> On Fri, Mar 14, 1997 at 11:58:49 AM, "Phillip E. Pournelle" wrote:
> Has anyone played the new Babylon 5 Wars game? I'd like to hear how
I was one of the playtesters for the game. My game group played it about ten
times total, and filed a 20-page playtest report for each of the two
rounds of playtesting. The consensus of opinion was that there were some
serious problems with it (detailed below), and that the more we played it, the
less we liked it. Unfortunately, preliminary indications are that AoG doesn't
think these problems are issues, so they probably won't get fixed. CAVEAT: I
haven't seen the final rules yet, so I can't comment authoritatively on them.
There were three main problems that we identified: 1) The movement system is
seriously broken, in two ways:
First, the movement system they use is inappropriate for a hex-based
game.
The system is somewhat simliar to (but more complicated than) _Full
Thrust_,
i.e., "move forward X number of hexes and then turn X degrees". ("X" in this
case is 60, because a hex has six sides and 360/6=60.) Each ship is
given two stats which affect course changes: a "turn rating", usually
expressed in the number of "thrust points" that a ship must expend in relation
to its current
speed (e.g., "1/2 times current speed") before it may turn 60 degrees,
and a "turn delay", usually expressed in the number of hexes that a ship must
travel
forward in relation to its current speed before it may turn (e.g., "1/3
times current speed"). Ships may only coast along hex rows.
Okay, so what's wrong with this? Nothing -- in a miniatures game. B5W
isn't a miniatures game, though, it is intended for play on a hex map, and the
hex map distorts the movement. For example, ships may "slide" into hexes not
along the same hex row, but sliding costs thrust points equal to 20% of the
ship's current speed every other hex. This leads to an extremely odd
phenomenon: A player who wants to conduct a 60-degree course change
(from a hex row to a hex row) can do so by paying the turn cost and then
coasting. A
player who wants to conduct a 30-degree course change (from a hex row to
a hex spine), however, must expend thrust points equal to 20% of the ship's
current coasting speed every other hex for the duration of this course,
potentially forever. If the player is unable or unwilling to continue paying
this expenditure (e.g., the ship is damaged by enemy fire), the ship then
spontaneously returns to it's original course, without expending any thrust.
A system like this works well in _Full Thrust_, when the map doesn't
force you
along particular paths, but not very well in a hex-based system.
As a result of this distortion, every different maneuver requires its own
procedure, make the game much more complicated than it should be. For example,
pivoting (i.e., rotating the ship) while coasting at speed zero
(i.e., dead stop) uses a different procedure than pivoting at speeds greater
than zero, although from a physics standpoint the two maneuvers are identical.
The speed zero procedure allows you to change your facing to point in any
direction; the other procedure limits you to a pivot of exactly 180 degrees
(which takes exactly three turns). Why? Because if a moving ship changed
facing other than 180 degrees, the movement system couldn't handle it; you
literally could not move using the current system. Patching the current system
would involve adding yet more special-case rules to the system.
The second problem with the movement system is that it is non-Newtonian,
and
doesn't even fake it well. _Full Thrust_ isn't either, but it fakes it
well, because it doesn't have the hex distortion effect. While this type of
movement system may be proper for a WW2 naval miniatures game or even
acceptable in the context of, say, BattleTech, its gross violations of simple
physics make it inappropriate for a space combat game based on a series whose
creator prides himself on scientific accuracy. Although TV imposes certain
restrictions, I very strongly believe that any Babylon 5 game should be as
scientifically accurate as possible while maintaining the spirit of the
television show. And that, of course, means a vector movement system.
We felt so strongly about this, that after AoG told us that they had rejected
vector movement before they started drafting the rules ("because it would be
too difficult"), that fellow playtester Arius Kaufmann and I took a draft
system that we had proposed to AoG and developed it further. It is available
at http://www.wizard.net/~caw/vms.htm, and will be updated when the B5W
game is released.
2) One energy point produces one thrust point regardless of ship type.
Why is this a problem? It implies that all the ships are the same mass. This
is because, in all the various types of ships, an undamaged thruster produces
one thrust point for each energy point run through it, and each thrust point
can produce an acceleration of one.
Since the amount of acceleration any one thrust point can produce is dependent
not only on the thrust of the thruster it is run through but also the mass of
the ship the thruster is attempting to move, the fact that one energy point
has the same effect whether it is spent by one ship or another implies either
that all ships mass exactly the same amount (obviously false), or energy
points are relative, valid only within the context of a single ship class,
e.g., an energy point in a Centauri heavy war cruiser is different (represents
more or less energy) than an energy point in an Omega class destroyer.
This has profound effects on the rest of the game -- especially ship
design. It means that at some point energy points would have to be converted
between
the "relative" energy points valid only for a particular ship-class, and
some "absolute" energy unit which would be used when picking weapons systems,
thrusters, etc. for a ship.
They may be planning on fixing this in the final rules, by creating some sort
of energy-point transaction system to convert between the different
ships. They indicated that they were going to make some changes after the
first
playtest round, but as of the second round we didn't see any.
3) The combat system is really vague.
The more we played the game, the more uneasy we felt about the combat system.
We made certain assumptions about what the various values (defensive ratings,
damage ratings, fire control, etc.) are intended to represent. The more we
played, however, the more we ran into specific instances that seemed to not
fit in with the implicit model we had constructed. Therefore, either our
understanding of what the values represent was wrong, or the value itself was
wrong, or both. Next, we realized that not only had we not determined if the
system and/or values made sense, but that we _could not_ do so without
more information. At best, we would have only a vague feeling that this or
that
value is wrong -- oftentimes it seems that different ships are different
solely for the sake of being different, or that the values were assigned in a
totally arbitrary manner.
Now, this being science fiction, these values are fictional, but that doesn't
mean they have to be arbitrary. If the defensive rating, for example, is a
rough idea of how hard the ship is to hit based on the size of its profile (a
la GDW's _Star Cruiser_), then small ships should be harder to hit than
large ships. This wasn't always the case, which led us to wonder what factors
_are_
included. On several occasions it seemed like someone had decided to change
values without thinking through exactly what the values represent.
While bad enough in itself, this will potentially become intolerable when the
ship design system is introduced, for two reasons. First, if there is no
method by which a ship's ratings are determined, it will be difficult if not
impossible to devise a system which will allow you to design the ship's
included in the game. Second, even if the original ships do not become
illegal, it promises to make them suboptimal designs. There should always be
room for players to improve on the efforts of the naval architects of the
fictional setting, but care needs to be taken not to invalidate all the
designs which came before.
Mark Seifert's web page has a proposed d20 damage system which potentially
could streamline the combat procedure considerably. While the combat system
was a little complicated at times, we didn't think that complication was the
real issue. I don't know what they will do.
There is also a more minor nit: The Omega-class destroyers don't have a
rotating section. We thought this was important, because this is an extra
mechanism which can be damaged, and the commanders of these ships (in 'Severed
Dreams', for example) certainly seemed to think that damage to these
components would be bad, and because it is one of the things which illustrates
the general inferiority of Earth Alliance technology versus some of the other
major races.
All-in-all, it was about what I expected when I discovered that the
designer
had been Stephen Cole's hand-picked successor to take over the
stewardship of the Star Fleet Battles universe. [This isn't intended as a jab
at SFB, just a
note that SFB suffers from most, if not all, of the same problems --
except, of course, that vector movement is not an integral part of the
background on which the game is based.] I don't really expect any of the above
problems to have been fixed (although the movement system is the only one that
AoG has flatly declared was not going to change).
That having been said, I have already reserved a copy from my local game
store, and I'll be the first one in line to buy it. It's Babylon 5, and even
if it's unlikelty that I'll play it as-is (unless there have been some
major changes), it will still be a valuable reference and a good basis for
modification. Aside from the movement system, there is a lot of good stuff in
there which can be salvaged.
> At 09:07 AM 3/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
> problems with it (detailed below), and that the more we played it, the
Thanks for the review, Chris. I don't think this is off topic
because--like
many on this list--I'll have to make a decision: spend money on Babylon
5 Wars, or just buy their figures and use Full Thrust. My biggest fear for B5W
was that it would be the B5 version of SFB. It sounds like it isn't but that
it has the potential to go that route. Looks like I'll wait for Jon Tuffley's
B5 rules instead.
Anyone else have a review? Anyone know anything about the lead figures? I've
heard rumours about strange scale discrepancies between the fighters and the
other ships. To be honest, the first thing I thought when I heard about B5W
was "great, B5 figures for Full Thrust"...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> a miniatures game, though, it is intended for play on a hex map, and
Well... it does. While I agree, I think in essence you're saying EVERY
tactical hex-based space game is fundamentally flawed.
I don't know the rules, but is there any reason why hexes MUST be used?
Nothing's easier than dumping the map, one hex == 1 inch (or whatever) and 1
hexside turn == UP TO 60 degrees turn.
The only reason I can think of why this wouldn't work is if the game uses
complex manuever diagrams (e.g. starting here, do half-loop to end
here).
> While bad enough in itself, this will potentially become intolerable
Are you sure there's going to BE a ship design system? Design and point
systems are typically the first ones to go when the game has to be
"streamlined".
> Second, even if the original ships do not become
OR overoptimal, provided they are ruled legal through "exceptions".
> Has anyone played the new Babylon 5 Wars game? I'd like to hear how
[...]
> Mark Seifert's web page has a proposed d20 damage system which
It is my understanding that after thinking about it a lot AoG has decided to
go with the D20 system. I don't know if it's the one I proposed or a
modification/variant thereof, but that's what I heard recently.
Yeah, I'll be picking up the game, too, but like Allan said earlier, "To be
honest, the first thing I thought when I heard about B5W was 'great, B5
figures for Full Thrust'..." I had the same thoughts. :-}
Mk
I said:
> > a miniatures game, though, it is intended for play on a hex map, and
> > the hex map distorts the movement.
Mikko Kurki-Suonio responded:
> Well... it does. While I agree, I think in essence you're saying EVERY
> tactical hex-based space game is fundamentally flawed.
Granted, the hex-based map will always add some distortion to the game.
In most cases, however, that distortion is not a minor annoyance that every
one in aa while forces you to pick one hex or the other, when you really want
to pick the space between them. In B5W, on the other hand, the distortion
fundamentally affects what maneuvers you can and cannot perform, and leads to
spontaneous course changes. In the example I gave before, the situation
basically boils down to the following:
1) To change a ship's course 60 degrees to either the left or the right, a
player must spend thrust on one occasion, and after that he can coast until
the heat death of the universe;
2) To change a ship's course 30 degrees to either the left or the right, a
player must spend thrust *every* other *hex* until either he spends the *same*
amount of thrust as in case #1, (in which case the ship is now moving along a
hex row), *or* until the player stops spending thrust, at which point the ship
snaps back to it's previous course.
For example, two players have ships moving at a speed of 20 with a thrust of
10, a turn rating of 1/2 current speed, and a slip cost of 1/5 current
speed.
The first player wants to change course 60 degree -- that costs 20/2 =
10 thrust points, which he pays for once. The second player wants to change
facing 30 degrees, which by any physics I know of should take *less* energy
than a 60 degree turn. The cost for that slip, however, is is 20/5 = 4
for every other hex, which breaks down as follows:
HEX ACTION COST 1 move forward 0 2 slip 4 3 move forward 0 4 slip 4 5 move
forward 0 6 slip <ERROR!>
The ship can't slip again (because it only have two thrust points left), so it
returns to the original course!
I can think of a large number of tactical hex-based games that don't
suffer
from this problem -- here are a few that come immediately to mind:
1) GDW's Triplanetary: Feels tactical, even though turns are one-day and
the map covers the solar system out to Jupiter. Players record their courses
on the laminated map using AV pens. Players use thrust to move the "head" of
their course's vector arrow.
2) GDW's Mayday/Battle Rider: Both use Past-Present-Future markers to
keep track of the course;
3) Bone Game's Laplace, Newton and Lagrange (LNL for shortfreeware on the
net): Uses thrust markers next to ship to keep track of thrust;
4) GDW's Battle Rider: Uses a 12-point facing system (like FT) and a
marker on the ship card indicating which hex a ship is going into next (if the
ship's course is moving it along a spine). [I seem to recall another system
which had a marker that went with the counter on the map that served the same
function.]
Finally, there is the Vector Movement System (VMS) we proposed on my website,
which instead of markers like LNL, puts a display on the AoG ship sheets to
record basically the same information.
Now, these games have varying levels of complexity, but I think that part of
the problem is just finding a good way to *display* the course information,
not the underlying concepts. The underlying concept is simply "rotate the ship
so a thruster faces opposite of the way you want to go, then fire the
thruster." Heck, anyone who is old enough to have played Asteroids understands
vector movement. <g> Also, the AoG system's simplicity is only
superficial, as _every_ instance of a maneuver that doesn't involve a 60
degree turn has to be covered by a special case.
> I don't know the rules, but is there any reason why hexes MUST be
> and 1 hexside turn == UP TO 60 degrees turn.
It doesn't really use diagrams, but it does proscribe what you can and can't
do pretty rigidly, and uses diagrams to illustrate the point.
You could abandon the hexes, but basically this is saying "graft the B5W
combat system onto something like the Full Thrust movement system". That
works. I think to get the spirit of B5, though, you need vector movement.
(Since the VMS could easily work with FT, there are now at least _three_
sets of realistic movement rules for Full Thrust.) If you decide you don't
want vector movement, I would abandon the AoG movement rules altogether and
just
play the FT movement rules -- with 12-point facing/course changes, the
FT rules are almost flexible enough anyway.
> > While bad enough in itself, this will potentially become intolerable
> > when the ship design system is introduced, for two reasons.
I seem to recall saying that they planned one, and I certainly hope it
happens. If there isn't one, though, I think that makes the situation even
worse. Ship design systems make a game better overall, because in the "real
world" (by I mean a universe where objects have mass and take power to move),
there are tradeoffs. If you don't have a design system (even if it is one that
is never published), you can't tell if the tradeoffs are occurring properly,
and as a result you can't tell if anything else in your combat model makes
sense. Everything gets tweaked by the designers solely based on whether it
feels right. If I wanted to play something that abstract, I'll go play bridge,
which doean't pretend to be anything but a card game.
> > Second, even if the original ships do not become illegal, it
Exactly. I think that there are two reasons why Star Fleet Battles has become
the mess that it is: (1) the ship design system basically boils down to
"designer's whim", and (2) they've decided that detail equals accuracy.
[It
may seem odd to use terms like "model" and "accuracy" in regard to something
that is based on fictional technology, but without some basis in some form of
reality, then where does the line get drawn? Why doesn't Full Thrust or SFB
have magic, for example?] Detail, unfortunately, doesn't equal accuracy in
this case, only complexity.
Or, as we say in the computer business, "garbage in, garbage out."
BTW: Notice that I have never said "don't buy this game", and I *have* said
that I intend to buy it. This isn't solely for legal reasons (although I will
note that a food critic was sucessfully sued by a restaurant about which he
gave a bad review), but rather that I don't necessarily intend to play every
game I buy. There is some good ideas in this game, even if it takes a lot of
work to make them usable. Besides, maybe if enough people buy the game and say
"I liked everything except the sucky movement system", they'll get a chance to
fix it in the second edition.
I'm going to buy it, and if you like the subject and have the money to spend,
maybe you should, too.
PS: Just picked up The Babylon Project, but I haven't had a chance to look it
over yet.
As far as the minis go I thought the game had two scales, one for tactical
fighter combat and one for cap ship combat,; thus the different figure scales.
Is this true?
Paul
----------
From: Allan Goodall[SMTP:agoodall@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 1997 8:09 AM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Babylon 5 Wars (LONG)
> At 09:07 AM 3/15/97 -0500, you wrote:
> problems with it (detailed below), and that the more we played it, the
Thanks for the review, Chris. I don't think this is off topic
because--like
many on this list--I'll have to make a decision: spend money on Babylon
5 Wars, or just buy their figures and use Full Thrust. My biggest fear for B5W
was that it would be the B5 version of SFB. It sounds like it isn't but that
it has the potential to go that route. Looks like I'll wait for Jon Tuffley's
B5 rules instead.
Anyone else have a review? Anyone know anything about the lead figures? I've
heard rumours about strange scale discrepancies between the fighters and the
other ships. To be honest, the first thing I thought when I heard about B5W
was "great, B5 figures for Full Thrust"...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> 2) To change a ship's course 30 degrees to either the left or the
I understand your point, but the basic fact is that you just can't make 30
degree turns under the rules. Hexes have nothing to do with it. In Full
Thrust, you just can't make turns under 30 degrees, period. Imagine the
frustration, if the game included more "direct ahead only" weapons.
Incidentally, this is not really related to the Newtonian nature of movement,
or the lack of it.
A number of games suffer from the same problem, FASA's RL:Interceptor and
Aerotech spring to mind first. They have "almost Newtonian" optional
movement, but you still can't go across hex grain.
> 1) GDW's Triplanetary: Feels tactical, even though turns are one-day
And long out of print :-(
> 3) Bone Game's Laplace, Newton and Lagrange (LNL for shortfreeware on
URL?
> 4) GDW's Battle Rider: Uses a 12-point facing system (like FT)
ICE's Star Strike(?) uses a similar system. And a number of tactical airwar
games. There's no reason you couldn't graft it onto B5W by adding 30 degree
turns and rules how ships plow across the grain. Judging weapon arcs would
probably be the hardest change. IMHO, it just looks ugly and you should dump
the hexes at this point... but it works if you really want it.
I'm guessing here, but in B5W slipping does not change your heading? I.e. it
was never ment to be a permanent course change, but a little
fudge maneuver to let you change hex rows without turning twice --
a little something to compensate for the lack of smaller turns.
> thruster." Heck, anyone who is old enough to have played Asteroids
Yup, but it's completely different thing to able to plot it and get where
you want -- even in Asteroids, where you can make realtime corrections.
Players don't have the navigational computers the ships surely do. And you
don't want to stop the game every time someone wants to calculate it
manually.
Thus, it is IMHO acceptable to simplify the movement. After all, we're playing
a game, not doing physics homework.
> I think to get the spirit of B5, though, you need vector movement.
Sure, but it's going to alienate a lot of players if it's the only option.
> I seem to recall saying that they planned one, and I certainly hope it
> happens. If there isn't one, though, I think that makes the situation
I wouldn't hold my hopes too high for a design system. Let's face it: They
wouldn't have paid for the license if they didn't expect a number of people to
buy it just because it's a B5 game. Design systems undercut the need for
Official Data Books(tm), official miniatures(tm), official scatter dice(tm)
and whatnot.
This getting into the realm of speculation, but if SFB people's opinion is
that they'll sue you for copyright infringement if you publish your own SSD's
(judging from a post a little while back in rec.games.board) and some of the
same people are involved in B5W, what kind of attitude can you expect?
I must add that such a case would be very shaky at best -- but that
doesn't mean it wouldn't cost a fortune in lawyers to get a ruling.
> This isn't solely for legal reasons (although I will
Another reason not to live over there :-)
> work to make them usable. Besides, maybe if enough people buy the game
I think your best bet is to push the vector system as an optional rule.
In a message dated 97-03-15 17:32:53 EST, you write:
<< >Mark Seifert's web page has a proposed d20 damage system which potentially
> could streamline the combat procedure considerably. While the combat
It is my understanding that after thinking about it a lot AoG has decided to
go with the D20 system. I don't know if it's the one I proposed or a
modification/variant thereof, but that's what I heard recently.
> [quoted text omitted]
Also, I believe AOG decided to scrap the interceptor rules we playtested, and
have interceptors & defensive mode weapons increase the defensive value of the
ship. Much better.
Regards, Steve Gibson
> On Sat, Mar 15, 1997 at 8:37:14 PM, Paul Calvi wrote:
> As far as the minis go I thought the game had two scales, one for
I think there is going to be a strategic movement system and a tactical system
-- we didn't see the strategic stuff, so it was hard to tell. The rules
we tested had a set of fighter rules using individual fighters, then a
suggestion that fighters actually be flown in groups. This didn't really work
in the first playtest round, as the damage system was such that you ended up
with a
lot of fighters with _different_ things wrong with them (hence, they
could no
longer fly as a group), and effectively mission-killed anyway. The
second
round playtest rules were a _lot_ deadlier for fighters, which mostly
solved the problem.
> On Sun, Mar 16, 1997 at 5:54:49 AM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> weapons.
True, but FT's 12-point system (i.e., 30 degree turns are the limit)
gives you a much finer gradation than the 6 point system (i.e., 60 degree
turns are the
limit) of B5W. I need to double-check the FT rules (it's been a while),
but
IIRC the only real reason for limiting the turns to clock-facing
increments seemed to be to guarantee that people didn't fudge their facing. If
I am remebering this correctly, then FT could be modified to different size
turns without doing more than tweaking the movement system; trying to do the
same with AoG's system, in most cases, will cause it to explode into little
pieces of goo.
> Incidentally, this is not really related to the Newtonian nature of
Granted -- I was somewhat rushed while writing my previous comments, and
did not do a good job of making the distinction between "the movement system
is
really broken" and "the movement system is non-Newtonian", both of which
are true wrt B5W. Only the latter is true wrt FT.
> A number of games suffer from the same problem, FASA's RL:Interceptor
Excatly. One of the other points I made to AoG was that I already have
30+
tactical space combat games, and I didn't really see anything that made theirs
stand out from any of the RL stuff. Incidently, I think the RL stuff would be
better with a vector movement system, also. (FASA should know better. They got
a lot of thing right or mostly right with RL, which makes this even more
irritating.)
> > 1) GDW's Triplanetary: Feels tactical, even though turns are one-day
> > and the
Steve Jackson Games has the rights to it now -- hoepfully we will see a
new
version of it come out soon. (http://www.io.com/sjgames/triplan/)
> > 3) Bone Game's Laplace, Newton and Lagrange (LNL for shortfreeware
> URL?
http://www.bonegames.com/games/lnl/default.html
> > 4) GDW's Battle Rider: Uses a 12-point facing system (like FT)
It could be grafted on, but that means that the rotation rules would have to
be changed as well. i would argue, though, that if the system weren't so badly
broke, we wouldn't have to come up with a separate graft fo everything it
doesn't do correctly. The entire procedure reminds me of Ptolemaic
astronomers, who came up with ever more elaborate wheels-within-wheels
models to explain how the Sun really moves around the Earth.
> I'm guessing here, but in B5W slipping does not change your heading?
No heading change, so your anaylsis is probably correct. It's a very poor
mechanism to compensate for a lack of smaller turns.
> > thruster." Heck, anyone who is old enough to have played Asteroids
> you don't want to stop the game every time someone wants to calculate
> playing a game, not doing physics homework.
But you don't need to do physics homework. Triplanetary, for example, has the
shortest movement rules I have ever seen in a tactical space game. LNL's and
MayDay's are about the same length, and so are Battle Rider's. [Keep in mind
with Battle Rider it isn't the *movement* system that makes it complicated,
but the initiative and combat systems. With Brilliant Lances, the movement
system is complicated, but that's because (1) it is at a much higher level of
detail, and (2) they movement system they chose was actually more complicated
than it needed to be.]
You don't need a navigational computer for Triplanetary -- you need the
ability to count and the ability to draw a (mostly) straight line. For LNL or
MayDay you don't even need to be able to draw. Overall the complexity level is
*far* below something like B5W, SFB, or even the Renegade Legion
stuff --
and the rules cover ever single maneuver possible.
> > I think to get the spirit of B5, though, you need vector movement.
AoG said the same thing, and I will admit I don't understand why it is more
alienating to present a simple movement system that allows you to recreate
maneuvers seen in the show, than a more complicated system which does not.
Tthis is like saying that it would be alienating if, in Dirtside II, they
didn't allow magic.
The kicker was when AoG said, in effect, that they didn't need to actually try
a vector movement system to know that it would be too complicated. Huh?
Then
why playtest the game at all, if they're so damn smart that they can tell if
something works or not without even trying it?
And what about all the people who are alienated with the idiotic space games
out there? Most of the gamers I know who won't play tactical space games won't
do so because of the movement system.
> I think your best bet is to push the vector system as an optional
I don't expect them to change the system at all. AoG has already declared the
system perfect, so there isn't any reason for them to change it.
Oh well -- perhaps Tuffley's B5 rules will save the day. I sure hope
so.
> On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> True, but FT's 12-point system (i.e., 30 degree turns are the limit)
gives you
> a much finer gradation than the 6 point system (i.e., 60 degree turns
Agreed.
> I need to double-check the FT rules (it's been a while), but
The real reason? Allowing smaller turns would make giving orders harder, as
you'd have to specify exactly how much to turn. And what if you
want a 45 degree turn? Do you turn 15-30, 30-15 or 22.5-22.5? More
complexity, which is unnecessary since all the weapon arcs are rather
generous.
Hex grid suits 6-point heading well. Finer gradiation doesn't fare so
well. The six-sidedness of it is a fact of life. I just live with when I
play hex-games.
> Steve Jackson Games has the rights to it now -- hoepfully we will see
Steve has had the rights for some time. Steve also has a number of other
projects he'd really like to do. Has wanted to do for a long time. I'll just
say I believe a SJG release date when I hold the product in my hands.
> It could be grafted on, but that means that the rotation rules would
What's so hard about that? If turning 60deg costs X thrust, turning 30
costs X/2.
> No heading change, so your anaylsis is probably correct. It's a very
It's also very common in hex-based games.
> But you don't need to do physics homework. Triplanetary, for example,
LNL's and
> MayDay's are about the same length, and so are Battle Rider's.
The movement system doesn't have to be complicated -- its effects are.
A bit like chess. Just because you know the rules doesn't mean you can win a
game.
Don't get me wrong. I really, really like newtonian movement. But every time I
try it, people end up flying all over the place, either colliding with
everything or zooming off the board. How long could you play Asteroids, if it
didn't wrap your ship over the screen edge?
A typical case is two forces accelerating towards each other, meeting and then
flying off the board before they can decelerate and change course. Or people
moving too carefully because they're afraid they can't control it.
> You don't need a navigational computer for Triplanetary -- you need
Will that answer the question: "Given my initial velocity and position, what's
the fastest way to be at point X at full stop?" Because that's what players
want to know, not "where do I end up if I use 3 thrust?"
> AoG said the same thing, and I will admit I don't understand why it is
It's the control. It's not about understanding the rules, it's about being
able to do what you want to do. Believe me or not, newtonian movement robs
that control from players who don't like planning and calculating several
turns ahead.
> Tthis is like saying that it would be alienating if, in Dirtside II,
More like if DS2 required you to roll for stopping your tanks and after
failing a couple of rolls you'd have to watch helplessly as they plowed off
the board.
> And what about all the people who are alienated with the idiotic space
You got me there. I haven't seen a single one of those.
> Oh well -- perhaps Tuffley's B5 rules will save the day. I sure hope
Oh well, I guess I'll settle for the B5 figures :-)
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970315185041.30272A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
and
> 1 hexside turn == UP TO 60 degrees turn.
At the risk of starting (me, again, yes, I know) the trans-atlantic
slanging match (and for reference, I'm referring to your continent,
not your nation) there seems something very American about hex-grids.
Battletech, Heavy Gear, Silent Death, SFB, Ogre, Star Warriors (what have I
missed?)... It seems like no confident SF wargame can emerge
that isn't hex-gridded. It would've been a remarkable exception if B5
Wars had bucked that trend. Even plenty of RPG's suggest heavily that
combat should take place hex-to-hex.
Presumably B5 Wars will retail with some garish hex-grid sheets with
cyan and magenta nebulae for that special Babylon 5 bright-
midsummer's-night-of-space feel...
> > While bad enough in itself, this will potentially become intolerable
> >when the
But the expansions... the expansions...
> slanging match (and for reference, I'm referring to your continent,
All of the Renegade Legion Games (except Circus Imperium...)
Dan
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> At the risk of starting (me, again, yes, I know) the trans-atlantic
Most board wargames below strategic level are hex gridded. American SF games
usually start life as boardgames. Even if they have "chrome" minis in the box,
they were designed as boardgames. And hexes do have their
benefits -- they're the best way to judge distances without a ruler (and
no arguments too!), and judge turns and heading if 60-degree increments
are enough.
But you have to give SJG some credit: Ogre minis is a full-blooded
miniatures games with no hexes in sight (except an optional rule :-)
> But the expansions... the expansions...
Would you rather sell one "Ship Design System" book, or "Minbari Data Book",
"Centauri Data Book", "Earth Forces Data Book", "Narn Data Book",
"Vorlon Databook"...?
> On Sun, Mar 16, 1997 at 2:07:54 PM, SGibson260@aol.com wrote:
> Also, I believe AOG decided to scrap the interceptor rules we
Interceptors was another thing my playtest group really hated, since they
allowed you to intercept incoming *lasers*. We thought it was a (relatively)
minor point, since they were not very widespread.
I think it's probably a good move to roll them into the defensive values
somehow.
> On Sun, Mar 16, 1997 at 6:57:02 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > I need to double-check the FT rules (it's been a while), but IIRC
I hadn't thought of that, but it does make sense. See my comments below.
> Hex grid suits 6-point heading well. Finer gradiation doesn't fare so
Agreed, but most designers recognize that there is a problem and do something
to compensate for it. There are always going to be limitations imposed by the
hex grid, but that doesn't mean the system can ignore them.
> > Steve Jackson Games has the rights to it now -- hoepfully we will
(http://www.io.com/sjgames/triplan/)
> Steve has had the rights for some time. Steve also has a number of
I'll
> just say I believe a SJG release date when I hold the product in my
Hey, _In Nomine_ finally came out. [In related news, weather satellites
have detected a severe winter storm heading in the direction of Hell...]
> > It could be grafted on, but that means that the rotation rules would
> > have to be changed as well.
> costs X/2.
My apologies -- I did not state the problem clearly. The rotation rules
(i.e.,
ships spinning around their center of gravity) are different from the turning
rules. The rotation rules limit a ship that is coasting to turning EXACTLY 180
degrees which takes EXACTLY three turns. Ships are allowed to apply
thrust ONLY when facing their direction of travel or 180 degrees away from
their direction of travel. The movement system cannot handle a rotation of,
say, 120 degrees, followed by thrusting. Note that ships at dead stop CAN
rotate in place, using a different procedure entirely.
> > But you don't need to do physics homework. Triplanetary, for
> > game. LNL's and MayDay's are about the same length, and so are
> A bit like chess. Just because you know the rules doesn't mean you can
> win a game.
Good point. I do find it odd, however, that people would rather play a game
that have ten pages of movement rules to memorize, rather than a system which
has two pages of rules but offers more complexity in the effects.
> A typical case is two forces accelerating towards each other, meeting
In my experience, this only happens once as a normal course of play, usually
the first time they play. It will occasionally happen later, if players are
forced to maneuver for tactical reasons.
> > You don't need a navigational computer for Triplanetary -- you need
Well, yes, people are going to have to think a little bit. If I didn't want to
think, I would be playing Super Mario Brothers. <grin>
> > AoG said the same thing, and I will admit I don't understand why it
This reminds me of a comment made by one of my wargame group who is an avid
science fiction reader/gamer/B5 fan, but who refused to playtest B5W:
Then why play tactical space games? If the things that make a tactical space
combat game different from playing _Ironclads_ are stripped out, then
why play it at all? While I don't wholeheartedly subscribe to that view (i.e.,
I
_really_ like Full Thrust), I have to agree with it in many instances.
> > This is like saying that it would be alienating if, in Dirtside II,
My point was that once you decide that science (i.e. physics) has no place in
the game, magic becomes just as valid.
> > And what about all the people who are alienated with the idiotic
Half of my game group falls into this category. Of the six of us, all are
science fictions readers of some sort (ranging from "occasional" to
"rabid"),
all except one likes science fiction games, and we all play historical
wargames as well (we're currently playing Battleline's _Dauntless_). Of
that group, fully half wouldn't playtest B5W once they found out the movement
system wasn't Newtonian. [On the other hand, the one guy who doesn't like SF
games ("because they don't model anything") liked Triplanetary enough to
purchase it.] There was similar disappointment on Consim-L.
Maybe I spend too much time hanging out with historical gamers, but I really
don't think the science fiction gaming community as a whole understands why
they can't get any respect from the historical gaming community, especially
considering there is far more overlap than I think both sides are aware of.
Michael Friend had an editorial in a recent _Vindicator_ (http://
www.millcomm.com/~forhan/vindicator.html) arguing that historical gamers
are are afriad to play something without a historical reference point, whereas
sceince fiction gamers are more daring. I disagree -- the problem is
that too many science fiction games are based on the premise that since it is
science fiction, you can make up anything you want. Historical gamers are not
interested in such games because they are not valid simulations and have no
educational value. (FYI, I am working on an article for _Vindicator_ on
this very topic.)
If AoG fixes the bugs, it will be a big hit and a great game. If they don't
fix the bugs, it will still, probably, be a big hit, but it will become Yet
Another Bad Space Game with a cool background but shitty mechanics, with a
small core of dedicated followers who Just Don't Understand why everyone else
hates it so.
> > Oh well -- perhaps Tuffley's B5 rules will save the day. I sure
Me too.
BTW, I think we have reached the point where we are vehemently agreeing.
<grin>
In regards to the space movement system that B5 games uses, I have a very
effective system that models Newtonian physical movement quite well and
designed a Babylon 5 Fightter Simulation game from it and had a bit of a
following at SoCal Game conventions. When I offered to show it to the folks at
AoG they refused. I can't blame them given the legal issues that could arise.
But I'm saddend that they did not build an effective Newtonian movement
system, given that it is one of the major apeals of the show. My Newtonian
system can be employed in a Phased system where maneuvers can be conducted
during the turn (mostly for fighter to
fighter combat) or at a macro-scale similar to real thrust. Newtonian
physics is not that difficult as long as you remember what those laws actually
say. Phil P.
> maxxon @ swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> > You don't need a navigational computer for Triplanetary -- you need
> Will that answer the question: "Given my initial velocity and
Yes it will. Try this:
[First turn]
1) Call your starting point A and your destination B 2) Plot the point at
which your ship will be if you don't apply any thrust
call this C
3) Measure the distance (L) from C to B and note the direction (H) from C to B
4) Apply thrust L in direction H
[ Next turn you are at B with velocity L in direction H ]
5) Apply thrust L in the direction opposite to H
[Now you're at B with velocity 0]
Anyone care to try answering this in B5Ws? or FT? or SFB?
:-)
> > AoG said the same thing, and I will admit I don't understand why it
> It's the control. It's not about understanding the rules, it's about
Wargamers who don't plan ahead? Do they win many games?
Seriously though, any rules system is there (to some extent) to STOP
you doing what you want to do - ie immediatly kill the enemy with no
casualties. It's there to restrict what you can do, and to force you to plan
ahead.
> On 17 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On 17 Mar 1997, Alun Thomas wrote:
from C to B
> Measure angles? Sounds like trouble...
It would be easy to put in a rule that limits the amount a ship could turn,
ie. rotate, in one game turn.
> b) Turning does not affect thrust.
This depends on how you see the ship's engines work. It the same engines that
provide thrust to the ship are used to turn the ship then turning would result
in less thrust. Another possibility would be seperate engines for thrust and
turning. The ones for turning would most likely be much smaller than the main
engines and could even have their own seperate fuel supply. In this case
turning would have no effect on thrust.
Enjoy,
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> My apologies -- I did not state the problem clearly. The rotation
Ok, I wasn't aware they had rules for that. Most games just ignore it...
> The rotation rules limit a ship that is coasting to turning EXACTLY
Now, THAT sounds contrived. I'm beginning to understand your gripes :-)
Is it 3D or not, btw?
> Good point. I do find it odd, however, that people would rather play
As our schooling system demonstrates, memorization does not require
understanding :-)
> Well, yes, people are going to have to think a little bit. If I
Different people have rather different opinions what "a little thinking"
amounts to. Even though I *can* calculate newtonian movement, I don't *want*
to. If I end up losing every time because I didn't stop the game to break out
my calculator, I won't be playing too many times.
> why play tactical space games? If the things that make a tactical
Personally, I play games for fun. If space ironclads with cutlasses and
boarding actions is fun, then I play it.
> My point was that once you decide that science (i.e. physics) has no
Hmmm... I don't quite agree. Let's look at it this way: B5 has FTL travel and
psionics. As far as we understand physics, that's impossible. So, we don't
have to follow physics in any other matter either. Let's add Centauri Battle
Spells!
Wrong.
The game world has to be consistent. In B5 I agree the movement should be as
realistic as possible, because it's a big point *in* *the* *show*. But if
you're doing a Star Wars/Trek game, it has to model that reality, not
Real Life(tm). Just because you have to break one rule doesn't mean you get
carte blanche to break every rule you like.
> Maybe I spend too much time hanging out with historical gamers, but I
I play both, and IMHO both sides disrespect the other for all the wrong
reasons (and some right ones too). Neither bothers to understand what the
other wants from a game, nor is willing to respect their choice.
Historical gamers tend to hold accurate simulation most important. Fine.
SF/Fantasy gamers are typically looking for a game that works in its own
reality. They're looking for entertainment rather than educational value.
What's wrong with that? Why is a game of lesser value than a simulation?
It isn't -- except in the view of some narrow-minded individuals. Chess
is (very loosely) based on ancient warfare. It doesn't accurately simulate
*anything*. Yet it's THE most respected game on earth.
> Michael Friend had an editorial in a recent _Vindicator_ (http://
Well, there are different types of people in each sect. There are historical
gamers who willingly play hypothetical scenarios. There are
SF/Fantasy players who won't try anything not found in the Official
Rulebook(tm). For every SF/Fantasy gamer who won't let me field my
non-GW
figures, there is a historical gamer who won't play with me because my
hussars' belt buckles are the wrong color.
> Historical gamers are not
Glad you make the distinction. Abstract problem solving always has
educational value, but it is true some SF/Fantasy gamers and companies
twist the games' internal logic every time they feel the urge.
> On 17 Mar 1997, Alun Thomas wrote:
> [First turn]
> 3) Measure the distance (L ) from C to B and note the direction (H)
from C to B
Measure angles? Sounds like trouble...
> 4) Apply thrust L in direction H
So
a) You can turn as much as you like per turn b) Turning does not affect thrust
Ok, that makes it somewhat easier to handle.
> Wargamers who don't plan ahead ?
Planning is not the same thing as calculating, as I explained in more detail
just a minute ago.
> On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 at 11:34:42 AM, Phillip E. Pournelle wrote:
> In regards to the space movement system that B5 games uses, I have a
> can be employed in a Phased system where maneuvers can be conducted
> during the turn (mostly for fighter to fighter combat) or at a
I offered them mine as well -- the _only_ condition was that they
mention my name in the credits. They responded with something to the effect of
"we
decided vector movement was too complicated and we don't believe anybopdy whop
says otherwise".
A rough draft of my rules (well, maybe a detailed draft of the concepts
<g>),
including conversion rules for the B5W and a detailed explanantion of what my
group thought was wrong with the movement system, are at http://
www.wizard.net/~caw/vms.htm. I would REALLY like feedback from anybody
who can take the time to read this over.
Phil: If you're prepared to make your rules publicly available, I would be
happy to put them up on the site. One of my goals is to disseminate this stuff
as widely as possible, even ideas that are in the early stages of
development -- because I don't have _time_ to design my own games, I
would be happy to give somebody else the ideas so I could buy the game when
they are done. <grin>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 1997 at 3:47:13 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > My apologies -- I did not state the problem clearly. The rotation
> > thrust ONLY when facing their direction of travel or 180 degrees
> > rotation of, say, 120 degrees, followed by thrusting. Note that
The entire movement section is like that. I would be happy if they just
scrapped the current movement rules and board, and copied the FT rules
verbatim. I would really like the movement to be vector-based, but as a
second choice I would settle for an elegant non-vector movement system
that
replicated the TV show. As it is, we have an ungainly non-vector system
which apparently accreted over time, and doesn't let you perform maneuvers
that a third grader would want to perform.
And I haven't even mentioned the hyperspace rules, which make the normal space
movement system look like it was developed by Einstein.
> Is it 3D or not, btw?
Nope, not 3D.
> Different people have rather different opinions what "a little
True -- but I think this is the equivalent of an engineering question,
not a science question. The problem isn't that vector movement is particularly
hard, the problem is that it is difficult to do simply and elegantly on a
hexmap. As a result, all of the vector movement systems to date have had
problems -- either too many counters (Mayday and LNL), messy markers
(Triplanetary), trig (doesn't Zocchi's _Alien Space_ have vector rules?)
or just too damn complicated (Brilliant Lances). I hate to blow my own horn so
much, but I think I've found solution.
> > why play tactical space games? If the things that make a tactical
True, and I certainly enjoy FT, and I've certainly enjoyed <whisper>GW Epic
scale </whisper> as well. But non-vector space games are a dime a dozen.
A
few stand out -- Full Thrust because it hangs together very well, and
has a
very good rules-to-effect ratio, and I like the background for Renegade
Legion
-- but most fall into that morass of AeroTech/Silent Death/Starfire,
where complexity is equated with fun.
> > My point was that once you decide that science (i.e. physics) has no
> > place in the game, magic becomes just as valid.
FTL is a subject on which many physicists hedge their bets with "as we
understand it, we don't know of any way to do it". There is an old rule of
science fiction I've read about: an SF author can rewrite one rule of physics
-- any more than that, and its fantasy. [Okay, maybe not magic.
<grin>]
> The game world has to be consistent. In B5 I agree the movement should
But
> if you're doing a Star Wars/Trek game, it has to model that reality,
I agree 100% -- if this was Star Wars, and the movement system recreated
the feel of the SW universe, I would have no problem with it. I don't have a
problem with Star Trek games (actually, I really like FASA's, and look forward
to playing the FT conversion), because there is at least some explanation as
to why normal physics doesn't hold, i.e., warp drives. The explanation in the
case of B5W, AFAIK, is _solely_ that the designers didn't want to do it
that way. As a result, we have a game with bad movement rules that doesn't
recreate the feel of the show.
> Historical gamers tend to hold accurate simulation most important.
Fine.
> SF/Fantasy gamers are typically looking for a game that works in its
I think the "works in its own reality" is key. If that reality is well-
crafted, and thought through ahead of time, then it works. Too often, though,
the reality appears to come after the game. This isn't a problem with games
that don't pretend to be somehow "scientific", e.g., WH40k. Others, like SFB,
act as if they are modeling something, and keep adding layers and layers of
detail until the whole thing is ready to collapse under its own weight. As a
result of this, I think they don't even understand the workings of the
realities they are creating.
> It isn't -- except in the view of some narrow-minded individuals.
Chess
> is (very loosely) based on ancient warfare. It doesn't accurately
It doesn't pretend to simulate anything (anymore, at least), and it's
abstract. I like chess (even though I suck).
> > Michael Friend had an editorial in a recent _Vindicator_ (http://
> hussars' belt buckles are the wrong color.
ROTFL!! Too true. One member of my gaming group really likes
NATO/Warsaw
Pact games, yet won't play "science fiction". Another member of the group
steadfastly maintains that NATO/WTO games *are* science fiction, so if
you are going to play SF, why not really go for it? The rest of us find it all
very amusing. [FYI, both do modeling for a living, one at IDA, the other at
CNA.]
> > Historical gamers are not interested in such games because they are
> twist the games' internal logic every time they feel the urge.
This is exactly what I was trying (and failing) to say above. When I play a
game, I want to come out with the feeling that I accomplished something more
significant than remembering the 187 steps necessary to play a turn of SFB.
I find it somehow revealing that those whom I consider to be some of the best
SF designers (such as Chadwick, Miller, and Costikyan) also have a substantial
historical game design credits as well. Even some of the Games Workshop staff
have wargame backgrounds -- Jervis Johnson, for example, is an old
_Stalingrad_ player.
[I hope this made sense -- I'm already late getting home, so I don't
have any time to make this tighter. My apologies.]
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Tom Granvold wrote:
> > a) You can turn as much as you like per turn
[Chopety chop]
I thought this was a sample of Triplanetary rules... In any case, ofcourse you
can place additional restrictions, but "free" spinning makes the movement a
lot easier, since you can always apply maximum thrust in the optimal
direction.
Depending on the game's time scale and other background factors, it may or may
not be realistic.
I must admit that when I think of Newtonian movement, I think of the
horror that is real-time thrust application. You need differential
math to solve anything with that.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> on 03/18/97 12:30PM wrote:
"Chadwick's Ironclad & Ether Flyers is an interesting game and has good
background info"
Does any one besides me still play this game?
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
[I'm chopping heavily in the interest of brevity]
> second choice I would settle for an elegant non-vector movement system
Would you have settled for the "almost correct" version RL:Interceptor and
Aerotech use?
> I think the "works in its own reality" is key. If that reality is
I fully agree. Too many games have flawed internal logic, but still most
of our simulationist critics never get beyond the "elves don't exist" stage.
> I find it somehow revealing that those whom I consider to be some of
...and some demerits too. Chadwick's Ironclad & Ether Flyers is an interesting
game and has good background info, but "battleship" simulates naval warfare of
the era just about as well. Volley & Bayonet is a constant source of argument
with the Nappy crowd (then again, they seem like a very argumentative crowd
anyhow...).
> Even some of the Games Workshop staff
It's funny how they went into designing the "roll 6 to kill" games they
criticized way back in the 70's and early 80's...
> On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 at 2:30:57 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > second choice I would settle for an elegant non-vector movement
> and Aerotech use?
The AeroTech rules also suffer from the 60 degree turn increment problem, in
addition to coupling facing witrh direction of travel. This is okay in
BT --
it's FASA's universe, if they want to claim that ships always face the
direction they are travelling, more power to them. <grin> IIRC, the RL rules
are pretty darn close.
It all depends on the background. I like FASA's Star Trek game, but since it
doesn't pretend to represent ships that can coast (and the scale, IIRC, is
1000 km/hex), the hex stuff doesn't bother me as much, because the ships
are applying power to move to every hex. The AoG system would make a fine Star
Trek-type system -- which is exactly why it's a bad B5 game.
Incidently, I'm really looking forward to Tuffley's take on B5 movement and
combat, for two reasons: First, using the two different methods of movement
based on the races tech level makes a lot of sense, and seems consistant with
the show. Second, based on FT and MT, I am confident that the rules will be
simpler yet more comprehensive and elegant than the AoG offering.
> > I find it somehow revealing that those whom I consider to be some of
> > the best SF designers (such as Chadwick, Miller, and Costikyan) also
> > have a substantial historical game design credits as well.
True -- everybody has some bad ones. Overall, though, I think that
historical
designs emphasize good models -- they have to, because they need to at
least recreate the battle they are based on. That approach, when applied to a
SF game, makes it feel more real (to me at least) because the reality seems to
be more consistant as well.
> Chadwick's Ironclad & Ether Flyers is an interesting game and has good
> background info, but "battleship" simulates naval warfare of the era
I don't think I would go _that_ far, but I haven't played it since it
was still in print, so I can't offer a specific defense. I played it with a
couple of friends, and we joked about how, at somepoint during the game, we
would come upon the Missing Rule or Table which all GDW games have. Sure
enough, we did -- in that game, I believe, it was the Fire Table,
referred to in the text but not present in the rules.
> Volley & Bayonet is a constant source of argument with the Nappy crowd
> (then again, they seem like a very argumentative crowd anyhow...).
Somehow fitting, given Napoleon's personality.
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Robert Hendricks wrote:
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@swob.dna.fi> on 03/18/97 12:30PM wrote:
I still play an occasional game of Sky Galleons, which I consider to be the
better game of the two. IC&EF rapidly breaks down as ship sizes increase, but
it can be fun with cruiser actions.
I just wish they had had someone do the minis properly... I've seen better
quality in Easter Eggs...
> At 01:23 AM 3/19/97 +0200, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> I still play an occasional game of Sky Galleons, which I consider to be
> the better game of the two. IC&EF rapidly breaks down as ship sizes
I concur. I've been playing around with ship stands to come up with a true 3D
version of Sky Galleons and I've finally come up with a system of car antennae
that seems to work. I played Ironclads & Ether Flyers once, but I had problems
with the quick fire guns. There are a lot of them on the ships. Combat
resolution ground to a near halt and these weapons seemed to chew up the crews
like nobody's business. I meant to fix this problem but never got around to
it. Did anyone else have a fix?
On the other hand, the same rules work for Sky Galleons. The ships are much
smaller and the rules give just the right feel.
Some of us discussed a Full Thrust version of Sky Galleons but nothing ever
came of it. I'm not sure that the FT system would really add anything to the
game, though. It's already quite fast paced. Besides, the moment you start
pulling FT into historical situations, or situations that force you to start
defining a ground scale and a time scale, I think FT will begin to fall apart
at the seams. A lot of FT's appeal is it's generic feel and the fact that time
and ground scale HASN'T been defined.
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
> The AeroTech rules also suffer from the 60 degree turn increment
Argh! I meant the the "coast-spin-thrust to change course to your
facing" system. I remembered it was optional in Aerotech too, but after
checking
the fact, I was obviously in error...
And, IMHO, you can't elegantly get rid of the 60 degree increments as long as
you stick with hexes.
> I don't think I would go _that_ far, but I haven't played it since it
An exaggerated statement, surely, but the fact remains I&EF is a game rooted
in historical background (if you ignore the flying thingies), not a viable
simulation.
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Allan Goodall wrote:
> had problems with the quick fire guns. There are a lot of them on the
Yeah. Stay out of QF range:)
> Some of us discussed a Full Thrust version of Sky Galleons but nothing
I agree. SGoM does need editing and clarification, but not really
streamlining. Although the more abstract crew system from I&EF is a good
option IMHO.
> On Wed, Mar 19, 1997 at 4:20:42 AM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> > The AeroTech rules also suffer from the 60 degree turn increment
...unless you go to a vector-based system. <grin> I think you might be
able to do it by allowing ships to face hex points and then move into either
of the two hexes in front of the ship, possibly with an arrow counter to
indicate the next hex. Of course, then it all comes down to your defintion of
"elegant"...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Christopher Weuve wrote:
Actually the old SPI game of AirWar(?) allowed 30 degree movement by allowing
movement down a corner, giving 12 point directions instead of just 6. Movement
down a hex corner was combination of forward and side slip with the direction
of sideslip alternating to keep you going down a
straight line. FT may be adaptable to this for conventions or where you
need to be nitpicky about ranges and movement.
--Binhan
> On Wed, 19 Mar 1997, Binhan Lin wrote:
> Actually the old SPI game of AirWar(?) allowed 30 degree movement by
> just 6. Movement down a hex corner was combination of forward and
Several games use a similar system. It just doesn't fit my idea of elegant.
> FT may be adaptable to this for conventions or where you
Fortunately, there's no such need since FT doesn't use hexes anyway.