Ship Talk

[jars_u]

I think another applicable example of firing arcs as well as movement is from The War Engine which actually has its roots here at Shrapnel Games as WDK2K. The full game is available for free download - it had firing arc's (that in the unit editor could be defined) as well as some rules for movement and momentum that I think would translate well to ship combat (acceleration time required in order to get up to full speed/maximum number of hexes moved) as well as requiring deceleration time which would sometimes require you or allow you to plan to crash into something.

Now that I think about it I haven't seen anything in the threads debating hexes vs squares etc. any general thoughts on that?

[Ed Kolis]

Perhaps because the movement system is Cartesian-vector-based (like Stars!), not hex or square sector based Yeah, I know, now that everyone knows, there's gonna be a lot of complaining... :P

Note however that unlike Stars!, Star Legacy will have in-system movement as well as interstellar movement; planets and such are not "abstracted away" as they were in Stars!

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by Ed Kolis

the movement system is Cartesian-vector-based (like Stars!)

Cartesian-vector-based ...so the Cartesian coordinate plane can still be done in hexes RIGHT?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Stars! But on old image of an SSI game comes to mind but I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars!

is this the game you are referring to?

[Arralen]

Originally Posted by jars_u

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Stars! But on old image of an SSI game comes to mind but I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars!
is this the game you are referring to?

Yes.
That THE STARS! GAME of ultimate and everlasting fame - which lots of people would be still playing today (and some still do, actually), if it ...
A) wasn't a 16-Bit game written for Win3.1
B) had TCP/IP network gaming capability
C) had more exciting combat than an auto-resolved chessboard
D) had any AI to speak of

[Arralen]

Originally Posted by jars_u

Cartesian-vector-based ...so the Cartesian coordinate plane can still be done in hexes RIGHT?

Forgot - no, you can't do vector-based thingies in hexes.
No squares, no hexes.

Only small dots and and long movement arrows.


Btw., I'm still not convinced that firing arcs make any sense.

How will ships be depicted in SL - with engine at one end only, as usual? And combat will be cartesian-vector based as well?
In that case, firing arcs are especially moot, because, as you'll remember, in space your engines are fighting inertia and gravity, not athmosperic drag. If you want to go 90° to the left, you'll have to point your ship ~135° backwards and fire your engines.
Now, if you're spining your ship around anytime to manoeuvre anyway, you can surely point it at a target for the short time required to fire the big spinal gun.

Moo2 got this completely wrong, as they completely left out inertia - for longitudinal movement. But turning the ship costs movement points, what does not make any sense from a physical p.o.v., because the energy (and therefore time) required to turn the ship is much lower than whats required to make it move somewhere.

Moo2 is also a striking example why firing arcs don't make sense, even from a game design viewpoint: By using "front only" you can pack much more weapons than the AI (mostly uses "front + sides"), and most fights are over before the ships get even near each other.

Now if the battle plane(?) was much bigger, and the firing speed of the ships much lower, and movement & turning speed much higher (no firing on every movement turn), then firing arcs would make a sensible difference ...

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by Arralen

How will ships be depicted in SL - with engine at one end only, as usual?

I would not want to sacrifice game play for realism but I think in ship design most games (certainly SE4 and 5) depict engines at one end only but I think maneuvering thrusters not at that end should be required for general movement. I think in a 2d x, y axis tactical map firing arcs could be depicted in a simplified way that would still have a significant impact on games especially for capital size ships:

* bow placed weapons - 180 degree arc (360 if turret mounted)
* port/starboard placed weapons - 180 degree arc
* stern placed weapons - 180 degree arc

assuming there is no z axis "top" and "bottom" would not be meaningful.

For me it boils down to really enjoying the ship building aspect of 4x games and wanting to tweak and really eek out the best designs possible so I don't want to sacrifice options whereas with something like economy I be more willing to K.I.S.S. it.