But space isn't a racetrack. The problem is the basic assumption, that if *nobody* is flying/driving then they're all moving at the same velocities in exactly parallel vectors and do not change position relative to each other. This breaks "suspension of disbelief" immediately: a TIE moving at speed 5 who does not "fly" will not overshoot or depart from a freighter moving at 2 who also does not "fly". What is this mysterious glue that holds them together?

There has to be a better way...

It's an abstract principle that covers all conditions, from pod racers literally racing through a narrow canyon, to starfighters who are moving roughly around each other as they dogfight.

This isn't a tactical game, it's abstract. Just like characters on the ground don't necessarily have to be standing still during their round, but they do need to spend a maneuver to get closer to another character. Likewise the starships can be considered moving around in space but they must spend a maneuver to get closer to another character.

I do agree about the range band names, I kinda wish they were just the same as in ground scale, so that "engaged" meant roughly the same as it does on the ground, just at the bigger scale.

This isn't a tactical game, it's abstract. Just like characters on the ground don't necessarily have to be standing still during their round, but they do need to spend a maneuver to get closer to another character.

But last I checked, players don't have a "Speed", i.e., a velocity and direction. If you do not move you are at Speed 0, which makes sense. The personal combat isn't tactical, but it works fine. At some point, calling it "abstract" feels like an excuse.

Whatever you say. It makes sense to me, and it's worked well in my games.

If you don't find that it works as written in your games, I'm sorry to hear that and I sympathize, but I dunno what else to tell you.