|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jun 10, 2014 15:17:51 GMT -5
In the original series only the one episode Balance of Terror was sub-light and that's because the progagonist didn't have warp drive yet. In the Enterprise Incident the Romulans were chasing the Enterprise down at Warp Speed (after the Klingons sold the warp drive), and would have been able to engage, but the Enterprise got the jump on them and then of course got the Cloaking device working. In Elan of Troy the combat was at Warp, and I can state several other examples. The Enterprise was at warp speed in while firing in the Episode The Doomsday Machine, and the wargames in The Ultimate Computer were all at warp speed. The only sublight target was the old freighter the computer destroyed. I'll grant you that in most cases they "say" they were at warp, but what was shown on screen was clearly a sublight engagement that didn't work at all the way a warp engagement would have. Also it depends on whether you are watching the 68 version or the remastered version with the new effects. In the remastered version of The Doomsday Machine, the Enterprise is swooping all around the planet killer in a clear sublight engagement. In the first six movies (which are my favorite era) all combat is done at sublight speeds as well.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jun 10, 2014 15:21:13 GMT -5
Not sure that speed is the only factor. Agility/nimbleness could play a part too. For example, if a ship is only armed with a spinal weapon or front arc only weapons, then it may be going fast. But initiative could go to a slower ship with broadside weapons which has the agility to barrel roll and bring weapons to bear. Just as a very rough idea, could ships perhaps have a combat initiative bonus which might be an amalgamation of both speed and agility/responsiveness? Yeah, I haven't given a huge amount of thought to the initiative system yet. Mainly just working on the combat/movement mechanics right now.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 11, 2014 16:14:45 GMT -5
hexes on the board definately, a few ships per side- maybe even 1-3 per player, TOS and original-crew movies era- ONLY ( TNG feels more like Loveboat in Space than it should have and the combat was so dumbed down) Dice d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, D100 hey any and all are fine with me, I already use those for CB anyway Energy Allocation...yeah I guess, but not nearly as detailed as SFB ( I love SFB even with its many faults and I have been playing it since 1982,
Drones and fighters should be included it is a big Galaxy and just because the life loving federation doesnt use "attrition units" those races that do not give 2 dead rats about life could care less about the cost of crew for expendable units, missiles do show up in several TOS episodes just not from the Klingons or Romulans ( In "Patterns of Force" and "For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky" for instance) Besides more weapon choices is better than just Phaser or DIsruptor, Photon or Plasma, all of those should exist in several different "calibers" to begin with anyway but in FASA's genreverse the weapons were just plain dull since there was very little available and very little differentiation. As for bringing in SFB factions ( arguably Canon or not depending on your view and exposure) I am all for as many factions as possible but the Hydrans, Lyrans, Seltorians, Jindarians, ISC, Vudar...etc really have no place here, stick with Federation, Klingons, Romulans, Gorn, Kzinti, Tholians, and Orion Pirates, Cardassians in an early incarnation COULD appear as well but not at the TNG tech level. And while I think The Borg were the best thing to ever happen to TNG ( until Whyager whored itself into unbelievability by using them as 2nd rate has been enemies) they should not appear at all.
Script makes actor say they are in warp even if screen graphic doesnt reflect that reality...doesnt change the fact that warp speed combat is canon so it should be included....though not technically combat in ST:TMP when they first go to warp they are sucked into some sort of propulsion anomaly ( a "Wormhole" emanating from an asteroid I think) they launch a Photon Torpedo at it so....ships in universe can fight at warp.
Shields should deflect( first), leak ( when hit if they didnt deflect, second) and absorb damage( up until a point, third)and...then fail. Armor exists but Federation ships just dont carry any...with a hull a meter thick and shields who needs any more! ECM I like the idea of its very passive and results in a precise firing solution instead of a BOL which should reflect a lower chance to hit...
Weapons doing variable or fixed damage I am going with the fixed version, with overloading and special firing modes modeled. Photon Torpedoes should be able to be either a Direct fire weapon and/or a seeking weapon at longer ranges.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 14, 2014 20:38:48 GMT -5
Fighters were Kzinti first, and for a long time only ( maybe it should have stayed that way), then later the Hydrans and Romulans got em in that order...then a little later ( the next 2 pocket expansions?) full on overkill of the concept happened and everybody got em, along with Pseudo-Fighters and Heavy Fighters, and around the same time Drones got "fast" which I always thought they should be faster than ships anyway. Defensively I think phasers should be very capable of knocking drones and plasma torpedoes out, no special gatling phaser needed and the anti-drone drone was always one of my least favorite weapons but in a way it made enough sense that it survived. I mean if every Phaser on the Refit CA ( "Federation Battlecruiser" to the Klingons)some 18 of em, was firing in rapid pulse simultaneously I dont think any drone or any fighters would survive long. I wouldnt cry if Fighters and drones were only used by the races that do not place a premium on the preservation of life ( Klingons, Kzinti) or are sort of make shift (Orions), I never preferred playing the small combatants in this genreverse especially fighters, but smaller combatants should exist, Scouts, Frigates, Destroyers, Light Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, Dreadnoughts, and Battleships all sort of feel right and most are canon in order of size from smallest to largest.
Fighters ( and Pseudo-fighters) and drones were actually pretty "good" and different early and even midway through the evolution of SFB, they made the other fleets feel different to play and require different tactics to face ( I think not everyone should have them or maybe some factions only use them from planets and basestations). I am all for diversity and variety, it was my complaint about TNG that every weapon looked like a variant of one of the 2 main wpns systems, face it TNG had little variety even less than TOS. FASA felt like it had no variety at all in its combat...I loved FASA's ships but the system was rather uninteresting a phaser was the same as a beam as a disruptor as a blaster with a different name, same for the torps and FASA had no seeking weapons.
If you make Photons seeking they are gonna be a lot like Plasma Torpedoes ( unless they cant be shot down). I pretty much think any of the races could build Phasers, Plasma torps, Photon torps, Disruptors, drones, but what do they prefer and why? we see Klingons begin with ( TOS D-7 blueprints) Disruptors in the engine mounts, medium/low power offensive defensive phasers and the drones, by the movies they are using spinal mount forward and aft photons, and presumably still have disruptors in the engine mounts and probably some phasers and maybe drones. Still its better than Star Peace in that respect....but thats a future axe to grind.
Regulan Republic better name than Regulan Hegemony I think. Ormin Pirates works, Kang Empire has a nice sound. Initiative, movement, Energy allocation, and turn sequence...sorry I havent a clue. I currently have miniatures for ( and therefore would like to see in the game ) Federation ( TOS and original-crew movies era), Klingon, Romulan, Tholian, Gorn, Kzinti, Orions, I would like the Lyrans and Hydrans as well but they are really more like bookends shoring up the empty corners of the map but the Lyrans do make a nice Klingon ally.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 16, 2014 15:45:36 GMT -5
ALlright I admit myself and my erstwhile group of would be Starship Skippers are a bit Trek obsessed but with good reason I think. a couple of things have sort of ruminated in my think-box, and though I expect mine to be the most unpopular opinion in any room....( whats the Mossad agent in WWZ say "it is the 10th mans duty to disagree") I am going to say it.
I WOULD like this to be a cross over vehicle for/with CB&MVM and eventually the Star Peace supplements, it's the main reason I would buy it.
...otherwise I could just play SFB, which since I use all of the SSD's and material for making it cinematicly derived ( in other words stuff ADB has no license for and Paramount wasnt gonna license, which is all the movie ships pretty much- since the first 6 films are my favorite period in this genreverse as well, unfortunately for most fans of both SFB and STar TRek the source for most of that was forced down off the web, way to kill your popularity ADB and Paramount, good job breaking that heroes!!!!) compared to SFB I dont think any system can really surpass it for medelling Star TReky battles, EXCEPT when it comes to speed of play, simplicity and brevity, certainly I am not knocking CB in fact I like CB for those reasons, I was checking out SFB:Starmada and to be blunt I was not impressed, wish I hadnt bought it....CB is better in a multitude of ways.
I think after looking again that the original pocket edition of SFB and its first expansions were maybe actually better than the final latest SFB offerings.
OK-weapons free...open fire!
|
|
hamilton
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 141
|
Post by hamilton on Jul 16, 2014 21:58:24 GMT -5
I'll weigh in with felixg91 - I'd still like this to be an extension of CB/MVM. If this is not compatible with CB/MvM, I doubt I'll be buying since I already have my Trek extensions to CB that I use.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 16, 2014 22:21:29 GMT -5
I have to agree here, it should be part of your universe of CB. After all the draw to your game was to be able to play any universe, B5, BSG, ST and SW together against each other as you use to do at Cons. Now I haven't notice where you said it wouldn't be part of it, just throwing in with everyone else here.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 17, 2014 8:39:47 GMT -5
compared to SFB I dont think any system can really surpass it for medelling Star TReky battles, EXCEPT when it comes to speed of play, simplicity and brevity, ROFL!!! Yes, definitely no room for improvement there! I'll add "More Fun" to this list as an area the other game needs to improve on, and that will also provide a good reason to buy the new system. For people whose intent is not to have fun, but instead run a dry simulation of a fictional environment, using only pen and paper without computer assistance. . . then I will suggest this might not be the "game" for them. The problem with doing a true Colonial Battlefleet exension, is the styles of combat are VERY different. Also, CBF was tighly written to maintain balance, whereas this game is being written to replicate the style of an existing body of work. The assumptions in that body of work might not fit within the balance constraints of CBF. I don't want to deliver an "approximation" of the work. . . you can already do that with the CBF core rules. I want to deliver my interpretation of *this* setting.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 17, 2014 8:50:47 GMT -5
. . . and let's be real for a second. If you're on this forum, you're probably a lot like me and can't resist a shiny new set of rules, even if you might never play it. So you guys are probably all going to buy it regardless. BUT. . . my hope is that once you do, you'll see that some variety is good. Instead of having only one system, its sometimes fun to have more than one fun alternative to play so that your gaming doesn't get stale. I know you're all attached to Colonial Battlefleet because its a lot of fun (I'm very grateful you guys feel that way). But Colonial Battlefleet isn't the only fun game I can write. These games won't compete with each other. Instead, you'll have a box of game tools at your disposal to meet whatever gaming need you have on a given day. A wrench is awesome. And CBF is a pretty awesome wrench. But sometimes you need a screwdriver.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 17, 2014 14:44:41 GMT -5
Thanks Dreadnought, I am laughing too :-) SFB is a super complete system with ALL(maybe too many) angles covered ( except for the on-screen stuff- Ironic isnt it? cause thats what we all wanted) and I think the key ( for us) was getting the non licensed stuff for the cinematic ships ( truly better than the stuff the game comes with for advanced level players who are more Trek fans than SFB fans, I love SFB but think the ships SSD's are horribly off, Federation ships are weak for one thing and that weapons really need tweaking)and also just omitting things that were a pain or you didnt want in your universe....or were really not canon even on an extrapolated reachin really far to justify it in the game level.
I will buy it even though I have 3+ sets of rules already for this genre ( SFB, Starmada SFB-Nova, and Star Fleet Battle Manual and CBF which I have been making Roddenberryesque for 5 months LOL) but I really wish you would reconsider a general all encompassing system that is universl for all the genre's I have miniatures for, was the big and main real draw......
!!!!!!! or do it the way you are and put a conversion rules chapter in it to use with (vanilla) CBF and MVM and Star Peace (eventually when that is coming out).
Yes I am aware that Star Peace and BSG are all sublight combat as opposed to FTL or "Warpy" type combat engagements, okay....to quote the exemplar of starship captains "There...( pause for effect) has to be.... ( another pause for effect) another way".
What does STar Trek need more of ? well, more war, fighting and conflict in it mostly..since arguably the most successful Sci-FI franchise in history is not called "Star Peace" and by the same token what does Star Wars need, well less Jar jar binks, less Ewoks, less magic, better writing and smarter fans ( ha bloody ha)...anyone who thinks STar Wars tech is more advanced than replicators, Genesis Devices/Torpedoes, Transporters, FTL combat and Dyson Spheres is living in a state of bliss. What do they both need? Well Power Armor for sure!
Balance....well I actually dont think Balance should be built in to the system....real conflict has very little balance, this has been my opinion since I was a grunt....because the good guys dont always win and the enemy has good days too! Wasnt too balanced when Richtoffen shot down Lanoe Hawker or when Prien torpedoed Royal Oak or The Marianas Turkey Shoot was happening...
Really Admiral Dreadnought the system would be better if it works in all genre's and with all CBF supplements.
CBF is great and fun and fast and easy and I love it too, but I would ( and others would too apparently) like it even better if we can take the Excelsior and attack a Toaster Base Star or put a Victory class SD up against a Battlestar or a couple of K'Tinga's!
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jul 18, 2014 13:35:47 GMT -5
Okay, so we can do ST with CBF. I'm okay with a new set of rules for ST, but then, or before, I'd like a set of stats/ships for CBF so I can play those cross over games.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 18, 2014 15:45:41 GMT -5
At the very least as i suggested do both, a large section in the offering for doing st in cbf rules, stats, ships, weapons, i would ignore point value issues and scenarios, balance is highly artificial and overrated not hugely into ship construction rules, i prefer to wing it unless we are talking historical ww1 or 2 or modern naval. I have played harpoon since i was in the marines and never once played a scenario from the books or used point balance systems, come to think of it dont think i ever have in sfb either, mostly i have always used scenarios as inspiration now adv squad leader is different we played a lot of those. Good times!
But really i at least will be hugely dissapointed. If i wanted just st i would just use sfb which my group loves, we treat it like a salad bar take what you like and shitcan what you dont all rules are just guidelines anyway and adb's take on a bunch of stuff is in their own self interest, hey they are abusiness. Cbf is a great tool which is highly adaptable why not give that swiss army knife another attachment?
Do a poll, send a general pm to every person who is in the cbf forums and ask us all! And still do your new rules as well.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 19, 2014 1:14:11 GMT -5
And dont even consider tng until the tos and the first six movie stuff is covered. Tng is dull, dumbed - down and so full of politically correct crap, sure its trek but it is not really even worth having a systemfor.
I was reading the old fed battlefleet thread and everyone wants the cbf crossover ability and few want tng. i agree.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 21, 2014 9:06:13 GMT -5
Okay, so we can do ST with CBF. I'm okay with a new set of rules for ST, but then, or before, I'd like a set of stats/ships for CBF so I can play those cross over games. Maybe people should start posting some CBF ST ship designs on the Factions & Ship Designs board?
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 21, 2014 12:53:40 GMT -5
I suspect my interpretations and do not rate my take on the material with a high confidence of being correct for this system, yes they "work" but hard to be impartial and not have an agenda when stat-ing things out.
I did do a different weapons chart which I like better.
Also since I "wing' stats by looking at the miniature, some players are not gonna want ships that have no cost and break design rules to make it follow whats onscreen or in print as I am interpreting it.
I really would trust Dreadnoughts "official" take on the material better, it is his system and he knows it the best, he has not led us wrong so far.
|
|
|
Post by captainquirk on Jul 21, 2014 14:06:52 GMT -5
If we are going to have a rules set, then it would be good to have a CBF supplement which provides some degree of customisation.
It's OK building TOS style ships and early movie-era without too much trouble, albeit with some probable differences of opinion regarding longer range or seeking photons, plasma torps and suchlike.
But...it would be good to have a new weapons mount for collimated phaser arrays - not sure when these were introduced, but I presume they were later movie era or between the movie era and TNG? Not sure how we would set up a collimated array using basic CBF.
Also the basic CBF system doesn't really have cloaks as per TOS or TNG.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 21, 2014 14:38:54 GMT -5
Collimated Phasers are a TNG invention. . . . according to what you see on screen.
Star's Reach has a true Cloaking Device for CBF.
|
|
|
Post by captainquirk on Jul 21, 2014 14:44:21 GMT -5
Kind of. But in as much as there is any real continuity in Trek, collimated arrays were mounted on the Enterprise C. And on at least some of the Excelsior class. Not sure if this included the Enterprise B. And on some of the Miranda/Soyuz class. But it does point to them being developed in the "inter series era". And of course some people will want to play the later eras rather than original TOS.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jul 21, 2014 14:50:28 GMT -5
Enterprise 1701-A is as far as my support will ever extend.
Beyond that makes for a good fan project.
From a game design standpoint Colimated phasers are horrible.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Jul 21, 2014 19:36:12 GMT -5
so no Poll Dreadnought?
no need to re-invent the wheel and I dont want a new system, that does NOT allow crossovers. If you do a chapter in it for CBF conversion I will buy it but otherwise why bother, it isnt going to work with CBF. I understand your points ( you dont want to do it and you want to do something new )and as customers we are not always right but we do know what we want, I bought Stars Reach knowing little of it would be used by our campaign ( which turned out to be even less than I had hoped), still I wanted to believe it would be part of a bigger product that would also cover ST, SW, B5, SB and be compatible for any genre and expandable, and still at that time I wanted everything for CBF that is in print or was going to be in print and face it I also try to be a loyal consumer, by supporting the companies that I like, that produce wanted or needed product and listen to their fan base....
Highly dissapointed but if your adamant, so be it, I have attempted to persuade by reason. Done.
|
|