvantage. In space, with no up or down, you are not disadvantaged regardless of where the opponent is. The only concern would be whether you can bring your weapon to bear and you can do that either thru a properly designed ship or by a simple rotation to the new plane. Distance, and direction, is the only concern in space. It doesn't matter what the angle of the planes are to each as you can easily point your weapon in the direction needed by rotating your ship so your weapon is on the same plane. And the direction you are facing doesn't have to be in the direction of movement.

Since you aren't gaining energy from being "above" the opponent, there is no need to represent that dimension on a table involving space combat. Simply don't allow ships to block the line of fire.

Khan forgot about the 3rd dimension. Look what happened to him. :)

I think it basically comes down to this kind of question; "Do you want to see the 3D maneuvers actually gamed out?" If yes and you want to watch your F-4 Phantom perform a barrel roll, move it hex by hex, track the speed loss, calculate the missile attenuation, etc., then go with Birds of Prey, Speed of Heat, etc. . If you want to know that your F-4 just performed a barrel roll by checking one chart, then probably use Airwar C-21 or other 2D games. All of them are good games, it's just in some you can do certain steps in a few minutes and with others it's going to be much longer to get the result.

Again, that assumes the ship is properly "optimized." If it were that easy, WW1 dreadnaughts wouldn't have had to use wing turrets that are useless in an opposite side broadside. It also assumes perfect maneuverability and roll rate. If a ship is not (or cannot) be fully optimized, it will have to make a choice of bringing its firepower in relation to one target or another, not both. Its entirely possible a ship could orient itself to face one oncoming attack, and another ship maneuver to take advantage of it…the space version of crossing the "T."

Damon.

Parzival – you are welcome :)

I like those, notice Star Trek is better than most.

Star Wars and BSG are pretty bad.

regarding ship's guns have you ever wondered why the Imperial Star Destroyers were giant triangles?

Supposed to be so they can bring all guns to forward while not impacting the broadside.

Leaves them a little weak in the rear, but the theory is everyone is running from them not the other way around :]

Not a very pratical configuration for a naval vessel though.

Heck, use broadsides in space… Oh wait, that's been done.

aegiscg47,

Wow, great summation. Very clearly sums up my feeling about very complex (or worse complicated) games since I had the second set of kids: Great they bring you pleasure (and I've seen some games where people are…um…"delirous" when playing 3D) but zero value for me anymore.

3Der's – I respect what you want to represent but it pretty old when (some of) you insist not showing 3D means no value exists in a 2D game.

And, believe or not, I really do rein in my words/opinions about 3D games. If I wrote my deepest thoughts in my worst moments about people who think 2D games should never be played (or more patronizing, only by "beginners" and small children) I sometimes feel because of venting my "heretical" to some views I would hold the record for most stifles. Or brought to Bill's attention officially more often.

And while stifles mean nada to me I would rather not earn the "honor" of most stifles. Some of the best ideas I have used have come from people who I absolutely 180 degree disagree with.

Gracias,

Glenn

I've been thinking of modifying Rocky Russo's "Mustangs & Messerschmitts" for a 3D starfighter game, using the diecast Battlestar fighters. No loss of speed for climbing, no speed gain for diving. Can still do atmospheric fights with core rules.

Don't want to do anything with larger ships, 2D works fine there.

Another factor is that unless you have more than 3 different units, the battlefield can be represented by a single plane that intersects 3 points. If you constantly played with more than 4 distinct fleets/planets/ etc then the 3rd dimension has meaning as the distance and vectors between 3+ objects is hard to simulate with a 2D vector.

So for giant battlefleets with multiple battle groups approaching in and out of the ecliptic plane, I would think that 3D would be essential. From a gamin point of view, I think that is why computer simulations were invented. (i.e Homeworld and HW2).

--Binhan

Like so many things in this hobby, it really does come down to personal preference. 2D or 3D games are no better or worse. It's just finding what you want in a game and enjoying yourself.

My personal preference is for something closer to simulation. I like the details, even if it plays slower or might get a bit tedious.

That said, I do want my detailed games to play as quickly as possible. I don't have a lot of experience in the space gaming arena, but Attack Vector: Tactical does a really great job of speeding up play without sacrificing 3D or vector movement and so on. In fact, much (if not all) of what aegiscg47 listed above is quite smooth and simple in AV:T.

That said, the game CAN be slower than other games, especially dependent on the players' experience with the game and just what the game situation is.

It certainly isn't something that I see as tedious, but we're back in the realm of personal opinion and we all have a different definition of what's fun and what's work. :-)

HardRock, would a M&M conversion really give 3D or just 2.5D? Can it handle a fighter facing and moving straight 'up'? Altitude levels don't make a space fighter game 3D like they do an atmospheric fighter game.

We always play our space games in 3D. It isn't hard or complicated to do so, so I don't know why others do not.
As mentioned many times above, it's just another direction. Whatever rules you use (we normaly use FT), they already have rules for turning left/right. In space up/down is the same thing, so you already have the rules there.
The only "complication" is if you want to specify dorsal/ventral firing arcs, but that isn't hard either, and isn't even required.

I admit, we abandon it when doing large scale fleet actions, but that is to do with a lack of flight stands rather than anything else.

I have to admit that I share those "heretical views" about air combat games which I mentioned and would like to apologize for my choice of wording. It hindsight calling proponents of 2D air combat heretics is probably offensive which I did not intend. I like the concept of a 3D game whether air or space combat but I much prefer simpler rules systems which permit one player to control a large number of ships/aircraft. I feel the arguements advanced here that height is advantageous in air combat while less so in space combat and that perhaps complexity is greater in space combat are valid. Im not a game historian. Why did air combat start with 3D yet space combat games were 2D? My guess is the complexity and distances in space combat were seen as making 3D less practical in a space game.

Garand, the area between two points if always a plane. Adding another point just adds a new plane.

Um, no.
If you have two points, you have a line. Three points make a plane.

"…Thus, when you play a 2-D air combat game (the tactical kind) it is immediately obvious that it isn't representing the real thing terribly well…"

Um, the most polite one word answer I can use to that statement, in reference to a air combat game, playable in a reasonable time frame (2-3 hours) with more then four people controlling more then 4 aircraft each – my Holy Grail, YYMV – is "Nonsense."

(a)Show the relative strengths and weaknesses of the A6M vs. the P-40 in two dimensions, please?

(b)I never said that everyone will say that it's a poor representation. I guarantee that someone will, however.
-Kle.

Hi

Kle, actually, I did a boardgame sim for the USAF, but it required 3d in the pilots mind.

Its all good and it all can be done. Each idea has plusses and minuses and as this doesn't affect the price of middle east oil or something, I am hesitant to declare "only one way".

I like using the 3d stands to reflect even space war for the visuals. That simple. Much like using figs themselves. In many respects just using counters saying "P40" or "Raptor class" simplifies the game.

But I like figs, and I like 3d.

Your milage may vary!

Anyway, as I said the M&M stands were used for space war games. McEwen did a nice line of very "buck rogers" looking ships and I thought it was fun. And fun to look at.

It is your game, not mine, and I won't declare a right or wrong.

Rocky

3D is an essential part of air combat since holding the high position gives a significant advantage similar to holding the weather gage in sailing ship naval fights.

In space, there is no weather gage and (barring close action around a planet) no height advantage. Therefore, consideration of 3D position is an unnecessary complication.

[Pedant mode]
Actually, TWO points (ships) determine a LINE. Three points determine a PLANE. Ergo, a single-ship duel in space doesn't NEED to simulate 3d.
[/pedant mode]

Not that you can't add the third dimension (AV:T, I'm looking at you!), but it's a different way of looking at the problem than most people want to play. For example, the AV:T way does a great job of simulating what I'd call the PT-boat mentality, where the player is the 'Pilot', concerned with the mechanics of getting into a position where he can kill his opponent. I do need to get a copy of the game, as I do want to give that a whirl, but it's not what I usually think of when I'm imagining space combat (probably spent too much time hunting carrier groups while I was in the Navy).

Been working on this subject for quite some time two problems. One (not to bad of a problem) calculating ranges to target by using Pythagorus' theorum "a squared plus b squared equals c squared" Two (much worse) calculating movement using sin functions a divided by sin A equals b divided by sin B equals c divided by sin C. Now a halfway decent calculator will do all that for you all you have to do is punch in the numbers but you should see them run when you bring up the math. Do gamers realy want to do that?

AV:T doesn't have any of that sort of math involved. Or, rather, the math is already done and hidden in the system.

One good example is their Range Angle Lookup Table, which does what it says. You find how many hexes out and how many up (or down) on the table and that shows you the range as well as the vertical component of the bearing to the target.

For those who don't care for the detail level of AV:T and/or like to design their own ships, Ad Astra Games recently came up with a streamlined version of their 3D space combat engine, Squadron Strike!.

This just FYI, I've not managed to find the time to really get into the details of it yet so can't say about how it actually plays.

I think that one of the reasons for the lack of 3D in many space games is that the design space is so huge when compared to air combat games. There is plenty of stuff for the designer to focus on instead of 3D.

At a macro scale, a jet is a jet is a jet. It carries 1 to 2 people, has a machine gun that fires forward, some missles, and counter-measures.

A space ship might carrier anywhere from 1 to several thousand people, has mulitple types of weapons (masers, grasers, laser, phaser, oh my) that often fire in a wide variety of directions with different effects. Ships may have any number of different force fields, parasites, boarding parties, cloaking devices, point defence systems, etc…

Then there is style of play. Air combat is fairly well know situation. Space combat is still in the realm of fantasy with decades of stories to draw upon. It can be modelled after dogfighting, sub warfare, Age of Sail, carrier warfare, Jutland, etc….

Then there is vehicle design. Many space combat games feature a "build your own" design system. It is a pretty rare air combat game that features rules to build your own aircraft. Most air combat games come with stats for real world planes for the period that they are focused on.