Unrealistic Movement Point System

[dmm]

As I've been posting to a "Retreat Rule" topic and to a "Planetary Bombardment" topic over the Last week or so, it has occurred to me that the whole movement point (MP) system is not very realistic. Consider a fleet with 6 MP. In one turn, it can either
a) move 6 sectors, or
b) move 2 sectors and have a 30-turn combat, during which it lands troops and fights a land war. Then it can re-embark the troops and lay some mines. Then it can move 2 more sectors and do the same thing, and then move 2 more sectors and do the same thing!

I'm not saying this isn't fun. If it's never "fixed" I won't care too much. But I would prefer a more realistic system. Perhaps something as simple as penalizing you 1 MP for things like battles, ground assaults, troop embarkment, cargo loading, refueling, minelaying, etc. Or maybe not a whole MP. Maybe just a fraction of 1, and you only get penalized if you abuse the system and do a bunch of stuff all in one turn.

[apache]

From what I recall, it already costs MPs to colonize, battle, most stellar manipulations, and lots of other things. As far as troop embarkment/debarkment, refueling, and other ship/ship or ship/planet transfers, I think its safe to assume some form of instantaneous star trek-ish beaming transport. But yes, troops should be confined to a planet for the rest of the turn if they were landed in a battle. There are also limits on minelaying, so I don't know why you are arguing that point.
Also, while this is a nice subject to debate, I would never post anything decrying "realism" here since the game pretty much ignores most laws of physics.

[Instar]

Actually, to engage in battle, you do have to have one move point. (the way I saw this was when a battle was a tie and both sides still had ships left, click on attack, and click on your sector. If you don't have moves you cant fight)

[dmm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Instar:
Actually, to engage in battle, you do have to have one move point

---

True. And that's a good rule, even though it is inconsistent with everything else. For example, if you fight first and then move, you get penalized 1 MP for the battle. But if you move first and then fight, you don't get penalized.

[Seawolf]

Um has anyone considered the time scale here? Isn't 1 turn 1 month? I think alot can be done in a month.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

[SirDarwin]

Then again, in most sci-fi it doesn't even 1 month to move across your own star system...so its all a little out of wack

[rdouglass]

Not really. I can get up to 12 MP's per ship using Q engines and Solar Sails III. That'll take me clear across a system in 1 "month". I just need another MP to get thru a WP.

In some Sci-Fi in the 'near' future it takes a long time to move across a system. Didn't it take 13 months in the movie "Mission to Mars" (which was a pretty cheesy movie BTW)?And didn't it take quite a few years to travel to Jupiter in 2001? Granted they didn't have WP's but isn't there this thing called "artistic license"?

[DirectorTsaarx]

And don't forget the fact that you can make multiple 180 degree turns during each PHASE of combat!

And most stories that allow for fast travel through a solar system also allow faster-than-light travel, thus allowing ships to move between star systems without having to use warp points (or jumpgates or whatever).

[Barnacle Bill]

As I understand (simplified), a "real" mars mission you would burn your engines long enough to change your orbital velocity around the sun from "equal to the Earth" to "equal to Mars". Your orbital distance then increases (slowly) to the same as Mars. If you time it right (what they call a "launch window", you end up in the orbit of Mars at the same location Mars occupies when you get there. This takes you on an eliptical course between Earth and Mars, and takes months (maybe around a year), as I recall. Of course in most science fiction games we have some drive that runs all the time and somehow generates velocity as long as it is on, and it looks like SE4 has that, too. It certainly doesn't seem to work "realistically".

Let's forget about the outer solar system for a moment and just deal with the part from Jupiter in. Jupiter is 778140000 km from the sun. So, to get the sun in the center and Jupiter on the map, our system map has to at least twice that, 1556280000 km. As I recall, in Starfire a speed of "6" represents 0.1c, where c = speed of light = 299792 km/sec. At 0.1c, it would take about 14.4 hours to cross our "big enough for Jupiter" system map. If we increase our map so it is big enough to get Pluto on, now it is 11826000000 km across and it takes our ship about 109.6 hours (about 4.5 days) to cross the map. 0.1c is really, really fast, though. When it shut down its engines after the burn to escape Earth orbit and head out for the moon, Apollo 11 had a velocity of 35,579 ft/sec, which is about 10.8 km/sec or about 0.000036c. At that speed, it would take about 4.5 years to get across our "big enough for Jupiter" map, and about 34.5 years to get accross our "big enough for Pluto" map. Voyager 2 has a velocity (relative to Earth) of about 39.4 km/sec. That would take 1.25 years to cross our "big enough for Jupiter" map, and about 9.5 years to get accross our "big enough for Pluto" map.

Another way of looking at it is that you could probably create a decent space 4X game that all stayed in one solar system.

[apache]

Thats a much simplifed, but more or less accurate description of orbital mechanics Barnacle Bill. Anyways, by doing orbital transfers, you save an immense amount of fuel, and thus spacecraft mass. That is the big deal with 20th century (and 21st century) space flight. You actually could fly a direct route to Mars from Earth, but it would mean expending a lot more fuel, though it would mean you get there much quicker.
However, 25th century space flight (according to the game) apparently uses some form of non-intertial propulsion, meaning fuel and spacecraft mass is irrelvant, and you can turn on a dime.