Here is an offical response to the Review.
Before you flame me I'll say that most of the points raised by Chris may be
valid. So I gave AoG a chance to respond and this is that response. I was also
a playtester for AoG and did not agree with all the original rules. Though at
this point I can't comment on the released rules because it hasn't reached the
local stores yet.
Jim Bell jnbell@istar.ca
> Subject: OFF-TOPIC mini review B5 Wars
If
> this means you think that I am a cranky and bitter old coot whose
with
> plenty of black and white photos from the show.
first,
> it provides a certain number of "free" thrust points which can be
Anyone who
> has read my earlier comments on this game knows that I think the
Designers Comment: He is correct in that all current ships (not fighters) take
three turns to completely turn around. However, what is not mentioned (and is
not in the book as it is not yet needed) is that this is not going to be true
for all future ships. There will be a series of medium class ships (such as
the White Star or the Drazi SunHawk) which will be considered agile and be
able to pivot and turn at a greater rate. None of the ships in the basic set
have EVER been seen doing excessive maneuvers in the show and they will not do
them in the game. As for the 60 degree turn costing less than a 30 degree
turn, I have no idea what he is talking about. The game is currently based on
a hex map and 30 degree
turns are #1-not possible and #2-not in the rules.
> 2) One other problem with the playtest version that I have not had a
This is an
> excerpt from our second playtest report:
At
> > best, we would have only a vague feeling that this or that value is
Designers Comment--
The values were assigned based on a variety of factors-but not
on a specific formula. The most influencial information was feedback we got
back from some contacts we have with Babylonian Productions. As for the ship
design system, the decision was made not to build the historical ships to a
specific system. In truth, when we do print the ship construction rules, you
will not be able to build ships which will out perform the ships in the game
on a point for point basis. This decision was reached after looking over
various other companies systems and talking with other game designers who have
had the same issues come up. The problems are this: players can always find
loop holes in design rules which will allow them to build ships which can
outperform historical ships if the historical ships are built by the same
rules. This is because historical ships are usually designed with 'realistic'
budgets and racial tendencies in mind. We will be providing the equivelant
custom ship value for all historical ships for players reference.
> 3) My personal pet peeve -- the Earthforce Omega class destroyer does
Designers Comment--
We did not include anything on the rotating section because George
Johnson of (co-producer of the show and the tech head there) told us
that the control systems on Omegas are designed to automatically compensate
for the spin of the section and thus did not need to be simulated in the game.
These sections can be locked down if necessary. The crew of the Alexander was
not worried so much because of the fact that the rotation would stop (it
wouldn't effect the combat capabilities
of the ship) but rather the fact that the crew was not set up for zero-g
operations. Within the game, there will be rules (and this was told to
playtesters) on the rotating section when we do the Earth-specific rules
in the Earth Wars supplement. We did not do it in the basic set because we
were told it was NOT something that was necessary to simulate in the basic
game.
> 4) The Earthforce ships have "interceptors", which are CIWS designed
Designers Comment--
Once again, this was done because we were specifically told by George Johnson
(and he has also stated this in public moderated groups) that this is the
case. He specifically said to us that interceptors use have two basic
functions: an active mode which is the little white balls which are fired at
incomming fire or fighters, and a passive function which is the energy net
around the ship.
> 5) The ship sheets are in the back of the book, perforated for
This was a business decision. The price difference of printing the SCS's
seperately as another book or including them in this book are rather
significant. For the printer, it's the differnce between two
differnt set-ups and amounted to over three thousand dollars for the
print run. This breaks down into around 30 cents per box which, while is does
not sound like much, is too much. There will be a series of products released
which will contain multiple copies of every SCS we publish in the future. I
should also note that we also have to look at
our re-print costs. As our re-print will probably be half the size of
the first run, that 30-cents jumps to nearly 45-cents per box.
> OVERALL ASSESSMENT
slapped
> on the front. As such, there is little to recommend it *out of the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> mailto:caw@wizard.net (h) http://www.wizard.net/~caw
Final Designers Comments: Earlier the author of this email commented that we
ignored everything which the playtesters stated. This couldn't be further from
the truth. We had over 180 playtesters on this job, not including those which
were directly linked with the company. We made literally dozens of changes
because of what the playtesters stated, commented or requested. We did not do
100% of the changes as some of them were simply too complex for a game which
is intended to run large fleets (and the current version can and has in many
games). The biggest request we did not do was creating a true vector movement
system as a system like this is simply too complex for the average gamer. The
movement system is as realistic as you can get in a simple system and it has
been commented by a great number of people that it is more realistic than most
games on the market while still be playable. If people wish, contact Mike
Wikkan at
mww@n-space.com and ask him about how much we listened to our
playtesters. We take everything any playtester has to say very seriously and I
do not appreciate the implication that we ignore our playtesters. If I simply
planned on ignoring our playtesters, I would not send out material for
playtesting. I do not make a change, however, when only one group out of 20
request it, as was the case with the rotating section of the Omegas. I do not
make changes which I feel
would over-complicate a game, such as a vector movement system.
I don't mind a player posting negative comments about a system (even one which
I wrote), however, I do mind when that post includes false or misleading
comments.
> At 10:39 PM 7/23/97 -0400, Robert Glass, via Jim Bell, wrote:
> The crew of the Alexander was not worried so much because of the fact
Hahahahaha! Zero-G is the LEAST of their problems. If that rotational
section jams, what happens with all that angular momentum? Answer: the rest of
the ship starts spinning! Arthur Clarke explained this rather well in
_2010: Odyssey 2_ (if you remember the book or the movie, the Leonov
comes across the Discovery spinning end over end because the central ring
jammed). Hell, I broke my front tooth in grade 4 because my front bicycle
wheel hit another kid's rear wheel. The momentum when my front wheel stopped
moving threw me over the handle bars. Locking down the rotating section should
be the FIRST thing they do before entering combat!
One of these days, TV shows will find it in their budget to hire someone who
knows at least SOMETHING of physics!
> I don't mind a player posting negative comments about a system
Does anyone else have comments on the game, particularly the final version?
I've been flip-flopping all over the map on this one. Yes I want it, oo!
it sounds like it sucks, nope looks not too bad, oops sucks again, etc. etc.
Hello,
Sorry for the delay in posting this response -- I sometimes don't have
the luxury of reading listmail on a daily basis.
I'm heavily editing out some of the comments, especially were they are not
germane to my response. Where necessary, I am adding the text from the web
page essay [http://www.wizard.net/~caw/aogprob.htm] to which Mr. Glass
is referring.
Let me say up front, though, that as I said at the beginning of my email, that
I didn't have a chance to play the final version. Since my original post I
have had a chance to re-read the rules a second time, however; I will
try to
point out instances where that re-reading may have changed some of my
earlier views.
My example from the web page:
> Example #1: Pivoting (i.e., rotating the ship) while coasting at speed
> zero (i.e., dead stop) uses a different procedure than pivoting at
> couldn't handle it; you literally could not move using the current
Mr.Glass' comment:
> He is correct in that all current ships (not fighters) take three
> and be able to pivot and turn at a greater rate. None of the ships in
> the basic set have EVER been seen doing excessive maneuvers in the
There are two issues here: Minor issue: All ships by definition rotate at the
same speed. Major issue: Ship rotation MUST be in exactly 180 degree
implements,
i.e.,
start rotation, rotate 180 degrees (3 facings), then stop rotation. If the
ship stops rotation in any orientation other than 0 or 180 degrees, the rules
state that the ship is under the same restrictions it is during the course of
the pivot: it may not "turn, slide, roll, accelerate, decelerate, or conduct
launching/landing procedures".
In addition, some ships are not allowed to pivot: I assume this means that
their rotational systems are meager enough that they can't pivot within the
timeframe of the game turns. Otherwise, of course, maneuvering such a ship at
low speeds would be next to impossible.
Mr.Glass address the minor issue, but not the major one. The system as is does
not provide a mechanism for changing your course unless your engines are
parallel to your direction of travel.
My next example from the web page:
> Example #2: Ships may only coast along hex rows. Ships may "slide"
into
> hexes not along the same hex row, but sliding costs thrust points
The illustration is at [http://www.wizard.net/~caw/images/aogprob.gif].
Mr.Glass' comment:
> As for the 60 degree turn costing less than a 30 degree turn, I have
Which is *exactly* my point -- you can't make a 30 degree turn, but you
can make make a 30 degree slide, which acts like a turn but costs much more.
Normal movement in the AoG system is along hex rows only. From any particulr
hex, therefore, there are six hexes into which a ship could theoretically move
(ignoring current course and such for the moment). Sliding is the process by
which a ship moves forward one hex along a hex row and then slides sideways at
a sixty degree angle to the direction the ship is facing. The end result is
that the ship is two hexes away from it's initial location, with a hex spine
in between the starting and finishing hexes. That's a 30 degree angle from its
direction of travel.
So what's the problem? The problem is that once the ship has started moving
off at a 60 degree angle (i.e., it turned), it continues to move at a 60
degree angle to the origin hex. With the slide, however, it "snaps" back onto
the original course, when it should continue to move at a 30 degree angle.
It costs thrust equal to 20% of your current speed for rach 30 degree slide
maneuver, whereas a 60 degree turn is paid *once* (at a cost which varies from
ship to ship), after which the ship drifts in that direction forever. So, say
a ship is doing a series of slides, one after another. Each turn the ship pays
thrust points to keep the ship doing the slides. It does ten slides over the
course of five turns, moving a total of twenty hexes. Then the ship is fired
upon and theengine or reactor is damaged so badly that the ship no
longer has the thrust to continue sliding -- at which point it magically
makes a 30 degree course change BACK to the direction it was moving five turns
ago!
Or, in _Full Thrust_ terms, this is the equivalent of saying that the
ship could turn from a 12 o'clock facing to a 2 o'clock facing as per the
rules, but if it turned to a 1 o'clock facing, it would have to keep paying
thrust for it as long as it faced one o'clock. If damaged, it would then
spring back to the 12 o'clock facing and course.
Now, some may comment that it is an extreme example. I would argue it
isn't -
- it's one that came up in playtesting all the time. The movement
system forces you to take certain courses, and puts you in situations where
shallow course changes cost more than radical course changes.
My comment from my email:
> > 2) One other problem with the playtest version that I have not had a
> > chance to test with this one was the arbitrary nature of the combat
> > > (defensive ratings, damage ratings, fire control, etc.) are
> > > only a vague feeling that this or that value is wrong -- often
> > > being different, or that the values were assigned in a totally
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
> > > suboptimal designs. There should always be room for players to
Mr.Glass' comment:
> The values were assigned based on a variety of factors-but not on a
Once again, I think Mr.Glass misses the point. As we playtested it, we tried
to determine what the various numbers (defensive ratings, damage ratings, fire
control, etc.) represented. Does the defensive rating refer to the relative
size and cross section of the ship? Does it represent defensive
systems? As we played we realized that we didn't have a good feel for exactly
what the numbers should be, because some of the numbers seemed inconsistant
with the numbers from other ships. We concluded that there were two
possibilities:
1) We didn't understand the model, i.e., there were factors in it that we
didn't account for (perhaps based on info from JMS), the relationship of the
factors was incorrect in our own minds, or they simply weren't modelling what
we thought they were modifying.
2) There was no real system or model. Offensive and defensive numbers were
assigned totally based on feel, and were differentiated mainly to give the
numbers from both sides (firer and target) to be computed together. Trying to
look at the defensive rating, for example, and determine what went into
calculating it is doomed to failure, because there is no calculation.
We feared that the answer was #2. Mr.Glass' answer above does nothing to
alleviate my fears.
Mr.Glass continued:
> As for the ship design system, the decision was made not to build the
> ship construction rules, you will not be able to build ships which
> budgets and racial tendencies in mind. We will be providing the
Presumably, if there is a ship design system, then there needs to be some way
for that system to calculate all of the different ratings needed for combat,
so I guess this means we will get to see exactly what goes into the model.
I suspect I am not the only one, however, that views the inability of the
design system to reproduce the ships that come with the game as a bug and not
a feature. While I am sympathetic to the idea that game designers are human
beings who, while producing and marketing a game (on a deadline) may not be
able to outwit all their customers (especially these days, where the internet
allows us to gang up on them), I think the solution is to fix the problem at
the source -- through "'realistic' budgets and racial tendencies", etc..
I said:
> > 3) My personal pet peeve -- the Earthforce Omega class destroyer
> > them to stop rotation.
Mr.Glass' response:
> We did not include anything on the rotating section because George
> for the spin of the section and thus did not need to be simulated in
Mr.Glass certainly has better info than I do in this regard; if the producers
say it is not a problem, then I guess it is not a problem. I don't
specifically recall being told that there will be rules on rotating
sections -
- I'm not saying I wasn't told, mind you, just that I don't recall it.
I'm glad to here it will be in there.
I said:
> > 4) The Earthforce ships have "interceptors", which are CIWS designed
> > interceptors can no longer intercept incoming laser fire. However,
Mr.Glass said:
> Once again, this was done because we were specifically told by George
I stand by my "yuck". <grin> Well, if the producers of the show say that's how
they work, then that's how they work.
I said:
> > 5) The ship sheets are in the back of the book, perforated for
Mr Glass responded:
> This was a business decision. The price difference of printing the
> set-ups and amounted to over three thousand dollars for the print run.
> This breaks down into around 30 cents per box which, while is does not
> sound like much, is too much. There will be a series of products
> the future. I should also note that we also have to look at our
I figured as much. Why it was done makes it no less irritating to the
customer, although I can certainly understand it. I wonder how much it would
have cost to simply have the sheets loose in the box?
Mr.Glass said, after my "overall assessment":
> Earlier the author of this email commented that we ignored
I most specifically did NOT say that. I said:
> 2) Almost all of the suggestions our playtest group made were ignored.
If
> this means you think that I am a cranky and bitter old coot whose
I specifically said that ALMOST all of the (important) suggestions made by MY
PLAYTEST GROUP were ignored, from the very beginning.
> Specifically, from our second playtest report:
Of the three things that we determined to be "fatal" problems -- defined
as,
"if this isn't fixed, we don't find the game worth playing" -- only the
second problem was addressed. The problem was that one energy point always
produced one point of thrust, which implies that (a) energy points are
relative, and
only valid per ship (i.e., an Omega-class energy point is a different
amount
than a Rossevelt-class energy point), or (b) all ships are the same
mass. We felt this was a serious realism problem, and soureed the entire
experience for us. AoG fixed this in the final release, by adding engines
(which convert energy points to thrust points, at different rates for each
ship) and the
Accel/Decel Cost (which is the number of thrust points necessary to
change the ships velocity by one hex per turn). While this can sometimes be
cumbersome, I haven't been able to come up with anything better, and I'm glad
AoG took the issue seriously enough to resolve.
The first problem -- the movement system -- was not fixed.
The last problem -- lack of definition in the combat system -- does not
appear to have been fixed in the initial release, nor does Mr.Glass' response
indicate that it has been. I must admit, though, that I only glance over the
combat system. Sometime in the next week or so I intend to sit down and
compare the d100 based numbers to the d20 based numbers in an attempt to see
if I can determine the underlying model.
Mr.Glass said:
> The biggest request we did not do was creating a true vector movement
Was this tested? Every communication I have ever received from AoG concerning
this issue at least implies that they _assumed_ it was too complex
without bothering to determine whether that was true or not. Considering the
number of vector movment games out there with simpler mechanics than the AoG
system, I wonder what this decision was based on. I would disagree with both
the premise that the AoG system is simple or that the average gamer is too
dumb to handle vector movement.
> The movement system is as realistic as you can get in a simple system
I would disagree with this premise as well. It is not even as realistic as
_Full Thrust_, which while not a true vector system in the currently
published version, is more realitic in that it allows you to make 30 degree
turns.
When
compared to ICE's _Silent Death_, I suppose the argument could be made
that it
is easier. But this case can't be made when compared to _Triplanetary_,
_Mayday_, _LNL_, _Freefall_, etc., all vector meovement games whose
movement
rules IN TOTAL are probably fewer pages than _B5W_'s. [I compared
_Mayday_
and _Triplanetary_ this weekend and, printed at the same font size as
_B5W_,
the equivalent movement rules -- including three or four illustrations
-- take
up about a single page for each game, compared to about seven for
_B5W_.]
So, I guess if you limit the comparison to the stuff on the market (the
above games are all OOP or net games), the movement system of _B5W_
could be argued to be "simple" and "realistic". Of course, this is the
equivalent of being the best ballet dancer in all of Tulsa.
Mr.Glass said:
> If people wish, contact Mike Wikkan at mww@ n-space.com
I did not meant to imply that they did not listen to _us_, let alone the
other playtesters. My group sent in a report that was about twenty pages long,
with a variety of comments that were classified as being of Minor, Serious, or
Fatal impact. A large number of the Minor and Serious ones became
non-issues
either by abandoning the two-phases-per-turn sequence of play others or
by clarifying the issue in the rules.
The fact remains, though, that of the three things we said would affect our
decision to play the game, we were told flat-out that one was a
non-starter
and another was not addressed with the core release. Whether either of these
will be addressed at a future time is currently unknown. Mr.Graw did comment
via email that they might do an "advanced rulebook" including a vector
movement system, but whether this was a serious consideration or simply an
attempt to get me to drop the subject, I can't say. I'll assume the former,
and reiterate that Arius and I are willing to donate the work that we have
done.
> I don't mind a player posting negative comments about a system (even
And which statements would those be? That the problems that my playtest group
thought were most important were not fixed? If that is the claim, I will
gladly produce a copy of the playtest report and every piece of correspondence
that I ever received from AoG on the subject. That the problems I cite with
the movement system don't exist? If that is the case, then I must have a
serious misunderstanding of what the _B5W_ movement system does and does
not
allow -- please explain to me why the examples that I use are not legal
moves.
It was not my intent to get into a pissing match regarding this issue. I can't
help noticing, though, that Mr.Glass either failed to address most of the
issues I brought up or took offense at things I did not say. I am forced to
conclude that he did not read either my original email to the list or the
contents of my website with any great care. Which is to be expected, not
because he is in any way evil, but because he is probably very busy; dealing
with a perceived gadfly such as myself is probably far down on his list of
priorities. Which is as it should be -- he has supplements to write,
and we want them NOW. <grin>
I would like to publically thank both Mr.Glass and Mr.Graw for their efforts.
The production values on the game are quite high, the counters are beautiful,
and it is clear they have put a lot of work into it. I hopefully will be able
to go buy my copy (and return my borrowed copy) later today. While we disagree
on some of the particulars, I consider myself to be no more than the loyal
(but friendly) opposition on some issues, and if that was not clear from the
outset, then I offer everyone my apologies. My saying that I intend to play
the game with a using a different movement system should not cloud the fact
that, while replacing eight pages, I am keeping the other 90% of the system as
is.
Buy the game. If you like it as is, then play it as is. If you would prefer to
see a vector movement system for the game, then visit my website and download
the vector movement system for it. Either way, buy the game and enjoy it.
Please note that the files on my site are out of date. The "aogprob.htm" in
particular has, perhaps, more of a negative tone than I really intended when I
wrote it. My colleague Arius Kaufmann and I are working on the rewrite
-- in
fact, we spent last night discussing a bunch of issues while cutting and
pasting some ship sheets and moving ships around the map. I hope to have a
new beta version of the files up on 8/4, with updates taking place on a
weekly basis.