Page 2 of 3

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Fri 29 Mar 2013 20:37
by Dawn Falcon
Crucis wrote:The thing is that "satisfying a turn mode" is really a game term. In pseudo-reality, lower turn modes would mean that the ship could make tighter turns in degrees per second. The ship really wouldn't be making the 60* turn in an instant. It'd be making the turn over the course of a number of seconds. And while I'm no pilot, it seems to me that jinking on the z-axis would be playing havoc with the ship's ability to make those turns on the xy plane.


That's thinking in inertial terms. Moving on each axis should effectively be independent. Certainly you can move faster in some directions than others, but...

And even a 1 degree shift at Starfire speeds creates considerable uncertainty...

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 16:29
by Crucis
Dawn Falcon wrote:
Crucis wrote:The thing is that "satisfying a turn mode" is really a game term. In pseudo-reality, lower turn modes would mean that the ship could make tighter turns in degrees per second. The ship really wouldn't be making the 60* turn in an instant. It'd be making the turn over the course of a number of seconds. And while I'm no pilot, it seems to me that jinking on the z-axis would be playing havoc with the ship's ability to make those turns on the xy plane.


That's thinking in inertial terms. Moving on each axis should effectively be independent. Certainly you can move faster in some directions than others, but...

And even a 1 degree shift at Starfire speeds creates considerable uncertainty...


I don't think that it's "inertial thinking" at all. We do not assume that ships make instantaneous 60* turns in this game. Turn modes are simply an indication of how long it takes a ship to perform the standard 60* turn dictated by the use of a hex map.

Also, it's occurred to me that we cannot consider the Z dimension in the least. It the Z dimension was allowed to be considered, then so should turns in 3 dimensions, and so on and so forth. But for the simplicity of the game, we limit ourselves to only 2 dimensions. (BTW, this was more directed at Alexei than you, Andrew.)

However............

I happen to think that trying to duck, bob, and weave to the left and the right inhibits a ship's ability to turn. I said this above and I still believe it. However, it occurred to me a few minutes ago that there's an answer to this dilemma here! I said that jinking inhibits a ship's ability to turn, not that it prevents turning. And therein lies the answer!!!

When a ship engages in Evasive Maneuvering, its Turn Mode should be increased by 1. This would reflect the fact that jinking is effectively increasing the ship's turning radius.

Opinions?

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 18:00
by Dawn Falcon
Hm. Not convinced. Movement points on EM don't (right?) count towards TM...

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 19:29
by Crucis
Dawn Falcon wrote:Hm. Not convinced. Movement points on EM don't (right?) count towards TM...



No, not in prior editions of Starfire. And in one way, I question the methodology of how EvMan functions. IMNSHO, turn mode should absolutely be increased when a ship engages in EvMan.

However, it has occurred to me that from a game play perspective, if a ship (assume that it's a big ship with a high TM, for argument's sake) engages in EM on turn #1, and is in the middle of satisfying its TM (that was increased by 1 for EM) as of the end of the turn. But then on turn #2, the ship decides to not use EM. Is the ship's TM returned to normal or does it have to satisfy the EM-adjusted turn mode from the previous turn? (These are rhetorical questions.)

I think that this would be a bit confusing, which is why I suspect that all of the "cost" for EM is based on MP's expended to produce EM with no adjustment to the TM. It avoids any turn to turn carry-over issues. I don't think that having MP's bear the entire burden of paying for EM is particularly (or at all) accurate, but it does avoid this problem.

So I suppose that I might as well leave it as is, though it will still be "Evasive Maneuvering", not "Engine Modulation". And as Evasive Maneuvering, it seems to me that it should be additive with ECM, since they're completely different effects.

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 20:30
by Cralis
Crucis wrote:
Dawn Falcon wrote:Hm. Not convinced. Movement points on EM don't (right?) count towards TM...



No, not in prior editions of Starfire. And in one way, I question the methodology of how EvMan functions. IMNSHO, turn mode should absolutely be increased when a ship engages in EvMan


I remember that Marvin's assumption for "Evasive Maneuvers" in CLASSIC STARFIRE was lateral movement in the non-TM direction combined with quick stops and starts to "stutter" movement. Those would have no effect on TM.

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 21:48
by AlexeiTimoshenko
The problem with evasive maneuvers in Classic is that ships larger than BB have a greater TM than they generate MP for in a single turn. Given that the rule explicitly states that you need to enter a new hex to actually qualify for EM, a Speed 5 TM 5 SD can't generate enough MP to both move AND use EM. I'm not sure if the extra MP generated by (It) would offset this, but even if it did, MT and larger still can't use EM under the existing Classic rules.

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 21:50
by Crucis
AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:The problem with evasive maneuvers in Classic is that ships larger than BB have a greater TM than they generate MP for in a single turn. Given that the rule explicitly states that you need to enter a new hex to actually qualify for EM, a Speed 5 TM 5 SD can't generate enough MP to both move AND use EM. I'm not sure if the extra MP generated by (It) would offset this, but even if it did, MT and larger still can't use EM under the existing Classic rules.


Alexei, I think that the point is that those very large, lumbering ships aren't supposed to be able to do EM. EM is something that smaller, more nimble ships use.

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 22:15
by AlexeiTimoshenko
I understand that the big ships are lumbering whales that aren't very maneuverable. The point is that there are a few people that will attempt to go "Where no rule has gone before". Of course IF (It) does work with EM, a MT with (AM2) could actually use EM. Speed would be 5 with (It) and (AM2) drops the turn mode to 4 as long as the engines haven't taken damage (this is based on existing 3rdR material).

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 30 Mar 2013 22:18
by Crucis
AlexeiTimoshenko wrote:I understand that the big ships are lumbering whales that aren't very maneuverable. The point is that there are a few people that will attempt to go "Where no rule has gone before". Of course IF (It) does work with EM, a MT with (AM2) could actually use EM. Speed would be 5 with (It) and (AM2) drops the turn mode to 4 as long as the engines haven't taken damage (this is based on existing 3rdR material).


And frankly, I think, not certain, but think that that might be OK, though don't hold me to that.

Re: Evasive Maneuvering and Engine Modulation

PostPosted: Sat 27 Apr 2013 09:42
by tmul4050
I have looked through what people have said and much here makes sense. But I have two reasons why em should be kept.
First it is canon, although only in the literature. In the last scenario of ISW3 was the phrase "the wildly evading carriers" refering to the RPSA carriers trying to avoid damage. Also fighter evasion is in many of the novels. I realise that this may no longer be important due to the "cosmic annoucement". :)
Second is the distances and spped involved. Unless it has changed a vessel can move about 10% C (some faster, some slower). thats approx 30000kps. Take a vessel firing at 4LS. in the four seconds it takes for the beam to hit the vessel has travelled 120000km. even a small course change can result in a dramatic change of position. Even with the multiple shots idea above that has to have a signifigant effect on accuracy. remember once the shot has fired it cannot change course so a course shift can generate a miss chance. With guns this would be worse, missles might just ignore it.
Just my 10 cents worth