Detailed B5wars report (long)

4 posts ยท Jun 17 1997 to Jun 20 1997

From: Mike Wikan <mww@n...>

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 05:23:02 -0400

Subject: Detailed B5wars report (long)

> > SO how about a more detailed review of the game?! Turn sequence,

> YES! Please Oh Please Unca Mike. Tell us about the game.
<snip>

Ok, you young whipper snappers, gather round the fire n' ahll tell you a story
sure t'scare the bujeezuz out uh ya..

oops-wrong story..;-)

B5Wars detailed report:

The game is a turn-based system that flows in the following order:

1)Start of turn actions (Electronic Warfare allocation, announce
accel/decel, determine power, roll initiative, launch mines)
2) Movement (open jump points, move ships taking turns from the lowest roll
moving first. fighters move after capitals, which move after civilian)
3)Combat 4)End of turn functions

For those of you who played the playtest version, they got rid of the two
pseudo turn concept (I never understood it anyway). They changed
the to-hit system to a d20 based system to speed things up (hooray!)
you may apply EW points defensively on a 1 point subtracts one from opponent's
to hit roll or offensively by assigning it to lock on an enemy ship (as
opposed to assigning EW to a firing weapon) improving
your to-hit score on a 1 to 1 basis. Weapons capable of intercepting
subtract from the to hit number of the attacking weapon by it's intercept
rating. One weapon can only be used to intercept one attack. One weapon may
not intercept two attacks (but two or more weapons may intercept one attack)
They made maneuvering a bit easier with a base thrust point pool to maneuver
with. You can still overthrust and roll and pivot. Damage allocation depends
on the type of weapon attacking. A pulse cannon delevers a randomized number
of damage volleys distributed randomly across the target, Beam weapons have
modifiers like Raking, Piercing, or Sustained with eachmodifier applied
against the target differently. Every system has an armor rating that all
damage is applied against. any damage over the armor rating is applied to the
system it protects. When all the system's boxes are destroyed, the system is
gone. There are Fwd, Port, Starboard, aft, and primary (core) sections to the
capital ships. Damage transfers in if a side's structure is gone. If you lose
the Primary structure..*boom* Fighters have a neat little damage strip with
integrated criticals based on the direction the damage came from. I will only
use the flight level rules, ever. Who wants to
maneuver 24 Frazis individually with your G'Quon, anyway..;-)
They made the Centauri Vorchan more useful with the addition of two twin
arrays. Limited ship customization is possible by purchasing special
equipment.

Never fight the Minbari.

Just don't.

Anyway, while the ship control templates are somewhat reminiscent of SFB, the
game is nowhere near that much of a kludge. I think AoG hit a good balance
between detail and speed of play (no small thanks, I
think to the on-line playtesters..) and there is a special thanks in
the PBEM rules section to Jim Bell and the Electronic Playtest group.

All this having been said, I would buy it. I like B5. I like Full Thrust. Star
Fleet battles was Okay, but went way, way out of control. This reminds me of
how SFB was in the beginning before anyone EVER thought of UIM modules or
Transporter bombs or Pseudo Plasma torpedoes..

Happy Hunting, gang- I think it'll be hitting shelves this and next
week..

From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:55:49 -0400

Subject: Re: Detailed B5wars report (long)

> On Tue, 17 Jun 1997, Mike Wikan wrote:
Unless your initials are J.S. right? I take it the Minbari are
apropriately armed/armoured. They've got their War Cruisers and the
White stars right?

From: Mark A. Siefert <cthulhu@c...>

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:59:56 -0400

Subject: Re: Detailed B5wars report (long)

> Mike Wikan wrote:

You know, either the universe is becoming predictable or I'm becoming
telepathic, because I KENW that Mike would respond with something like
this....

> oops-wrong story..;-)

"...and hanging on the rear view mirrior was THE HOOK!"
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!"

> Happy Hunting, gang- I think it'll be hitting shelves this and next

I'm going down to my local game store tonight to play FT.... They better have
it or I'm calling in both the Narn Bat Squad and the Minbari Pike Brigade!!!!

Later,

From: Christopher Weuve <caw@w...>

Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:01:04 -0400

Subject: Re: Detailed B5wars report (long)

Sorry for rekindling a dead thread, but this is what happens when you on't
reads your list mail all week. <grin>

On Tue, Jun 17, 1997 at 4:23:02 AM, "Mike Wikan" <mww@n-space.com>
wrote:
> For those of you who played the playtest version, they got rid of the
[snip]
> They made maneuvering a bit easier with a base thrust point pool to

These all sound like steps in the right direction (meaning that all or most of
them were suggested by my playtest group <grin>). The main area for
improvement my group identified, though, was the movement system, which we
found to be very cumbersome. Does it still have the different rotation
procedures for stationary pivots vs pivots while coasting? Did they fix the
problems with sliding (i.e., spontaneous course changes caused by running out
of thrust points while sliding)? Did they make any effort to at least fake a
vector movement system?

I'm looking forward to getting the game as soon as possible. At that point, my
group will update our B5W vector movement rules.

Any info appreciated!