| tsofian | 01 Mar 2018 5:43 p.m. PST |
with the following criteria
3D
real world physics
playable
fun Anything meet these criteria? |
| mwindsorfw | 01 Mar 2018 5:55 p.m. PST |
Real world physics, playable, fun? HAHAHAHAHA! |
| Winston Smith | 01 Mar 2018 5:56 p.m. PST |
|
| Pizzagrenadier | 01 Mar 2018 6:10 p.m. PST |
I want to be young and rich too. |
Tgerritsen  | 01 Mar 2018 6:19 p.m. PST |
There's Ad-Astra. It's not my cup of joe, but it has 3D, real world physics and is playable.
adastragames.com |
| stephen m | 01 Mar 2018 6:28 p.m. PST |
Not 3D but the most elegant easily learned but tough to master game is the old GDW game Mayday. 3D doesn't exist until you have the third ship and functionally is probably easier ignored. |
| Dynaman8789 | 01 Mar 2018 6:49 p.m. PST |
|
John Leahy  | 01 Mar 2018 7:39 p.m. PST |
|
| Lucius | 01 Mar 2018 7:39 p.m. PST |
|
 Extra Crispy | 01 Mar 2018 8:53 p.m. PST |
The closest you'll get is "2.5D" with rules like Starship! that greatly simplify it. Otherwise unless you think algebra problems are fun, play a computer game. |
| Grimdark Future Fan | 01 Mar 2018 9:56 p.m. PST |
I think you either get real world, or fun. My choice is fun and playable… link |
| Zagloba | 01 Mar 2018 9:58 p.m. PST |
Why stop at 3D? You need 6 to really do space right… |
| Ironwolf | 01 Mar 2018 10:13 p.m. PST |
Attack Vector is the closes thing I know of for what your asking. link |
| Oberlindes Sol LIC | 01 Mar 2018 11:27 p.m. PST |
I agree with stephen m about Mayday. It gives you 3 out of 4 of the things you asked for. |
| JimSelzer | 02 Mar 2018 12:15 a.m. PST |
Mayday is my choice as well was going to mention it 6 hours ago then realized you wanted 3d not just vector movement |
| Tiberius | 02 Mar 2018 5:14 a.m. PST |
It isn't 3D but Full Thrust are great rules and has vector movement |
| Dynaman8789 | 02 Mar 2018 5:34 a.m. PST |
Full Thrust is not vector movement. |
| thosmoss | 02 Mar 2018 7:26 a.m. PST |
Doesn't real world physics imply we're not ever getting very far from Earth's gravity well? |
| Andrew Walters | 02 Mar 2018 9:44 a.m. PST |
"Playable" and "fun" are subjective, as is "real world physics" and, strangely, "3D'. Some real soul-searching about what you want is probably the first step. |
| Akalabeth | 02 Mar 2018 12:36 p.m. PST |
3D and fun? Good luck.
I think putting 3D in a space combat game is an unrealistic contrivance but that's another discussion. |
| Volstagg Vanir | 02 Mar 2018 2:39 p.m. PST |
Saganami Island Tactical Simulator (so, yeah : ' Attack Vector: Tactical ' ….) |
| TNE2300 | 02 Mar 2018 5:23 p.m. PST |
Mayday would be my first choice there is also intercept
link |
| TheBeast | 02 Mar 2018 9:42 p.m. PST |
Full Thrust is not vector movement. He meant there's a version which has some adaptions to move it closer to some vector effects. Personally, I've always thought of FT as vector of a very simplified, as in 'the simplest approximation of a curve is an angle' variety, but I accept that's a HUGE YMMV. Doug |
| Marcin from Assault Publishing | 04 Mar 2018 7:00 a.m. PST |
"Shadows in the Void": fighter combat, 2,5D and simpliefied movement. But the main goal was to catch the mood of space combat: huge distances, finding targets, risk menagment and fog of war. Far, far from WW1-style dogfight.
Is it fun? As author It's not my goal to judge, but I bet if you like to combine and plan you will enjoy it. |
| Daricles | 04 Mar 2018 4:53 p.m. PST |
"Finding targets and fog of war" probably doesn't fit the real world physics requirement very well. |
| Akalabeth | 04 Mar 2018 5:42 p.m. PST |
Real world physics probably refers to movement not detection and target acquisition. |
| Daricles | 04 Mar 2018 6:47 p.m. PST |
Anything moving in space under it's own power according to the laws of real world physics would be easily detectable. Real space combat would be extremely boring and involve a lot of math. The outcome of most engagements would be predictable in advance. Just about the only unknowns would be the political ramifications of the engagement and how they would affect the decision making of the captains involved. |
| Akalabeth | 05 Mar 2018 2:33 a.m. PST |
Real world combat is extremely boring but people still make&play games about it. Either way the point stands that when the OP said "Real world physics" they're probably referring to movement, not necessarily detection. |
| Lion in the Stars | 12 Mar 2018 9:36 a.m. PST |
Assuming you mean 3d movement and newtonian physics, the most accurate is Ad Astra's Attack Vector: Tactical. But that's really for single-ship duels, even for experienced players. I wouldn't want to run more than about 4 ships per player in AVT. Next step up in number of ships per player is also from Ad Astra, it's called Squadron Strike. You can handle up to about a dozen ships with practice. An older game from Dream Pod 9 also runs 3d movement and (simplified) Newtonian Physics, it's called Jovian Chronicles. The original JC book is actually for roleplaying in a Gundam-type universe, you will need the Compendium to get the design rules. PDFs are cheap from DriveThruRPG. Lightning Strike is *not* what you want, that's miniatures on an open map in 2d. Jovian Chronicles is hexbased and 3d. If you want build-your-own-ships, you will need to play Squadron Strike or the old Jovian Chronicles game from Dream Pod 9. Building ships is slightly easier in JC (the Squadron Strike spreadsheet makes Excel beg for mercy, but the JC design rules aren't much simpler). If you want realistic combat problems, well… depends on your handwaving, errr, setting background assumptions. The drives in Heinlein/Asimov (and The Expanse) are grossly overpowered and have issues with reaction mass. I mean, it's only 96 hours from Earth to Mars at average distance if you can burn at 1 gee continuously. Sadly, my laptop with all my fun spreadsheets is down right now or I could give you fun numbers for all the major planets. Even 1m/s/s (nominally 1/10 gee) will get you from Earth to Mars in something like 30 days. But you're going to be detectable on thermal from the far side of the solar system doing that. There is *very* limited stealth in space. Either you can go really fast and tell everyone in the system where you are and how heavy you are, or you fart around with cm/s/s burn capability and near-zero thermal trace. The two systems are pretty much incompatible engineering wise, the thermal stealth requirements are even more extreme than the F117's faceted shape was! |
| williamb | 13 Mar 2018 8:56 a.m. PST |
Been using a modified version of StarCruiser to incorporate simplified 3d movement and spherical fire capability. Ship design system requires a calculator or the free excel spreadsheet. meets all of the OP requirements. Note one item in turn sequence eliminated was the ability to fire twice in a turn by removing the defensive fire during the detonation phase. Also used the anatomy of a missile article to redesign the later missiles to give them a movement of 14 to 15 |
| Part time gamer | 12 Apr 2018 12:05 a.m. PST |
Grimdark Future Fan
I think you either get real world, or fun. My choice is fun and playable… I have to agree. 'Long ago', playing a ST PC Sim game it suddenly occurred to me: "Space combat is IMHO best compared to dogfights", but with 'really big' fighters. Its said 'In space there is no 'up or down'.
A scene from the film Alien is a great example of this. As the ship approaches the planet (LV-426) they are 'under' the planet, but once the ship rolls to begin its landing, they appear to be 'above'. I think trying to add 'Realistic" astral physics to a game, is just asking waaay too much of a "Game".
And is by far more work than its worth. BUT.. Good luck. |
reports from the final California Gen Con...
