That's the speed that allows you to turn freely.
You also have to remember that a round lasts 6 seconds. You can totally accelerate a car to a high speed within 6 seconds.
Also, you can do a drive by shoot. There's multiple ways to do it. You can drive + shoot. You can race, then engage the autocontrol so you can spend a turn shooting, then regain control of the vehicle.
This seems like it's also an issue in starship combat: does this universe have some kind of ether-like space medium that provides friction in vacuum? Because otherwise, I could spend a few hours accelerating toward a stationary target and do all sorts of mean things to it in the blink of an eye.
This seems like it's also an issue in starship combat: does this universe have some kind of ether-like space medium that provides friction in vacuum? Because otherwise, I could spend a few hours accelerating toward a stationary target and do all sorts of mean things to it in the blink of an eye.
I already play Attack Vector: Tactical for that, thanks. Some of my Starfinder/Pathfinder friends would go for that level of math, most would tell me to get bent. Trying to do vector analysis with 5 other people who just want to shoot the guns isn't likely to work out.
I already play Attack Vector: Tactical for that, thanks.
I'm intrigued, thanks for mentioning it to me.
It is more space opera than sci fi. In hard sci fi ya you could spend a couple hours accelerating when attacking a stationary target. They could also throw a bucket of sand into your path which would basically insta kill your ship. So they seem to go with the more cinematic contra gravity stuff works like it does in atmosphere type combat.
Also in ship to ship combat top speed is sort of beside the point basically you are comparing acceleration vs acceleration as you are accelerating and decelerating to engage your target.
I already play Attack Vector: Tactical for that, thanks.I'm intrigued, thanks for mentioning it to me.
If you want what is likely the most accurate Newtonian-based space game on the market, go for it. The math is already done for the most part, and the playaids that make it possible are pretty amazing.
3-dimensional movement, with vectors, and playable orbital mechanics rules if you want to really melt your brain.
It's not for everyone, which is why I don't mind the Starfinder space rules. They're laughably inaccurate, but people who care about that stuff already have games that cover that, and people who don't care aren't going to enjoy the math involved.
Besides, Starfinder is a pretty good setting to actually have an ether that would slow things in space. There's cities on the Sun, it's hardly the least accurate thing in the book.
Generally speaking I absolutely want to melt my brain, but for SF I'd be perfectly happy if ships kept gliding in a straight line if they weren't otherwise maneuvered.
I suppose if you use a planet or star as your point of reference then ships do stop. But I think the point is using the other ships as a point of reference in regards to velocity and acceleration.
As to the OP, it's just a game. If I really want car combat I'll grab some friends, paintball guns and some ATVs and have at it in a field.
This seems like it's also an issue in starship combat: does this universe have some kind of ether-like space medium that provides friction in vacuum? Because otherwise, I could spend a few hours accelerating toward a stationary target and do all sorts of mean things to it in the blink of an eye.
No Prize: all movements in Starfinder are relative. A ship that doesn't move during its turn isn't stationary, it just might as well be relative to the enemy crafts.
If all movements in Starfinder were relative
and I move 5 hexes away from another ship during a turn
and then both pilots stop taking actions
then I'll keep drifting 5 more hexes away from that ship every turn until one of us is acted upon by an outside force
period.
I recognize that, if Starfinder admitted that vacuums don't apply friction, then we'd have the problem where a ship can accelerate for 5 hours, dump a bucket of sand off the side of the ship, and that sand hits a space station like a missile salvo. I think the easy solution to this problem is to say that Starfinder space is different from IRL space, that it applies friction to things, and that this, among other reasons, is why Drift travel is viable and other interstellar travel is not. Just please, Paizo, tell me that and I can be fine with starships maneuvering like they're boats in an incredibly thick ocean.
That only applies if Stop action is "no motion at all", and not "no motion relative to the local reference frame". If one ship moves 5 hexes, and then both ships stop, what is happening is that they are both drifting at the same speed. If the second ship wanted to move away from the first, it'd be doing a different maneuver.
Or, "Stop" does not actually exist in ship combat. Only "Not Changing Relative Position".
There's no meaningful difference between "no motion at all" and "no motion relative to the local reference frame." I recognize that a starship battle could occur between two ships travelling at trillions of kilometers per hour in roughly the same direction, and they stay on the same map because they only move a little bit relative to each other. This isn't the issue.
The issue is, regardless of the frame of reference, if my ship moves away from another ship, it will continue to do so unless one of them is acted upon by an outside force. That outside force could be friction: if the interstellar medium requires the pilot to keep the throttle open in order for the ship to keep moving (RELATIVE TO WHATEVER ELSE IS ON THE MAP REGARDLESS OF THE MAP'S FRAME OF REFERENCE), that's fine, but they need to state that. If it doesn't, ships should be able to (/forced to) drift in the direction they were moving last turn, modified by whatever other movement they're making.