On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM,
> <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> This sort of reminds me of optional rules I've thought of for Full
should perhaps be just a little bit more painful than the loss of a system. Â
These have been just about every naval captain's worst nightmare for
centuries, whether it was the powder rooms in sailing
warships, or the spectacular magazine and/or ordnance hits that
destroyed several British battlecruisers at Jutland, the Hood in the Denmark
Strait, the Arizona at Pearl Harbor, the Yamato at Okinawa, or most of the
Japanese carrier fleet with a whole air wing's worth of ordnance sitting on or
near its flight decks at Midway. Â Throw that together with maybe a little
more spectacular results when a ship is destroyed (e.g. maybe a power core
explosion should actually hurt other
ships nearby and/or fighter screens), and maybe that'd be a more
effective deterrent to overloading on missiles, fighters, or bunched up ship
formations than trying to tweak
> Â the point defense rules.
How effectively do explosions propagate in a vacuum?
I don't have a PhD in the subject, but the practical experience I have with
explosives suggests that past the immediate vicinity of the explosives
(immediate vicinity being roughly relative to the square root of the quantity
of explosives), much of the damage is done by
shock wave -- which energy transmitted by compression of air. No air,
no shock wave. So explosions would be really destructive on that ship, but I
think less so further away.
Especially given the distances commonly assumed in space combat -- if
an inch is even 100 km, there would have to be some pretty 'earth shattering
kabooms' to have even a tenth of an inch in radius.
Is not a lot of the "force" in an explosion the rapid expansion of the gasses
released from the chemical reaction. I understand not having a lot of atmo to
compress to get more effect, but HE does "carry" some of it with it
Michael Brown NOT a Phyicsit mwsaber6@msn.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:34 PM
To: <gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM,
> spectacular results when a ship is destroyed (e.g. maybe a power core
> explosion should actually hurt other ships nearby and/or fighter
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTo the extent
that I understand it (and I'm not a physicist either), the issue is that a
ship in vacuum basically has to provide the matter to serve as its own blast
front. Compared to the volume of space and the distance scale (as John
Atkinson illustrated in his example), even a very large ship doesn't provide
enough matter to cause a lot of blast damage to nearby
ships/craft. Of course, I Could Be Wrong(tm).
Best, Ken
> --- On Mon, 9/27/10, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
From: Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 10:57 PM
Is not a lot of the "force" in an explosion the rapid expansion of the gasses
released from the chemical reaction. I understand not having a lot of atmo to
compress to get more effect, but HE does "carry" some of it with it
Michael Brown NOT a Phyicsit mwsaber6@msn.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 8:34 PM
To: <gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM,Â
should perhaps be just a little bit more painful than the loss of a system.
These have been just about every naval captain's worst nightmare for
centuries, whether it was the powder rooms in sailing warships, or
the spectacular magazine and/or ordnance hits that destroyed several
British battlecruisers at Jutland, the Hood in the Denmark Strait, the Arizona
at Pearl Harbor, the Yamato at Okinawa, or most of the Japanese carrier fleet
with a whole air wing's worth of ordnance sitting on or near its flight decks
at Midway. Throw that together with maybe a little more spectacular results
when a ship is destroyed (e.g. maybe a
power core explosion should actually hurt other ships nearby and/or
fighter screens), and maybe that'd be a more effective deterrent to
overloading on missiles, fighters, or bunched up ship formations than trying
to tweak
> Â the point defense rules.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:34 PM, John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have a PhD in the subject, ...
Would it be the explosion proper or the rapidly expanding (and moving relative
to the ships recent maneuvering) debris field? Or do we
assume that a GZG-verse ship can plow through that mess unhindered?
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Sep 28,
> 2010 at 6:41 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:34 PM, John Atkinson
Given the plethora of micrometeors and other general debris in our (relatively
clean) solar system, any debris thrown off by an exploding ship at the scales
we would be talking (John's above of 1" = 100km; I believe it was once
calculated out that if you assume 1 pt thrust = 1 gravity, 1" is about
1000km), debris (ship shrapnel) would be negligible, IF anything hit something
at all (remember: space is 3D and debris will travel in a straight line away
from the explosion in an expanding sphere).
If you want to envision this with real life objects and scale, put a US
aircraft carrier about where Baltimore, Maryland, is located. Explode it.
Assume no energy sapping friction from the atmosphere or any effect from
gravity of Earth. Debris does not slow down, but goes off in all directions.
Now, say you are standing in the heart of Washington, DC, and another person
is standing in, say, Philadelphia. DC is approx 40 miles from Baltimore;
Philadelphia is just shy of 100 miles from Baltimore. What do you think the
chances of any given building near the person (you, your friend) standing in
the heart of either city is going to be struck by something? It's not out of
the realm of possibility that any given building would be struck, but the odds
are very, *very* low.
I'm not against having exploding ships damage other nearby ships, but the
PSB had better be *really* good to explain it. :-)
Mk
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 07:42:19AM -0400, Indy wrote:
> Given the plethora of micrometeors and other general debris in our
I think this is a fairly key thing. While we don't have canonical jump
distances and so on, if a ship can cross several AU in a few days then it's
moving somewhere around 1% of lightspeed at its fastest; that gives
you a megaton-range impact from a 1kg lump of rock that's lying in its
path. Now, you can PSB and say that that's from a known direction ("double
front shields"), but it still has implications for the sort of energy level
that can get through all the defences and actually damage the ship.
R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Sep 28,
2010 at 7:49 AM, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>wrote:
> I think this is a fairly key thing. While we don't have canonical jump
The problem with going down this road too far is that you start questioning
other aspects of the game. If navigational shields and/or armour can
protect against megaton impacts due to rocks lying in the way of the ship,
just how much energy is being generated by ship weapon systems? Or, for that
matter, fighters? You start to get to the point where the weapons aren't Star
Trek or Star Wars level of destructive, but something closer to Iain Banks'
Culture.
And then you work out the size of the ships and take loses of power due to
miniaturization, but still end up wondering why tanks -- in the same
universe -- aren't vapourizing anything in their path with energy
weapons instead of using slug throwers.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but as I like to caution, you can only
use "real life physics" in FT so far before you run head first into a logical
wall. (See older discussions about missile momentum and throwing rocks at
ships at X% of the speed of light.)
> I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but as I like to caution, you
Kiljoy!;)
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:31:17AM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but as I like to caution, you can
Oh, absolutely.
And to go the other way, one doesn't want the most cost-effective
anti-starship weapon to be not a beam battery but a fast-moving debris
field.
R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Sep 28,
2010 at 9:46 AM, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>wrote:
> And to go the other way, one doesn't want the most cost-effective
A variation of that is actually a plot point in Brin's "Startide
Rising"...
--
Allan Goodall http://www.hyperbear.com
awgoodall@gmail.com agoodall@hyperbear.com
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:56:19AM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:
> A variation of that is actually a plot point in Brin's "Startide
Just so. But surprise weapons don't make for interesting wargames.
(Nor, it could be argued, do realistic battles. But that's a separate
discussion.)
R
Why, Mr.Burton West, you aren't about to go 'swoosh' on us, are you? I thought
you were in the hard sci fi crowd
You know, those who'd rather fight than swoosh?
The_Beast
Roger Burton West wrote on 09/28/2010 10:10:36 AM:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:56:19AM -0500, Allan Goodall wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> How effectively do explosions propagate in a vacuum? I don't have a
For normal explosives, you're spot on. While the explosives do generate a
certain amount of gas of their own, it rarefies *very* rapidly when there's no
atmosphere for the blast wave to propagate into.
For nukes, you've got a radiation wave that will do Nasty Things to whatever
it hits... but nukes tend to be tricky to set off even on
purpose; they're far harder still to set off by accident :-/
> So explosions would be really destructive on that ship,
...unless you evacuate/attenuate the onboard atmosphere when clearing
the ship for action in order to reduce the potential for blast damage...
> I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, but as I like to caution, you
I agree wholeheartedly - very little in FT stands up to mathematical
analysis, because it was never written that way. It was designed as a fun and
relatively lighthearted game to simulate the kind of effects
and engagements that you see in movies and on TV - almost all of
which, as we know, pay little more than lip service to the laws of physics,
but they look REALLY COOL!
If that bothers people, then they can go and play something like AV:T; then,
after they've got it out of their systems, they can come
back to FT for a little bit of fun! ;-)
[Please note the above is all with tongue firmly in cheek - but there
is a serious point about sometimes just enjoying things rather than
over-analysing them....]
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:47:44AM -0500, Doug Evans wrote:
I like to simulate as far as possible. I have played AV:T and quite
enjoy it. My role-playing system of choice is GURPS.
But - well, I think it was John Atkinson who wrote about what it might
take to make a "realistic" modern Iraq wargame. Going from my memory... 99%
chance nothing happens. 1% chance there's an ambush. Either the rebels get
their ducks in a row and the Americans die, or they don't and the Americans
kill them. However it comes out, this isn't a whole lot of fun to play
through.
R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lLike OA, I
always figured you'd 'clear for action' by having everyone don a vacc suit and
depressurize the ship. This would help reduce the fire hazard by reducing the
number of spots oxygen ould be found throuhgout the ship. It might also limit
the explosive decompression effects.
Even if you didn't do that, everyone would be in a vacc suit with only the
faceplate open. You can't guarantee the enemy won't hole you and if they do,
you could have as little as 15 seconds before you're unconcious (you'll
probably have more unless the hole is huge - I did the math some time
back -
but it won't be all that long).
Roger made the comment:
(Nor, it could be argued, do realistic battles [make for interesting
wargames]. But that's a separate discussion.)
People fighting intentional battles (attacks against fixed defenses or
locations) tend to have a plan to win, which involves bringing a much bigger
hammer. Much bigger. That is (most of the time) uninteresting to fight out
from either side's perspective as a game.
When does it become interesting as a game?
a) The incoming side didn't have all of their force arrive b) The defending
force had late reinforcements or had a lot more power than it was thought
In either case, an accidentally more even battle ensues and can be fun to
play.
This is essentially the root of meeting engagements as well - roughly
equal forces, unexpected encounter.
I'd say surprise is a *key* to interesting wargames because interesting
wargames require a somewhat even fight. And that requires someone to be
desparate, stupid or surprised. You don't try to pick even fights. So if you
got into one, it was probably a surprise.
TomB
I'm definitely more in the "game designer" crowd rather than hard sci fi, I
just happen to like sci fi while I'm at it.
I wasn't really pondering the PSB physics of why a magazine explosion would
damage nearby ships when I suggested it in the beginning, I was thinking
purely from a game design perspective. To me, two of the main things that do
actually bug me about Full Thrust (and don't get me wrong, I love the game and
have played it for a decade) are the
all-or-nothing nature of fighters and/or missiles, partly due to the
bunch formation which is generally the best tactical layout whether or
not you're actually intentionally using it for area defense and/or
missile decoying.
So I thought that the magazine explosion and/or the power core explosion
when a ship is destroyed might partly alleviate both. Like to carry
lots of missiles and/or fighters? Fine, but if one of the magazines or
fighter bays thresholds you'll very possibly lose the ship. (Maybe a
roll similar to a too-close FTL jump... if you roll a 4+ or a 5+ or
something like it, maybe a number equivalent to the threshold roll but
for each unexpended missile/torpedo, the magazine goes up; otherwise
it's a less catastrophic problem like the conduits between the magazines and
the missile tubes being damaged.) And similarly, a radius of
potential destruction if a ship's power core and/or magazines blow up
(the power core would go when the ship's destroyed or if the core system
thresholds) would mean that ships would possibly not want to particularly
stick too close to each other. It creates more opportunities for fighters and
missiles to hit stuff even if they're heavily defended because just killing
one of them could blow away a whole formation if they're too close together,
but at the same time it also creates a greater risk to carrying too many
fighters and missiles because the ship is a little bit more volatile when it's
damaged.
PSB? Figure the power core, missiles, and fighter torpedoes use
antimatter and/or plasma. More powerful than nukes, but also a lot more
brittle if you take a hit to the magazines. Similarly, so might the power
core. The explosion goes off like an accidental plasma bolt or plasma torpedo.
Similarly, a power core explosion could happen if the failsafes on the reactor
don't shut it down safely when the ship's destroyed (or by the thresholds
normally; destruction of the ship could
simply be a 3+ final threshold roll on the power core unless it's been
previously jettisoned or shut down, which can be done on any turn by a
ship knowing it's about to die but not after its destruction -- if the
reactor fails, leave the ship on the board going in a straight line on its
last course and its comrades will be able to know to get out of the way before
it blows; roll like the power core's failed a threshold normally for whether
it blows, but there's no way to fix it now), and it could c ause damage scaled
to the size of the ship similar to an FTL drive explosion. In a scenario or
campaign setting where ship salvage is useful for intelligence or simple
victory points purposes, this could become an additional interesting factor.
Again... this is primarily the game designer in me talking. The hard science,
I'm far less interested in.
E
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Wed, Sep 29,
> 2010 at 1:56 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:
> [...]
I understand what you want to go for. Kinda like what Japanese carriers were
in WW2. Maybe it's feasible to purchase the same systems (hanger bays, missile
magazines) at a reduced cost and allow them this potential
catastrophic damage, but keep the current fighter bay/missile magazines
as written with no catastrophic damage potential on a hit (more like WW2 US
carriers)
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lIn my
experience, the whole game experience of FT involving fighters /
missiles and the giant mass of paper, scissors, stone that results in the
fleet design is a fundamental result of the way that the rules have been
written.
Isn't the root cause of the problems the completely different rules that
firing at ships use and firing at a missile uses? A mass 2 ship gets hit by a
beam
weapon 48" away on a 4+. There's no penalty for target size or speed.
The same weapon and firecontrol can't engage a mass 1 missile.
The second problem is that ordnance firepower can be configured to discharge
all in one turn. Thats like being able to buy a one use beam weapon that fires
10 shots in one turn and then can't be used again. (Lensman books anyone)
The third problem is that missile and carrier ships can float onto the table
fire their weapons and then jump off the table. Their ordnance then seeks out
and kills the enemy. Even in a campaign you can argue that neither side
controls the territory but a fleet that keeps getting tons of shipping sunk
every turn won't have any ships shortly.
If you took the FSE ships from the fleet book and ripped out the missile
magazines and replaced them with salvo rack mounts you would have some pretty
big levels of one shot firepower.
So if you want to balance out the gun-ordnance-fighter triangle to the
point that the "best answer is to take a bit of everything" then you need to
make changes to the rules.
Some ideas. 1) get rid of fighters only leave interceptors and bombers. Maybe
have some types that can be configured as either type at mission launch. 2)
Carriers need to purchase hangers and launch tubes and can only launch one
squadron per tube per turn. Most modern carriers can launch only a couple of
planes at a time of the forward catapults and it takes time to assemble a
multi squadron attack. Squadrons also need sensor support from their carrier
or fleet elements to manouvre towards their targets. 3) All missile systems
must be in magazines no massed racking of missiles 4) ships can only launch
one missile per firecontrol 5) missiles can only attack a target illuminated
by a firecontrol or can only move towards a target illuminated by a
firecontrol 6) Allow ship weapons to engage ordnance targets as if they were
ships
if you then have a battle where missile armed warships are getting 1 MT or
salvo missile hit per turn, thats probably about 2d6 damage per turn. To get 7
points of damage on a shielded ship on a screen 2 ship thats about 20 beam
dice equivalent.
> On Thursday 30 September 2010 08:05:06 John Tailby wrote:
Do these problems get alleviated in a campaign with restrictions
on the re-supply of missiles/fighters?
If you have to pay points each campaign turn to build new ammo and fighters,
as well as provide supply ships to get these resources to your ships on the
front line, does it reduce the reliance on things likely to be lost during a
battle?
IME, both sides lose most of their fighters each battle. I've never played in
a campaign game however.
> On Thursday 30 September 2010 08:05:06 John Tailby wrote:
These are very valid points, Sam and John, the problem being that the
majority of FT games are most likely going to be one-offs and not in
a campaign setting. So, the question becomes, how do we simulate
campaign-like considerations within a one-off pickup game?
In almost ANY scenario short of the "last stand defence", the logical
thing is that there should be heavy penalties for getting 80-90% of
your own force destroyed (or rendered incapable of further combat due
to having exhausted all its munitions/fighters etc) , even if you
manage to kill all the opposition and thus technically "win".
There are a number of possible solutions to this that immediately
spring to mind - the most obvious ones being a mission-based scenario
system of some kind (so that you have to bring a reasonably balanced fleet to
the table, or risk getting a mission that cannot be achieved
with the over-specialised force you have chosen), or a victory points
mechanic structured so that a player cannot claim a "win" through a Pyrrhic
victory.
If anyone has any comments or thoughts on these, or any other ideas, bring 'em
on!
Jon (GZG)
> --
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:05:10AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> There are a number of possible solutions to this that immediately
It's a bit dependent on the culture, but as a rule of thumb from the modern
era I would expect substantially more weight to be put on preserving one's own
force than on destroying the enemy's (even if overall numbers and
technological capabilities are about equal). Of course, we only want to game
the times when there's actually a fight.
I was thinking earlier about a force generation system that took into account
logistics states: the usual approach to FT has two shiny new fleets going at
each other, but particularly in a long war it seems likely that ships would be
damaged, low on ammunition, and so on even before the fight begins. The point
value system can accommodate this, of
course: the damaged systems simply count as non-combat tonnage for CPV
purposes, since in game terms they aren't there.
Looking forward from there, I'm wondering about a random force generation
system: give it a navy list and some standard formations, and
it spits out a group of ships and their supply/damage states. I realise
this takes away the pleasure of the fleet-building phase, but as an
optional rule it could add a substantial feeling of realism. ("These were the
guys who happened to be on station on the day when it all blew
up.")
Combine that with a victory point system that rewards force preservation at
least equally with campaign objectives, and you could get some very
interesting small-fleet engagements...
R
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:05:10AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Some very interesting ideas, Roger.....
There is a fundamental decision to be made here before going too far
down such routes, though - and that is, do we go all-out to make the
game as "munchkin-proof" as possible, or do we accept that there will
always be a certain percentage of players for whom the fleet design stage IS
the game, and their enjoyment comes from bringing their
perfectly min-maxed fleet to the table and beating the cr*p out of
their opponent?
We may not agree with their gaming style and mindset (I sure as hell don't),
but does that mean we should just ignore them as a valid part of the fanbase
and try to legislate them out of the game?
I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just playing Devil's Advocate and
getting the discussion rolling to see what comes out....
;-)
Solving the overwhelming fighters or overwhelming missiles win problem should
be first off. After that small issues that can be exploited will not have the
same effect.
Main ordinance firing at fighters and missiles seems to be the best route to
solving this problem.
As far as ships blowing up causing problems for other ships, that is pure
fantasy at the scale that FT is played and should not be a factor. Yes it is a
game, but we have to give credence to the distances involved and the tiny size
of the ships on the gigantic game table scale.
Bob Makowsky
----- Original Message ----
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 6:23:22 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:05:10AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Some very interesting ideas, Roger.....
There is a fundamental decision to be made here before going too far
down such routes, though - and that is, do we go all-out to make the
game as "munchkin-proof" as possible, or do we accept that there will
always be a certain percentage of players for whom the fleet design stage IS
the game, and their enjoyment comes from bringing their
perfectly min-maxed fleet to the table and beating the cr*p out of
their opponent?
We may not agree with their gaming style and mindset (I sure as hell don't),
but does that mean we should just ignore them as a valid part of the fanbase
and try to legislate them out of the game?
I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just playing Devil's Advocate and
getting the discussion rolling to see what comes out....
;-)
Jon (GZG)
> _______________________________________________
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:23:22AM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> We may not agree with their gaming style and mindset (I sure as hell
Speaking purely for myself, I'm interested in producing a game I want to play.
While I think rules should be free of blatant loopholes, I reckon people who
want to munchkin out will always do so, and telling them they're playing it
wrong is a mistake.
In the hypothetical game I'm talking about, this fleet/engagement
generation stuff would be an optional rule module like the campaign
system - it's not a core part of the tactical game, but like the
campaign system it's a way of setting up and scoring tactical games in a way
that makes sense in a larger context. (Except in this case, unlike the
campaign, the larger context doesn't really exist.)
R
> On Thursday 30 September 2010 10:05:10 Ground Zero Games wrote:
What I've done before when running Stargrunt games, was provide both
sides with a list of actions which gave them/lost them points.
At the end of the game, if they had a positive score, then scored a victory.
If they had a negative score, then it was considered a loss.
If they had positive, and the other side negative, then it was considered a
major victory for them, and a major defeat for their opponent. So both sides
could claim victory at the same time.
Scoring factor for a game might be:
Side A:
+1/enemy killed
Side B:
+5/sensitive item recovered
-1/casualty
-3/air strike called
Side B is trying to avoid combat and can't afford losses (possibly for
political reasons), and has access to high tech firepower (air strikes) but
their overuse could make victory come at too high a cost.
Side A might be insurgents who don't care about their own casualties, and just
want to inflict harm on the enemy.
For FT, points could be lost for crew (fighter pilots and crew factors in
large ships), which would encourage people to pull out if they're heavily
damaged (and discourage the use of small ships as cannon fodder). I've rarely
seen an FT game where people pull their ships out of combat rather than lose
them.
Different nations could view casualties differently, and the scenario could
then modify it. Have score cards for the scenario type (raid on civilian
shipping, planetary assault, scouting mission), modified by the nation type on
each side.
This sort of thing is relatively easy to do for planned games, but is probably
much harder to come up with standard mission cards for pick up games.
And yes, I'm aware the campaign idea doesn't work for many people, but I was
just wondering whether it did have an effect on how people designed fleets,
having never done it myself.
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:46:38AM -0700, Robert Makowsky wrote:
Yes, I agree here. I'm not proposing the "fake campaign" idea as a way of
making up for rule problems elsewhere. Well, mostly...
...because there's a fundamental unrealism about the FT universe, and that's
that there are multiple weapon technologies which overall are about as good as
each other. There's never really happened in naval warfare in the real world;
we didn't see one side using cannon while the other side had something else.
The historical approach is much closer to "holy crap, this has just made an
entire class of expensive ships
obsolete". (But - all together now - "that's not fun to game".)
So if missiles are balanced for fully-loaded undamaged ships in tactical
play (leaving aside the extreme difficulty of doing that), they _won't_
be balanced in a campaign game where each missile ship needs a logistical tail
that simply isn't present for beam ships.
In fact one might suggest a separate point system - in a campaign game,
a missile ship should be substantially cheaper than in a tactical
game...
R
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:46:38AM -0700, Robert Makowsky wrote:
Just an off-the-cuff idea to add to the discussion, prompted by
Roger's post above:
If folks bring ordnance-heavy ships and want them at fully supplied
at the start of the game, make them pay for suitable fleet munitions tenders
as part of their force; if they choose NOT to do this, then
all ordnance-carrying ships have only a random % of their standard
loadouts to represent ordnance already expended in earlier engagements....?
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:20:42PM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> If folks bring ordnance-heavy ships and want them at fully supplied
Fixed 50% rather than random? Otherwise the game could be won or lost on
that one die roll. :-)
R
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:20:42PM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I was thinking of a separate roll per ship, which should even out (though you
could be lucky or unlucky when you roll for that FSE SDN, I agree....). But
yes, a fixed% could work too.
I'm looking at ways of encouraging balanced fleet design without actually
enforcing it.
> On 30/09/2010 9:20 PM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Thu, Sep 30,
> 2010 at 6:23 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> There is a fundamental decision to be made here before going too far
There will always be min-maxers. Always. As long as there are points to
play with in designing things, there will be people who like to design, and a
subset of people who like to design "the best" as far as the design system
allows. That's going to be a feature of any "design your
ship/fleet/force"
game system. The best that can be done with FT3 is to mitigate the glaring
"this design wins ALWAYS" holes and do what can be done to make FT3 a fun,
viable game system for people to play. Munchkins will either gravitate to
themselves or will be excluded from groups*
* - this is not to say that if a munchkin-heavy group is formed and a
"sane" person tries to play with them, the sane person will likely be turned
off by the munchkin group and leave; unfortunately, we can't regulate that,
and one has to hope the sane soul will find a path to other sane individuals
for a more enjoyable gaming session.
It is difficult to compare FT to point-generated ground-based systems
because ground-based games have so many OTHER variables to contend with
(e.g., terrain) that space-based games typically don't (and even if
there is space terrain, it is rarely that abundant). So you'd have to look and
see
how other space-based point-generated game systems handle it. I'll bet
they have the same issues.
Mk
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:31:49PM +0100, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> I'm looking at ways of encouraging balanced fleet design without
I'm absolutely in favour of this.
I _also_ think that if side A fills his ships with beams and side B
fills the same ships with missiles the outcome ought to be in doubt.
R
Eric Foley wrote on 09/29/2010 06:52:26 PM:
> Well, most of the most catastrophic capital ship sinkings in both
For carriers as well, but usually uncontrolled fires that cooked off the
magazines.
> But part of the idea is to make a lot of different elements of min-
***snippage***
I know of a number of writers that say that is exactly the point; Brit
carriers were lauded as very survivable, but lacked enough punch to make a
difference save when chasing small fry or getting lucky, say, steerage, shots.
I know, repeat after me, Taranto...
> There's a whole range of different tactical behaviors that
Okay, that's the ultimate argument, and trying to follow any prior tech too
closely is madness. However, I'm slightly concerned that it'll be a tricky
balance not to have it tip in the other direction at different points of the
scale. Not an argument, merely a gut reaction.
The_Beast
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> We may not agree with their gaming style and mindset (I sure as hell
I believe the short answer is no -- the legislation turns out to be
wasted effort in the long run (see 10? year discussion on fighters -
bizarre edge cases, etc.). It's probably more harmful to your business as
well.
At the end of the day you can craft pure gaming perfection and some cheese
monkey will spot a loop hole and run with it.
Damo
<grin> We have to allow the damage to one ship effecting another. Did you
not see the documentary "Starship Troopers"? </grin>
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Makowsky" <rmakowsky@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:46 AM
To: <gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24
> Solving the overwhelming fighters or overwhelming missiles win problem
> should be
Yes it
> is a
> On Thursday, September 30, 2010, jon@gzg.com (Ground Zero Games) wrote:
> Just an off-the-cuff idea to add to the discussion, prompted by
I realize that I'm replying to a bit of an old message, but hopefully it will
still be interesting to somebody.
I actually use something like this (crossed with the "mission
selection card draw" system from Ad Astra's Attack Vector /
Squadron Strike, where you find out your mission objectives by drawing from a
deck of cards just prior to the engagement). Essentially, you have three
different readiness levels, high, medium, and low.
High readiness implies that your force was put together *precisely* for this
mission. You don't need ordinance carriers, and you don't need to roll for
ordinance.
Medium readiness implies that your force was given its current assignment near
the start of a patrol mission. For all expendable ordinance (fighter groups,
missiles, SM loads), roll
a standard 6+ threshold check. If it fails, then it's not
available (expended / down for maintenance / whatever). Subtract
1 from your roll if you have a supply train.
Low readiness implies that you got your orders at the *end* of a
long patrol. Same as medium, but the threshold check is 5+, and
again subtract 1 from your roll if you have a supply train.
Note that this could, potentially, be expanded to a general "previous battle
damage" system, which might mean that some of your ships need to make
threshold checks on *all* systems before the start of the game. And note that
your victory conditions should reflect your battle damage level (and readiness
level).
----- Original Message ----
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 7:20:42 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 37, Issue 24
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:46:38AM -0700, Robert Makowsky wrote:
I liked the "idea" of a "feel" of a larger conflict than was on the table.
Like introduce just a few rolls...
<snippage>
> In fact one might suggest a separate point system - in a campaign game,
IMHO I think the point system is complex enough...I still have reservations of
the "hull cost adjustments" formula. In my game designs (none published), I
feel that the rules should be compartmentalized. The build rules shouldn't
care how the ship plays, the tactical situation, the opposing fleet makeup,
table size, etc.
It should just focus on point costing every advantage/disadvantage. I
think the present one does an excellent job.
<snippage>
If folks bring ordnance-heavy ships and want them at fully supplied
at the start of the game, make them pay for suitable fleet munitions tenders
as part of their force; if they choose NOT to do this, then
all ordnance-carrying ships have only a random % of their standard
loadouts to represent ordnance already expended in earlier engagements....?
Jon (GZG)
I like this. Work out some simple dice roll, so the players can quickly check
each ship during setup. And it gives another reason to get those transports on
the table.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe problem
with pre-game 'battle damage' or 'ordinance rolls' is the impact
it can have on the actual play balance on the table.
Ship A: 40 hull boxes, probably takes 2.5 rounds of fire from its undamaged
self to destroy itself (as a measure of combat power)
Ship B: 40 hull boxes, but with 30% damage and a randomly determined bunch of
systems down
On paper, it looks like B is worth 30% less, but the reality may be far more.
Bad luck knocking out all your firecons, for instance, makes you useless. Lose
your main B3 battery, instead of a B1, and you are worse off. Lose thrust and
you are in bad shape. Etc.
Beyond that, because of fire concentration in a fleet engagement, an
undamaged A would require 3-4 ships of same size pounding on it to kill
it in a round. Put another way, if the enemy does not do that, it may get off
2-3 shots before it goes pop.
But if 30% damaged, it may only take 2 ships to kill it. It may get off only 1
shot, with conceivably a reduced FP due to thresholds as well.
So the 30% down ship may end up more than 30% less effective. In the extremum,
it may be 100% less effective (does no damage to the foe and is destroyed).
===========
I think, in a way, this is similar to the fighter problem and sequential ship
firing rather than simultaneous. These are often all problems of
non-linear combat value.
If your big SDN is facing 5 light cruisers, if it can evaporate 1 cruiser a
round while taking only 20% damage in return, you get:
start: SDN: 100% CA 1-5: 100%
end round 1: SDN: 80% CA 1-4: 100% CA 5: DEAD (SDN down no firepower,
CA's down 20%)
end round 2: SDN: 63.2% CA 1-3: 100% CA 4:20% CA 5: DEAD (SDN down 25%
fp, CA's down 36%)
This trend continues. The SDN will bleed firepower slower than the smaller
ships due to the realities of thresholding mechanics.
I think battle damage has some of the same issue. A ship formerly worth X
damaged Y% might be worth much less than X-Y% or much more than X-Y%
depending on when thresholds are triggered and how their results go.
Though I like the idea, I can see it being a balance issue on the table.
Of course, I don't care much about balance. I'm the guy that flew the Komarov
squadron into the teeth of the largest congregation of fighters at an ECC...
no fear! (or no brains...)
Well a mate invented a random fleet generator using cards and a die, then a
mission card was also picked after fleets had been picked.
example- player A picks a card then rolls a die he gets 1 capital ship
card and 2 crusier cards, he then picks the capital ship card and gets 3
capital ships then draws the 2 crusier cars and get only 2 crusier's, for the
mission card he draws a all frigates must survive with no more than 50%
damage, thats his mission.
Player B rolls the die and gets 1 captial ship cards and 1 crusier card and 1
frigate card. He gets 2 captial ships a squadron of 4 frigates and 2 scouts,
his mission card is destroy one of the enemys captial ships.
So now we have the fleets and the missions aswell as the possibility that both
players may lose the game or win the game.
I like it and as you never know what your going to get it adds to the game to
me at any rate.
we use the fleet list books, but we go by the class of ship if that makes
sense. but for some reason the mission cards make it balance out.
regards james