This game is very abstract as far as movement, damage, ect. The maneuver dials were a stroke of genius as well. Each ship is assigned a discreet amount of maneuvers they can use with a give. Difficulty for each. Awesome. Obviously the 'bearing' of a ship while maneuvering represents acceleration when banking or turning, but what does the 'speed' represent? Actual speed?

In space position and speed are relative. In the game we might argue that all the ships are moving in relation to the edge of the playing field. Great, I guess, but it's probably less abstract than that if we examine further/ The field may be just a convenient frame of reference and can be 'moving' as well, but for our purposes is treated as a stationary frame. Within this space the ships zip around as if they were flying in a medium that slows them through energy loss in friction, which is probably not what is really going on.

A TIE fighter can pull a 5 straight while an Xwing can only go 4 straight as a normal max speed. When jones a ship can only do a straight one. Does this make sense in space? No. But...What if this actually represents acceleration, then the ion 'speed' is actually a much weakened acceleration with a small change in position and relative speed, or the straight one represents the movement from inertia. The 0 stops maneuver then make sense as not just a lack of forward acceleration but the application of reverse acceleration to stop (some) of the forward relative speed due to inertia. Relative to the frame of reference the ship 'stops' but is still moving in some sense relative to outside points of reference.

Just a thought. I spent years trying to rationalize the movement and physics of the Xwing sims, but just gave up and realized it was just easier to model cinimatic dogfights with the engine and physics that they did go with. But this game, we can imagine quit a bit of stuff since it's just little toys on a playmat

I've thought that was the background idea for awhile now. Actual inertia would be extremely hard to model on a tabletop.

I've brought this up before, but it's been completely shot down. While it kinda works in straight lines, it doesn't work at all when considering turns or turning around.

It breaks downs when you turn around: If you did 5 straight for 3 turns, you'd have a "speed" of 15, and then a simple 3k and now you're going the other way. If it was truly an acceleration based system, then you'd still be moving towards the edge of the table. Plus, your second turn would move you twice as far as your first turn.

While I suppose this is an exercise in understanding the physics of space travel, I don't see how this is at all relevant. It has been proven many times that spaceships in Star Wars do not make sense scientifically. They don't move correctly, they have features that don't make sense, and they are impractical war ships, etc. Let it go?

Star Wars tech is about looking cool, not making sense

Space in the Star Wars galaxy is suffused with midichlorians, creating an intense amount of drag, but without any friction. Ships must constantly accelerate just to counteract this drag. Paradoxically, larger ships are able to better counteract this effect, but only with a special engine upgrade.

The physics in the newish Battlestar Galactica series was pretty good. The fighters had manuvering jets on their nose cones to make the tight turns and flip arounds. But most sci-fi as we know it uses atmospheric physics for space dogfighting. It's more interesting that way. Star Trek physics is probably closer to actual and that's why it's boring.

I guess I was trying to say that the positions of the ships relative to each other are ambiguous and do not corespond to true location in a virtual space. These are all approximations, it's not important if th game models speeds of inertia, it's only important f a particular maneuver leaves you in or out of arc or out of range, and if you will be able to position yourself relative to other fighters to gain advantage in future turns. All ships are assumed to be moving at high speeds bed vast distances that are not to scale with the actual miniatures or the paying area, and the frame of reference (the pay area) is assumed to be moving with them.

In the above example of a ship moving 5 straight 3 times representing full throttle acceleration for that ship we can assume that the ship is moving very fast at some unknown speed. We can also assume that the other ships that are relatively nearby within the play area are in the same relativistic frame and would be able to accelerate along the ship, but of course if they can't match the same rate of velocity change they won't catch the ship and it will flee the frame of refence that the play area represents. In the game, however if you flee you get blowed up, so we can see everything has been very simplified in order to play fun space battles on a table top.

I guess I was trying to say that the positions of the ships relative to each other are ambiguous and do not corespond to true location in a virtual space. These are all approximations, it's not important if th game models speeds of inertia, it's only important f a particular maneuver leaves you in or out of arc or out of range, and if you will be able to position yourself relative to other fighters to gain advantage in future turns. All ships are assumed to be moving at high speeds bed vast distances that are not to scale with the actual miniatures or the paying area, and the frame of reference (the pay area) is assumed to be moving with them.

In the above example of a ship moving 5 straight 3 times representing full throttle acceleration for that ship we can assume that the ship is moving very fast at some unknown speed. We can also assume that the other ships that are relatively nearby within the play area are in the same relativistic frame and would be able to accelerate along the ship, but of course if they can't match the same rate of velocity change they won't catch the ship and it will flee the frame of refence that the play area represents. In the game, however if you flee you get blowed up, so we can see everything has been very simplified in order to play fun space battles on a table top.

Yay?

After reading this thread it occurred to me that the ships in Star Wars might not be moving through a vacuum like in our space, but they might exist in an alternate reality where the luminiferous ether exists. This would allow for faster than light speeds and would make the "etheric rudder," mentioned in the x-wing books, mean something. Additionally it might account for how space fighters in the star wars universe behave as though they are moving through a gaseous or liquid medium.

While I suppose this is an exercise in understanding the physics of space travel, I don't see how this is at all relevant. It has been proven many times that spaceships in Star Wars do not make sense scientifically. They don't move correctly, they have features that don't make sense, and they are impractical war ships, etc. Let it go?

Considering how much I used to suck at the video game "Asteroids" - I am glad that this isn't part of the maneuvering system.

Just for fun: Lets say you always start at 0. If you accelerate at 5 forward, you need to do 5 deceleration to come to a complete stop on the following turn(s). If a ship can do a max of 3 deceleration...meaning at minimum you will still move forward at a 2 on the next turn. After that you can reach a full stop again by doing a backwards 2, or even fly in reverse by 1 by doing a backwards 3. The same theory goes for banks and turns, so making sharp turn with too much momentum is impossible save for the most agile ships. Not only would this make for an interesting game, but it'd solve for a lot of balance between agile and large ships.

I've brought this up before, but it's been completely shot down. While it kinda works in straight lines, it doesn't work at all when considering turns or turning around.

It breaks downs when you turn around: If you did 5 straight for 3 turns, you'd have a "speed" of 15, and then a simple 3k and now you're going the other way. If it was truly an acceleration based system, then you'd still be moving towards the edge of the table. Plus, your second turn would move you twice as far as your first turn.

Doesn't work. Acceleration just doesn't work like that. A ship that's constantly accelerating does not travel at a constant speed. If a 1 straight is acceleration 1, then doing it again should result in more than a 1 straight. It doesn't. Maneuver speed's velocity.

Starfighters in Star Wars maneuver like aircraft, capital ships like seacraft.

Just for fun: Lets say you always start at 0. If you accelerate at 5 forward, you need to do 5 deceleration to come to a complete stop on the following turn(s). If a ship can do a max of 3 deceleration...meaning at minimum you will still move forward at a 2 on the next turn. After that you can reach a full stop again by doing a backwards 2, or even fly in reverse by 1 by doing a backwards 3. The same theory goes for banks and turns, so making sharp turn with too much momentum is impossible save for the most agile ships. Not only would this make for an interesting game, but it'd solve for a lot of balance between agile and large ships.

Go look at Full Thrust, it's a capital ship combat game that works exactly like this: your speed is how much you can accelerate or decelerate each turn. The ruleset's free.

The 5 'deceleration' that is needed after 5 acceleration is accounted for in the next maneuver. That's why faster ships can't go from 5 all the way to one, the 'slowest' they go is 2. But really it's thinking too much into what the numbers are supposed to mean when they aware just abitrary and deliberately vague. And I'm sure ships in Star Wars can make banks and turns that aren't just 45 and 90 degrees or multiples of them.

The physics in the newish Battlestar Galactica series was pretty good. The fighters had manuvering jets on their nose cones to make the tight turns and flip arounds. But most sci-fi as we know it uses atmospheric physics for space dogfighting. It's more interesting that way. Star Trek physics is probably closer to actual and that's why it's boring.

Babylon 5 had excellent ship vs ship combat with proper physics.

Starfighters in Star Wars maneuver like aircraft, capital ships like seacraft.

This.

If you try and go scientific, then nothing about SW makes any sense. 'Speeds' in space are so ridiculous that engagement times would be measured in micro seconds. It's far better to just stop thinking of space battles as even in space, for fantasy universes at least.

But if you want a story where it takes things like relativistic distortion and light delays (lag due to the speed of light) into account, I would recommend The Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell.

The physics in the newish Battlestar Galactica series was pretty good. The fighters had manuvering jets on their nose cones to make the tight turns and flip arounds. But most sci-fi as we know it uses atmospheric physics for space dogfighting. It's more interesting that way. Star Trek physics is probably closer to actual and that's why it's boring.

Babylon 5 had excellent ship vs ship combat with proper physics.

And ugly ships.

The physics in the newish Battlestar Galactica series was pretty good. The fighters had manuvering jets on their nose cones to make the tight turns and flip arounds. But most sci-fi as we know it uses atmospheric physics for space dogfighting. It's more interesting that way. Star Trek physics is probably closer to actual and that's why it's boring.

Babylon 5 had excellent ship vs ship combat with proper physics.

And ugly ships.

Yeah, good physics and good theater seldom go together in Hollywood.

The 5 'deceleration' that is needed after 5 acceleration is accounted for in the next maneuver. That's why faster ships can't go from 5 all the way to one, the 'slowest' they go is 2. But really it's thinking too much into what the numbers are supposed to mean when they aware just abitrary and deliberately vague. And I'm sure ships in Star Wars can make banks and turns that aren't just 45 and 90 degrees or multiples of them.

Not exactly. If you move at a 2, then move at a 3, you are now moving at a 5. If your ship's deceleration is only 2, then you cannot move at a 2 again on the next turn, the minimum speed you could move would be 3. The same goes for banks/turns. A ship moving at a 5 simply cannot make a 1 turn on the next turn, their inertia is too much. In X-wing, ships can move forward at a 5, then instantly do a 1-turn or a 1-bank with no penalty. With momentum rules, that just wouldn't be possible. Even moving from a 4-foward to a 1-forward or a full stop is(presumably) a huge shift in inertia, it would be suicide to do that in a ship baring some crazy pseudo-science. Obviously, fighters in space operas function very differently than F-18's or Frogfoots, but you get the idea.

But they have pseudo science. It gave them Inertial Dampeners and acceleration compensators. Basically excuses to have space ships with people in them surviving insane maneuvers like when the falcon was running from the Hoth blockade into the Anoat asteroid field. The crew of the falcon probably should have splattered all over the cockpit and the ship itself should have fallen to pieces given how it flew. But thanks to techno-jargon created by the EU writers who watched too much Star Trek, we have magic devices in all ships that decouple what we would consider basic properties of matter like mass, inertia and momentum.

Still doesn't explain why X-wings and TIE fighters bank like airplanes when they turn in space. Must be the phlogiston.

Why? Because they're based off of World War II air combat.

After reading this thread it occurred to me that the ships in Star Wars might not be moving through a vacuum like in our space, but they might exist in an alternate reality where the luminiferous ether exists. This would allow for faster than light speeds and would make the "etheric rudder," mentioned in the x-wing books, mean something. Additionally it might account for how space fighters in the star wars universe behave as though they are moving through a gaseous or liquid medium.

This would also explain why ships and lasers make sound in space.