Hiya!
My name is Brad Carlson, and I am the primary author of the Starship! rules
(by that I mean that my business partners did a LOT of the work on the game,
but I get the blame if something is wrong!).
Since the following comments have made it to my inbox, I thought I would
answer them here:
While I was at ConQuest 2000 this past weekend, in the dealer's room, there
was a guy from Flagship Games who was pushing a new set of
space combat
rules called Starship! It boasted a 3D movement system. It appeared to me,
however, that it wasn't a true 3D system in space. The ships
were mounted
on telescoping car radio antennae. Sure this adds another dimension, but it
resembled an air combat game which is more like 2.5D. If you had a truly 3D
system, you could have 3 ships moving off in 3 different
orthogonal
directions. I would think that would get unwieldy after a while. Ships on
opposite ends of a table might be 8 feet apart, but being 8 feet apart in the
vertical direction would be a pain.
All very true. When you are designing a game, you have a lot of decisions to
make, and you are usually only allowed to pick one of the available options,
otherwise a prolifferation of "optional rules" cause the game to explode.
When faced with these situations, our primary criteria for deciding was:
"which way is more fun to play".
The 3D situation was one of those, we could (and originally did) have a more
"realistic" 3D model. But as playtesting and feedback came in, we trimmed it
back to make it more fun. A second criteria for making "realism" vs "fun"
decisions is that, in my observation, the players of
sci-fi games are VERY willing and able to add complexity/realism as
desired. Any gamer who wants true 3D, with x^2+y^2=z^2 calculations, and
a "map" that scrolls in three dimensions, is usually very able to add
these elements him/herself.
We also had verticle velocity and 3D firing arcs. Both of which the
overwhelming majority of players found cumbersome.
But try writing coherent rules for all of this that the "average" gamer can
handle.
So far, I have gotten roughly equal comments that the game is too complex, and
too simplistic. Sigh. Can't win.:)
The part I found really funny was when he asked me what system I play. I told
him I played Full Thrust. He said that's okay as long as
you stay in
the universe they provide, but it doesn't let you create your own races.
Obviously, he doesn't know Full Thrust, nor does he know about
the
cross-over battles with Federation Cruisers, Babylon 5 ships,
and Battlestar Gallactica just to name a few. I didn't want to waste my energy
arguing with him, so I just asked if he was selling any of the miniatures for
Starship! He said he didn't bring any for sale, so I thanked him and moved on.
Now, maybe he has a great game. I didn't check out the rules.
But he obviously hasn't played Full Thrust.:)
I HAVE played full thrust. According to the books I have (Full Thrust, More
Thrust), the allowed races are: "Standard" whatever that is "Kra'Vak"
"Sa'vasku"
And I don't see any chapter anywhere on creating your own race, with its own
special abilities and unique weapons. Yes, the system is open enough to give
you some flexability, but with the limited weapon choices, it does not seem to
me like you can really
capture the flavor of your favorite race. Just my opinion -- y.m.m.v.
You CAN do that with Starship! In fact, you have to -- there are no
"standard" races.
Have I missed something? Or were these Federation, B5, and Gallactica ships
created "outside" the rules.
And, we did not have individual ships available for sale, but we did have
starter sets.
I bought the rules, and the game is very much a 2.5D system.
While the
ships can move to higher and lower levels they remain level relative to the
table at all times. In firing arcs there is only a minimal consideration for
the third dimension. I've get a feeling that they use 3D
only for how
it looks.
"How it looks" should, I think, be a major part of a miniatures game,
otherwise you might as well be playing a hex-and-chit game.
That said, the third dimension has a very large affect on the game, making it
much more fluid and dynamic. I have seen a LOT of FT games where a battle line
of ships was too long to go arround, and no way to go over or under. Am I the
only one who finds this strange?
Having read most of the rules, but not played them, I can
offer a few
comments. First off the stated intention of Starship! is:
"The world of Starship is not one of hard-science, instead
portraying the
sci-fi genres we have come to know and love as portrayed on
television and the movies. We have given the laws of physics and space a
cursory nod, but eventually left them behind for the more enticing subjects of
fun and
playability." And is what they have done. As to whether this game is fun
to
play or not, I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to
play
it. Unfortunatly, I missed the demo since it was on Friday
night and
I didn't arrive at the con untill Saturday morning :-(
At least they give a passing nod to Newton. The ships have a thrust rating and
can only adjust their speed by up to that rating. So movement is more or less
like cinematic movement in Full Thrust. Changing altitude is simply that a
ship can change one Flight Band, their measurment of altitude, for evey 20 cm
(they measure in cm's) the ship moves. Other things in the rules include
firing arcs that are multiples of 22.5 degrees, weapon recharging times,
damage done to armor until a
breakthrough
is done after which critical internal hits occur, four arcs on ships, five
sizes of ships, fighters, missiles, torpedoes, mecha, boarding craft, and a
long list of weapons, including Mass Driver, Photonic Mortar,
Plasma
Inferno, and the Vortex Blaster. The rule book is reasonably laid out, though
no index. The cover has nice two color artwork, which the interior art is
black and white
of fair
interest. The rules are 94 pages long (12 of which are record
sheets and
charts) costing $30.00 which seems a bit high to me. I have not reached the
campaign rules yet, but they are included in the book. The ships I saw at the
con are nice. I have no idea of the prices. Drawings of them, which gives a
sense of what some of them are like, can be found at Flagships web site
Thanks for the review! The ships will be priced at approximately $3 per ship
size (SS). SS1 = one inch long SS5 = five inches long (roughly).
Since they are resin, they are lighter and "bulkier" then most lead
figs. At $15 for our largest, it is less then 1/2 the price of the
equivalent GW ships, which are some of the few that come close in size.
Thanks! Feel free to post this to the FT newsgroup, if you wish.
We got a responce from the author of Starship! to our recent comments. Here is
what he has to say.
Enjoy, Tom Granvold <thomas.granvold@eng.sun.com>
------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 17:04:36 -0700
From: Brad Carlson <7sg@lmi.net>
Subject: Starship! and FT, from the author
Hiya!
My name is Brad Carlson, and I am the primary author of the Starship! rules
(by that I mean that my business partners did a LOT of the work on the game,
but I get the blame if something is wrong!).
Since the following comments have made it to my inbox, I thought I would
answer them here:
While I was at ConQuest 2000 this past weekend, in the dealer's room, there
was a guy from Flagship Games who was pushing a new set of
space combat
rules called Starship! It boasted a 3D movement system. It appeared to me,
however, that it wasn't a true 3D system in space. The ships
were mounted
on telescoping car radio antennae. Sure this adds another dimension, but it
resembled an air combat game which is more like 2.5D. If you had a truly 3D
system, you could have 3 ships moving off in 3 different
orthogonal
directions. I would think that would get unwieldy after a while. Ships on
opposite ends of a table might be 8 feet apart, but being 8 feet apart in the
vertical direction would be a pain.
All very true. When you are designing a game, you have a lot of decisions to
make, and you are usually only allowed to pick one of the available options,
otherwise a prolifferation of "optional rules" cause the game to explode.
When faced with these situations, our primary criteria for deciding was:
"which way is more fun to play".
The 3D situation was one of those, we could (and originally did) have a more
"realistic" 3D model. But as playtesting and feedback came in, we trimmed it
back to make it more fun. A second criteria for making "realism" vs "fun"
decisions is that, in my observation, the players of
sci-fi games are VERY willing and able to add complexity/realism as
desired. Any gamer who wants true 3D, with x^2+y^2=z^2 calculations, and
a "map" that scrolls in three dimensions, is usually very able to add
these elements him/herself.
We also had verticle velocity and 3D firing arcs. Both of which the
overwhelming majority of players found cumbersome.
But try writing coherent rules for all of this that the "average" gamer can
handle.
So far, I have gotten roughly equal comments that the game is too complex, and
too simplistic. Sigh. Can't win.:)
The part I found really funny was when he asked me what system I play. I told
him I played Full Thrust. He said that's okay as long as
you stay in
the universe they provide, but it doesn't let you create your own races.
Obviously, he doesn't know Full Thrust, nor does he know about
the
cross-over battles with Federation Cruisers, Babylon 5 ships,
and Battlestar Gallactica just to name a few. I didn't want to waste my energy
arguing with him, so I just asked if he was selling any of the miniatures for
Starship! He said he didn't bring any for sale, so I thanked him and moved on.
Now, maybe he has a great game. I didn't check out the rules.
But he obviously hasn't played Full Thrust.:)
I HAVE played full thrust. According to the books I have (Full Thrust, More
Thrust), the allowed races are: "Standard" whatever that is "Kra'Vak"
"Sa'vasku"
And I don't see any chapter anywhere on creating your own race, with its own
special abilities and unique weapons. Yes, the system is open enough to give
you some flexability, but with the limited weapon choices, it does not seem to
me like you can really
capture the flavor of your favorite race. Just my opinion -- y.m.m.v.
You CAN do that with Starship! In fact, you have to -- there are no
"standard" races.
Have I missed something? Or were these Federation, B5, and Gallactica ships
created "outside" the rules.
And, we did not have individual ships available for sale, but we did have
starter sets.
I bought the rules, and the game is very much a 2.5D system.
While the
ships can move to higher and lower levels they remain level relative to the
table at all times. In firing arcs there is only a minimal consideration for
the third dimension. I've get a feeling that they use 3D
only for how
it looks.
"How it looks" should, I think, be a major part of a miniatures game,
otherwise you might as well be playing a hex-and-chit game.
That said, the third dimension has a very large affect on the game, making it
much more fluid and dynamic. I have seen a LOT of FT games where a battle line
of ships was too long to go arround, and no way to go over or under. Am I the
only one who finds this strange?
Having read most of the rules, but not played them, I can
offer a few
comments. First off the stated intention of Starship! is:
"The world of Starship is not one of hard-science, instead
portraying the
sci-fi genres we have come to know and love as portrayed on
television and the movies. We have given the laws of physics and space a
cursory nod, but eventually left them behind for the more enticing subjects of
fun and
playability." And is what they have done. As to whether this game is fun
to
play or not, I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to
play
it. Unfortunatly, I missed the demo since it was on Friday
night and
I didn't arrive at the con untill Saturday morning :-(
At least they give a passing nod to Newton. The ships have a thrust rating and
can only adjust their speed by up to that rating. So movement is more or less
like cinematic movement in Full Thrust. Changing altitude is simply that a
ship can change one Flight Band, their measurment of altitude, for evey 20 cm
(they measure in cm's) the ship moves. Other things in the rules include
firing arcs that are multiples of 22.5 degrees, weapon recharging times,
damage done to armor until a
breakthrough
is done after which critical internal hits occur, four arcs on ships, five
sizes of ships, fighters, missiles, torpedoes, mecha, boarding craft, and a
long list of weapons, including Mass Driver, Photonic Mortar,
Plasma
Inferno, and the Vortex Blaster. The rule book is reasonably laid out, though
no index. The cover has nice two color artwork, which the interior art is
black and white
of fair
interest. The rules are 94 pages long (12 of which are record
sheets and
charts) costing $30.00 which seems a bit high to me. I have not reached the
campaign rules yet, but they are included in the book. The ships I saw at the
con are nice. I have no idea of the prices. Drawings of them, which gives a
sense of what some of them are like, can be found at Flagships web site
Thanks for the review! The ships will be priced at approximately $3 per ship
size (SS). SS1 = one inch long SS5 = five inches long (roughly).
Since they are resin, they are lighter and "bulkier" then most lead
figs. At $15 for our largest, it is less then 1/2 the price of the
equivalent GW ships, which are some of the few that come close in size.
Thanks! Feel free to post this to the FT newsgroup, if you wish.
-Brad
------------- End Forwarded Message -------------
> Hiya!
...
> I HAVE played full thrust. According to the books I have (Full
You are correct that your mileage may vary. Here is a URL that contains
links to FT conversions to other sci-fi genres.
http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu/FT/back.htm
--Greg
Thank you for the pointer.
If you take a look at Starship!, I think you will see that these sorts of
conversions are much easier.
Your URL includes a lot of fan-generated optional rules and rule
additions to make these races work. This is fine, but the same can (and has)
been done with other systems, like SFB.
The problem I had was that they are unofficial, and somewhat arbitrary. If
someone was holding a FT tournament at a con, and you wanted to bring
in a fleet using non-official rules, good luck!
And many systems, like SFB and BF Gothic, don't allow custom ships at all!
What we were trying to do was make a game system where the ability to recreate
your favorite race, IS official, and universally acceptable to anyone playing
the game. It is, to my knowledge, the only system that lets you custom design
your race and your ships.
If FT works for you, if you are happy with it, and feel no need for something
more flexible, by all means, stick with it.
Thanks-
-Brad
> Greg Wong wrote:
> Hiya!
> Brad Carlson wrote:
{snippage!}
> Any gamer who wants true 3D, with x^2+y^2=z^2 calculations, and a
I think this comment discribes most of the those on this list...8D
{snippage!}
> I HAVE played full thrust. According to the books I have (Full Thrust,
What FT does is allow the players to create whatever situation the players
want to game in. I think this does disturb those players who prefer "rules
based" situation creation to FT's open ended system.
> You CAN do that with Starship! In fact, you have to -- there are no
FT allows the players to use whatever the play group desides to allow. I have
heard of a game designer (who should be nameless...) who once said: "If you
are not playing my game the way I designed it, then you are not playing my
game right!" He didn't seem to realize that games will, once they get a game
home, will tear it apart and attempt to "run the wheels off it". IMHO any game
designer who does realize this finds the game players to be a most interesting
source of ideas...(Right Jon??)
{snippage!}
> Thanks!
Hi from one rules author to another!
> Thank you for the pointer.
If
> someone was holding a FT tournament at a con, and you wanted to bring
Not having seen the Starship! rules (do you have a distributor this side of
the Pond?) I assume that to do this, you have a "system builder" mechanism in
the design rules which allows players to make up their own weapon types and
other systems, and which then calculates an accurate and
game-balanced
costing for said weapon, much as DBI have done in "Shockforce" (at least in
theory - I don't know how balanced their system is in cost terms, as
I've never analysed the math)?
Jon (GZG)
> Thanks-
> Brad Carlson wrote:
> The part I found really funny was when he asked me what system
[snip]
> I HAVE played full thrust. According to the books I have (Full Thrust,
"Allowed races"? I don't think so.
The KV and SV, and nowadays the Phalons as well, are the only races for which
GZG has created specific rules. All other races fall under the "standard"
rules, modified as desired by the "if you are not happy with a rule or system,
throw it out and use your own" clause (verbatim quote from the FT main rules,
page 2, "Introduction and designer's notes").
[snip]
> Have I missed something?
Yes. Actually I'd say that you've missed the entire, and explicitly stated,
purpose with Full Thrust... specifically, you've missed the following very
important section in the main rulebook (FT2 p.40, "The background and
timeline"):
"FULL THRUST was written from the start as a GENERIC system, that is, it was
not set in any specific 'Future History', but instead provided a rules
framework for players to fit into whatever backgrouhnd they
preferred - whether from a book, film, another game or just their own
ideas.
Although this edition may still be used in exactly the same way, it was felt
that for completeness some sort of background setting should be
included as a OPTION. This optional nature cannot be over-emphasised -
there is a full setting and 'History' provided here IF you wish to use it. If
you prefer to ignore it completely and use your own ideas, then
all the better - for too long now gamers have been spoon-fed by certain
'big-name' companies inot believeing that they should only set their
games in the 'Official' universe for that system.
Please treat the background just like any of the Advanced rules; if you
like it, by all means use it - if you don't then write your own, and
ignore any ****** who tries to say you're doing it 'wrong'..!"
Back to Brad:
> Or were these Federation, B5, and Gallactica ships created "outside"
They were mostly created using the FT design system, in some cases
amended with background-specific gadgets under the "if you are not
happy with a rule or system, throw it out and use your own" clause -
there are no stats given for Star Wars ion cannons in the published rules, for
example, so the players wrote their own. According to the section quoted above
("...provided a rules framework for players to fit
into whatever backgrouhnd they preferred - whether from a book, film,
another game...") this is exactly what Full Thrust is all about, so these
ships obviously weren't created "outside" the rules.
> And I don't see any chapter anywhere on creating your own race, with
You mean that *you* have provided detailed rules for how the players
are supposed to invent their own house rules - or are you saying that
you have provided such detailed rules that they players "won't need to" invent
their own house rules?
Regards,
Hiya!
To those who care, I just subscribed to this list last night, after a friend
forwarded stuff to me yesterday.
Let me also start by saying I am not antagonistic to other games or game
companies -- we at Flagship Games do this for fun and personnal
satisfaction, not
profit. I would be supprised if we earn even $2/hour for the time we put
in to this company. We just like making games that we like to play, and feel
that our "competitors" are doing us a favor by giving us cool toys to play
with.
If any of my comments come off sounding defensive or antagonistic, then I
appologize -- it is just the natural reaction to "protect" a project
that I have worked on for more than five years.
As for my gaming credentials, I started out ~20 years (?) ago with Traveller
("...mayday...mayday...this is free trader Beowulf...") designing endless
ships and drawing them on graph paper with proper volumn convertions for each
ship system. I even developed an easy system for true vector movement on a hex
grid that could be used easily and quickly with only simple addition and
subtraction.
After that I started playing SFB, and was considered a fast player. I could
run a fleet of 12 to 15 ships by myself, and complete energy allocation for
the fleet in about five minutes per turn.
Later on I played Interceptor, Leviathan, Aerospace, Silent Death, and of
course, Full Thrust.
I, like so many of you, am very comfortable with math. I have found however,
that's most gamers find even small amounts of math in a game to be
intimidating. I had a discussion with one gamer at the last con about how a
lot of people were turned off of Champions because of the math (and there, all
you have to do is the able to divide by 5!).
To continue:
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Hi from one rules author to another!
been
> >done with other systems, like SFB.
No, but as a professional courtesy, I will be happy to send you a copy,
gratis. Just send your mailing address to:
7sg@lmi.net
> I assume that to do this, you have a "system builder" mechanism
Actually, that is how the game started out several years ago. In an effort to
make the game more user friendly, MANY changes were made to keep the math and
complexity to a minimum, so long as the change did not significantly adversely
affect the game.
Creating a race consists of choosing which weapons you are allowed to use (you
will have from 2 to 8 of the 21 types available) and from 1 to 3 racial
special abilities. The more special abilities you have, the fewer weapons you
are allowed.
The actual cost for the weapons depends on:
* weapon type * range * size * strength * arc of fire * fire rate
Originally there were formulas available. But most people found this
intimidating. So I plugged all of the formulas into a spreadsheet and created
"shopping lists". On one page for example, we have the costs for: Disruptor,
Graviton Gun, Hypershunt, Ion Cannon, Vortex Blaster,
Ultra
Decimator and Ultra Maser all of which have the same base cost. The body of
the chart lists all available combinations, and costs, (a total of 756
different guns for EACH of the above types!)
The chart is well-organized so that you can find the one you're looking
for in seconds.
As for play balance, I was always one of those who could min-max a rules
system to death, and I have a play tester who is even better at it then I am.
If there
it is a way to break this game, and create an Uber-ship or Uber-fleet,
we haven't found it.
There is no "cheese" or "unfair" way to create your race or fleet, at least
not in a campaign setting. It is, of course, possible to win through "gotcha"
tactics
in a one-off game.
As for the campaign system, I have run or been involved in far too many
campaigns that were crushed under their own weight. This campaign system is
both simple and robust. It has a great deal of strategic complexity, but with
almost no recordkeeping required. It can be played without a referee (we
referee's want to play, too!)
BTW, for those who don't know, our WebSite is:
http://www.flagshipgames.com/
But it has not yet been updated with the Starship release information.
Thanks!
My apologies if I have offended you. Detailed comments below:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Brad Carlson wrote:
My problem with this, and the point I was trying to make, is that these alien
races were each created "outside" of the standard rules, each having new
weapons or defenses or other special rules.
I fully agree that FT allows and encourages people to create their own
modified versions of the game.
In Starship, however, creating your race is an intrinsic part of the game. If
I am running a tournament at a convention, I can tell people to bring their
own races and fleets, knowing that 20 people with 20 races and 20 fleets will
all exist within the structure of the rules, and be acceptable to all players.
If I tried the same thing with FT, chaos would ensue, as 20 people tried to
justify the "balance" of their creations.
> Have I missed something?
I agree that their stated purpose was as you indicate.
What I have a problem with, is the assumption that every phaser, disruptor,
ion cannon, etc., from all of the books and movies that I have seen can all be
grouped into one weapon,"beams", with three different strengths.
And what about the special abilities? What are romulans without cloaking,
or vorlons without bio-ships?
Obviously the creators of FT agree, since they gave such abilities to their
races. Obviously the fans of FT agree, since they have written and published
so many articles on modifying the rules to fit specific races and genres.
> >Or were these Federation, B5, and Gallactica ships created "outside"
There it is a difference between giving you permission to do so, and providing
you with a framework within which to do so.
> >And I don't see any chapter anywhere on creating your own race, with
We provided detailed rules that allow you to create several hundred unique
races, all of which lie with in the structure of the rules, and all of which
are balanced against each other, assuming the players are equally skilled, and
trying to win.
Obviously, we can not provide rules to cover every universe that has ever or
will ever exist. However, as an example, I could say: "I am running a
tournament in a Star Trek-like universe. Please bring your own race and
fleet. No missiles, physical torpedoes, fighters or Mecha are allowed. All
races must have at least two special abilities."
When I arrived at the convention to run the tournament, I could expect any
number of players, each with races that are unique, and yet within the
structure of the rules, and acceptable, without arguments, to each of the
other players.
In the example above, the modifications to the rules in order to fit the game
into the Star Trek universe required only a few sentences, not pages of
additional material.
The same applies of course to running campaign games.
Please note that I am not trying to tear anyone away from FT or any other
game. In fact I only began posting to this list in the order to respond to
comments made about Starship within this forum.
I think that FT is a fine and admirable game, and is the game I would most
likely be playing if not for Starship.
It is not going to hurt my feelings if you don't like Starship. Personal
tastes vary.
Sincerely,
What is the approximate playing time for a 10 ship per side battle with
fighters?
Andy A
[quoted original message omitted]
> Andrew Apter wrote:
> What is the approximate playing time for a 10 ship per side battle
Depends on the players, of course.
If two people are familiar with the rules and don't hesitate over every
decision, then ~4 hours.
We ran just such a game at ConQuest last weekend, with ~10 NEW players. The
game went about six hours, with a lot of thought going into tactics and
side-huddles from both teams.
By far the biggest time-sink in playing Starship is how long you agonize
over your actions.
> And I don't see any chapter anywhere on creating your own race, with
> From e-mail from him, he's provided a weapon design system, much as FT
This is a really difficult thing to do successfully. I congratulate him on the
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:05:56 -0700 Brad Carlson <7sg@lmi.net> writes:
First, I am not a FT player, just Dirtside 2.
Second, I am a little confused by a few points:
Okay, so two people make up different versions of the same race - who is
'official'? Or am I missing something (not the first time... or
100th...)
Hmmm, the "...race and ships..." just might be a first (you could be a
footnote in SF game history <grin>) but I don't have a knowledge of any
significant portion of SF space/starship combat rules,,,
Actually for my 'intrusion' scenarios in my "Starguard sliding towards
Dirtside 2" campaign a decent race creation set would be useful... But the
weapons system is a concern, TOO wide open could be a problem. Of course I
COULD just homogenize the results a bit... Also, how detailed do the weapons
interactions get. The idea of Stargrunt in Space on Steroids possibility gets
into the issue of
complexity/reality/playability which is highly interpretative.
> Glenn m wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:05:56 -0700 Brad Carlson <7sg@lmi.net> writes:
A good question. Take two Star Trek fans. Put them in a room. Tell them to
define the Enterprise in game terms. Walk away knowing that neither will ever
get the other to agree on anything. Laugh.
If they are both participating in the example event, they will each design
things according to their own viewpoints. They are both right. Let them
fight it out. (maybe one is from the mirror-mirror universe). Maybe one
wants "Superior Shields" for "his" Federation, and the other decides "Good
Karma" and "Auto-Repair" (i.e. the luck of Kirk and the skills of
Scotty) are more appropriate.
That is the beauty of it. Flagship Games is not going to tell you which is
"right" or "official".
> Hmmm, the "...race and ships..." just might be a first (you could be a
I doubt our system for races could be expanded into ground combat in that way.
Might be interesting to try though...
> But
> Brad Carlson wrote:
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
The Sa'Vasku are designed outside the standard rules, agreed. The Kra'Vak and
Phalons aren't, since you are explicitly allowed to mix their tech gadgets
with the "standard set" as long as all players agree to allow it... I guess
this means that Full Thrust only has two races
in your eyes: Sa'Vasku, and everyone else :-/
> I fully agree that FT allows and encourages people to create their
Does "creating a race" mean "creating your own weapons and special abilities"
instead of simply "choosing weapons and special abilities from the set
provided in the rules"?
If "yes, you can design your own weapons/abilities" you have a point,
and like Alan I'll buy the game just to see how you managed it - no
other game I know of has succeeded doing this, although several have tried.
If "no, you can only choose from the provided set", then Starship! has the
same problems as you see in Full Thrust: players are going to create their own
rules (weapons, systems, abilities) outside your provided framework, and those
rules won't be acceptable in tournaments.
(OK, players will undoubtedly modify the provided weapon/ability design
rules as well, and won't be able to use the offspring of those modified rules
in tournaments...)
> [quote from book deleted]
The current edition of Starfire has 33 different direct-fire weapons
and 15 missile weapons (unless I missed some, which is fairly likely; and I've
ignored all the fighter weapons), each with its damage and
to-hit profiles - but they can quite easily be collapsed into five
different types:
- weapons that ignore shields
- weapons that ignore armour
- weapons that ignore both
- weapons that ignore neither, and
- missiles.
Full Thrust features all of these five types, and also "area"-effect
weapons which are missing in Starfire. How many other fundamentally different
types of weapons does Starship! have (or allow the design
of)?
> And what about the special abilities? What are romulans without
They did, yes. These particular special abilities - cloaking systems
and bio-ships - are available in FT though, so I guess they're not a
very good example of what you're trying to say. Please try again, so I get
your point?
> Obviously, we can not provide rules to cover every universe that has
I'm glad you wrote this, 'cuz I wouldn't believe you if you said that
it could :-/ Since it can't, and since the players won't all agree with
you on how to represent whatever they see in the various backgrounds, the
player will inevitably create their own rules to fit it to better
handle their favourite background - unless you tell them that they
aren't allowed to, just like the ADB have always told their players that they
mustn't create their own house rules for SFB. Even then the players will keep
doing it; they just won't tell you about it so you won't get to use their
ideas to create supplements for Starship!.
If you do disallow creating house rules, you are effectively locking them into
the universe you provide (or at least you attempt to do so).
Nothing wrong with that, as long as you're aware of it - this is
exactly what Starfire does, for example.
If you do *not* tell them this, Starship! has the same problems as you see in
Full Thrust. It might take a little longer before you notice them, but they're
still there.
> However, as an example, I could say: "I am
<chuckle> In this particular case you'd better point out that you mean
*Star Trek-like* and not *Star Fleet Battles-like*, unless of course
Starship! makes a distinction between "missiles" and "drones" (Kzintzi) and
between "fighters" and "shuttlecraft" (just about all SFB races)
:-)
Regards,
In message 39b6d3ac.36a7.0@dynamite.com.au
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au wrote:
[snip]
> From e-mail from him, he's provided a weapon design system, much as FT
While
> not expecting it to be terribly successfull. But it would be nice to
Hmm... gets me thinking - has anyone considered doing something like
this for FT (I think I need a :-) here :-)
On a related note - has anyone any ideas about the effect on mass/cost
of varying the size of a weapon's range bands:
For Example:
I am considering the difference between neutral and charged particle
beams - assume the beams in FT are neutral. Charged particles repel each
other, so a charged particle beam disperses, and thus has a reduced range.
Assume that the Charged Particle Beam (CPB) has half the range of a normal
beam (so each band is 6 mu, rather than 12).
I've done some maths that imply that such a CPB is half as effective (and
hence, for balance reasons, should be half mass & cost) as a normal
beam - but I don't think I took everything into account (guess I'll
have to play test it then - when I get time!).
So a Class-2 CPB is MASS 1 Cost 3, for 3 arcs, MASS 2 Cost 6 for 6 arcs
a Class-3 CPB is MASS 2, +1 per 2 extra arcs, COST = MASS x3, etc.
Has anyone else played about with ranges like this.
Also, has anyone any ideas on the cost breaks / penalties of 'combined'
systems - such as:
Multiple Class-1's combined to give a weapon that has a range of 12 mu,
and does multiple beam dice - and probably looses the PDS capability.
Weapon + dediced FireCon - doesn't need a firecon - it has it built in.
In both cases, the combined system counts as one system on the SSD - It
makes 1 threshold check for the whole system, and 1 needle hit will kill it.
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
> From e-mail from him, he's provided a weapon design system, much >>as
Yes <g>
The main problem is that the efficiency of a particular weapon depends on a
lot of factors, like the size of your gaming table or which weapons your
enemies like to use. What balances in your group doesn't
necessarily balance in other groups... it all adds to the fun :-7
> On a related note - has anyone any ideas about the effect on
Yep :-)
> For Example:
Yep :-)
On a small, fixed table, long range isn't that important - the enemy
will run out of table sooner rather than later and then you get to pound him;
on a larger table you may not be able to fire at all... I've
seen the latter happen to all-Close-configured Phalon fleets quite a
few times over the past year :-/
My experience with variable range bands, almost all of which is on
large tables, is that half the size balances pretty well with 2/3 the
range. (The reason it's not "half range - half size" is that the range
*in itself* doesn't help you hit more targets; it is the extra *area* in which
you can look for targets which counts. With twice the range,
the long-ranged weapon covers four times the area... provided your
table is large enough that the *short*-ranged already covers most of
it!)
For example, Aaron Teske uses three different sizes of P-torps in his
Space Fleet/Full Thrust conversions: the small one with 4mu range bands
and Mass 2, the normal one with 6mu bands, and the large one with 9mu range
bands and Mass 8. I've used them quite liberally over the years; so far they
seem to balance OK.
The real problems come when you design a weapon which has a different damage
profile than the ones you compare it to, eg. Pulsers vs beam
batteries or B2s vs B3s :-/
> Also, has anyone any ideas on the cost breaks / penalties of
This combi-weapon is easier to repair than the multiple B1s, but can't
split its fire over multiple targets. To figure out how much it is worth:
1) Figure out how much the equivalent number of B1s cost *including their
share of the ship's engines and basic hull structure* (ie. the 1xMass you pay
just to get the hull)
2) Deduct some for the loss of PD capability. The B1 has half the PD firepower
of a PDS but requires a dedicated FCS to act in PD mode, so
it's worth somewhat less than half the total cost of the weapons - IF
your enemies use missiles and/or fighters, that is - otherwise it isn't
worth anything at all!
3) Add some to account for the fact that this combi-weapon is easier to
repair when it fails threshold checks than multiple B1s are. Unfortunately
this term depends on how many FCSs your ship has, and
also on the general hull configuration. Eg. a Phalon-style ship
probably wouldn't have lost even the B1s until very close to its total
destruction and wouldn't have had time to repair even the large system if it
went down, because the majority of its damage boxes are either
armour or the first hull row; OTOH an unarmoured, strong-hulled ship
(eg. an ESU capital ship) would start taking threshold checks early but spaced
well apart, thus giving it more chances to repair damage. For
the Phalon ship, the total availability of the combi-weapon is pretty
close to that of the multiple B1s; on the ESU capital, it might be quite a bit
higher.
4) Finally, now that you've figured out how many points your
combi-weapon should cost you fiddle around with its points/mass ratio
and its Mass so you get the total cost (including hull and engines) as close
as possible to the "target" cost for as wide a range of engine strengths as
possible.
> Weapon + dediced FireCon - doesn't need a firecon - it has it built
The value of this weapon can be estimated in a similar fashion to the above,
but there are some differences. The value depends on:
* How many weapons (of this type) the ship is likely to fire at a single
target in one turn. If you're likely to fire each of these at a single target,
the "initial" cost of the weapon (corresponding to step 1 above) should
include the full cost of the FCS; if you expect to use two of these weapons
together you only include half the cost of an FCS, etc.
* How many FCSs the ship would normally have had, ie. the probability that
your ship won't lose all of its FCSs at once. This is similar to step 3)
above, with the added twist that losing the FCSs reduce your firepower to 0
whereas losing one B1 out of several will only degrade
your firepower a bit - you still have some of it left.
Later,
> [lots of prior discussion deleted]
> >In Starship, however, creating your race is an intrinsic part of the
You choose from a list. However, the list is intentionally far larger than any
single race would have.
* 15 types of guns, each with differences in one or more of: targeting,
shield interaction, armor interaction, damage effects + plus
missiles
and a bunch of different fighters/mecha, torps, and energy torps.
* 23 different racial abilities (basically, everything we or are playtesters
could think of)
Most races will be allowed to use 2-8 of the weapon types, and 1-3 of
the racial abilities. Since each of the choices makes a significant difference
in how the race will play, the possible combinations/permutations give a
LOT of unique races.
And since the allowed variations in strength, range, etc., within each gun
type result in between ~250 and ~750 possibilities, there is no lack of
options in arming your ships.
> If "yes, you can design your own weapons/abilities" you have a point,
You don't see a difference between having lots of options, and having fewer
options?
> (OK, players will undoubtedly modify the provided weapon/ability
There should be little need to do so. Only exposure will tell. We TRIED to
make this unneccessary.
> >What I have a problem with, is the assumption that every phaser,
Each of the guns is fundimentally different from the others, and obviously
different from the torps, etc.
> >And what about the special abilities? What are romulans without
As stated above, 23 different abilites, to be used singlely or in combination,
as a part of race creation.
> >Obviously, we can not provide rules to cover every universe that has
> you on how to represent whatever they see in the various backgrounds,
> the player will inevitably create their own rules to fit it to better
[SFB stuff deleted]
My point is that most people (hopefully) won't feel a need to do so. I don't
claim Starship is perfect. All I am claiming is that it is highly flexable. Do
with it what you will.
> If you do disallow creating house rules, you are effectively locking
Silly to even consider. Once you take the game home, it is yours.
> If you do *not* tell them this, Starship! has the same problems as you
Chess and checkers both "simulate" medieval warfare. Both fail the test of
realism. Therefor chess has nothing to offer. Might as well play checkers.
No, I'm not saying FT is checkers, etc. FT and Starship have different
strengths. In this one area, I think Starship is stronger. I think in the
areas of speed of play, maximum practical fleet size, and a number of other
areas, FT is superior to Starship.
> >However, as an example, I could say: "I am
(Kzintzi)
> and between "fighters" and "shuttlecraft" (just about all SFB races)
But in this case, Star Trek (old series) and Star Trek (new series) and SFB
fans could all play against each other, in a spirit of good will, and
friendship, and bring a new age of peace and prosperity to our world.
;)
> I am considering the difference between neutral and charged particle
(PSB time) But are easier to generate: magnetic fields can manipulate charged
particles, which means you need less generators to get the same energy.
However, there is a limit to how strong your magnetic fields can be without
disrupting the rest of the ship: much insulation is required for the larger
weapons.
If you take a look at the "Gatling Phasers" on my web site, they're basically
multi-use submunitions packs. These fill the bill quite nicely.
A type 1 CPB (Charged Particle Beam) is the equivalent of a type 2 Beam for
costs, arcs etc, but does 1 die at 18", 2 at 12", 3 at 6". A type 2 CPB would
do 1 die at 24", 2 at 18", 3 at 12", 4 at 6" and would be the same as a type
3 beam for costs etc. (Basically, at 12" a type X CPB does X+1 dice, and
cost
the same as an X+1 beam).
Yes, there is a law of diminishing returns here. Type 1s are the most
efficient by far. You're better off with multiple emitters rather than one
large one,
Hello:
Just a quick question: Did "Starship!" make it's release date? Is it currently
available?
Yes, barely.
It is still not "officially" available to stores and distributors, since we
need to build up stock on the models for the starter sets.
We should be updating the website soon with all the details, photos, etc.
-Brad
> "Mark A. Siefert" wrote:
> Hello:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:07:26 -0700 Brad Carlson <7sg@lmi.net> writes:
<snip>
> Okay, so two people make up different versions of the same race -
Okay, now I understand where you are coming from...
Hi all,
Where do I find rad's site on Starship!?
Thanks,
I take it that the game plays the same weather you use the "2.5D" rules or
not?
Around here, there is a lot of talk between "vector" and "cinematic" movement.
Which one you use has an effect on the way FT feels.
Does Starship! have this problem also? Or does just the "race/tech
creation" effect things? (beyond the players that is...)
(Oh yes...Welcome to the list! Sounds like you will fit right in
here!...8-D)
Donald Hosford
> Brad Carlson wrote:
> Yes, barely.
In message <200009071932.VAA03115@d1o902.telia.com>
> "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Stanley Taylor wrote:
Good point - I guess it applies to all the _published_ systems as well
(I think there's proof of that in this list :-).
> >On a related note - has anyone any ideas about the effect on
I've
> seen the latter happen to all-Close-configured Phalon fleets quite a
Arrgh! flaw in my math spotted - the shame! the shame!
> For example, Aaron Teske uses three different sizes of P-torps in his
Thanks for the advice.