A merging of b5wars and acta?

[andrewgpaul]

One thing to think about when trying to simulate 'Newtonian' movement, is that the ships in B5 didn't fly like that; they behaved like naval vessels, without the water The only thing which attempted anything like realistic movement was the Aurora starfury, and even that was limited to being able to 'flip over'; Other than that, it banked and rolled just like an X-Wing (or Spitfire, even).

 

[Xorrandor]

One thing to think about when trying to simulate 'Newtonian' movement, is that the ships in B5 didn't fly like that; they behaved like naval vessels, without the water The only thing which attempted anything like realistic movement was the Aurora starfury, and even that was limited to being able to 'flip over'; Other than that, it banked and rolled just like an X-Wing (or Spitfire, even).

In general, true. However, the fluff always claimed that EA and other "primitive" races' ships flew according to good old Newton. You can always say the action on the screen was poetic license, like the proximity of the ships to each other. I mean, come on, who cares about Minbari jammers; they're always close enough to shoot at over open sights anyway .

Besides, I'm generally in the "if it's not Newtonian, why aren't we just playing a naval game" camp. Except for the part where I'll just play anyway, because the game is fun even if it doesn't strike me as very space-like. Minority opinion, I know.

 

[frobisher]

One thing to think about when trying to simulate 'Newtonian' movement, is that the ships in B5 didn't fly like that; they behaved like naval vessels, without the water The only thing which attempted anything like realistic movement was the Aurora starfury, and even that was limited to being able to 'flip over'; Other than that, it banked and rolled just like an X-Wing (or Spitfire, even).

You've forgotten about the White Star which definitely flew backwards at various points on straffing runs (as did the Starfuries), and there's a Narn Frazi that famously pivots to change direction at the beginning of Season 2 (the second to last thing it ever does...) and there's countless other examples I've missed.

 

[frobisher]

I dislike quantised movement in wargaming, makes the game too rigid and open to causing annoyance or possible exploitation of the limits

Take a good, long look at the movement rules of ACtA and tell me those aren't quantised (try making a turn for example)...

Every movement system in table top gaming has some level of quantisation in it - I've yet to meet a system that doesn't.

 

[frobisher]

In general, true. However, the fluff always claimed that EA and other "primitive" races' ships flew according to good old Newton. You can always say the action on the screen was poetic license, like the proximity of the ships to each other.

They are still obeying Newtonian mechanics though - by definition. How they maintain their courses is between them and their engine rooms however

There was nothing shown that was not achievable with suitable thruster arrangements and thrust vectoring. Newtonian mechanics are not optional in "real life".

However when it comes to a game simulation, they are

 

[Hash]

Hash,

when has hex's have had anything to do with time.

I don't think I said that at all, but am sorry if I implied otherwise. I gave a very seperate reason for why I might like hexes which I have already explained. It is a matter of personal preference and I appreciate you have a different view on this.

The time issue was something to do with the other aspects of B5 wars (complex hit location resolution, component management etc.) which, as I've already stated, I don't generally like as I prefer quick games with simple mechanics...of course there are exceptions - I'm a big fan of some relatively complex board games for example. (Twilight Imperium III anyone )

That said, I am interested to hear what other "good" mechanics from B5 wars there are as I don't know too much about the game.

 

[andrewgpaul]

In general, true. However, the fluff always claimed that EA and other "primitive" races' ships flew according to good old Newton. You can always say the action on the screen was poetic license, like the proximity of the ships to each other.

They are still obeying Newtonian mechanics though - by definition. How they maintain their courses is between them and their engine rooms however

There was nothing shown that was not achievable with suitable thruster arrangements and thrust vectoring. Newtonian mechanics are not optional in "real life".

However when it comes to a game simulation, they are

Hmmm. Explain to me how EA (or Narn and Centauri, for that matter) ships decelerate from the jumpgates then. They have no forward thrusters comparable to their rear engines. In the case of the Omega, at least, the deceleration rate appears at least as high as the main engines' acceleration, as seen in the attack on the Proxima colony in S4, so it can't just be a gentler deceleration over a longer time. The only way that should happen is if it pivots 180degrees and performs a retrograde main engine burn, which is never done.

As to the Whitestar, you're correct, although they also (in the same scene!) perform an aerodynamic-style bank around the shadow Omega. The Whitestar's abilities are better represented by ACTA movement and the 'supermaneouvrable' trait than by B5W's clunky attempt at a vector system.

Not sure about the Frazi example; don't remember it. As for 'numerous other examples' they're outnumbered by the preponderance of onscreen evidence; Ships in B5 only perform like spaceships, as opposed to wet-navy ships and/or F-15s when the plot requires it.

Not that this is a bad thing; it's just important not to lose sight of it.

As to claims from the fluff, that's all they are; claims. The onscreen evidence is more important. After all, would you beleive someone if they said cars can drive sideways when you can look out the window and see that they do not?

"if it's not Newtonian, why aren't we just playing a naval game"

I have thought that myself on occasion. That's why I usually play Full Thrust these days with the Vector Movement Sysytem, and own Hard Vacuum and Attack Vector: Tactical.

However:
1) EAS Hyperion looks cooler than USS Iowa
2)Babylon 5 was cool, and I'd like to play games which simulate it. I do not wish to play games which simulate, say, Jutland, because IMO it's not as cool.
3) some things about a VMS can be non-intuitive, and people are less likely to play games involving them.

 

[Xorrandor]

Hmmm. Explain to me how EA (or Narn and Centauri, for that matter) ships decelerate from the jumpgates then.

Um, do you know how anything looks when coming out of another dimension, where things travel faster than light? I always assumed that was a visual illusion brought on by the jumpgate and its brief look into hyperspace.

As to claims from the fluff, that's all they are; claims. The onscreen evidence is more important. After all, would you beleive someone if they said cars can drive sideways when you can look out the window and see that they do not?

If it's in TV or a movie, probably. (Come to think of it, in Minority Report cars can drive sideways ) Onscreen evidence is biased to look visually appealing. As I said, if I believe onscreen evidence, you can throw a baseball and hit Minbari ships at combat range, so who cares about their fancy jammers? Why should I take the combat maneuvers any more literally?

"if it's not Newtonian, why aren't we just playing a naval game"

I have thought that myself on occasion. That's why I usually play Full Thrust these days with the Vector Movement Sysytem, and own Hard Vacuum and Attack Vector: Tactical.

However:
1) EAS Hyperion looks cooler than USS Iowa
2)Babylon 5 was cool, and I'd like to play games which simulate it. I do not wish to play games which simulate, say, Jutland, because IMO it's not as cool.
3) some things about a VMS can be non-intuitive, and people are less likely to play games involving them.

All good points, which is why I have this game in the first place. Doesn't mean that if someone is looking at developing a smaller scale ship duel system I won't put a vote in for vectors. Because frankly, I'd prefer if point #3 was one people would just get over. If you can't handle the vector system in Hard Vacuum, it's because you can't add and subtract; higher math skills are not required.

 

[lastbesthope]

I dislike quantised movement in wargaming, makes the game too rigid and open to causing annoyance or possible exploitation of the limits

Take a good, long look at the movement rules of ACtA and tell me those aren't quantised (try making a turn for example)...

OK, I'll tell you that. The minimum 2" move isn't quantisation, it's bounding/limiting, but it's not quantising.

LBH
Pedant at large :lol:

 

[andrewgpaul]

Hmmm. Explain to me how EA (or Narn and Centauri, for that matter) ships decelerate from the jumpgates then.

Um, do you know how anything looks when coming out of another dimension, where things travel faster than light? I always assumed that was a visual illusion brought on by the jumpgate and its brief look into hyperspace.

Nah, I'm talking about once it's cleared the gate. It's still travelling forward. By the time it reaches the station, it's stopped.

As for visuals vs dialogue, or writer's intent, or offscreen information, I prefer to go by visuals, since it's the only thing you can objectively measure (although I'll give you the fact that B5's CGI goofs make that difficult). Dialogue can be wrong, or the character speaking it can be misinformed or lying, and offscreen material has a nasty habit of being at odds with the onscreen details, or simply contradictory. IMO and YMMV, of course.

Actually, B5 did tend to have long-range engagements - most of them had the firing ship in one shot, then cut to the target. The Shadows at the Narn Outpost, the Centauri and EA at B5 itself, and the Army of Light vs EA at Proxima are all examples, IIRC. Exceptions I can think of are the Black Star, which deliberately closed the range, Whitestars vs shadow Omegas, again, closing range to use their maneouvrability advantage, and the Battle of the Line, again where the Minbari deliberately jumped on top of the defenders. Unlike, say, Star Trek and Star Wars where ships routinely fight in visual range, for no good reason.

 

[frobisher]

Hmmm. Explain to me how EA (or Narn and Centauri, for that matter) ships decelerate from the jumpgates then. They have no forward thrusters comparable to their rear engines.

They have no forward thrusters that look like their rear thrusters. they clearly must have as they do manage to come to a halt

Besides, there is a (probable) thruster array just under the hanger entrance on the front of the Omega, it just doesn't seem to produce a glow like the rear thrusters, but then neither do the thrusters used by NASA...

You're also forgetting that a large portion of the apparent deceleration effect of coming out of hyperspace is because of the transit between the two media and moving between two universes with (possibly) differing laws of physics.

As to the Whitestar, you're correct, although they also (in the same scene!) perform an aerodynamic-style bank around the shadow Omega. The Whitestar's abilities are better represented by ACTA movement and the 'supermaneouvrable' trait than by B5W's clunky attempt at a vector system.

Erm, the Agile trait in B5 Wars covers that pretty nicely for the White Star. It can pull a 180 degree turn in a single manoeuvre at relatively high speeds - does it for me...

Not sure about the Frazi example; don't remember it. As for 'numerous other examples' they're outnumbered by the preponderance of onscreen evidence; Ships in B5 only perform like spaceships, as opposed to wet-navy ships and/or F-15s when the plot requires it.

I don't know... the capital ships generally tend to plough forward in a straight line and don't manoeuvre. Pretty damn space shippy to me...

The other thing to remember is that the fighters are fly by wire - you don't make manoeuvres purely by thinking "Oh, I've got to roll, pitch left, and then reverse thrust" you just pull the stick the right way and the AI sorts out what happens, consequently the fighters fly like atmospheric craft in the most part. As the Centauri and Minbari fighters have gravitic engines, we don't see any visible effect of thrusters which we do see for the EA and Narn ones when they pull off manoeuvres...

 

[Xorrandor]

As for visuals vs dialogue, or writer's intent, or offscreen information, I prefer to go by visuals, since it's the only thing you can objectively measure (although I'll give you the fact that B5's CGI goofs make that difficult). Dialogue can be wrong, or the character speaking it can be misinformed or lying, and offscreen material has a nasty habit of being at odds with the onscreen details, or simply contradictory. IMO and YMMV, of course.

Dialogue is the main thing the author writes. I'll stick with that as the primary source of information. (In Firefly, the CGI artists threw in a demolished planet once, because they thought the scripted shot was too boring.) I guess I just remember far more shots where multiple ships appear in the same screen; my memory is notoriously bad, though, so you may well be right.

 

[andrewgpaul]

No, I'm not forgetting the psuedoacceleration from Hyperspace, like I pointed out in my last post.

If the Omega's forward thrusters can put out the same thrust as the main engines (as they would have to do, to slow the ship at the same rate as the main engines accelerate it), then why aren't they as big? If those openings at the front can put out the same thrust as the main engines, why doesn't it just use those as main engines as well, since they're much smaller and less bulky? In any case, what about the Hyperion or Olympus?

The Centauri ships have reaction drives, same as the EA and Narn. They may have some sort of gravitic technology, but that is a secondary source of propulsion. In fact, the only ships without obvious thrusters are the Minbari and Shadows. Even the Vorlons use reaction engines, although they're probably enhanced somehow. It doesn't matter how the computer interprests the motions of the controls, it's how the thing moves through space that's important, and it can be plainly observed that, most of the time, they fly like Mustangs and Sturmoviks, not Apollo CMs and Soyuz capsules

Supemaneouvrable, Agile; same idea, you gt my drift. Been a while since I fought against a Whitestar

And what I meant by the ships moving like ocean vessels is wide, slow turns; not once did we see, IIRC, a capital ship pivoting, so it's nose was pointed away from its direction of travel. If the ships behaved realistically, the Asimov liner would be, for its size, the most agile ship in the EA

I've always watched SF shows and assumed that what's onscreen is 'actually happening' - as if it were a History Channel documentary. If you go with author's intent, you run into problems with different script drafts, ad-libbing cast, and the author simply not knowing what he was talking about. JMS admitted that there were no set 'stats' for the ships, that they behaved as he needed them to do to fit the plot, while Joss Whedon confessed that "science makes his brain hurt". Apart from being a sad admission rom an otherwise intelligent man, it makes playing the Serenity RPG a pain in the arse. Given that the written word is so mercurial, all you can rely on to make solid comparisons of ships' performance is what happens onscreen (which leads to such things, incidentally, as the Ewoks being exterminated by the nuclear winter brought on by the destruction of the 2nd Death Star).