|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 14, 2010 10:21:21 GMT -5
So we're wrapping up the final process to get the revised Core Rules out the door, including Print on Demand editons! (You heard it here first.) Got the first proof in last night and it was gorgeous!
So what now?
We've already got major progress made on the Ravenstar/Fox fleet book. Very excited about how that is coming together. Tentatively targeting late August/Early Sept for release.
Also have Colonial Battlefleet: Empire Space coming out. This will be a fleet book covering a new, forthcoming line of miniatures I was particularly taken with. I think you guys will love them as much as I do when you see them.
Aside from those, I have some other ideas, but have not made any specific plans yet for future fleet books/features.
What other kinds of things would you like to see enabled in Colonial Battlefleet. . . could be anything from setting styles, movement types, weapon types. . . whatever. Just looking to find out what people are interested in seeing.
Also, any thoughts ideas for the campaign system or things you would like to see? I've had a rough sketch of ideas sitting around for 2-3 months, but if people have things they would like to see incorporated, sooner is better than later.
Whatcha got?
|
|
|
Post by kenh01 on Jul 14, 2010 10:41:03 GMT -5
Hi Guys
When it comes to campaigns I see two Styles with two Types of each.
Style 1: Preset Universe, each player has a preset faction working in a pre-designed and developed universe.
Style 2: Explore the Unknown, each player starts with one system and minimun tech and resources and develops from there.
Type 1: Full blown game, the campaign system is a full and rich evironment on its own which uses CB a a combat resolution system.
Type 2: Scenario with Consequences Generator, the campaign system is a skeleton (hopefully enjoyable in its own right) to generate interdependant scenarios.
Take one from column A and one from column B, mix well and enjoy!
Ken
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Jul 14, 2010 11:36:06 GMT -5
The first thing that comes to mind is a more Newtonian vector movement system.
Next, a way to buiid or customize your own missiles/fighters.
I'll think of more later.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 14, 2010 13:19:18 GMT -5
I would like to see fleetbooks for Trek and Starwars type mins in the near future. I think Trek first, the Fox/Ravenstar fleet book will cover a WWII style fleets with fighters and no shields, Trek type would cover shields, no fighters WWI type battles.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 14, 2010 17:52:08 GMT -5
I've got ideas for trek. Just have to have the miniatures range to go with them. Found the miniatures range for Trek, just gotta convince the guy to let me use his minis. May need help from you guys on this. I'll let you know when we get closer.
Starwars style stuff is well advanced. . . got a minis line in mind for it, but haven't approached them yet.
|
|
|
Post by dontpanic on Jul 15, 2010 21:22:11 GMT -5
I want an expansion based on Star Control! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lordhawkins on Jul 16, 2010 7:40:58 GMT -5
Does that include ships that have a 50/50 chance of coming back from death?
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 16, 2010 8:39:56 GMT -5
The first thing that comes to mind is a more Newtonian vector movement system. Next, a way to buiid or customize your own missiles/fighters. I'll think of more later. Vector movement is planned for some release. Customizing missiles and fighters might be tough. We'll see how it goes. Certainly, with the 9 fighter profiles coming in the R/F fleet book, and the 6 or so in Empire Space. . . there will be lots of options for people in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 16, 2010 17:30:24 GMT -5
Oz, have you tried 12 point movement for missiles? You don't have to change the ship movement, or all missiles.
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Jul 17, 2010 1:48:44 GMT -5
Oz, have you tried 12 point movement for missiles? You don't have to change the ship movement, or all missiles. Yes, we/I have. That's why I made up those charts to show what hexes could and could not be hit with a missile under 6-point and 12-point movement rules. What I'd like to see (if possible) are things like: - Standoff attack abilities (a missile that shoots at you from outside PD range.)
- Limited endurance (only so many game turns on the board).
- Hardened/vulnerable missiles (more/less resistant to PD/ECM).
- Enhanced/reduced warheads.
- HIgher/lower speeds.
- Better/worse manuverability.
- More/less massive missiles.
And the abliity to mix and match between all these so you can "roll your own."
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 17, 2010 11:16:48 GMT -5
I think some of this has been addressed with torps and the optional rules for missiles.
Standoff attack abilities (a missile that shoots at you from outside PD range.) I think of Fusion torps for fighters as one turn missiles. They fire in close but avoid P Def and flak.
Limited endurance (only so many game turns on the board) If you remember, much to my embarrassment, we were removing missile after two turns from a misread of the optional rules. What we found is the game is short enough that it does matter if you remove missiles. Also, the cost would out weight the use as a long range weapon.
Hardened/vulnerable missiles (more/less resistant to PD/ECM). How you're talking. I think you could vary the defense number of missiles to show this, so Bombardment missiles might be an 8, while the others stay 9s
Enhanced/reduced warheads. Not sure what you mean here. High values, more/less mass? Those are covered in the types especially if you include the torps.
Higher/lower speeds. optional rules start to address this with the different speeds and only one turn for bombardment missiles.
Better/worse maneuverability. Again, the optional rules are a start.
More/less massive missiles. Are you talking about weight/cost? Verses damage?
However, having said all that, as a missile lover, I would like to see some other missiles. So for an example: ATT-1d6 PEN -1d10 S Dmg-None H Dmg-7 Ton-3 Ammo-3 Defense-8 Speed/turn-10/1
They would have a difficult time getting past P Def, but they are cheap and fast. This is just off the top of my head, so most likely would need adjustments. Is this the type on thing you're asking about Oz?
|
|
cletus
Lieutenant JG
Posts: 13
|
Post by cletus on Jul 17, 2010 11:39:39 GMT -5
I agree with kenh01's summary of the basic campaign systems above. As a longtime fan of the 4X style space conquest games (Master of Orion, anyone?) I would love to see a detailed campaign system that would let you expand outward from a homeworld.
I think you're probably already planning most of this stuff Dreadnought, but rules for controlling planets, developing tech, acquiring resources and then having to use them to construct or repair damaged ships are all good. I envision a system where I have a strategic map laying out the contested stars/planets to move fleets around on, and resolve the battles as they meet.
In designing the campaign rules, is there any reason why you couldn't offer several of the styles ken mentions within your expansion? While I'd like to see the above, other people may want a scenario generator. Including more than one style of campaign in the expansion would go over well, I think.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 17, 2010 16:24:57 GMT -5
Yeah I was thinking about having a short form as an alternative to the full campaign. You should be able to play the long form either as an expansion game or by pre defining system control.
|
|
|
Post by craftyshafty on Jul 18, 2010 0:18:25 GMT -5
As much as I love the idea of mega-detailed campaigns, the more intricate you make it (record-keeping, number of decisions/battles per strategic turn, etc) the harder it is to get players together and less likely the campaign will reach a satisfying conclusion. Rule of thumb: make it what you consider to be "simple", then strip it down from there. They guy who creates the campaign is always the most hardcore.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 18, 2010 9:12:03 GMT -5
Don't worry -
The "full campaign" is still going to be completely concentrated around creating context for starship battles. I am deliberately avoiding creating a "manage this interstellar empire on paper" game. That (IMO) is not what people are looking for in their starship gaming campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 18, 2010 10:02:14 GMT -5
Don't worry - The "full campaign" is still going to be completely concentrated around creating context for starship battles. I am deliberately avoiding creating a "manage this interstellar empire on paper" game. That (IMO) is not what people are looking for in their starship gaming campaigns. Good. We NEVER play campaigns because we want to play battles, not manage a nation. Also, its hard to get players together at the right times. Nothing is worse than waiting for a battle to be played so the game can go on. We just want someway to generate battles with who we have, when we can get together.
|
|
theoz
Lieutenant
Armored and Ready!
Posts: 54
|
Post by theoz on Jul 18, 2010 15:16:29 GMT -5
I think some of this has been addressed with torps and the optional rules for missiles.
However, having said all that, as a missile lover, I would like to see some other missiles. So for an example: ATT-1d6 PEN -1d10 S Dmg-None H Dmg-7 Ton-3 Ammo-3 Defense-8 Speed/turn-10/1
They would have a difficult time getting past P Def, but they are cheap and fast. This is just off the top of my head, so most likely would need adjustments. Is this the type on thing you're asking about Oz? That's the idea, warchariot. I think a limit on things so that a faction could only have a few missile designs in service at any one time would be a good thing (just to keep things simple) but I'd like to be able to get a +1 or +2 on the Pen die by giving up some Def value, or losing some turning ability, or whatever evil combination I could come up with.
|
|
|
Post by darby on Jul 21, 2010 17:36:04 GMT -5
I'd like to see rules for some sort of repair ship, that can be hex adjacent and lend a hand repairing crippled ships during a battle. They could also be the center piece of engagements if they're made valuable enough.
Crew hits as well, and maybe weapons that directly affect crews without harming the ship. Perhaps gama-ray based? It'd be fun to knock down a crew enough to capture their ship intact to be used against them later in a campaign. Sort of a 19th century effect.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 21, 2010 19:36:22 GMT -5
There are already boarding actions you can do to capture ships intact. I'm concerned that if we introduced a crew-killing weapon, people would make it all about that.
Although. . . I guess one approach would be to say that a crew-killing weapon still does normal hull damage like any other weapon, except that it's abstractly tracking the damage to crew. Any ship destroyed by it is still considered to be intact at the end of the battle.
There are also already rules for repair ships called "Fleet Auxiliaries."
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 21, 2010 23:02:58 GMT -5
The crew killing would mean upping the crew. dividing the crew so each one dies after so many hull boxes like FT, or counting the hull as crew, as Dread said. I like the boarding as is because it is hard to do. After all, how many ships get captured in wet navy, other than Age of Sail?
|
|