Re: Unrealistic Movement Point System
 

Aren't we getting technical http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Also I woudln't call SEIV a near future game, but then again this isn't a realistic game to begin with http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is suppose to be fun, personally I never even thought about how the movement worked in the game until I saw this topic http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Unrealistic Movement Point System
 

One aspect of reality that we lose in the game is that solar systems are not static. The planet locations relative to each are constantly changing. During the time involved for even one turn, the planets would move in relation to each other.

While I'm not suggesting that the SEIV game system should be modified to reflect this, (talk about a programming nightmare!) the discussion of the realism of movement points should probably be tempered by the fact that the premise of movement within the system is inherently flawed. The game is fun, as stated before, but we will never get realistic movement with a static system model.

Re: Unrealistic Movement Point System
 

Again, it is all a matter of how complex you want it to be. Also a matter of what assumptions you want to make about future tech. That was my point, and why I mentioned everything from Starfire speeds down to "real life" current spacecraft.

In Starfire they do provide the option to track moving bodies within the solar system, etc... Actually it is kind of weird. Computers seemingly offer the ability to make a more complex game playable, but no computer 4X game I've ever seen approaches the complexity of even the current 4th edition of Starfire (which is greatly simplified compared to late 2nd & early 3rd edition rules).

Re: Unrealistic Movement Point System
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
One aspect of reality that we lose in the game is that solar systems are not static. The planet locations relative to each are constantly changing. During the time involved for even one turn, the planets would move in relation to each other.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was the subject of a LONG thread, about 5 months ago. I can't remember if there was ever a consensus, but I do remember that some people had halfway reasonable explanations for the (apparent) lack of orbital movement. (Besides the obvious one that it makes the programming harder.)