|
Post by warchariot on Jul 21, 2014 22:11:57 GMT -5
Harry, you have a couple of designs up on the site from way back. My group has developed a few more ships based on those, but none of us are true hardcore fans so these would be rejected by most. We also did some work on a cloaking devise. I haven't purchased Star Reach yet, but will to see how this works.
felixg91 has said it all, the idea of CBF was to be able to do cros over games, so some ship designs for us to work with would help all of us and keep that part of CBF alive.
|
|
|
Post by lincolnlog on Aug 9, 2014 12:43:08 GMT -5
There are multiple issues with creating a Trek style game, and by the way I am fully supportive of your attempts. And this becomes even more difficult when your intent is apply cinematic or the later incarnations of Trek.
1. Lack of continuity. This is main stumbling block. ADB realized this in the design phase, and therefore adopted the Franz Joseph Designs as the basis for the universe. Although ADB has no license for later incarnations, even if they did, what source material could be used to stat ships? The movies (starting with ST II The Search for Spock) was the real beginning of the continuity issues. Klingons do not fly Warbirds or Birds of Prey. The Klingon Bird of Prey in the ST III was originally written as a Romulan ship. The screen writers decided to change the villian to Klingons but the perfectly good model had already been built. Thus was born the start of one continuity violation right after another. For instance, in TNG what happened to the Tellerites and Andorians. I liked Enterprise because they at least paid homage to the TOS and brought back Orions, and many of the early species. TNG-DS9 basically threw it all away and started over. ADB has the most consistent and war like ST background because they took FJD and TOS and TAS and fleshed it and maintained that continuity.
2. Everyone wants this to work with CBF. And by the way I own CBF and like it. But honestly, if there is a new Trek game I want something new and imaginative. Mongoose has A Call to Arms-Star Fleet (crap, pretty much like all Mongoose games), Majestic 12 has Starmada better but still not great. Both of those games are no better than CBF and IMHO approaches ST gaming like BGS SW or Babylon 5 which states that combat must occur in SL. If FTL combat isn't an aspect of this game, I'm not all that interested. If it's new and fresh, with some original concepts, you had me at Star Trek!
3. Lastly, the initial idea was to make a more meaty rule set, where the player can control more than 1 ship but less than a fleet. Light power allocation was going to be a feature. Since generally, ships in the ST universe are not armored, shielding and power allocation are central a good rule system. I have tried several systems of PA simplification and just couldn't find a balance. IMO the ability to perform all power allocation on your ship card, and placing all power in a single pool is the easiest simplification you can make. Any thing else unbalances the game. As a case in point look at the special action arguments on ADB's BBS on the ACTA-SF v1.2 board.
I hope you get this done, and I promise I'll buy a copy, can't promise it'll get played.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Aug 11, 2014 10:53:36 GMT -5
As I've stated before, I have zero interest in anything from later periods. I expect that once the game is released there will be a lot of people clamoring for me to do later stuff. . . but its just not going to happen. So continuity is less of an issue for me. With regards to ships of a particular style, according to old technical manuals I have, this is explained away as arms lend/lease and sale programs, which works well enough for me. But really, as far as what the ships look like, its kinda a non-issue. . . I'm just providing stats on paper, like I did with CBF. What models people use with those stats is up to them. With respect to FTL combat, I have an honest question here. Assuming you're playing with starships maneuvering around on a hex grid. . . what exactly is the difference between FTL combat and non-FTL combat? Doesn't it come down to how fast you say the ships are moving? Is there any actual difference in the way the rules work? I actually don't plan on spending a lot of time dwelling on physics in this game. I'm trying to replicate a combat style from old TV shows and movies that were scientifically sketchy to begin with. Trying to graft real physics on top of that is a fool's errand. This is going to be a "starship combat game." Not a "space combat simulation." If that makes sense. From a command and control standpoint, so far it's shaping up that the player's span of control will probably be 1 - 3 ships. Maybe 4 if you push it. Probably 1-2 will be more regular. We are early in the design/playtest loop. So far I'm super happy with the way allocation is working out. It's really creating the type of decision points I want. . . . i.e. more things you want to do, than have the power for, and significant impacts on the way the game unfolds based on your decisions. Yet at the same time it's pretty simple and straight-forward. Finally, a lot of people are going to bring biases and assumptions from other game systems to this one. This is a new game, with a new approach and new way of doing things. I'm actually not very familiar at all with what I would consider the main game in this space. So any similarities would be purely coincidental. If people really like the way those other games handle things, they should probably play those other games. My target market is people who either are new to starship gaming, or people who have played a lot of it, but are looking for something new and fresh.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Aug 11, 2014 15:50:29 GMT -5
Yeah honestly not gonna buy an imcompatible product, probably check into a system that is truly multi-genre like Squadron Strike at least so it is touted as being that way, Starmada and A Call to Arms are not going to do the job I agree. The one thing I do agree with Dreadnought about is the TNG stuff I completely agree. No interest. SFB is actually looking more attaractive again as well, eh so be it.
FTL combat could be as simple as all Sublight ships move at the slowest possible rate and lose initiative in all other ways when facing a ship travelling in FTL, we see that in Elaan of Troyius pretty clearly.
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Aug 11, 2014 21:44:39 GMT -5
Not really a scenario that is worth gaming.
In a situation where a sublight ship is fighting an FTL ship, the sublight ship loses. Period. If other games don't handle it that way . . . ugh.
So again. . . back to the issue of two ships with FTL capability, how does it play out on the tabletop different from sublight?
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Aug 11, 2014 21:58:09 GMT -5
Yeah honestly not gonna buy an imcompatible product, probably check into a system that is truly multi-genre like Squadron Strike at least so it is touted as being that way. Some of you guys want me to write a single game that can be all things to all people. If you have a desire to do crossover games, you can do that with the CBF rules already in print. What I'm writing now is a game target to THIS style of play. By not using the same constraints/assumptions I can get something that is (in my opinion at least) a closer match. In the same way General Mills doesn't make only one cereal. It makes different flavors for different tastes. It doesn't just try to make a single cereal flavor that pleases everybody. Why would you not want a specific tool tailored for a specific job? You already have the general-purpose tool in your toolbox. . . . and if you have no interest in this particular style of game, then it doesn't matter how I write the rules, you're not going to be interested in them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by boywundyrx on Aug 12, 2014 13:28:52 GMT -5
I'm fine with FBF being a standalone product, but I did want to check that there will still be a construction system within it? I have a number of ST ships from ADB, Shapeways (a few guys), Studio Bergstrom, and Irregular, and I want to be able to fit them in, in some way. I'm also not sure how many races are going to get covered, I presume the big 3, but a build system would let us come up with things for the other guys too.
I'm also fine with the proposed era, I'm interested up to about the third movie.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Aug 12, 2014 15:40:42 GMT -5
There will be some way to "design your own ships."
|
|
|
Post by boywundyrx on Aug 13, 2014 10:21:00 GMT -5
There will be some way to "design your own ships." Great! Looking forward to this, last night I figured out where my ST ships had gotten buried and what work was needed to get them finished off and ready to game.
|
|
|
Post by felixg91 on Aug 13, 2014 14:26:48 GMT -5
quote from Dreadnought "Not really a scenario that is worth gaming.
In a situation where a sublight ship is fighting an FTL ship, the sublight ship loses. Period. If other games don't handle it that way . . . ugh.
So again. . . back to the issue of two ships with FTL capability, how does it play out on the tabletop different from sublight?" end quote
except thats NOT what happens, now is it? Enterprise handily cripples the Klingon D-7/D-6 "Battlecruiser" ( more like a light or Medium Cruiser than a true Battlecruiser, but thats another thread) yes it happens on screen so its ( ta dah!) canon....so no matter how any other games handle it ( they are sticking to canon) and the show handled it that way.
and the matching speed to engage arguement isnt canon either just watch " Journey to Babel" the Orion ship is going like warp 10 or 11 and Enterprise is doing warp 8 yeah Enterprise isnt doing much but shooting at them and missing but they sure are not having any problems.
Blame it on the material I guess...still fudging science is the only hope anyway.
( possible justification follows, taking into account Star Trek ship combat is wet naval combat lifted large to space and since your not paying attention to science according to an earlier post)...
If your not using power for movement your using it for additional heavier shielding or overloading your weapons or making huge amounts of ECM or scannning very strongly and probingly with your sensors....Definately where SFB gets it right, sure attack a starbase go ahead, your mobility will only be so useful, yes the ship chooses when and where and from what angle to engage but your ship will never outgun or outshield the Starbase, "castling" with any capital ship makes the enemy use power they would use for shields or weapons instead for movement.
I am a big believer (from experience) that mobility is more important and valuable than firepower, but when defending a fixed position ( what you would be doing at sublight basicly) firepower and defensive measures can even the odds nicely...( dont look at Custer's last stand bad example Custer didnt bring his Gatling guns and the carbines the troopers were using suffer ammunition feed problems when the weapon gets hot, instead look at Rorke's Drift or the Lost Battalion in the Argonne during WW1 for successful defences of a fixed position)
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Aug 14, 2014 8:11:53 GMT -5
Yeah but you can still mix'em together! Really I'm okay with a new game system if it is fast and fun and doesn't confuse me when I go back to play CBF.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Aug 14, 2014 8:22:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Aug 14, 2014 9:33:45 GMT -5
If your not using power for movement your using it for additional heavier shielding or overloading your weapons or making huge amounts of ECM or scannning very strongly and probingly with your sensors.... So if you assume that movement is at warp speeds, then ships that lack enough power to move (or are choosing not to spend it on movement in favor of weapons, shields, etc.) are sublight. After all, sublight is essentially immobile when compared to warp drive. What's the concern?
|
|
|
Post by shadowwarrior on Jun 12, 2015 2:51:01 GMT -5
How's progress on Federation Battle Fleet, TheDreadnought? There's a few naysayers on the threat but I fail to see how a new product can spoil someone's enjoyment of an old one. That's like saying, "I didn't like Deep Space Nine so I'm never going to watch Classic Trek again."
I see Ad Astra Games have just announced they are working on Star Trek Axanar, a ship to ship combat game (in 3D) in the Classic Trek universe using the Squadron Strike rules.
For why my opinion is worth on your game though, energy allocation (in advance) is a retrograde step. It slows the game, allows beard strokers to disrupt play with indecision, etc. A pay as you go energy system would be far preferable. It's the show, right. Captain Kirk says, "belay that torpedo arming order, divert power to shields NOW", he never says, "put one third of the power to shields, one third to engines, and one third to weapons, and we'll see how it pans out."
|
|
|
Post by TheDreadnought on Jun 12, 2015 8:38:24 GMT -5
We were never going to do pre-allocation. It's always been pay-as-you go.
The problem right now is playtesters. I had one group that was meeting regularly and giving me feedback, but haven't heard from them in months. Kinda at a standstill since then. If anybody has a gaming group and wants to playtest, let me know. I'm looking for actual gaming groups, not individual readers. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by brennall on Jun 12, 2015 10:41:22 GMT -5
As you know I have a gaming group at the moment .. They are all quite excited about Colonial Battlefleet PM me and I will see if I can get them involved.
|
|
|
Post by warchariot on Jun 13, 2015 8:21:14 GMT -5
Harry, I'm sorry, we're still not at a point where I can help with this. Maybe some final testing at the end.
|
|
|
Post by shadowwarrior on Jun 15, 2015 14:42:47 GMT -5
We were never going to do pre-allocation. It's always been pay-as-you go. The problem right now is playtesters. I had one group that was meeting regularly and giving me feedback, but haven't heard from them in months. Kinda at a standstill since then. If anybody has a gaming group and wants to playtest, let me know. I'm looking for actual gaming groups, not individual readers. Thanks! Excellent, I must have misread or misunderstood (I'm good at that). Pay as you go is absolutely the way to, err, go. I'll ask my buddy who's a member of an active games club hankering to try a bit of starship combat action.
|
|