OFF-TOPIC mini review B5 Wars

2 posts ยท Jul 22 1997 to Jul 22 1997

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 14:52:43 -0400

Subject: OFF-TOPIC mini review B5 Wars

CAVEATS 1) I haven't played the final version; I was a playtester, though, for
two earlier incarnations, and I have looked over (somewhat briefly) the final
version purchased at Origins.

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 pissed he didn't
get his way, well, I would like to point out that my opinion of the product
hasn't changed since I saw the first playtest copy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It's better -- barely -- than the playtest version.  Unfortunately, most
of the things that were broken are still broken, with the likelyhood that
something was fixed being inversely proportional to how seriously it was

broken (i.e., they spent a lot of time changing light bulbs on the Titanic).

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Black unmounted maps with white hexes. Counters are
beautiful (they were done by Mike Wikan) but printed too darkly. Includes a
half dozen minis which need to be assembled and painted. (I wonder if they
tried to arrange a deal with Galoob for B5 micromachines? Probably not.)

PROS
1) Lots of background info, it seems.  Big thick rulebook (90+ pages)
with plenty of black and white photos from the show.

2) They also came up with a somewhat-clunky-but-I-guess-it-works fix to
one of the more serious problems, the "energy point" problem. In the playtest
version, ships moved by funnelling energy points from the reactor through
their thrusters, which generate thrust points. Each reactor point (regardless
of the ship) generated one thrust point, and each thrust point (regardless of
the ship) generated one one hex per turn of thrust. Think about this for

thirty seconds, max, and you will realize that implies that ALL SHIPS HAVE THE
SAME MASS.

Well, they fixed it, and while it wasn't exactly how we would do it, I guess
it will do. They added an "engine", which has two salient features: first, it
provides a certain number of "free" thrust points which can be routed

through the thrusters to produce thrust; second, for "extra" thrust, it
converts energy points to thrust points which are then routed through the
thrusters, based on an "engine efficiency" rating. While this is somewhat
cumbersome from an engineering point of view, it has the distinct advanatage
that, in most cases, the players don't have to calculate anything to expend
thrust.

4) Combat system has been simplified a little. Basically, its a d20 system
now, instead of d100, with DRMs based on 150+ variables.  (Okay, it's
really only about ten variables.)

CONS 1) The biggest con is that the movement system is STILL broken. Anyone
who has read my earlier comments on this game knows that I think the movement
system is clunky and unrealistic.  (See [http://www.wizard.net/~caw/
aogprob.htm] for details.) Well, it appears that they have tweaked it a bit,
but you still have things like rotating is in increments of 180 degrees and
takes *exactly* three turns (regardless of the size of the ship), 60 degree
turns cost less energy than 30 degree turns, etc.

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 system. This is an
excerpt from our second playtest report:
> The more we play the game, the more uneasy we feel about the combat
At
> best, we would have only a vague feeling that this or that value is

> totally arbitrary manner.

> design the ship's included in the game. Second, even if the original

3) My personal pet peeve -- the Earthforce Omega class destroyer does
not have a rotating section. Anyone who has seen the episode where the
loyalist forces
attacked Babylon 5 know that the bridge crew of the _Alexander_ was VERY

worried about damage to the spin section forcing them to stop rotation.
Considering the damage system involves specific hit locations, you would think
the rotating section would have to be included. Yet, there is nothing in the
game to indicate the ship even has a rotating section!

4) The Earthforce ships have "interceptors", which are CIWS designed to
intercept incoming fire. To their credit, AoG change it so that the
interceptors can no longer intercept incoming laser fire. However, they have
added the idea that the interceptors somehow generate a forcefield that
degrades laser fire. Yuck.

5) The ship sheets are in the back of the book, perforated for removal. Why do
it this way? Why not make the ship sheets a separate booklet, where they would
be easy to photocopy (which they grant permission for), like GDW did
with _Star Cruiser_, TFG does with _SFB_, etc.?  Players are left with
the alternatives of defacing the rules or limiting the quality of the copies
that can be made.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT This is a generic tactical space combat game with the name
"Babylon 5" slapped on the front. As such, there is little to recommend it
*out of the box* over
simply playing  _Renegade Legion:Leviathan_, _Silent Death_,
_Battlespace_ or
a host of other such games. Anyone wanting to play a B5 game would be better
off playing _Full Thrust_ with one of the four or five B5 rulesets
floating
around the net ([http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu/FT/thrust.html] is a good
place to start searching for them), or waiting a month and getting Chameleon
Eclectic's _Earthforce Sourcebook_, which, as we all know, includes Jon
Tuffley's _Full Thrust_-derived system.

This is not to say that I don't intend to purchase it. While pretty much
useless as is, I think that _B5W_ can be saved by scrapping the movement

system and replacing it with a homegrown system. A colleague and I are working
on such a system, which I will put on my website as soon as it's done, and
which we hope to run at NOVAGCon in August.

From: Indy Kochte <kochte@s...>

Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 15:52:21 -0400

Subject: Re: OFF-TOPIC mini review B5 Wars

> CONS

> intercept incoming fire. To their credit, AoG change it so that the

> degrades laser fire. Yuck.

This actually comes from the B5 producers, JMS and George Johnsen. I have
George's post/email around somewhere tucked away about this. It seems
that there are 2 'levels' to the interceptor stuff: the passive,
energy-dampening
'net' (eg, your forcefield above) and the active stuff we see going to town in
various episodes. I (and I think at least one other, maybe Mark S?) asked
George directly about this during the playtest period and he confirmed it for
us. Just fyi.

> 5) The ship sheets are in the back of the book, perforated for removal.
 Why
> do it this way? Why not make the ship sheets a separate booklet, where

Their reasoning was so you wouldn't have to bend the binding of the main
rulesbook to photocopy the ships. I overheard them explaining this to someone
who asked on saturday about it.

But I agree, your idea is a much better alternative.

> OVERALL ASSESSMENT
slapped
> on the front. As such, there is little to recommend it *out of the

> Tuffley's _Full Thrust_-derived system.

And what little I saw, is looking good...  :-}

> This is not to say that I don't intend to purchase it. While pretty

> working on such a system, which I will put on my website as soon as

Please at least let me know (kochte@stsci.edu) when you finish; I'd like to
see what you come up with (I dont get a lot of time to ply the web so likely
could miss out on stuff; has happened more often than not before).

Mk