Rules ideas discussion

[TheDreadnought]

This was posted in another thread, but thought I'd move it here. I'm interested in people's thoughts.

I'm probably thinking more that Trek-style rules would reflect a Motion-Picture era. . . but really - since they are internally consistent - they could reflect MP or TOS so long as you're not trying to do crossover battles between the two (per the discussion on the other thread).

Jun 9, 2010 23:42:49 GMT -5 saladin said:

If you want to model TOS battles, Torpedoes should have a longer range than Phasers, a minimum range - and I'd make them slow-loading so they could only be used every other turn. And the size of the ship should affect the hit chance for all weapons.

Is that the was SFB handles things? I don't really agree with that approach. Here's why:

Time to target for a torpedo is much greater than that for a light-speed beam weapon. Therefore the difficulties in predicting the future location of a target are exponentially greater. Thus, effective range on torpedoes is limited by the fire control capabilities of the firing ship.

Now, if we make the assumption that torpedoes are more like guided missiles then I could see them having a longer range. The question then becomes:

Should the torpedoes be tracked on the table or just treated as a direct-fire weapon? Which is more interesting and fun for people?

As far as bigger ships being able to be hit more easily - IM personal O that's a hold over from wet-navy games that is completely ridiculous in a space combat game. When you're firing at a ship-sized target that is 200,000km away, if your targeting is off by even a tiny amount its going to be a clean miss as the error is going to be magnified over such a huge distance. It doesn't matter whether your target is a destroyer or a battleship.

On earth, firing at targets at most 26,000 yards away, the size of the ship makes a little bit of difference especially since the approach was to drop as many shells in the vicinity of the target as possible and hope one of them hits. But at the distances involved in space combat its completely irrelevant. You have to get up to the size of a major space body for there to be any room for error.

So good thoughts. I'm curious as to what everyone is thinking/looking for on this topic.

[adastragames]

Colonial Battlefleet ain't about realism. It's about capturing the feel of a setting with the fewest rules possible and the lightest overhead.

So, the fact that a ship's apparent size at 30,000 km is about half a pixel on your monitor is realistic - but that shouldn't be your primary consideration.

On a 'capture the feel' basis, facing profile modifiers might be useful. On a game play basis, I'm dubious about whether they carry their own weight in fun. (I have them in SS because I listened to similar arguments. I'm tempted to put in a switch to turn them off in the campaign tab.)

The primary consideration is "Does it add fun to the game?" And the longer answer is, I think, "Not certain."

Roll Over Range is a good set of mechanics for what you've got - they're fast, they're easy to remember, and they allow you to make different types of weapons with two different die sizes and modifiers.

However, they also put a realistic maximum range in your game of about 14-15; your ship's movement rates are built around this as well. Going outside of this sweet spot is a place that I'd be EXTREMELY cautious in pushing the design.

As to arming cycles, it's mildly established in SFB and FASA Trek, and supported by the handful of times they're fired in the movies and on the Original Series, that the photon torpedo tubes were slower firing, but devastating when they hit.

TOS didn't really have ships maneuvering out of the way of photon torpedoes - Romulan plasma torpedoes could be outrun with enough effort.

Longer arming cycles may not mesh well with your initiative system.

In games like SS, AV:T and SFB/Fed Com, they give fleets with different weapon mixes different fighting tempos - a Fed is less aggressive when reloading torpedoes, a Klingon may be bluffing you by going slow with shield reinforcement. In SFB and AV:T (and less in SS), there's a definite "Do I fire now, or wait for a better shot?" dynamic that comes out of those firing and cooling/rearming cycles. You've already got a very different dynamic with the choice of Aggressive or Tactical, and I'm not sure that trying to bolt on the arming cycle decision does you any favors.

As to the question about "track it on the map" - with one exception, Photon torpedoes are usually treated as direct fire weapons that have a longer re-arming time. Romulan plasma torpedoes, canonically, can be outrun after they've been launched.

These add complexity and nuance to maneuver decisions. They also add more crap on the map to shove around, and more record keeping (as does multi-turn arming cycles).

Which gets back to CB and its play space - is 'weapon that makes the other side turn off' a desirable addition to the game engine from a purely game mechanical standpoint? Does it pay its freight in fun for the amount of complexity it adds?

I have not played enough games of CB to know.

I can also categorically say that anything that *I* think should be added to CB should probably be hit with a cattle prod a few times.

Most of my insights here should be viewed as "Ken has a lot of thought put into this space, and might be identifying constraints you're working under without being aware of."

[warchariot]

"Colonial Battlefleet ain't about realism. It's about capturing the feel of a setting with the fewest rules possible and the lightest overhead."

Right on, but what space game is real? It should be about fun.

"On a 'capture the feel' basis, facing profile modifiers might be useful. On a game play basis, I'm dubious about whether they carry their own weight in fun. (I have them in SS because I listened to similar arguments. I'm tempted to put in a switch to turn them off in the campaign tab.)"

No thank you, don't add it-remember, it's about fun.

"As to arming cycles, it's mildly established in SFB and FASA Trek, and supported by the handful of times they're fired in the movies and on the Original Series, that the photon torpedo tubes were slower firing, but devastating when they hit.

TOS didn't really have ships maneuvering out of the way of photon torpedoes - Romulan plasma torpedoes could be outrun with enough effort."

Arming cycle you have, one hex. I like the idea of out running torps, at least Romulan plasmas-I play Romulans.

"As to the question about "track it on the map" - with one exception, Photon torpedoes are usually treated as direct fire weapons that have a longer re-arming time. Romulan plasma torpedoes, canonically, can be outrun after they've been launched.

These add complexity and nuance to maneuver decisions. They also add more crap on the map to shove around, and more record keeping (as does multi-turn arming cycles)."

I like crap on the map, maybe it's just me, But i like to be able to see what befalls me and know I can't do anything about it. That's why i believe the AS missile rules work so well.

Again, what do I know-thanks for reading.

[TheDreadnought]

So warchariot - to make sure I'm understanding here. Your vote is to track them on the map?

I was pondering a system where the torps can only side-slip forward, not actually turn like an ASGM. That still makes them a fairly close range weapon but allows some maneuverability and the ability to use them to break up enemy formations.

[TheDreadnought]

What else do people want to see/not see in Star Trek style combat?

[warchariot]

Yep, I like the markers on the map if they can run more than one turn. Like the side slip idea also.

[theoz]

Jun 10, 2010 17:40:06 GMT -5 TheDreadnought said:

What else do people want to see/not see in Star Trek style combat?

While I don't know how you'd do it in CB, one other major concept in Trek is the "power allocation" issue. Trek ships can't do everything all at once, and tradeoffs are a major part of the tactics.

CB tries to limit firepower with the Fire control point rule, but there's no connection between firepower, defenses, and movement the way SFB and FASA Trek have it.

I'm not sure a Trek game can have the right "feel" without some kind of power allocation mechanic..

[TheDreadnought]

Well, I don't think we'll be seeing power-allocation in Colonial Battlfleet. I know that's been a key feature of many Trek games in the past, but I'm not really interested in just doing updates/re-writes of those games.

Its understandable how those games arrived at the idea of power allocation - given they're always talking about diverting power here and there on the screen. But that's really no more than standard shipboard operations & damage control procedures - and a way to give characters some dialogue to make them seem to be making critical decisions during battle.

Just like Naval Thunder doesn't have you specifying what kind of ammunition you're using - it's assumed you're using the right ammo for the right target, CB assumes you're doing the right power/damage control type tasks as well.

Those are certainly characteristics you could get into in a single-ship/few ship game duelling game, but for a task force/small fleet game, it's not really appropriate. Colonial Battlefleet is concerned with coordinating tactics across a (relatively) large number of ships acting in concert - not dealing with the low level detail of ship handling. Think Admiral, not Captain.

[warchariot]

Glad to hear no power allocations for CB! It's just another step in a long process of playing a game. I want to be able to play and then play again, not come back next week to finish.

[adastragames]

Jun 11, 2010 15:04:23 GMT -5 warchariot said:

Glad to hear no power allocations for CB! It's just another step in a long process of playing a game. I want to be able to play and then play again, not come back next week to finish.

This is another example of the three types of complexity.

The power allocation mechanic doesn't HAVE to be "Tax form at the start of the turn". Fed Commander, AV:T, Birds of Prey and Squadron Strike all have variations on this kind of mechanic - SS makes them a ship design decision.

There are cleaner ways to do it than SFB's.

Where they raise the bar on complexity isn't the record keeping - it's on the pace of the game because they create a constantly updating dynamic loop of decision making.

I happen to like that loop. It's *probably* not the right tool for the job for CB...and again, this goes to the basic rule of "If I like it, it should probably be hit a few times with a cattle prod before consideration for inclusion in CB."

(I know, I'm supposed to be adamant or something about making CB more like the games I like to play. It's a nice, clean design that does what it does quite well.)

[kashre]

I don't think that photon style torps should be tracked on the map... In all but 1 case that I can think of in any TOS/TNG era show, photons went fast and straight, and there was little maneuvering of the torps or the ships before they hit. Also, no PD of any kind was deployed against them....

As for power allocation... I don't think that the "feel" of star trek requires it... what really happens on the shows is that as the warp core takes damage, the ship loses power to fire everything at once... so I might say the most you need is some kind of crit where once it gets hit, you have to start choosing between firing phasers and photons. Then there's no record keeping.

Although having power allocation in the game could be made pretty simple if you wanted to use it. Renegade Legions: Leviathan did it like this: you have 3 points, one will run engines, one will fire X portion of your mounted weapons, one will run your shields... you could divert power from any one system to another one to fire more guns or reinforce your shields... maybe overthrust too, can't remember.

[warchariot]

Jun 10, 2010 18:15:10 GMT -5 warchariot said:

Yep, I like the markers on the map if they can run more than one turn. Like the side slip idea also.

I know I'm quoting myself here, bad form and all. I just wanted people to know that I don't want torps tracked if they run ONE turn. That would be like tracking laser shots or rail gun fire. BUT, if it runs more than one turn-yep, I want to track it with a marker.

[theoz]

I wouldn't mind using CB Torps to represent ST photons. SFB is the only version of Trek I know of that gives photons long range. The TV shows and movies seem to show them as short range, and the FASA role-playing game and its ship combat system also had photons as fairly short-range weapons.

And I'm a big FASA Trek fan. ;D

[kashre]

Jun 21, 2010 17:18:29 GMT -5 theoz said:

I wouldn't mind using CB Torps to represent ST photons. SFB is the only version of Trek I know of that gives photons long range. The TV shows and movies seem to show them as short range, and the FASA role-playing game and its ship combat system also had photons as fairly short-range weapons.

And I'm a big FASA Trek fan. ;D

Actually in SFB they're really pretty short ranged... IIRC, I think at 4 hexes you have a 50% hit chance.... they can fire at long range, but they have lousy accuracy unless they are "proximity fused"... which there is a TOS scene to base it on, but I cant recall what eppisode.

I have always thought that torps in CB already adhere pretty well to my idea of how photons work.

[theoz]

Jun 21, 2010 21:12:00 GMT -5 kashre said:

Actually in SFB they're really pretty short ranged... IIRC, I think at 4 hexes you have a 50% hit chance.... they can fire at long range, but they have lousy accuracy unless they are "proximity fused"... which there is a TOS scene to base it on, but I cant recall what eppisode.

I have always thought that torps in CB already adhere pretty well to my idea of how photons work.

Proximity photons are an invention of the fan base and technical manuals. TOS first showed "proximity blasts" of the phasers in the episode "Balance of Terror" but photons (without any proximity function) didn't appear until the battle with the Gorns in the episode "Arena."

[TheDreadnought]

Jun 21, 2010 21:12:00 GMT -5 kashre said:

Jun 21, 2010 17:18:29 GMT -5 theoz said:

I wouldn't mind using CB Torps to represent ST photons. SFB is the only version of Trek I know of that gives photons long range. The TV shows and movies seem to show them as short range, and the FASA role-playing game and its ship combat system also had photons as fairly short-range weapons.

And I'm a big FASA Trek fan. ;D

Actually in SFB they're really pretty short ranged... IIRC, I think at 4 hexes you have a 50% hit chance.... they can fire at long range, but they have lousy accuracy unless they are "proximity fused"... which there is a TOS scene to base it on, but I cant recall what eppisode.

I have always thought that torps in CB already adhere pretty well to my idea of how photons work.

Yeah. . . truth be told they were my primary inspiration. But I've never really done a whole lot of ST miniatures gaming - so it was really just my interpretation of the movies & TV shows. I agree they ought to be shorter ranged & bigger damage than the beam weapons. This is consistent with the WWI model of starship combat that ST uses. (Incidentally, I had gotten away from ST - style gaming but found I liked it again a whole lot more when somebody made that observation!)

I watched the remastered Balance of Terror recently. Anybody care to explain how you get a "proximity blast" on a laser-like beam weapon? That's one of those cases where the writers were being well. . . TV show writers, and the game designers can either do convoluted logical flips trying to shoehorn it in -- or just say. . . that's writers for you.

Was also watching the commentary on a Bab 5 episode the other day. JMS made the comment that fans had often asked him how fast the White Stars went. . . and his response was --> they move at the speed of the plot!

. . . can you tell I've been doing a lot of 'research' lately as I'm gearing up for fleet books?

[theoz]

Jun 21, 2010 22:50:16 GMT -5 TheDreadnought said:

I watched the remastered Balance of Terror recently. Anybody care to explain how you get a "proximity blast" on a laser-like beam weapon?

It's obvious....! The Trek phasers are really just the meson guns of TRAVELLER!

Jun 21, 2010 22:50:16 GMT -5 TheDreadnought said:

. . . can you tell I've been doing a lot of 'research' lately as I'm gearing up for fleet books?

Naw, it's not noticable at all....

[warchariot]

Like the discussion about Trek , so what about shields?

The SSD you posted had 40 on each facing and no regen number. What are your thoughts about Shields and should you be able to shift or regen Shields?