TheBeast | 07 Jan 2015 7:50 a.m. PST |
Given that Jim and Co. have requested only typo/clarification comments, I'll start with that. However, I'm not on Facebook, so not privy to discussions there, and will comment further here. (See further comment.) Page 24 "Double course change A ship with a sufficient thrust rating may make a double course change in one turn. A ship making a double course change always makes the first course change before moving and the second at the half way point, even if the first change is greater than the second." The example shows a ship first turning to port, moving, then turning to starboard, and moving. In asking Jim, I gather the reversal was in his mind, what I referred to as a 'sideslip'. However, he didn't see a problem with it being used as a sharper turn in one direction. If so, there is no need in the explanation of the course change on page 22 of "half of the course change…' I disagree. Further comment: Jim further tells me the Double Course Change has been a standard since XD, and is used with everyone he plays. I, on the other hand, even though getting few plays of late, have NEVER seen it. I think it, and the Halted Ships section on page 23 should be marked optional. Contrary to the comment on page 20, 'with little regard for physics', I feel the cinematic movement had high regard for momentum, albeit in an extremely simplified manner. The restrictions on course changes in movement are simplifications of complex math, and the fiddling that Double Course Change as written allows, and the restrictions on Halted Ships don't seem to match that. Doug |
TheStarRanger | 07 Jan 2015 9:02 a.m. PST |
I had noticed that rule too but didn't have time to go through it fully and how it was different from a basic sideslip so I will take another look at it soon. |
Lion in the Stars | 07 Jan 2015 10:38 a.m. PST |
Cinematic movement might have regard for momentum in terms of the ships ability to rapidly rotate about it's axis, but there is no conservation of momentum shown in the classic examples of oBSG, Trek, or SWars. Babylon 5 showed some ships carrying momentum (most commonly for the fighters), but other ships did not. Wing Commander only showed inertia when a fighter was in close to a ship and doing a 'strafe' with the nose pointing a different direction to the flight path. As far as a "sideslip" goes in FT, I thought those were classed as a "push"? (and in technical terms would be a 'translate' burn instead of a 'rotate' burn) |
smoltz29brave | 07 Jan 2015 11:36 a.m. PST |
How is a double course change different from a regular side slip? |
TheBeast | 07 Jan 2015 11:47 a.m. PST |
Where did 'sideslip' come in? I used the term from other games. The example implies it's a side slip, the wording could be used for ignoring the distribution of turn points in the basic rules. LitS: Isn't 'push' a part of the vector, and mostly unknown to me, rules? Doug Edit: LitS: Well, ST had plenty of momentum, when making rapid course adjustments, in how everyone on the bridge and in the corridors got thrown to the side. ;->= |
TheStarRanger | 07 Jan 2015 1:34 p.m. PST |
The sideslip as part of cinematic movement rules in FT has been there for a long time as a house rule. A quick search for sideslip and FT shows it in several places, some of they quite old including here: link What may be missing in the new rule isthe mention that the second turn is in the opposite direction as the first one. |
TheBeast | 07 Jan 2015 3:44 p.m. PST |
Thanks, Dean! I accept its aged provenance, but not enough to consider it more than an option. "It is allowable to combine a Side–Slip with a turn," makes it even slipperier, and probably the source of the unclear wording in FT:PC. Thanks to all who attempted to help me! On page 34, I'd also offer a suggested change: You may not find this convincing. The other explanation is that no set of game rules is ever perfect. Adding more and more rules to try and solve rarely occurring problems [would be more trouble than it is worth.] becomes [is exactly what Full Thrust is all about, and the crafting of such is left to Dear Reader.] Doug |
jimklein1966 | 07 Jan 2015 5:23 p.m. PST |
The dpuble course change is from cross dimensions page 23 Except for the graphic its basically a cut and paste. As with all things in full tjrust if your group does not care for it, dont use it. Another option might be to restrict it to ships with a slightly higher engine 'tech' to show a tad better manuvering ability. Its entirely up to u. The same with the halted ships rules – originally in XD also on pg 23 Beast- we'll take a look at the rest of ur suggestions. Thanks! |
jimklein1966 | 07 Jan 2015 5:28 p.m. PST |
Double course changes must be used to manuver the ship in two diff directions such as port then starboard or starboard then port. It cant be used to get around the regular rules for two point turns. Thatnwas never in te spirit of the rule. We could add that clarification however. |
smoltz29brave | 07 Jan 2015 5:59 p.m. PST |
I'm confused. I thought the regular rules for two point turns allow for one turn at the beginning of movement and one in the middle. How is what is described in XD or Continuum any different than that? |
jimklein1966 | 07 Jan 2015 6:49 p.m. PST |
You are correct. The rule in discussion is double course changes. Pg 23 in XD and pg 24 in FT:PC. its a minor manuver option that, in effect, lets a ship side slip. |
Lion in the Stars | 07 Jan 2015 8:20 p.m. PST |
LitS: Isn't 'push' a part of the vector, and mostly unknown to me, rules? Could be, I've not taken a thorough read through FT:PC. |
jimklein1966 | 07 Jan 2015 10:38 p.m. PST |
'push' is a part of the vector rules yes. what theyre talking abt here a one paragraph rule we carried over from cross dimensions. its easy to overlook it and from what i gather here at least some gaming groups dont use it. |
TheBeast | 08 Jan 2015 7:30 a.m. PST |
Thanks again, Jim! I rather thought it would be "unclear wording in FT:PC" via XD. ;->= Doug |
Covert Walrus | 08 Jan 2015 4:18 p.m. PST |
"As far as a "sideslip" goes in FT, I thought those were classed as a "push"? (and in technical terms would be a 'translate' burn instead of a 'rotate' burn)" That's correct in Vector Movement. |
jimklein1966 | 09 Jan 2015 9:25 a.m. PST |
Correct, vector mvt system. The double course change is in the cinematic system however |
Lion in the Stars | 09 Jan 2015 10:35 a.m. PST |
OK, nevermind me, then. (I'm not sure I've ever played FT with the cinematic movement system, I'm a vector nerd) |
jimklein1966 | 09 Jan 2015 11:38 a.m. PST |
Lol..no worries. I like tne vector system too. If you wanna try something crazy, have one fleet use cinematic and one use vector. Makes for an interesting game |
TheBeast | 09 Jan 2015 12:41 p.m. PST |
I know playing one against the other was suggested as a way of simulating an 'advanced' technology at least a couple of times. Maybe in the The Babylon Project: Earthforce Sourcebook for one? And, just to be my tedious self, The double course change is in the cinematic system however and here, again, we disagree. ;->= Doug |
jimklein1966 | 11 Jan 2015 5:38 a.m. PST |
That is where the rule is listed in both XD, PC and Warlords. I was assuming Covert was unsure where to find the rule refernce |
TheBeast | 11 Jan 2015 8:45 a.m. PST |
Did want to make some apologies. Jim, I understand you had sources; mine was a small joke on my stubborness. …but there is no conservation of momentum shown in the classic examples of oBSG, Trek, or SWars. … Edit: LitS: Well, ST had plenty of momentum, when making rapid course adjustments, in how everyone on the bridge and in the corridors got thrown to the side. ;->=
The tongue-in-cheek reply masks the fact I think the cinematic movement is as good as it gets for original ST's psuedo-momentum warp system. If one assumes a 'warp bubble' takes subjective time to create and expand, diminish and close, change 'direction', then it is well served by the system. The crew getting thrown around was a necessary dramatic device. Some of us were DAMN naive in high school, even with a couple of physic classes under our belt. Doug |
jimklein1966 | 11 Jan 2015 5:42 p.m. PST |
No apologies necessary! :) And I loved the crew getting tossed out of their chairs…lol. And the minor over sight of the Enterprise not having a toilet on board. heh |
billclo | 11 Jan 2015 6:49 p.m. PST |
Why no seatbelts/harnesses on the Bridge seats? ;) |
jimklein1966 | 11 Jan 2015 7:00 p.m. PST |
Because GCI delpoyable belts hadnt been invented yet? Lol |
TheBeast | 12 Jan 2015 6:10 a.m. PST |
No apologies necessary! :) Nope, they are; I've not changed my mind. Rather than what to me are kludges like vaguely worded sideslips and 'alternate' fire arcs A and B, I'd rather build a system that has a rosette of twenty-four pips. Couldn't play it; too fiddly. Other things I'd avoid: multiple, proportional course changes, or my own monster attempt, mid-course firing. Shades of SFB! Doug |
jimklein1966 | 12 Jan 2015 8:55 a.m. PST |
SFB was the first space game i ever played. I started when it was a simple 'pocket game' and only had some 20 pages of rules. I loved it it. Who wouldnt want to play kirk or kang and recreate the battles we saw on tv. But when the rule book grew into the 2" thick commanders edition and nobody could keep track of all the differnt rules the game kinda fell by the wayside. The best part of the game were the hexless miniature rules they came out with but that eventually got dropped by TFG. I wish they would bring those back |
TheBeast | 12 Jan 2015 11:32 a.m. PST |
They did, sort of, with Fed Commander. Sort of… I really think the free demo download is one of the best bargains in spaceship gaming. ;->= Doug |
AdAstraGames | 12 Jan 2015 2:46 p.m. PST |
Squadron Strike has 12-point facing in 2D, with Full Thrust like preplotting. And optional rules for "move half, fire, move half, fire again." If you miss the detail of SFB, and want something that plays comparably to Full Thrust, check it out. |
TheBeast | 13 Jan 2015 4:20 a.m. PST |
|