Quote:
Originally Posted by jars_u
I see on page 2 of the off topic thread there is a discussion that also address this issue in some detail - I think the off topic is now on topic and we need a new off topic thread!  |
Yeah, you have a point there.
I think it's implicitly accepted that many elements of ship design are tied in with combat mechanics. It'd be kinda nice if the thread title acknowledged this, as I guess discussion of the two would be simpler if it took place in the same thread. For simplicitly, I'll quickly quote the appropriate comment here:
Quote:
The way this maneuverability system would work is, combat would be turn-based, and fleets would be stuck on little "plates" - regions of space that they're confined to, with the size determined by their acceleration attribute. Each round of combat, the plates would shift in space based on their current strategic speed, acceleration, and orders from the previous game turn ("pursue other fleet" or "maintain course to Rigel" or whatever). Then the ships in turn could maneuver on the fleet-plates in a non-newtonian fashion (e.g. "move 3 km forward" or whatever); each ship would be confined to its fleet-plate, though, to avoid breaking the strategic movement calculations. Then ships would fire weapons if possible, and you go back to the plate-shifting phase, until the fleets are out of weapons range or all but one side is wiped out.
It would be interesting in this system, actually, if capital ships had little or even zero maneuverability, while fighters could zip around like crazy... would put more emphasis on the fleet formations and strategies, since you couldn't tweak those to any significant degree in combat if the maneuverability was so poor!
|