Hmm.. I like.  Immediate reactions/concerns, for what its worth...

A Move 1 ship, at speed 12, takes 12 times as long to decelerate to 0 as a Move 12 ship...

but is exactly as agile?  IE, may turn the exact same number of hex sides as the Move 12 ship (that is to say, 1).

Also, any provision for a maximum speed?   I am concerned that the inability to turn at speed will not be an impediment for many navies.

All of that said, if I had to play vector, Id want somethign like this (I'm a cinematic junkie at heart, too much Star Trek).  I also do like the fact that unlike most vector-ish rules, you dont have turrets in space... you keep direction of travel tied to facing, which I do like.

First Application Report:

Last night, I played two games with these as the movement rules. We used standard ships from the Starmada X and Brigade rulebook. the following observations seemed apparent:

[*] At the speeds we tended to cruide (in the range of 6-9), movement became quite difficult to predict. This was a good thing! Maneuvering became a premium within the game. This made for a couple of rounds where ships could not use the big guns on their intended targets due to being out of arc or suddenly finding themselves out of range.

[*] After the first game, we removed all restrictions on side-slips, with the exception of needing one hex of forward movement between each maneuver. This did not seem to create a problem.

[*] The comment about ships being of equal nimbleness (i.e.: they can all make 1 turn, no mater if they have Engine-1 or Engine 12) was brought up a couple of times. I have to think about this one a bit and see if I can come up with a solution for it, as it is a bit counter-intuitive.

[*] One proposed solution was to create a chart for each engine rating that indicated what sort of turning mode (a'la SFB) the ship had. Thus, all ships with Engine-W and travelling between Speed X and Y can turn after every Z-hexes of forward movement. We debating a bit about what that formulae should be, but broke up the session before a concensus could be reached. Personally, I thought that the need for such a chart would detract from the simplicity and elegance of the system; prehaps the Thrust-to-Turn = Speed argument is a better way to go here? Not sure; movement would lose that unpredictability factor pretty quick, that is for sure.

[*] Fighters are problematic in this system (at least how they are currently defined).

[*]In the first game, we did not change them at all. This made them much, much less effective. Up a ship's speed to 11+, and suddenly this became a game of cat-and-mouse.

[*]In the second game, we changed the Engine-10 fighters have to thrust capable of accel/decel and gave them the nimble trait. This was really odd. The non-plotted movement combined with ships that were capable of easilly zipping about at speeds of 30 or more was a bad thing. They were the definition of teleporting ships with them being at outside of long range at the start of the round, and ending up on your ship that turn attacking it... then on the following turn being far out of range again... This needs to be addressed, and we are not sure how it will work just yet.

That was the thoughts of the first playtest of this system. Thanks for listening.

Note: the playing field we use is a gaming table I build that has two perminantly mounted Geo-hex maga-mats on it. This gives up a playing field of 42x54 hexes; the feel of this system may be drastically different on a smaller playing area. I would certainly be interestd in anyone else's thoughts on this system if they would be so kind as to play a game or two with it and report here on what they thought.

Thanks again!

Note: I have made some adjustments to the system based on the first game using it. I still need to figure out how fighters are going to work. Please let me know what you think, and if you have any ideas on how to address fighters, boarding pods, drones, etc.

Not unpredictable, and not predictable, per se. It means that movement becomes more predictable. I just really enjoyed the freedom of having ships with very fluid movement rates. It was nice.

Again, I think the "speed = thrust resquired to turn" is a good system, and one that is easy to work with. I would just advocate for smaller engines if my gaming group went that route -- so that the "cruising" speed of ships would be closer to 8 or9 instead of 4 or 5.

Sideslips are free, but a requirement due to the abstraction that causes a reduced amount of detail in movement as distances are divided into discrete elements in a hex-based system. Still, limit them to pre-plotted movement, and with a hex of non-maneuvering between maneuvers and things are more "controlled" than they first appear.

As far as the use of thrust in turning to control speeds... this is a good point. I am making some more changes above... let me know what you think.

Played with this some over the last couple of days. The Agile and Nimble designations are unneeded.

The reduction in the size of engines is unneeded if using the 1/2 speed (round up) formula.

Calculations on "turn mode" are not needed; they are removed.

Plays well as written above.

Still need to see if anything can be done for small-craft -- I do not like setting a speed limit on fighters, but not ships... although this may become a needed abstraction when all is said and done.

Because speed limits in (non Wells/Vern-era) space games, to me, feel wrong. Unless you establish a scale that sets "X velocity = Light Speed" then any other speed limit feels artificial. I would really prefer dealing with this disparity in some other way... I am just not sure how to do it just yet.

I mean... you could set a speed limit of, say... 30 hexes per turn and define this as light speed. This suggests a scale for Starmada -- something that has been avoided to date. Assuming a scale of 10,000km per hex, then one round is one second... 30 hexes per round = 300,000 km per round = light speed.

Set fighters at the 10 hexes they have now, but they are "effectively" inertialess to keep them simple. Other ships cannot go beyond a speed of 30; meaning that unless they have an Engine Rating of at least 15, they are not turning at that speed...

I think you and I may just have to agree to disagree at this point.  Space or not, I simply cannot become comfortable with any game where ships may, in the time it takes for the typical weapon to recycle, move from outside of even the most extended engagement range to point blank, or beyond.

Even modern fighter aircraft have trouble pulling this sort of boom and zoom in relation to one another (in light of missile ranges, I'll grant that gun engagement might well be difficult at a high speed face-on pass.  Im vaguely okay with the idea that things can move so fast that at least SHORT range weaponry might not get a firing opportunity) Nothing like it has existed, to my knowledge, in all of naval history.  I'm picturing Iron Duke at Jutland, coming over the horizon and flying past Fredrich der Grosse at such a speed that neither can lay guns on one another.  The image of Jellicoe waving jauntily to Scheer en passant is, however, amusing.

Also, it prevents space stations from defending themselves in any setting operating under those physics, because with an immobile target, it is a trivial matter to plot an ultra-high-speed 'jump to Range 1' with a small, disposable, likely remote-controlled vessel with no defenses and cataclysmic one-shot offense, point-blank.  *boom*  The lifespan of DS9 or Bablyon 5 in the face of a competent foe is essentially nil.

I completely understand your relucance to attach a 'scale' to SMX... and the 'reality' problems inherit in applying a speed limit, or non-vector-movement, to space battle.  I sympathize.  The parade of horribles outlined above may well be a realistic descriptor of what space battle in a universe with no real top speed, but a very finite weapon range, would look like.

It just doesnt feel right to me.

And I agree. A speed limit may be what I end up going with if all else fails. But I am reluctant, and for the reasons I said.

Iron Stars, for example, sets an upper limit on speed by stating that only 50% of the inertia is maintained from round to round. Using such a system in an inertia based movement scheme in Starmada would bmean that, if I have an Engine Rating of 10, my maximum speed is:

[*] Starting=00 - Carried over=00 - Accel=10 - Speed=10.
[*] Starting=10 - Carried over=05 - Accel=10 - Speed=15.
[*] Starting=15 - Carried over=07 - Accel=10 - Speed=17.
[*] Starting=17 - Carried over=08 - Accel=10 - Speed=18.
[*] Starting=18 - Carried over=09 - Accel=10 - Speed=19.
[*] Starting=19 - Carried over=09 - Accel=10 - Speed=19.
[*] Starting=19 - Carried over=09 - Accel=10 - Speed=19.
[*] Starting=19 - Carried over=09 - Accel=10 - Speed=19.
[*] Starting=19 - Carried over=09 - Accel=10 - Speed=19.

And this ship can maintain a speed of 19 by keeping full bore on the engines; otherwise, it begine to slow down. This works well in an environment where you are using vern-like/wellsian physics.

So... what "hand-waving" works best to create a pseudo-plausable speed limit in the modern world's knowledge Einsteinian physics? I cannot think of any that maintain some semblance with inertia and offer up a solution to speed limits without being a hard-cap on such things that are rules directed, instead of a consequence of the rules themselves.

Any suggestions on how to impose a speed limit without just saying that a ship cannot exceed "X" hexes per turn? I mean, if you say "10" for example, then several of Rich Bowman's designs are pointless, as they have engine ratings that exceed 10.[/list]

I am not convinced one is needed. I am just thinking via keyboard.

So... what do you think of this system as it stands?

1.)  Fair enough.  I should have decoupled the 'unlimited acceleration' issue from the 'fixed map' issue.  In my experience, it is the players who want to not face a speed limit who are most likely to also insist that, for realisms sake, the map should float.  Heck, I like the tank-treads movement, but I still like floating maps.  No walls in space...

As for inertial-vector type stuff... as long as people stay to sane speeds, I'm not picky.  I live in Arkansas, Im stuck playing any way I can...

2.)  Its not that theyll die.  Its that their cheap, their target is expensive, and theres no defense.  Which means that under those physics, Bab5 and DS9 dont get built (at least not as military units). 

This actually fits some fluff backgrounds (truely immobile space units were basically honorverse targets...)

We have experimented with ships that had weapon ranges as large as 33 hexes (I have a large gaming table). It worked just fine.

May a ship both accelereate and decelerate in the same round?

Let us assume two ships, each with 6 MP and a current velocity of 3.  Neither turned on the previous round, so they may turn freely as their first movement.

Both see 'something awful' dead ahead, and want to get as far away from it as possible.

By retaining its current speed, Ship 1 may turn 1 starboard (2 MP), move forward 1, turn 1 starboard (2MP) move forward 1, turn a final time to starboard (2MP) and drift forward that last hex.  Its pulled a 180*, is 2 hexrows over from where it started, one hexrow 'behind' where it started, and headed away from 'something awful'

Ship 2, cunningly, goes slow to go fast.  He declerates by 1 (curring his velocity to 2 and his turn cost by 1).  He then makes the same series of moves and starboard turns as his cousin, while at speed 2.  After his last turn, he uses his 3 remaining MPs to floor it, ending up on the same hexrow and heading as ship 1, but 2 hexes further away from 'something awful'

Possible as you see it?

*edit*
And in SIMS, may a ship 'decelerate' beyond speed 0, such that it has a negative velocity (IE, is in reverse, not a realspace 'negative' velocity, which would be.. very strange)