I don’t get the agility-2 aspect of that interpretation, at all.
Neither do I.
It means that CT canon ship classes such as the
Gazelle and the
Azhanti High Lightning cannot accelerate because their Agility=0 (too many EP's spent on computers, screens and weapons). It turns entire starship classes into pillboxes that don't move ... except by "emergency" agility measures.
That notion doesn't even pass the laugh test, let alone the smell test.
Agility is
literally the capacity for evasion (of hostile weapons fire, of pursuit, etc.). It is a factor that is derived from the EP budget that can be allocated to the maneuver drive, with the maneuver drive code putting an upper limit on how high Agility can go (at least in CT).
What do TL=6-7 Flyers call it when they go up in "a hurtlin' piece of machinery" and try to shoot each other down, especially in a dogfight?
TURN AND BURN
"Turn" relates to the agility of their craft. How tight the turning radius is. How quickly they can alter course (preferably evasively).
"Burn" relates to the thrust power of their craft. How fast it can go ... what the top speed is ... that kind of thing.
No Flyer (who knows what they're talking about) would describe what they do as "
Burn and Burn" ... or "
Turn and Turn" ... because they make the mistake of thinking that the agility of their craft = thrust power of their engines, therefore the two concepts ("turn" and "burn") are equivalent and therefore interchangeable (and therefore functionally the same concept).
Likewise, in other vehicle types, you've got the concept of high speed but no agility/turning necessary ... such as drag racers. There, it's all about power to weight, (traction) thrust in a straight line down the raceway, no need for extreme turning ability. You "burn rubber" but you aren't exactly trying to slalom your way to victory.
I am still trying (probably in vain) to convince people that Agility IS NOT INTERCHANGEABLE WITH Maneuver Acceleration and that it is an error of the first order to make that assumption. Agility is derived from and dependent upon the Maneuver Drive and EP budget details, but Agility in and of itself is NOT "maneuver drive acceleration" ... full stop ... in the same way that the maximum speed of an airframe or a ground vehicle does not automatically define how "nimbly" those craft can be handled or what sort of turning radius they might have.
How "fast" you can go in a straight line (Agility=0) is not the same as being able to rapidly pitch/yaw/roll your craft in space to come to a new heading and apply acceleration thrust/bring weapons to bear on a new course heading/trajectory (Agility=1-6). Higher maneuver drive ratings CAN have higher agility ratings ... if they dedicate the requisite EP budget towards agility ... but maneuver acceleration is NOT THE SAME as agility. They're related concepts and agility derives from (and is limited by) maneuver capacity, but agility and maneuver acceleration are not different words for the same concept.
Kind of like how all squares are rectangles ... but not all rectangles are squares, in geometry.
If you start from the mistaken assumption that because all squares are rectangles THEREFORE all rectangles must also be squares ... you're going to be making a BIG MISTAKE on a foundational assumption.
Squares are a subset of rectangles, rather than all rectangles necessarily being squares.
Same notion applies when it comes to equating Agility with Maneuver Acceleration.
If you (very very simplistically) assume that Maneuver Acceleration is "long" and Agility is "wide" ... those two parameters CAN BE equal (6 long, 6 wide) but they don't automatically HAVE TO BE equal in all circumstances for all craft. To extend the geometric analogy further, it's always perfectly possible for something to be "longer than wider" (more maneuver capacity than agility), but the reverse is not possible, so you can never have a performance envelope that is "wider than it is long" (more agility than maneuver capacity). Ideally speaking, both parameters are equal (so you get a square that is "as long as it is wide") but that isn't always going to be the case.
For example, a fighter craft capable of Maneuver-6 and Agility-6 could CHOOSE to accelerate at 2G while still retaining its Agility-6 evasiveness for rapid alterations of bearing, trajectory and course. However, if that same fighter were damaged and only capable of mustering Maneuver-2, then its maximum performance would be to accelerate up to 2G @ Agility-2 (because, damaged).
For the purposes of our discussion here on these forums, the obvious conclusion is that LBB5.80 tried to "oversimplify things too much" by relying on Agility exclusively to escape from combat engagements. Obviously there should have been:
- Break Off By Maneuver
- Break Off By Acceleration (highest maneuver drive code wins, basically drag racing to outrun your opponents, forcing a disengagement/escape out of range)
- Break Off By Agility (highest agility code wins, basically out-evading your opponents such that they can't follow/tail your maneuvers, forcing a disengagement/break off escape)
The simplest solution to this particular "failure" of LBB5.80 combat RAW is to house rule that either option is possible, but must be declared at the top of the combat round. The faction won Initiative for the combat round may (at the beginning) determine which of the two options (acceleration or agility) will be used to determine success during the appropriate step towards the end of the combat turn.
However, as we all know ... there are RAW purists everywhere, so I don't expect to get far with that line of argument either.
