[GZG] House rules, was Monster ships

6 posts · Jan 16 2010 to Jan 18 2010

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:35:19 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: [GZG] House rules, was Monster ships

Hm. I suppose when I really think about this, you're right. MT missiles really
are kind of overpowered as compared to salvos if you only let them get hit on
a 6. The trouble is, are salvos not just completely better (at least on
damage) if you have heavy missiles get hit the same as individual missiles in
a salvo? Sure, they might be
_smarter_ but if they never get through against even barely adequate
point defense, what's the point?  (And by my custom-brew standardss
that's loosely defined as, "you can have at least an outside chance of
surviving an unassisted strike of about 30 fighters in a 5000 NPV game,
although maybe not so much if they've got torpedo bombers".)

On another note, the house rules in my games basically go like this (they are
many, so this is long):

1.  We tend to play a series of custom one-offs, where mixing what is
considered Kra'Vak, Phalon, or human tech is perfectly fine but where there
may be story limits to what a given power might build in terms of size of
ships and how many different advanced systems are used.

2. We allow advanced screens from Cross Dimensions for particularly advanced
powers. (We have two of them imagined in the greater galaxy thus far, which
are not in direct contact with one another.) Against
Kra'Vak weapons, these are treated as reducing K-gun effective class by
1 per level of screen straight up.  An effective class 0 K-gun may do
its original class damage, without chance of reroll, on a reroll of 5+
after the initial hit, or else it does no damage at all. An effective
class -1 K-gun may do the same on a 6+.

3.  Armor reduces K-gun double damage chances by -1 per layer of armor,
similar to how Kra'Vak armor levels did so in the older game. Nobody
has more than four layers of armor or bigger K-guns than K6's.  This is
cumulative with the reduction effect of advanced screens. (General sense is,
the defenses as such are more expensive in many ways than the
K-guns themselves in the bite they take out of cost and ship mass, so it
doesn't really nerf K-guns too much but makes them something other than
the completely undefendable weapons they are in the base fleet books.)

4.  Point defense and fighter-to-fighter rolls will bleed over from one
fighter group to the next. (We've always taken the view than when 400 fighters
attack a single ship or fighter flotilla, groups of 6 are meaningless.) We are
not currently doing this for salvo missiles due to the greater difficulties to
hit.

5. All direct fire on a single ship must be resolved at the same time. It's
just faster, and it also prevents people from experimentally probing a ship's
defenses (i.e. whether they are putting up a reflex field) and minimizing the
damage. With particularly large piles of die rolls we allow subdividing by 2
or 4 and multiplying the totals.

6. Point defense is not allowed to identify and decide which groups of
fighters it wishes to prioritize when firing -- fighter strike ECM is
considered good enough that regular fighters may be used as decoys for more
powerful bombers, so long as the regular fighters actually have a ship strike
capability. (We haven't allowed interceptors to play as
soaks in this fashion.)  Fighter-to-fighter attacks _are_ allowed to do
this, if someone's stupid enough to actually let bombers in range of other
fighters while any of their own standard fighters or interceptors are still
alive.

7. Scatterguns miss completely on a natural 1. If they're being used in an
area defense role, they still do friendly fire damage to the other ship.

8. We allow a point defense missile rack, envisioned loosely as a
bomb-pumped laser, that has a mass of 1, cost 4, and does the same
damage as four PDS systems all firing at once, but may only fire once before
it is expended. Area defense fire controls are required the same
way as PDS does (i.e. they do not get the auto-area defense ability of
scatterguns).

9.  Ship to ship beam and K-gun weapons may attack a fighter group
within 12 MU and hit it on a 6; if the fighter group spends an endurance to
evade, the fire is useless.

10.  For +1 NPV cost per fighter, a fighter group may be equipped as an
artillery spotter. Instead of attacking another ship within 12 MU
directly, it may give a +1 bonus to all fire from its mother ship, and
allow salvo missiles, antimatter torpedoes, or plasma from its mother ship to
have a secondary move of 6 MU similar to how fighters would be allowed to go.
The other ship may not engage the fighter with point
defense, but may use ship-to-ship weapons against it.  If the spotter
evades, it may not spot in that turn. Spotter bonuses do not allow a
ship to automatically hit (i.e. reducing a 2+ roll on a torpedo or K-gun
to 1+), and do not allow a missile or plasma bolt to exceed its normal
range. The general idea of this, besides modeling something like an Iowa BB
from wet navy years that had such gunnery spotters, is twofold: to allow a
fleet book style dreadnought (i.e. primarily a warship with only a couple or
three fighters) to have an actual use for its fighters a gainst similarly
sized battleships (i.e. all guns and no fighters) that have too much point
defense to effectively attack, and to allow placed ordnance to actually have a
shot at hitting high powered advanced thrust vessels.

11. Swing role fighters as per Cross Dimensions are allowed, although they're
considered an advanced form of fighter and as such are not common. Heavy and
fast modifications are taken as base modifications to the overall fighter that
are costed only once. At present, IJN style "multi role" fighters are not
allowed.

12.  Spinal mount weapons are considered front-arc weapons.

13. Cloaking devices are allowed. Cloaked ships may not be targeted by
missiles or fighters, nor may they fire them. They may not use or charge
spinal mount weapons in any turn in which they are cloaked, cloaking or
decloaking. A ship's cloak typically takes effect at the end of ordnance
placement. A ship's decloak may take place at the end of movement, or prior to
movement in order to fire its own missiles, but if it takes place prior, the
ship gives warning to the enemy that it may be about to be fired on by a
decloaking ship and the enemy ship is allowed to account for this in making
its movement orders. A ship that decloaks after movement may not use its own
placed ordnance nor dispatch its fighters. As with FT2, the length of time for
a cloaked ship to remain cloaked and all of its movement orders must be
plotted in
advance.  A cloaked formation _may_ enter the board under cloak, but its
initial placement and formation must be decided upon in advance and all of it
 s first several turns of movement plotted as such.  They _are_ allowed
to know the speed and distance of enemy ships at the beginning of the game in
this case prior to writing these orders. The PSB for this is that there are
two levels of cloak: (a) a "strategic" cloak where they are invisible to long
range sensors but are visible within combat ranges, but they retain their
ability to use their own long range sensors to detect an enemy fleet and
therefore try to at start to maneuver into tactical range and strike against
it. (b) a "tactical" cloak where they are invisible to all sensors but are
unable to tell where the enemy is or what course changes they make. The range
at which a ship must go to "tactical" cloak or become visible is loosely (and
conveniently) judged to be the length of the board at the start of the battle.

14.  We used fixed tables approximately 80-100 MU by about 60-80 MU.
Hence, very long beam ranges are generally not used because they don't do a
whole lot of good.

15.  We have three speeds of fighters:  fast (+1 NPV per fighter, 36 MU
base movement), standard (regular cost, 24MU), or slow (-1 NPV per
fighter, 18 MU). These speeds also affect the dogfighting capabilities of the
fighter. (a) Equal speeds of fighters, when engaged in dogfights, may not
escape them without giving up a free shot to the enemy fighters. (b) A faster
grade of fighter may evade a dogfight against a slower one without giving up
the free shot. The slower grade
of fighter may not evade the dogfight at all.  (c)  If the fastest (+1
NPV) grade of fighters engages the slowest (-1 NPV), then not only may
the slowest not escape, but they must give up a first shot against the fastest
and then can only retaliate with whatever survives. (i.e. the slowest fighters
are going to be cheaper, but they're going to have a serious vulnerability in
dogfights, and hence should only be deployed as dedicated bombers that aren't
designed to engage in dogfights at all, or as the standard but vastly inferior
fighters of a power that is simply behind or cutting too many corners in their
fighter tech.)

I think that's the lot of it. I've been playing for a good decade or more (and
off and on babbling on the list for most of that, both under my real name and
as "Stilt Man"), and all of these rules have generally been tweaked as time
goes on both to make the game more interesting, balance out pieces of it, and
give us more variety in modelling all sorts of different interstellar powers
that may be (and frequently are) invented on the fly to model a fairly vast
galaxy of different star nations in constant turmoil. The storylines and ship
designs have evolved a lot of different ways, with a lot of different tactics
that
have proven useful -- and advances in different nations' ships are
generally by way of doctrine within the weapons available to them rather than
being given new weapons very often.

It's been a fun ride with this game, and I don't really want it to end
particularly soon.

E

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@t...>

Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:11:32 +0100

Subject: Re: [GZG] House rules, was Monster ships

Eric Foley wrote:

> Hm. I suppose when I really think about this, you're right. MT

If you use the FB PD rules, ie. treat each HM as a separate salvo with no PD
overkills carrying over from one salvo to the next, then
one SMR is somewhat better damage-wise than 2 MTMs (ie., equal Mass)
against all but the lightest defences, ranging from 10% better
against 2 PDSs (per SM salvo/pair of MTMs, that is) up to around 25%
better against 6 PDSs (but at that point even the SM salvo only averages just
over 2 pts of damage anyway). Against that the MTMs get to pick their target,
so you don't have to worry about them dumping
all their damage into a small escort instead of the dreadnought :-/

If OTOH you *do* allow PD overkills to carry over between missile
salvoes, then the MT missiles are completely outclassed - doing that
increases PDS kills on MTMs far, *far* more than it increases PDS kills on SMs
or fighters. The exact increases depend on the PD levels, but generally
speaking the PDSs' kill increase from overkills in% vs MTMs is around 5 times
what it is vs SMs. (That is to say,
where the re-allocated overkills increase the PDS kill rate vs SMs by
20%, it'd increase the kill rate vs MTMs by approx. 5x20 = 100% - ie.
it doubles.)

Later,

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:38:50 -0800 (GMT-08:00)

Subject: Re: [GZG] House rules, was Monster ships

Yeah. We generally have not been allowing overkill carry over on
missiles, just on fighters.  At the PDS-hits-only-on-6 rules I _have_
been noticing that the side that fields HMs tends to usually win over the side
that has salvo missiles, although to some degree that's also been the intent
because they've been set up in the scenarios as the good guys. OTOH, allowing
overkill carry over might mitigate that a little... but there tends to be
enough point defense of some sort or another in our battles that I still worry
a little that HMs will wind up getting kind of left in the cold.

My only other real worry in custom games is that advanced drives are enough
better than normal drives for their cost that unless you have a scenario
reason for not using them there's no real reason anybody would
_not_ want them.  For a lot of my old group's games, we generally were
coming to the conclusion that, at least with normal drives, the
maneuverability advantage you got was not good enough for the mass cost that,
when it really came down to it, slow ships just always beat faster ships with
comparable weapons. Sure, if you got behind them, you could get them in a
bind, but the slower ships could usually at least force a
semi-close fly-by before that happened, and the faster ships would
usually be crippled badly enough after that due to their firepower
disadvantages that it would be moot. As a result, almost nobody ever
used more than normal thrust 2 in the main battle lines -- they'd use
them in smaller flanker ships that might break off from the main group, but
unle ss they had cloaking devices they didn't usually survive long enough to
do any good, and even at that they usually weren't worth it if they didn't
also have needle beams or something else that you didn't want close in for
even one or two turns. Well, then one day I threw together
a fleet with advanced thrust 3 -- still mostly on the same principle,
but taking a much more modest mass cost for three times the maneuverability.
And I've generally found that the gap between
advanced-3 and normal-2 is just... gross, at least in cinematic.

E

[quoted original message omitted]

From: John Tailby <john_tailby@x...>

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:38:08 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: [GZG] House rules, was Monster ships

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWe don't allow
overkill from one target to flow onto the next regardless of what type of
ordnance it is.

We recognised the significant advantage that advanced drives gave in our
cinematic games and as a result we changed the points cost to mass times 5.

We generally run thrust 4 or so ships in our group the trade off in
manouverability being made up for the ability to reduce weapon arcs and still
get a good concentation of firepower.

We have also seen what happens with ships that have very low speed and
manouverability when faced with missile waves they get hammered. This has
created a racial memory in our gaming group and that isn't something they want
to repeat.

One thing these threads have highlighted is that no one seems to be playing
the same rules but we still call it FT.

From: Eric Foley <stiltman@t...>

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:34:28 -0500 (EST)

Subject: Re: [GZG] House rules, was Monster ships

[quoted original message omitted]

From: John Tailby <john_tailby@x...>

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:44:40 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: [GZG] House rules, was Monster ships

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lEric
 Because we also enjoy the ability to tailor make ships in FT we impose caps
on the numebr of technologies you can take. This means taking something like
advanced drives means you don't get to take so many other things. Â So a fleet
might have invested it's R&D effort in drive technology but ended up with less
variety in weapons or defences as a trade off...