Stopping in space

[Romu]

hehe that would be nice, 6 weeks is far too long

 

[Sulfurdown]

Yeah it is a bit unrealistic, its also unrealistic that you can't fire while performing All Stop And Pivot. Also it's not realistic for ships to have a "speed" at all, since in space only accelleration is important. But of course it's there for balance and simplicity both of these need to be present.

The only way to make it kind of realistic is to get into vector movement like B5 Wars... no thanks, too complicated!

Quite so, the use of inertial mechanics get's really really sticky. What keeps Wars in line is that it's all hex based rather then freeform and anyone playing the system probably knows the amount of tracking they're getting into. I believe Full Thrust used a maneuvering mechanic and a thrust points ability so that ships didn't have a maximum speed but did have a point where their maneuverability wasn't enough to keep them on the board. Unfortunately a change in mechanic from ACTA's Speed based system to Full Thrust's inertial system would require complete reevaluation of all the ships and in the end the functional difference doesn't strike me as being that large. Except that there would need to be more bookkeeping on each ship. (Yes I said the B-word!)

 

[thePirv]

Meh, is inertia and "realism" that big a deal. We all like the speed mechanic enough or else we wouldn't be playing the game.
While it doesn't feel right what with speed 0 crits and all that, it's an easy system that works. I'm happy enough with it.

 

[Iain McGhee]

And imagine how difficult boresighting would be with inertial movement unless you were going nose to nose or nose to tail against a moving target.

 

[Greg Smith]

ACTA is very much abstract and simplified for ease of play. The minimum half movement represents the inertia.

While coming to a stop should cancel out inertia and leave a ship standing still, you are then into a situation where you are tracking velocity from turn to turn, something that is not done in ACTA.

While I haven't played B5 Wars, I have played Interceptor (which uses and a similar movement system) and Full Thrust and other true vector movement systems. ACTA has a big advantage in that you are figuring out where to position your ship, not how to move your ship.

 

[Da Boss]

Def agree - its a nice quite fast game (depending on the players!)

 

[lastbesthope]

Well, I'm sure its providing a mechanic where you've set yourself up in geosynchronous (sp?) orbit.

Chern

Geosynchronous or Geostationary? The second being a special case of the first.

BeStationary is a relative term anyway, depends on your frame of reference.

LBH

 

[Ripple]

Understand the simplification point...even agree with it.

BUT (yes a large one)

If you all stop, you really should remain all stopped. You've canceled your momentum so something has to come along and give you some or you would sit. ie there is nothing to simulate no matter how simply.

That said Hash had a good approach above with a stopped ship being easier to hit/lacking active defense. Still gives you the effect you want and give those fast flankers a reason to actually try that kind of maneuver.

Eh...its not that big a deal, but it is one of the first complaints I hear when I introduce folks to the game. 'What do you mean I can't just stop?"

Ripple

 

[CZuschlag]

I'd just worry that permitting a fleet to stay "All Stopped" and then do some other special action (like CAF (Minbari), CBD (pak'ma'ra), Run Slient, and just not move for Scouts) would enhance certain long-range bombardment fleets or elements at the expense of close-and-kill fleets; with our beam teams, this is bad enough already.

And, you know, the request to be able to pivot and fire would come next, bringing up seveal HUGE cans of worms.

 

[Valen is my name]

Well, I'm sure its providing a mechanic where you've set yourself up in geosynchronous (sp?) orbit.

Chern

Geosynchronous or Geostationary? The second being a special case of the first.

BeStationary is a relative term anyway, depends on your frame of reference.

LBH

Lol. shows how useless a Physics GCSE is, i took my exam this morning and have never even heard of geosynchronous or bestationary, only geostationary. are they similar?

there was a bit on orbits but there was one long question about the advantages and disadvantages of CCTV! how is that physics? :?

 

[Da Boss]

geostationary orbit (GEO) is a geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator (0° latitude), with orbital eccentricity of zero. From the ground, a geostationary object appears motionless in the sky and is therefore the orbit of most interest to operators of artificial satellites (including communication and television satellites). Due to the constant 0° latitude, satellite locations may differ by longitude only.
A geosynchronous orbit is an orbit around the Earth with an orbital period matching the Earth's sidereal rotation period. This synchronization means that for an observer at a fixed location on Earth, a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit returns to exactly the same place in the sky at exactly the same time each day. The special case of a geosynchronous orbit that is circular and directly above the equator is called a geostationary orbit.

A semisynchronous orbit has an orbital period of 0.5 sidereal days, i.e. 11 h 58 min. Relative to the Earth's surface it has twice this period.

Hope you understand it more than me!

 

[Valen is my name]

i get the first bit. if a satellite is orbiting around the two poles, and is not geostationary or the other one is that a polar orbit? i hope it is because it was in my exam this morning.

and why cant a radio wave send information to a satellite?

 

[Da Boss]

Sorry just looked it up on Wikipedia - dont understand it :shock: :lol:

Only got A levels!

have fun hope the exam went well!

 

[CZuschlag]

If I understand correctly, an orbit that includes a point directly over either one of the poles cannot be, by definition, geostationary ever. It could be geosynchronous.

An orbit that does go over the two poles is, indeed called a polar orbit.

 

[Valen is my name]

it wasn't too bad thanks. looks as though a degree at least is needed to understand all this. good job most of the exam was calculations and about CCTV (actually it was only oone question but i still cant see why it was in there)

 

[Valen is my name]

If I understand correctly, an orbit that includes a point directly over either one of the poles cannot be, by definition, geostationary ever. It could be geosynchronous.

An orbit that does go over the two poles is, indeed called a polar orbit.

well i got one question right then

 

[CZuschlag]

Studied Physics and Mathematics at university. Acutally thought I could be a physics prof for a career for a while. My Senior year/years disabused me of that notion.

I still have my old problem sets, textbooks, and tests with answers.

I can even still do a couple of them. Maybe.

See what all that university study pays for? Trivial Pursuit!

 

[Burger]

I can even still do a couple of them. Maybe.

I doubt I could do any of mine! Though they are a real man's subject, pure maths

 

[Locutus9956]

Vector movement need not necessarily be as over the top complex as B5Wars. Full Thrust FTW

Also re: speed 0 crits, I have heard rumours that this is adressed pretty well in 2nd ed

 

[Greg Smith]

I doubt I could do any of mine! Though they are a real man's subject, pure maths

I guess I'm a real man then. I could hardly do any of mine then, never mind 16 years later!