![155231[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qyoZ0RF.jpg "155231[1].jpg")
Best way to represent 3D movement in a table top? The subject is a space naval wargame.
A: Telescoping bases, each tick of height would count as moving 1", largely because each click would move it up/down 1". I love the visual concept of working on a 20x20" grid with bases that can click up 20 inches; it'd look very impressive. Weighted or even magnetic bases could be used to counter the precarious nature of such systems, but the ships would need to remain compact and sturdy to avoid bits shattering should one topple.
B: A clicker-base, like hero-clicks, which has a simple 1-20 counter on it, and turning it counts as 1" of movement. 0 visual splendor, but practical and safer for the models.
>>47230451
C: Don't represent 3D movement at all, it doesn't really add anything enjoyable to the game.
>>47230614
Clearly I disagree, so why even make that post?
>>47230451
http://www.vsca.ca/Diaspora/Space%20combat%20demo.pdf
3d glasses and a 3d touchscreen table.
>>47230614
> don't try things
>>47230686
> contradictory and irrelevant (cool for an RPG)
>>47230707
> sardonic
so, one bump.
>>47230451
How would you deal with rotating on axis X and Y? Would the weapons have firing arcs or 360°x180°?
>>47230451
SITS had a pretty cool system. Little stacker things that went under ship bases. White was one level up, light blue 5, dark blue 10, etc. If there's a black one in the stack, the elevation is negative.
Was a pretty neat solution, even if I still haven't figured out how to play this thing.
>>47230684
Because you may have just been ignorant of that and anon was pointing it out. Not having the problem is a sort of solution for it.
>>47231551
I came here to suggest little stacked tiles to indicate altitude.
>>47230451
Honestly, anything you do will still be an abstraction, and if you're going to abstract three-dimensional combat you might as well not represent it.
>>47232039
> Implying I don't represent ships using metallic balls floating in gelatinous substance and move them around with magnets
>>47232278
That's awesome and I'm happy for you, but ultimately you're doing a lot (and I mean a LOT) of hard work and math for a combat modifier. Faster to just use a flat plane and make rules for whether or not one ship has the advantage over the other.
>>47230451
Some naval wargames do that with aircraft, using stacked flight pegs or telescopic pegs to change their altitude. However, an entire game of that would be difficult and have a limit to the top and bottom range because there's onto so many pegs you can stack before it becomes unstable, and the base would need to be seriously weighted.
Also not exactly worth it for small craft bases, which would necessitate spending more on the stand than the model itself.
>>47230451
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6767/attack-vector-tactical
http://www.irrationaldesigns.com/TSOD/index.html
>>47233469
>being at a different altitude gives you an advantage
>in space
I hope you're not doing what I think you are.
>>47234045
Altitude is meaningless, but angle of attack is still a thing.
>>47234161
Well yeah, there are more angles from which you can outflank an enemy ship.
>>47231551
>>47231976
noted
>>47233520
If by small craft you're referring to one-man fighters and such, this is very much meant to be submarines in space.
>>47233733
noted
>>47234045
Not those guys, but I just mean for it to be relative to facing and distance; no advantage that playing on a really big table wouldn't also afford you; moving in 3D just compacts the game board and ads a notable level of spectacle.
Like, if you were at altitude 6, and your target were 10 spaces away at altitude 8 then they're fully 12 spaces away. Hypothetically the game will be played on a 20x20x20 grid; the Z and X axes being represented by a mat marked with a hex-grid, and the Y axis being represented by whatever mechanic I land on.
>>47230451
A system of pulleys.
