# "SPACE FIGHT!" Starship combat boardgame



## Morrus

This week I started designing a boardgame; mainly for my own benefit and amusement. It's a long, long way from completion and not even in a vaguely acceptable state at the moment (plus it's littered with trademarked starship terms which will have to be removed at some point, but I find them a useful tool of reference when designing).

Anyway, I figuredd some folks might be vaguely interested, so I made a quick-and-dirty web page for it with the current version of the rules.

Don't even begin to view this as a complete game - it's about 5% done, if that. It needs TONS more stuff, plus a lot of the stuff in it will probably get changed. But if space combat games are your thing, feel free to check it out.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> This week I started designing a boardgame; mainly for my own benefit and amusement. It's a long, long way from completion and not even in a vaguely acceptable state at the moment (plus it's littered with trademarked starship terms which will have to be removed at some point, but I find them a useful tool of reference when designing).
> 
> Anyway, I figuredd some folks might be vaguely interested, so I made a quick-and-dirty web page for it with the current version of the rules.
> 
> Don't even begin to view this as a complete game - it's about 5% done, if that. It needs TONS more stuff, plus a lot of the stuff in it will probably get changed. But if space combat games are your thing, feel free to check it out.



So that's why you needed those starship images! 

I will have to check this out.


----------



## Frostmarrow

This is by far the coolest website in space: Jeff Russell's STARSHIP DIMENSIONS







WREEEE


----------



## Morrus

Yeah, that site actually inspired my design goal of having ships at different scales.

I just updated the site and PDF, by the way.  _SPACE FIGHT!_ now has a cover, nicer formatting, a few error fixes, and colour coding for the ahip abilities for easy at-a-glance use.   

Claudio Pozas is designing a logo, which I'm quite excited about seeing.


----------



## jaerdaph

I downloaded this today and have to say I think this is one of the coolest projects I've seen in awhile. I definitely want to give this a try ASAP and will be following along with interest. 

I made a template in Campaign Cartographer 3 today to make hex maps to use in the game, and posted a sample star chart in my mapping thread. Like I said there, I know you are selling starscape PDFs through EN Publishing, and I really don't want to step on your toes. Would you object if I made a few Star Trek ones (and possibly for Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica too) and posted them? They would use images and screen captures from Star Trek etc.

I'm really excited about this - I've been a fan of Star Trek since I was five years old. Last Unicorn Games Star Trek RPG was probably my favorite RPG ever (although tied for first with TSR's Masque of the Red Death Victorian horror campaign setting). When LUG lost their license to produce the Star Trek RPG when WotC bought them, they were just starting to release a Star Trek space combat game that looked promising called Engage! but that was cancelled too. SPACE FIGHT! has that same sort of fast action appeal, so I can't wait to see more!


----------



## Morrus

jaerdaph said:


> Would you object if I made a few Star Trek ones (and possibly for Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica too) and posted them? They would use images and screen captures from Star Trek etc.




That's totally fine - I can't really include such stuff in SPACE FIGHT! (and I'll have to remove the existing ships at some point), but there's nothing stopping fans from creating stuff!


----------



## jaerdaph

Thanks Morrus! I downloaded yesterday's update with the basic movement rules and look forward to checking it out today.


----------



## Morrus

jaerdaph said:


> Thanks Morrus! I downloaded yesterday's update with the basic movement rules and look forward to checking it out today.




I updated it again just a few minutes ago with a major change to how movement is approached, although it hasn't been fleshed out yet.

Essentially, I was struggling with the decision as to whether velocity should be a factor, with speed points being used to accelerate/decelerate.  For the moment, I've decided to give it a try, although it still needs more information.

Also, in the section which describes a starscape, I've noted that a starscape doesn't have to be of space!  It could be the surface of the Death Star, complete with laser towers and trenches, or it could be a post apocalyptic landscape with starfighters dueling in the high atmosphere.  This also brings up the question of bombers, of course!


----------



## Morrus

These movement rules are proving to be something of a challlenge!

We have a system whereby your speed remains the same as it was last round unless you accelerate or decelerate.  That bit's fine.

Incorporating turns, however, is more difficult.  Ideally I want it to take into account both maneuverabilty and speed, but not become complicated.  At the moment I'm thinking something along the lines of variable costs to make a hex-side turn, or a number of hexes moved before a turn is allowed.  Not sure yet.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> These movement rules are proving to be something of a challlenge!
> 
> We have a system whereby your speed remains the same as it was last round unless you accelerate or decelerate.  That bit's fine.
> 
> Incorporating turns, however, is more difficult.  Ideally I want it to take into account both maneuverabilty and speed, but not become complicated.  At the moment I'm thinking something along the lines of variable costs to make a hex-side turn, or a number of hexes moved before a turn is allowed.  Not sure yet.




Maybe: Every ship gets _x_ speed points to spend each round.  However, to each ship assign numbers to "Top Speed," "Maneuverability," and "Acceleration."  The Maneuverability score is the number of speed points required to change heading by 60 degrees, and the Acceleration score is the number of speed points required to change speed by +1 or -1.  You can freely alternate between moving and changing velocity (speed and direction) until you have moved as far as your top speed will allow and you run out of speed points.

Example: For no particular reason, take _x_=10.  A fast, nimble ship might have Top Speed=10, Maneuverability=1, and Acceleration=1.  Such a ship with current speed=4, might spend 1 point to turn 60 degrees, then 6 points to hit top speed, then move 10 hexes (we're done moving but we can still spend points), then spend 1 points to turn 60 degrees, then finally spend 2 points to reduce speed to 8.


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> Maybe: Every ship gets _x_ speed points to spend each round. However, to each ship assign numbers to "Top Speed," "Maneuverability," and "Acceleration." The Maneuverability score is the number of speed points required to change heading by 60 degrees, and the Acceleration score is the number of speed points required to change speed by +1 or -1. You can freely alternate between moving and changing velocity (speed and direction) until you have moved as far as your top speed will allow and you run out of speed points.
> 
> Example: For no particular reason, take _x_=10. A fast, nimble ship might have Top Speed=10, Maneuverability=1, and Acceleration=1. Such a ship with current speed=4, might spend 1 point to turn 60 degrees, then 6 points to hit top speed, then move 10 hexes (we're done moving but we can still spend points), then spend 1 points to turn 60 degrees, then finally spend 2 points to reduce speed to 8.




How wold you then fit that in with the fact that the ship has a velocity already - would you allow him to rotate 60 degrees, then 60 degrees again, then sixty degrees again and then accelerate to 6 and fly 6 squares, and then turn again?  My feeling is that a fast flying ship's turning arc is larger.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> How wold you then fit that in with the fact that the ship has a velocity already - would you allow him to rotate 60 degrees, then 60 degrees again, then sixty degrees again and then accelerate to 6 and fly 6 squares, and then turn again?  My feeling is that a fast flying ship's turning arc is larger.




Well, a fast flying _nimble_ (Maneuverability=1) ship might pull this off, while a fast flying _clumsy_ (Maneuverability=5) ship would not.  If you want it to be impossible for a ship to turn 180 degrees in a single turn, then set Maneuverability greater than _x_/3.

Just to make sure I'm answering the question: Yes, I'm proposing that Maneuverability be independent from current speed, mostly for simplicity.  If ship A is more nimble than ship B, then that should hold no matter what the speed, right?

Edit: Maybe my example was bad -- you probably don't want the fastest ships in the game to also be the most maneuverable.


----------



## Alex319

Also, another thing: Just because a spaceship's nose turns doesn't mean its "velocity vector" instantly changes. If you rotate a ship 180 degrees, it will still be traveling in the same direction it was before. If you want to make it go the opposite direction you will have to apply enough thrust to cancel out the existing velocity vector and then accelerate in the opposite direction.

See:

Atomic Rocket: Common Misconceptions

(item: "Rockets are Not Arrows")

By the way, the site linked above also has a lot of good information on how space combat would be likely to work realistically (see the "Space War" section). I don't know how realistic you are planning on making your game, but this could be worth looking at.


----------



## Alex319

Also, one question: For the "raise deflector shields" actions, do you have to spend the action points every turn in order to keep the shields up, or do you just have to spend them once? If the latter, is there any reason why you wouldn't want to raise the shields once at the beginning of the battle and keep them up for the entire battle?

And another thing about the movement: Don't forget that Newton's First Law applies to angular motion as well as linear motion. If you start a ship rotating at 60 degrees per turn, then it will keep rotating at that rate until thrust is applied to stop it.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> Also, another thing: Just because a spaceship's nose turns doesn't mean its "velocity vector" instantly changes. If you rotate a ship 180 degrees, it will still be traveling in the same direction it was before. If you want to make it go the opposite direction you will have to apply enough thrust to cancel out the existing velocity vector and then accelerate in the opposite direction.
> 
> See:
> 
> Atomic Rocket: Common Misconceptions
> 
> (item: "Rockets are Not Arrows")
> 
> By the way, the site linked above also has a lot of good information on how space combat would be likely to work realistically (see the "Space War" section). I don't know how realistic you are planning on making your game, but this could be worth looking at.




Yup, I've thought about all that and rejected as being contrary to my design goals of fast-moving, easy-to-play cinematic space combat.  Plus, realistic though it is, it dosn't often happen in the gneres I'm trying to emulate (Star Wars, where ships act like WW2 dogfighters, or Star Trek where they act like naval vessels; some show slike B5 make a nod towards it, but I'm encapsulating that with specific maneuvers available to those ships).


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> Well, a fast flying _nimble_ (Maneuverability=1) ship might pull this off, while a fast flying _clumsy_ (Maneuverability=5) ship would not. If you want it to be impossible for a ship to turn 180 degrees in a single turn, then set Maneuverability greater than _x_/3.
> 
> Just to make sure I'm answering the question: Yes, I'm proposing that Maneuverability be independent from current speed, mostly for simplicity. If ship A is more nimble than ship B, then that should hold no matter what the speed, right?
> 
> Edit: Maybe my example was bad -- you probably don't want the fastest ships in the game to also be the most maneuverable.




That works; however, it doesn't allow for the image of a ship accelerating to max speed and thus having to turn in a long wide arc; whereas if it were moving slower it could make a tighter turn.

These things can be done, but I want it to be simple, elegant, and aloow for fast play.  I dont want players speding 5 minutes working out their move.  Combining all those factors into one movement system without getting too bogged down is a challenge!


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> Also, one question: For the "raise deflector shields" actions, do you have to spend the action points every turn in order to keep the shields up, or do you just have to spend them once? If the latter, is there any reason why you wouldn't want to raise the shields once at the beginning of the battle and keep them up for the entire battle?




Not fully developed yet; but likely points to sustain.  The other option is points to charge up, but they get worn down, so you have to charge them up again.  I haven't decided yet.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> That works; however, it doesn't allow for the image of a ship accelerating to max speed and thus having to turn in a long wide arc; whereas if it were moving slower it could make a tighter turn.
> 
> These things can be done, but I want it to be simple, elegant, and aloow for fast play.  I dont want players speding 5 minutes working out their move.  Combining all those factors into one movement system without getting too bogged down is a challenge!




Let's see: Drop the association between speed points and Maneuverability.  Instead use Maneuverability as follows: Divide your Current Speed by Maneuverability (round down) to get the number of hexes the ship must move before making one 60 degree turn.  Speed points are strictly used to speed up/down, and can be used before or after, but not during a turn.  Examples:

* A ship with Current Speed=1 and Maneuverability=5 could move+turn in any direction.  The same ship could first spend 4 speed points to increase Current Speed to 5, but would then need to move two hexes for every 60 degree turn.  Etc.

* A ship with Maneuverability=1 would need to move a number of hexes equal to its Current Speed for each 60 degree turn.

It probably goes without saying but keep the numbers small so that the division is trivial.  I was thinking in terms of the range 1-10, which seems small enough to do division in one's head but large enough to provide variation.


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> Let's see: Drop the association between speed points and Maneuverability. Instead use Maneuverability as follows: Divide your Current Speed by Maneuverability (round down) to get the number of hexes the ship must move before making one 60 degree turn. Speed points are strictly used to speed up/down, and can be used before or after, but not during a turn. Examples:
> 
> * A ship with Current Speed=1 and Maneuverability=5 could move+turn in any direction. The same ship could first spend 4 speed points to increase Current Speed to 5, but would then need to move two hexes for every 60 degree turn. Etc.
> 
> * A ship with Maneuverability=1 would need to move a number of hexes equal to its Current Speed for each 60 degree turn.
> 
> It probably goes without saying but keep the numbers small so that the division is trivial. I was thinking in terms of the range 1-10, which seems small enough to do division in one's head but large enough to provide variation.




Now we're getting somewhere!  Lemme think about this for a bit!


----------



## Morrus

OK, I've made a preliminary update. Needs tweaking, but the basic concept is there!

I like it conceptually, but I don't like that we're dealing with three numbers here when all we need is two. The problem is that for the velocity/*maneuverability* calculation to work, we need *maneuverability* to be better if it's higher; for the *cost per hex side*, we need that to be better if it's lower. Those are two numbers which basically say "maneuverability". Finally, we have *speed*, which is better higher. I'd like to combine those first two numbers, which represent the same thing, so all we have is *speed* and *maneuverabliity*.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> OK, I've made a preliminary update. Needs tweaking, but the basic concept is there!




What determines when the movement turn is completed?  You say a ship must move its current speed each round, but its speed might change during the round.  For example, a ship is flying at speed 12, slows down to 3 and then moves 3 hexes.  Is the movement turn over?  In other words, it sounds like the ship can adjust speed, then move (including turns), then adjust speed (if there are any speed points left).


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> What determines when the movement turn is completed? You say a ship must move its current speed each round, but its speed might change during the round. For example, a ship is flying at speed 12, slows down to 3 and then moves 3 hexes. Is the movement turn over? In other words, it sounds like the ship can adjust speed, then move (including turns), then adjust speed (if there are any speed points left).




Excellent point!  The only way I can see it working is one velocity change per round, at a predefined point (either beginning or end of round).  You can change your velocity by as much as you have speed points, but only the once.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> Excellent point!  The only way I can see it working is one velocity change per round, at a predefined point (either beginning or end of round).  You can change your velocity by as much as you have speed points, but only the once.




Straightforward and you can still do most trajectories, so long as you can make multiple turns per round.  Allowing speed changes at the beginning and end of the turn, however, would prevent wasted, unspent speed points, which could prevent less maneuverable ships from flying off the map!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Note: 

Clarify the terms you use in the Movement Section. It reads a little confusing at times, since sometimes you say "Current Speed" but I assume you mean "Velocity". 

I would try to clarify the times: 

- *Velocity*: The number of hexes you move this round.
- *Speed*: (Maybe a different name is required): The amount hexes you can use to change your _velocity _or _direction_.
- *Direction*: The direction of your velocity, e.g. the direction you are moving toward. ??? (I don't know if this should be its own term, or be named differently.
- *Maneuverability*: The number of _speed_ points it costs you to change your _direction _by 60 degrees. Your current Velocity divided by your Maneuverability determines the number of hexes the ship must move before making its next 60 degree turn.

...

Oh, wait a moment? Is it intended that a ship with a low maneuverability score can turn very often (it costs very little speed) but it has to move very far before it can turn? Either I am reading it wrong or something _is_ wrong. 

A ship with speed 8 and maneuverability 1 could perform 8 turns, except at velocity, say, 12, it can turn effectively only once, since it can turn only every 12 / 1 = 12 hexes?

EDIT: 
Oh wait, I think I am getting confused. The freighter example has 3 values - speed points, turn cost and maneuverability, but the sample ship at the start omits one value...


----------



## Morrus

I've clarified those terms in the latest update.

The example ships don't have those values yet, because I still want to reduce the three values to only two.

Other updates in the latest version include explosions, a slight alteration to the Hero section, and an introductory background section detailing the factions.  I haven't yet updated the example ships to reflect the factions.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> I've clarified those terms in the latest update.
> 
> The example ships don't have those values yet, because I still want to reduce the three values to only two.
> 
> Other updates in the latest version include explosions, a slight alteration to the Hero section, and an introductory background section detailing the factions.  I haven't yet updated the example ships to reflect the factions.




Hmm. Maybe you don't need to set a movement cost for changing turns, just the "divider" the ship uses? Effectively you just say how many turns a ship can make per round that way.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> I've clarified those terms in the latest update.
> 
> The example ships don't have those values yet, because I still want to reduce the three values to only two.
> 
> Other updates in the latest version include explosions, a slight alteration to the Hero section, and an introductory background section detailing the factions.  I haven't yet updated the example ships to reflect the factions.




Is it redundant to have both a Maneuverability score and a cost associated with turning?  Presumably clumsy ships will have both a low Maneuverability score and a high cost associated with turning, so it seems like such a ship is being penalized twice.  IMHO, it seems like you could get away with one or the other.

In any case, it also seems that there should either be a standard number of speed points, with costs for changing speed/heading varying from ship to ship; or a standard cost for changing speed/heading, with speed points varying from ship to ship.  The second option means you only have one number per ship.  Determining all three for each ship seems redundant.

Is there no longer a max speed?  If you want one and you went with the second option above, you could make max speed = speed points for simplicity and so that your speed points have a physical meaning: the speed a ship can achieve, starting from rest, in the span of one turn.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

A danger regarding a model where inertia is returned - at least one I think might crop up - is that participants move very far on the battlegrid, and the distances might be too far for the typical map... 

Just think of when you play _Asteroids_ - how easy it is to become too quick and go over the borders...


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> Is it redundant to have both a Maneuverability score and a cost associated with turning? Presumably clumsy ships will have both a low Maneuverability score and a high cost associated with turning, so it seems like such a ship is being penalized twice. IMHO, it seems like you could get away with one or the other.




Yes; that's why I keep saying that!  I want to combine those two numbers.

The problem, as alluded to above, it that one of them is higher=better and the other is lower=better given the way they need to be used. 



> Is there no longer a max speed? If you want one and you went with the second option above, you could make max speed = speed points for simplicity and so that your speed points have a physical meaning: the speed a ship can achieve, starting from rest, in the span of one turn.




Wavering on it.  That's a fundamental design decision I need to make a call on.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> Yes; that's why I keep saying that!  I want to combine those two numbers.




It seems to me that the Maneuverability score obviates the need to combine the two numbers, but it sounds like you want the cost for turning to depend on the ship, right?  Will the cost to speed up/down also depend on the ship?  This approach, as opposed to having a flat cost for turning and speeding up/down, will be more complicated both in play and design.

For what it's worth, here's how I would define the terms:

Top Speed: The largest number of hexes the ship can move in one round.
Current Speed: The number of hexes the ship must move this round. (May be adjusted once, at the beginning of the round, before the ship actually moves.)
Current Location: The hex that the ship occupies.
Direction: The face of the Current Location hex that the ship must exit when initiating subsequent movement.
Maneuverability: Determines the number of hexes a ship must move before changing Direction by 60 degrees. (Example: A ship traveling with Current Speed=12 and Maneuverability=4 must move 3 hexes before changing Direction by 60 degrees.)
Speed Points: Points per round that can be spent to speed up/down. (Example: Speed Points=Top Speed, and speeding up/down by one hex costs one Speed Point, for simplicity.)

As you can see, there is no cost to change Direction, only to speed up/down.  Two ships with different Maneuverability scores will, in general, have different turning radii (so the penalty for having a low Maneuverability score is here -- of course, such a ship can change Direction more rapidly by slowing down).

To keep physicists happy 
Velocity: A datum that specifies both the Current Speed and Direction.

Edit: After considering what it would mean to have Maneuverability=1, I replaced "turning" with "change in Direction," since otherwise such a ship could never change Direction!  Instead, such a ship may now move, then change Direction (new heading for the next turn).


----------



## Morrus

Long playtest session today - lots of tweaks will be coming!


----------



## Morrus

Brief playtesting report:

Overall, extremely pleased.  We learned a lot about the system's strengths and weaknesses, and found the experience was clearly one of a game that's headed in the right direction.
Movement rules simulated movement how we wanted to perfectly, at a cost of being a little awkward to implement.  Clearly the design goal of "fast play/ease of use" was not being met there, but we were delighted with how the various sized ships acted and the difference between fighters, mid-ized ships and massive capital ships.
Some of the ships were not well designed - that was fine, as they were just numbers thrown onto a template to see how the system "looked".  We adjusted them a lot in play.
Squadron rules need some work.
Some areas where clarification is needed were highlighted.
We fought a battle between a Star Destroyer (launching TIE Fighters) and the Enterprise, three squads of X-Wings and a Klingon Bird of Prey.  Each felt and acted exactly how it should.  The fighters raced out to meet each other as the larger ships closed more slowly; fighter squadrons streaked along the side of the Star Destroyer blasting at it, taking casualties from its point defences, and dueled in lovely parabolic arcs!  One time I misjudged an X-Wing's speed, and it was unable to pull up in time to avoid colliding with an asteroid.

The winner was the Imperials.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> The winner was the Imperials.



Damn. Now the Star Wars fans have won the supposedly eternal battle between the franchises.


----------



## jaerdaph

Sounds like a lot of fun and looks like this is really coming along. 

So, how big of a hex grid space did you use for the combats? Did you find yourselves overrunning the edge frequently?


----------



## Morrus

jaerdaph said:


> Sounds like a lot of fun and looks like this is really coming along.
> 
> So, how big of a hex grid space did you use for the combats? Did you find yourselves overrunning the edge frequently?




9 pages printed out and taped together!  A bit of a messy job, but I've ordered 12 poster sizes hex grids.

We overran the edge slightly once or twice (on the outside of some wide turns from the X Wings which were moving really fast), but not so that it bothered us.  I imagine the game as being played on an area four times the size of the sheet we cobbled together (4 poster maps).


----------



## Flatus Maximus

So how much does it cost to turn more than 60 degrees in one go?  From my reading it sounds like that might be possible, but there is no associated cost.  In any case, the game looks like a lot of fun!


----------



## Morrus

So, plans for this week:

1) Firing arcs. It's easy with a one-hex ship, but a little more difficult with larger ships.

2) Damage locations. Remember how the X-Wings used to fly across the bow of a Star Destroyer firing at the shield generators? We want that type of visual. Our initial thoughts are that every ship has its own unique points that you can target, detailed in the stat block and _marked on the counter itself_. Each has an AC and HP, and notes on any additional defences it might have, along with details on what happens to the ship when that target point is destroyed. All exception-based (no overal governing damage chats, just specific weak points detailed in the stat block and marked on the counter).  So I'm thinking something like this could appear on the Star Destroyer's card:

*Shield Generators (x2)*
AC 6, HP 20
Each generator destroyed reduces the ship's shield capability by half.  Destroying both removes the ship's sensors capability. 

Then two little red blobs on the counter show where they are.


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> So how much does it cost to turn more than 60 degrees in one go? From my reading it sounds like that might be possible, but there is no associated cost. In any case, the game looks like a lot of fun!




You can't. You can turn 1 hex side (60 degrees) after x number of hexes moved in a straight line. With the last iteration, turning 60 degrees doesn't actually cost points - you can do it free as long as you do it every x hexes (as determined by your current velocity and your maneuverability).

Trust me, it works _really_ well! Basically you get fighters circling and jockeying for position, or lining up for straight runs at capital ships, exactly how you'd imagine it.  And asteroid fields become a LOT of fun!  

If you have a ship capable of performing a special maneuver which allows it to do something else (e.g. check the _Wingover_ maneuver on the Falcon, or the free _Rotate_ manevers on the Starfuries and Vipers) it's specifically noted in the stat block.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> 1) Firing arcs. It's easy with a one-hex ship, but a little more difficult with larger ships.




What, exactly, _is_ a 'firing arc'?  A direction in which a given ship can fire?  ("Arc" makes me think of curves.)  Also: What was "awkward to implement" about the movement phase?


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> What, exactly, _is_ a 'firing arc'? A direction in which a given ship can fire? ("Arc" makes me think of curves.)




Yup.  Forward, Aft, Port, Starboard.



> Also: What was "awkward to implement" about the movement phase?




Too many numbers floating around. Velocity, speed points, maneuverability rating, cost to turn, hexes you have to move between each turn.  Started to feel like I was back at school.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> So, plans for this week:
> 
> 1) Firing arcs. It's easy with a one-hex ship, but a little more difficult with larger ships.
> 
> 2) Damage locations. Remember how the X-Wings used to fly across the bow of a Star Destroyer firing at the shield generators? We want that type of visual. Our initial thoughts are that every ship has its own unique points that you can target, detailed in the stat block and _marked on the counter itself_. Each has an AC and HP, and notes on any additional defences it might have, along with details on what happens to the ship when that target point is destroyed. All exception-based (no overal governing damage chats, just specific weak points detailed in the stat block and marked on the counter).  So I'm thinking something like this could appear on the Star Destroyer's card:
> 
> *Shield Generators (x2)*
> AC 6, HP 20
> Each generator destroyed reduces the ship's shield capability by half.  Destroying both removes the ship's sensors capability.
> 
> Then two little red blobs on the counter show where they are.




Hmm, I am wondering about the "size" idea... I see why one would make ships of different hex size, but it might create certain problems of "scale". A Borg Cube is frigging huge. (We don#t need to talk about Death Stars). 

Unless of course we ignore this for sake of playability. 

I like the idea of the indicators. The space on counter is limited, though... Maybe there should be a guideline how many "exception based" areas exist?


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Hmm, I am wondering about the "size" idea... I see why one would make ships of different hex size, but it might create certain problems of "scale". A Borg Cube is frigging huge. (We don#t need to talk about Death Stars).




Borg Cubes and Star Destroyers work on this scale (we tried 'em).  The Death Star is a battlemap, not a counter.



> I like the idea of the indicators, though. The space on counter is limited, though... Maybe there should be a guideline how many "exception based" areas exist?





Absolutely.  I was only thinking a couple or so.  The Star Destroyer could have the shield generator ball things and the bridge.  Small ships don't need 'em.


----------



## Morrus

Here's an example of what I thought a counter could look like.  Forgive the two-minute crappy MS Paint job!

Red = shield generators
green = bridge

And for the firing arcs:

Red = forward
Blue = aft
Yellow = port
Green = starboard

All clearly there on the counter for ease of use. No looking up charts or tables in a book or anything.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

> Borg Cubes and Star Destroyers work on this scale (we tried 'em). The Death Star is a battlemap, not a counter.



That's why I said we don't need to talk about them. 
I don't know what kind of scale you used for space fighters (e.g. do they take one hex, or does a squadron take one hex?) It seems there is a lot of space to them if you tried something like "1 hex = 1 starfighter". I think your illustration above indicates starfighters are smaller than 1 hex. 

A propos illustration:
Basically, Fire Arcs can be "exception based"? Each ship has its own, and sets a set of weapons to each firearc?

Maybe one targeting option should always be to disable the weapons at one firing arc? I mean, disabling weapons, shields, life support, sensors, warp is a Star Trek trope  That might also warrant some indicating in Federation vessels, maybe a special bonus to attack damage locations. 

Do damage locations have their own hit points, does damage transfer between ship and location?

Hmm... Should their be "Campaign Guidelines", on how to create a set of battles, where you can repair crippled ships or take over disabled or destroyed ships?


----------



## Mercutio01

Just a sort of unrelated nitpick - running lights on ships and aircraft are red to port and green to starboard.  Just something to think about.


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't know what kind of scale you used for space fighters (e.g. do they take one hex, or does a squadron take one hex?) It seems there is a lot of space to them if you tried something like "1 hex = 1 starfighter". I think your illustration above indicates starfighters are smaller than 1 hex.




That's right; a squadron is a hex. I made a bunch of homemade counters, but I don't have them in a format I can upload here, but it's clear when you have the counters. I need to find someone to design all the counters for me. 



> A propos illustration:
> Basically, Fire Arcs can be "exception based"? Each ship has its own, and sets a set of weapons to each firearc?




Yup; that's how the above diagram works. A diffeent ship will have those red, blue, green and yellow lines in different places. And the stat blocks already incidate which arcs a weapon can fire in. 



> Maybe one targeting option should always be to disable the weapons at one firing arc? I mean, disabling weapons, shields, life support, sensors, warp is a Star Trek trope  That might also warrant some indicating in Federation vessels, maybe a special bonus to attack damage locations.




Yup; that's essentially a function of "how much detail do we want?" We could narrow it down as uch as we want, although is that a good exchange in favour of fun gameplay?



> Do damage locations have their own hit points, does damage transfer between ship and location?




For the sake of simplicity, I'd say yes and no respectively.



> Hmm... Should their be "Campaign Guidelines", on how to create a set of battles, where you can repair crippled ships or take over disabled or destroyed ships?




Maybe another book! 

In this book, I eventually want a "scenario" section with various scenario setups and goals.  For example, it doesn't have to be "kill all the enemy ships"; it could be "destroy this ground target", "board and capture this diplomatic ship", "escape through the asteroid field from the chasing TIE Fighters", etc.


----------



## Morrus

Mercutio01 said:


> Just a sort of unrelated nitpick - running lights on ships and aircraft are red to port and green to starboard. Just something to think about.




I didn't know that!  I'll bear it in mind!


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> Too many numbers floating around. Velocity, speed points, maneuverability rating, cost to turn, hexes you have to move between each turn.  Started to feel like I was back at school.




I guess if you want movement to be something more than "move _x_ hexes per round," then you'll have to put up with _some_ complexity.  (Of course, striking the balance is the trick!)

Some questions to think about: How easily did everyone learn the movement rules?  Or was it just too much calculation that slowed things down?  Since otherwise it worked "_really well_," is it something that you think could eventually become second nature?

Also: Cost to turn?  I thought you dropped that?  Or maybe you tried it last night, then dropped it?

I can't help but be reminded of Heroscape -- minis for this would be cool!  Out of curiosity, how much, if any, did Heroscape inspire you?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> Yup; that's essentially a function of "how much detail do we want?" We could narrow it down as uch as we want, although is that a good exchange in favour of fun gameplay?



It could be as simple as "+1 to attack when targeting hit locations" or an ability that is useable only under an appropriate condition (and maybe only once per combat) and disables a system. (Reduces speed to 0, maneuverability to 1; weapons at this firing arc don't work.)
Or create two additional conditions like "weakened" (simulating disarms) and "slowed" (simulating disabled engines) that can be applied by special attacks or special maneuvers. 



> Maybe another book!



"Advanced Spacefight"



> In this book, I eventually want a "scenario" section with various scenario setups and goals.  For example, it doesn't have to be "kill all the enemy ships"; it could be "destroy this ground target", "board and capture this diplomatic ship", "escape through the asteroid field from the chasing TIE Fighters", etc.




That sounds interesting. One might want to replay some Wing Commander and TIE Fighter games for ideas.


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> Some questions to think about: How easily did everyone learn the movement rules? Or was it just too much calculation that slowed things down? Since otherwise it worked "_really well_," is it something that you think could eventually become second nature?




It certainly could; I would just prefer it to be a little more accessible to newbies.  Dropping the cost per turn helped.



> Also: Cost to turn? I thought you dropped that? Or maybe you tried it last night, then dropped it?




Yup, exactly that.  Interestingly, although we spent the first half of the game calculating it in, we found it made _no practical difference_ to the gameplay.  Everything continued to move in exactly the same way without it.



> I can't help but be reminded of Heroscape -- minis for this would be cool! Out of curiosity, how much, if any, did Heroscape inspire you?




Not at all; never played it.


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Or create two additional conditions like "weakened" (simulating disarms) and "slowed" (simulating disabled engines) that can be applied by special attacks or special maneuvers.




Hmmm... yes.  That might work.  Conditions..... I need to think more about that!


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> It certainly could; I would just prefer it to be a little more accessible to newbies.  Dropping the cost per turn helped.




Hmmm, now that speed points are used only to speed up/down, you may as well do away with them and instead have an Acceleration value for each ship, which would indicate by how many hexes your speed can be increased/decreased in a single turn.  I mean, functionally that's what speed point are now -- might as well give them a name that corresponds to their physical interpretation!  (Speaking of which, I suggest you replace Velocity with Speed since, technically speaking, velocity (a vector) indicates an object's speed (scalar) _and_ direction  -- current Velocity refers only to the ship's speed.)


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> Hmmm, now that speed points are used only to speed up/down, you may as well do away with them and instead have an Acceleration value for each ship, which would indicate by how many hexes your speed can be increased/decreased in a single turn. I mean, functionally that's what speed point are now -- might as well give them a name that corresponds to their physical interpretation! (Speaking of which, I suggest you replace Velocity with Speed since, technically speaking, velocity (a vector) indicates an object's speed (scalar) _and_ direction -- current Velocity refers only to the ship's speed.)




Don't get too hung up on terminology at this point - at some point a LOT of it willl change (hit points, auras, etc.)


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> Don't get too hung up on terminology at this point - at some point a LOT of it willl change (hit points, auras, etc.)




As a mathematician I find it hard _not_ to get hung up on terminology.


----------



## Morrus

_SPACE FIGHT!_ now has a logo, courtesy of Claudio Pozas!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Nice Logo! 

What do you plan to do with the starships in the long run?Basically have it "serial numbers filed off" style? Or do you want to throw them all out and replace them with unique designs. (Which might reduce the appeal, but avoid any possible legal pitfalls.)


I am asking since I have some "simulationist" suggestions. 
IIRC, the Enterprise D (Galaxy Class) has: 
- 12 Phaser Banks, plus one additional in the Combat Section if the saucer is removed.
- 2 Photon Torpedos, plus one additional in the aft saucer section if it is removed. 
The "shtick" of the TNG era Photon Torpedo launchers apparently seemed to be the ability to launch torpedo salvos. That could be a special ability. Maybe once per combat or turn can fire up to 10 torpedoes for the cost of one, but each torpedo has to attack its own target.
Of course, the whole "saucer section removal" thing - as little used as it was in the series - could be its own special ability, too. 


Other "concerns" - you might want to make a distinction between energy/gun like weapons and missiles. BSG style defensive systems (Aura) intercept squadrons and missiles, after all. 
The "simplest" approach might be to make the type a descriptor and have it only come up when you want a ship to have this ability. (A Star Destroyer Aura doesn't seem to help much in intercepting missiles or torpedoes, judging from the games.  )


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Nice Logo!
> 
> What do you plan to do with the starships in the long run?Basically have it "serial numbers filed off" style? Or do you want to throw them all out and replace them with unique designs. (Which might reduce the appeal, but avoid any possible legal pitfalls.)




I'll be using "similar" starships...



> I am asking since I have some "simulationist" suggestions.
> IIRC, the Enterprise D (Galaxy Class) has:
> - 12 Phaser Banks, plus one additional in the Combat Section if the saucer is removed.
> - 2 Photon Torpedos, plus one additional in the aft saucer section if it is removed.
> The "shtick" of the TNG era Photon Torpedo launchers apparently seemed to be the ability to launch torpedo salvos. That could be a special ability. Maybe once per combat or turn can fire up to 10 torpedoes for the cost of one, but each torpedo has to attack its own target.
> Of course, the whole "saucer section removal" thing - as little used as it was in the series - could be its own special ability, too.




Well, I haven't attempted that particular ship yet... a greta page for technical info on shps of various universes is this one:

Kitsune's Science Fiction Conversions 




> Other "concerns" - you might want to make a distinction between energy/gun like weapons and missiles. BSG style defensive systems (Aura) intercept squadrons and missiles, after all.
> The "simplest" approach might be to make the type a descriptor and have it only come up when you want a ship to have this ability. (A Star Destroyer Aura doesn't seem to help much in intercepting missiles or torpedoes, judging from the games.  )




Way ahead of you!  That's actually what I was working on before I went to bed last night!


----------



## Pobman

As someone who used to love playing B5 Wars, I was interested to see what you have done. Good work so far.

Quick question. If my ship has a current speed of 10 Hexes and I rotate after 4 hexes, do I continue travelling along my current trajectory and therefore have moved 10 hexes in a straight line or would my move be 4 hexes in a straight line and 6 hexes in a straight line with a 60 degree angle between the two?

I can see the benefit in either way. 

1) If a ship only has guns at the front they may want to "strafe" as they go past (I may have mis-used the word strafe

2) You may want to actually turn mid-move

BTW If you want to make the book completely idiot proof you might want to use rotate instead of turn as I am sure you will use the same word with two different meanings (ie. turn=rotate and turn=player's "go").


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

The latest is no, you change the direction you fly to with the heading of the ship.

Maybe this option could be described in an Appendix? For more "realism" in the world of Newtonian physics.


----------



## Pobman

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The latest is no, you change the direction you fly to with the heading of the ship.
> 
> Maybe this option could be described in an Appendix? For more "realism" in the world of Newtonian physics.




Despite having done an Astrophysics degree I have no problem with that as, from what has been stated, the aim is to have a fun cinematic space fighitng game that could reproduce Star Wars type dogfights. I just wanted to clarify.


----------



## Morrus

Pobman said:


> Despite having done an Astrophysics degree I have no problem with that as, from what has been stated, the aim is to have a fun cinematic space fighitng game that could reproduce Star Wars type dogfights. I just wanted to clarify.




Yeah, _Star Wars_ in particular is based aruond WWII dogfights.  Other shows like _Babylon 5_ make nods towards Newtonian physics, but they're far from slavish about it.  I think it cna be handled with "make it like Star Wars/Trek and add special maneuvers that allow ships from B5 etc. to do cool things."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Here some random ideas on FTL capabilities: 

- All Drives: A ship can activate its FTL to leave the starscape. It can no longer attack nor be targeted. 
The ship can return at the end of any its normal turn, with its current speed zero and heading in any direction. 
(Special abilities of ships might allow them to enter at the start of their turn, guns blazing so to speak.)

- Warp Drive: Once per combat, the ship can activate its Warp Drives and can move at any speed (but a minimum of _n_ hexes) but it cannot change its direction. It still retains its original speed for the next round.  

- Jump Drive: Once per combat, the ship can activate its Jump Drive and appear at any space between _n_ to _m_ hexes on the starscape. It keeps its speed and direction.


----------



## Morrus

A piece of art by Claudio Pozas!


----------



## Elephant

Flatus Maximus said:


> It probably goes without saying but keep the numbers small so that the division is trivial.  I was thinking in terms of the range 1-10, which seems small enough to do division in one's head but large enough to provide variation.




I'd say 1-12.  Using twelve as the base, you can take one-fourth, one-third, *and* one-half without resorting to decimals.

Edit:

Morrus - I have a couple of suggestions for the bombers.  First, when a bomber misses its target, make it so each adjacent hex is equally likely the one to be hit -- use 1-6 or 1-12 for this.

Second, depending on how accurate bombers should be, make either a 7 or a 13 a hit, and use the attack roll to see where the miss goes, too.

Example:  I'm piloting a TIE bomber, dropping a proton bomb on a Rebel base.  I need to roll a 7 or higher to hit, but all I get is a 3.  Using that 3, I consult the updated chart for bombing misses, and I see that the bomb lands in the 120 degree hex (the one labeled '5' in the current miss chart).


Edit2:  Another thing to consider is using a d12 for bombing runs.  1-6 misses with equal chance to hit any adjacent hex; 7-12 hits the target.
What do you think?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Elephant said:


> I'd say 1-12.  Using twelve as the base, you can take one-fourth, one-third, *and* one-half without resorting to decimals.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Morrus - I have a couple of suggestions for the bombers.  First, when a bomber misses its target, make it so each adjacent hex is equally likely the one to be hit -- use 1-6 or 1-12 for this.
> 
> Second, depending on how accurate bombers should be, make either a 7 or a 13 a hit, and use the attack roll to see where the miss goes, too.
> 
> Example:  I'm piloting a TIE bomber, dropping a proton bomb on a Rebel base.  I need to roll a 7 or higher to hit, but all I get is a 3.  Using that 3, I consult the updated chart for bombing misses, and I see that the bomb lands in the 120 degree hex (the one labeled '5' in the current miss chart).
> 
> 
> Edit2:  Another thing to consider is using a d12 for bombing runs.  1-6 misses with equal chance to hit any adjacent hex; 7-12 hits the target.
> What do you think?



I am not sure what your goal of the rule is? You want to simplify determining the "scatter" roll?


----------



## Morrus

Yeah, the idea of the scatter diagram is that a bomb is more likely to fall short or too far ahead than to shoot off to one side.

As for accuracy, that's all in the stat blocks and varies from ship to ship.


----------



## Iron Sky

I'm sure you've played or Google-researched a bunch before making this game, but one of the best links I've found when designing my own space-combat systems is:

Starship Combat News - The latest info on space games and miniatures

I'd especially recommend the following to see what other people have done:

Full Thrust - Been around forever, basic and advanced rules to cover all the bases

A Sky Full of Ships - Great for huge-scale conflicts, ships have just enough stats to be differentiable, and few enough that you can play 20 ships a side.

Starmada - Another oldie, comprehensive and well-play tested combat and ship construction rules.  Ships are tough and slowly get crippled as combat wears on.

Also, Generic Space Combat 2 here:
Generic Space Combat 2

These are mostly minatures-based combat systems, but there's lots of good ideas between them.

Downloaded your game too to give it a read-through.  Hope you find some of this useful!


----------



## Elephant

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not sure what your goal of the rule is? You want to simplify determining the "scatter" roll?




Yeah, I was thinking:  Roll a single die.  If it's less than 7, consult the "scatter" chart.  If it's 7 or more, it's on-target.

That does make it a bit harder to have bombers of varying degrees of accuracy, but you can still get that effect:

Shoddy Bomber:  Roll d8 on the bombing run
Workhorse Bomber:  Roll d10 on the bombing run
"Surrender if you see this bomber in the skies":  Roll d20 on the bombing run.

...but that's harder to make work with the goal of having "misses" over- or under-shoot instead of off to the side.


----------



## Morrus

Iron Sky said:


> I'm sure you've played or Google-researched a bunch before making this game, but one of the best links I've found when designing my own space-combat systems is:
> 
> Starship Combat News - The latest info on space games and miniatures
> 
> I'd especially recommend the following to see what other people have done:
> 
> Full Thrust - Been around forever, basic and advanced rules to cover all the bases
> 
> A Sky Full of Ships - Great for huge-scale conflicts, ships have just enough stats to be differentiable, and few enough that you can play 20 ships a side.
> 
> Starmada - Another oldie, comprehensive and well-play tested combat and ship construction rules. Ships are tough and slowly get crippled as combat wears on.
> 
> Also, Generic Space Combat 2 here:
> Generic Space Combat 2
> 
> These are mostly minatures-based combat systems, but there's lots of good ideas between them.  And _SPACE FIGHT_! has  been mentioned on Starship Combat News.
> 
> Downloaded your game too to give it a read-through. Hope you find some of this useful!




Yup, I have 'em all, and many more besides!


----------



## Iron Sky

I read your whole document and I'm really damn impressed.

I've probably read a dozen different space-combat rule-sets and written almost as many of my own attempting to capture different themes (or getting distracted by sudden inspiration for a different core combat/movement/ship design mechanic).  Yours is one of the simplest, mechanically, I've seen, yet I can see it capturing the feel of just about every system you have example ships for.

The power-based ships allows a ton of flexibility (reminds me of making monsters in 4e DnD).  It did make me wonder if you created some ship-creation guidelines that you used to create (and ensure balance of) the ships or did you start by creating some examples and then figure you'd tweak them later?


One the Anal-Retentive, balance-obsessed problems I have with my own systems is needing concrete rules for ship creation before I make any ships (usually resulting in me spending so much time balance-testing every little ship system and re-writing chunks of rules that I never get any ships built to playtest and burn out or jump to the next project - but that's a different story).  If you can just make ships and not worry about it, I envy you.   

That said, will there be some form of "point value" or the like on each ship?  Just looking at, say, the Star Destroyer and the Borg Cube, both Huge ships, I can't see the Star Destroyer having much of a chance against the Borg (though maybe I'm underestimating the damage output of all those TIE Fighters).  I don't know if such a comparison is valid, but it's the sort of stuff I obsess (and burn out) over.


The system also has the (potentially huge) advantage of being "d20 compatible, so anyone using a modern/scifi d20 game could jump right in.  I wouldn't imagine it would take a tremendous amount of work to create or house-rule some hero-skill-to-ship-effectiveness rules, to let the heroes personal abilities to influence the battle.


There were a few minor points technical issues and/or questions I had:

Fire arcs and hexes always kinda confounds me when testing systems.  I tend to lean towards making the side arcs "double width" because I like the image of massive capital ships broadsiding and that's one way of mechanically supporting the feasibility of that.


How big a grid is this designed to be played on?  You said "four times the size we used", but roughly what are the dimensions in hexes?  

In looking at the explosion size of the larger ships, you'd need a considerably sized grid just to avoid being in the explosion of one of those, much less the (likely rare) situation of a couple of them going off in the same round.  Unless you have a relatively massive battlemap in mind, a reduction in the explosion size (or effect) might be in order.

The potential speeds of smaller ships after a couple rounds of accelleration point to a fairly sizable map as well, and potentially a considerable amount of time spent moving each little ship its 10-20(-30?) hexes, figuring out when it can turn, etc.  Sounds like it wasn't an issue in your playtest, so maybe I'm over-analyzing.  

If you're going for pure cinematics and playability, I'd say set speeds are the way to go, maybe with an "Advanced Rules" section on the back for slighty more realistic movement.  I've found in a Sky Full of Ships campaign I ran with my buddies over the internet, sometimes the semi-realistic movement detracted from the game more than it added...


Shields - It mentions in the initial definition of shields that they must be lowered for certain things, then lists two things in the "for example" area.  It would be good to have a definitive list of "shield-negating" actions or to specify cleary in powers that shields cannot be activated in the same turn as a power.


What happens when a ship is captured?


I'm assuming the hero rules aren't entirely fleshed out yet since it's still in "beta."


The Star Destroyer has "AC" listed for its specifically-targetable areas.  I really like the Star Destroyer's "footprint".  Having it actually take up all those squares must make the scale differences dramatic and cool.  Also, the color-coded specifically-targetable systems it neat.  I started to tinker with a system that had no hitpoint/hull/structure points and instead had an array of external equipment (turrets, shield generators, armor plates, engines, missile systems, etc) that had to be blown through before you could target "internal systems" and have a chance of blowing the ship up.  It ended up being far too complicated though(see attached image of a blank ship-sheet to get an idea of the complexity...) 

Tractor Beam rules?


It would be useful to put a ship's boarding/marine effectiveness next to any "power" that allows a ship to board another.  For example, the various Star Trek transporters.  What does "capacity 6" mean rule-wise? 


The Viper's "turbo" ability seems like it would be a pain-in-the-butt to keep track of when you have a couple dozen of those things flying around, even if they are in squadron.  It instantly made me think of the last 4e game I ran where some Leaders cast a buff that affected a handful of minions - keeping track of which ones were buffed and which ones weren't was a pain and the "turbo" power requires, essentially, 3 tokens per Viper.  What happens if you have a squadron of Vipers and each has used different number of turbo "charges"?  I think could be worth allowing without any restrictions - it does take the Viper's _only _action point to do it...


Didn't most of the Federation Class ships have rear torpedo launchers too?


Unless "cloak" will be defined somewhere, the Shadow Battlecrab's cloak technically allows it to be attacked while cloaked yet it can't fire back.  The Klingon Bird of Prey was much more concise on this issue.  Also, it's Absorbing Skin says it absorbs "energy weapons".  It might be useful to add keywords or the like to powers to help adjucate powers like this.


The White Star's Interceptors - Is that 11 or more on the missiles roll or on a separate roll you make for the interceptors?

---

That's it for technical things, hope you don't mind the long (and potentially nitpicky) post.  This is all constructive criticism - I really think you have the foundations of a killer system here.  I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.


I envy your in that you have (presumably willing) playtesters!  I used up all my "playtest tickets" with my gaming group and so I end up running solo-simulations with myself to test my games.  My friends love RPGs, but none of them revels in playing (and even less playtesting my homebrew) space-combat games the way I do.  Maybe I can get them to try out yours though since it's "semi-official" - IE, not made by me.

Nothing like a good playtest with some buddies to find the fun!

Keep up the good work!


----------



## Morrus

Iron Sky said:


> I read your whole document and I'm really damn impressed.




Thanks!  It's a long way from done (I'm waiting for art at the moment).



> The power-based ships allows a ton of flexibility (reminds me of making monsters in 4e DnD). It did make me wonder if you created some ship-creation guidelines that you used to create (and ensure balance of) the ships or did you start by creating some examples and then figure you'd tweak them later?




I used "iconic" ships from the things I wanted to be able to simulate.  They won't feature in the final game, obviously - but analogs of them will.



> That said, will there be some form of "point value" or the like on each ship? Just looking at, say, the Star Destroyer and the Borg Cube, both Huge ships, I can't see the Star Destroyer having much of a chance against the Borg (though maybe I'm underestimating the damage output of all those TIE Fighters). I don't know if such a comparison is valid, but it's the sort of stuff I obsess (and burn out) over.




It's a tricky issue.  Basically, a ship's relative power cna only really be determined by extensive playtesting (the biggest weakness of an exception based system, where anything goes).  George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry weren't using a universal TV point-buy handbook when they designed their ships; the just decided "this would be cool" and did it.

So designing a ship means deciding what you want it to do, designing the stat block for it, and playtesting it as much as possible.  It means we can't have a ship construction manual or anything, unfortunately.  



> Fire arcs and hexes always kinda confounds me when testing systems. I tend to lean towards making the side arcs "double width" because I like the image of massive capital ships broadsiding and that's one way of mechanically supporting the feasibility of that.




What do you mean by double width?

I certainly agree that broadsides are a visual which the system should be able to emulate.  Again, the exception based system allows for that: just design a ship with broadside attacks.



> How big a grid is this designed to be played on? You said "four times the size we used", but roughly what are the dimensions in hexes?




Off the top of my head I can't recall the hexes per sheet, but four poster sized maps (or a dining room table).



> In looking at the explosion size of the larger ships, you'd need a considerably sized grid just to avoid being in the explosion of one of those, much less the (likely rare) situation of a couple of them going off in the same round. Unless you have a relatively massive battlemap in mind, a reduction in the explosion size (or effect) might be in order.




It didn't really prove to be an issue in the game we played - and that was a much smaller area than intended.  But it's something I'll be keeping an eye on during playtests.



> The potential speeds of smaller ships after a couple rounds of accelleration point to a fairly sizable map as well, and potentially a considerable amount of time spent moving each little ship its 10-20(-30?) hexes, figuring out when it can turn, etc. Sounds like it wasn't an issue in your playtest, so maybe I'm over-analyzing.




They accelerated to around 12-15 in the playtest in order to keep their turning circles within reason.  They could go to 30, but I don't imagine that'll happen often, unless we design a ship with some very tight turning maneuvers at speed.



> Shields - It mentions in the initial definition of shields that they must be lowered for certain things, then lists two things in the "for example" area. It would be good to have a definitive list of "shield-negating" actions or to specify cleary in powers that shields cannot be activated in the same turn as a power.




Yup.  It would be defined in the stat block.  



> What happens when a ship is captured?




I haven't fully decided.  At the moment I like the idea of the player in question handing his stat card over to the player who captured his ship.  The ship, however, is at crippled status due to a skeleton crew consisting of a boarding party.  that player could then attempt "repairs" by adding more crew. 



> I'm assuming the hero rules aren't entirely fleshed out yet since it's still in "beta."




Not even close to.  That section really is nothing more than some notes I jotted down one night.



> The Star Destroyer has "AC" listed for its specifically-targetable areas. I really like the Star Destroyer's "footprint". Having it actually take up all those squares must make the scale differences dramatic and cool. Also, the color-coded specifically-targetable systems it neat. I started to tinker with a system that had no hitpoint/hull/structure points and instead had an array of external equipment (turrets, shield generators, armor plates, engines, missile systems, etc) that had to be blown through before you could target "internal systems" and have a chance of blowing the ship up. It ended up being far too complicated though(see attached image of a blank ship-sheet to get an idea of the complexity...)




Yeah, I've seen game designs like that.  Again, no reason it can't be done on a case-by-case basis.  You just note in a targetted system's stat entry that it can't be targetted until something else has been destroyed before it.



> Tractor Beam rules?




Coming. 



> It would be useful to put a ship's boarding/marine effectiveness next to any "power" that allows a ship to board another. For example, the various Star Trek transporters. What does "capacity 6" mean rule-wise?




It means 6 men can be transported per round. The stat block ebtry should (when finished) define the capablity of that boarding party.



> The Viper's "turbo" ability seems like it would be a pain-in-the-butt to keep track of when you have a couple dozen of those things flying around, even if they are in squadron. It instantly made me think of the last 4e game I ran where some Leaders cast a buff that affected a handful of minions - keeping track of which ones were buffed and which ones weren't was a pain and the "turbo" power requires, essentially, 3 tokens per Viper. What happens if you have a squadron of Vipers and each has used different number of turbo "charges"? I think could be worth allowing without any restrictions - it does take the Viper's _only _action point to do it...




Well, if some members of a squadron change to a different speed to the rest, they've effectively split into two squadrons.  A squadron has a single set of actions - you don't control the individual ships.



> Didn't most of the Federation Class ships have rear torpedo launchers too?




Possibly.  That's just a ship design thing though.  They're really just rough examples: the biggest challenge is going to be the bit where we go through and carefully design each ship.  Right now, we just need something useable in there for playtesting.



> The White Star's Interceptors - Is that 11 or more on the missiles roll or on a separate roll you make for the interceptors?




Each missile coming in rolls 1d20 and explodes on 11 or more.  That's separate to its to-hit roll.



> That's it for technical things, hope you don't mind the long (and potentially nitpicky) post. This is all constructive criticism - I really think you have the foundations of a killer system here. I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes.




Thanks!  It's really useful!


----------



## Iron Sky

> It's a tricky issue. Basically, a ship's relative power cna only really be determined by extensive playtesting (the biggest weakness of an exception based system, where anything goes). George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry weren't using a universal TV point-buy handbook when they designed their ships; the just decided "this would be cool" and did it.
> 
> So designing a ship means deciding what you want it to do, designing the stat block for it, and playtesting it as much as possible. It means we can't have a ship construction manual or anything, unfortunately.




I've noticed the balance difficulties in my 4e game since I'm making all custom monsters.  I created my own custom "point-buy" system for making them and simplified a few things, but each power is its own rule...

I guess that's also the advantage of exception-based design: you're never limited by the rules when you have a cool idea of what a ship should do.



> What do you mean by double width?




I mean that front is the arc going through the hex directly in front of the ship, back is the hex behind, and starboard and port are the two hexes to the right and two hexes to the left.

That, of course, only works when a ship is a single hex in size.  I could see difficulties figuring out the firing arcs of a 20-hex Star Destroyer...  

Maybe have a green lines on the outer-most hex intersections on each ship to delineate where each ship's arcs are split?




> Well, if some members of a squadron change to a different speed to the rest, they've effectively split into two squadrons. A squadron has a single set of actions - you don't control the individual ships.




Well, here's a scenario:

Viper squadrons A and B started out with 10 ships each.  Each lost 5 in a couple passes of a Battlestar, so they move together and want to merge into a single squadron.  Squadron A has used 2 charges of its turbo, B hasn't used any.  How many does the new squadron C that's left when they've merged have?

I am of the opinion that the smaller the ship (and thus, the more of them you are likely to have), the less limited-use powers they should have, for the same reason that most minions in 4e have 1 or maybe 2 powers and Solos have 4-10.  You are, of course, perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion on the matter. 




> I haven't fully decided. At the moment I like the idea of the player in question handing his stat card over to the player who captured his ship. The ship, however, is at crippled status due to a skeleton crew consisting of a boarding party. that player could then attempt "repairs" by adding more crew.




That sounds pretty solid on its own.  Personally, I think taking out another player's ship without killing it outright AND getting another ship in your fleet (or at least another target to distract the enemy) is enough, with out complicating things by trying to restore the ship to maximum functionality.



A simple rule for tractor beams would be: make an attack roll against the target ship.  If it hits, it drags the target ship a number of hexes equal to the difference between their two sizes (or d4 or some other die amount if you don't want people to have to take the time to bust out the scale chart).

Glad I spotted this thread, got the creative juice flowing for the latest ruleset I'm working on!


----------



## Morrus

The counter art is starting to come in! And it's looking pretty darn nifty! Credit goes to Claudio Pozas. More to come!


----------



## Morrus

The _SPACE FIGHT!_ PDF has been updated for those keeping track.  Also, the counters are finally done!


----------



## Morrus

Here's a neat little idea I had.  Obviously, these will need new art comissioned - I just used the photos to give an idea of what I'm aiming for.  And the actual Hero rules aren't fully set yet.


----------



## Morrus

More updates and art, folks1  Check out the web page!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Still like it. 

Are you contemplating on anything like "battle value" or "combat points" so that people can build their own fleets with equal point values? 

Oh, and I have actually started working on a "MechFight!" game, inspired by you.


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Still like it.
> 
> Are you contemplating on anything like "battle value" or "combat points" so that people can build their own fleets with equal point values?




Kinda.  Basiically, every ship needs exhaustive playtesting to figure out what its relative power actually is, and then probably be assigned a score of some kind.



> Oh, and I have actually started working on a "MechFight!" game, inspired by you.




Cool!

I've already been thinking of ideas for "GROUND ATTACK!", which will be the sequel and completely compatible.  So you can have Mechs vs. AT-ATS while being bombed by TIE Bombers....

Some way off, though.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> Kinda.  Basiically, every ship needs exhaustive playtesting to figure out what its relative power actually is, and then probably be assigned a score of some kind.



I suspected something like that. In my Mech idea, I am trying to create some "ground rules" that might make this easier. You know, more guidelines on suggested damage, number of attacks, hit points and such things. 
But I am not there yet.



> Cool!
> 
> I've already been thinking of ideas for "GROUND ATTACK!", which will be the sequel and completely compatible.  So you can have Mechs vs. AT-ATS while being bombed by TIE Bombers....
> 
> Some way off, though.




As you mentioned on CM, I think - most you need is probably some addendum for the movement rules to support "ground vehicle physics" or some such. And probably now you want something to indicate "height". (It's a kind of irony that while in space, you use 2D, and while on the ground, you want 3D.  )


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I suspected something like that. In my Mech idea, I am trying to create some "ground rules" that might make this easier. You know, more guidelines on suggested damage, number of attacks, hit points and such things.
> But I am not there yet.




I started off doing that, but it just didn't work.  The reason is that the design goal is to simulate the ships on TV/movies, and Lucas, Roddenberry, et al. did not all use a universal manual to balance their spaceships.  They just decided "I want this ship to do that" and so it could.

The way I'm approaching it is this: design the ship first.  Make it do whatever it is you want it to do.   Then playtest it a LOT.  FIgure out how powerful it is in relation to other ships, making sure you use all of its abilities and stuff.  Then assign it a value which represents that.

It's so hard to come up with values on what a particular ability is worth.  is being able to use transporters better or worse than being able to execute a specific emergency evasive maneuver?  Is being able to launch a Raptor which is able to use an EMP pulse better or worse than the Borg's boarding partie sbeing able to assimilate enemy Heroes?   



> As you mentioned on CM, I think - most you need is probably some addendum for the movement rules to support "ground vehicle physics" or some such. And probably now you want something to indicate "height". (It's a kind of irony that while in space, you use 2D, and while on the ground, you want 3D.  )




Yeah, ground vehicles will need different movement rules.  I don't antiticpate that being difficult, though.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

> I started off doing that, but it just didn't work. The reason is that the design goal is to simulate the ships on TV/movies, and Lucas, Roddenberry, et al. did not all use a universal manual to balance their spaceships. They just decided "I want this ship to do that" and so it could.



Luckily, I don't plan on "simulate" any existing Mecha properties (so in that regard, the goals and systems are very different and will lead to different opportunities and constraints)



> It's so hard to come up with values on what a particular ability is worth. is being able to use transporters better or worse than being able to execute a specific emergency evasive maneuver? Is being able to launch a Raptor which is able to use an EMP pulse better or worse than the Borg's boarding partie sbeing able to assimilate enemy Heroes?



Reminds me of something... Is it better or worse to immobilize a foe or to daze him?


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Still happy with the movement rules?  I know before you said it was a little like being back in school, but it's becoming second-nature by now, right?

Anyway, looks great!  Can't wait to give this a try....


----------



## Morrus

Flatus Maximus said:


> Still happy with the movement rules? I know before you said it was a little like being back in school, but it's becoming second-nature by now, right?




Well, they're easier now that turns are free.  The current movement rules are easy as pie!


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Morrus said:


> Well, they're easier now that turns are free. The current movement rules are easy as pie!




Excellent!  I'm glad (and not surprised) to see that you dropped the cost-to-turn bit.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

So, how are things coming along, Morrus? Developing in secret or having a small hiatus due to wedding plannings or other real-life stuff?


----------



## TerraDave

So this is like the board game version of VGA Planets?








I wonder why no one has said that yet?


----------



## Morrus

TerraDave said:


> So this is like the board game version of VGA Planets?
> 
> I wonder why no one has said that yet?




Well, for my part because I've never heard of it!

In other news, some brand new art from Claudio Pozas arrived today!  This is the art for the Hero cards (Bold Captain, Bounty Hunter, Indomitable Leader, Legendary Engineer, Plucky Pilot, Saboteur, Science Genius, Seasoned Admiral, Spy, and Squadron Leader).


----------



## TerraDave

VGA Planets was (or I guess is) a turn based empire building game were you played the rebelion, empire, federation, colonials, cyborgs, etc.

Didn't have these cool cards though.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Skrupel is a web strategy game with a similar concept.
Portal - Skrupel


----------



## Morrus

A new page of counters - asteroids, explosions, mines, and laser towers.

More art pieces coming!


----------



## Morrus

And here are the preliminary concept trials for the Hero Cards. These are just concept trials, though - colours etc. may change. Plus faction availability symbols will appear on there somewhere at some point.

Couple of variations here.


----------



## Morrus

I've redesigned the SPACE FIGHT! web page.

Also, the Hero art is now also on counters which can be placed on top of the ship counter currently carrying that Hero.


----------



## Morrus

Document has been updated.


----------



## Morrus

New art just in from Claudio Pozas.

Coming soon - two more art pieces, plus faction logos/emblems.


----------



## Morrus

Document updated again with a starting scenario.  To add to that: a starscape diagram of starting positions and a tactics section.

So, updates coming next will be:

1) 2 x new art pieces
2) New faction logos
3) Diagram and tactics section on the starting scenario


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> And here are the preliminary concept trials for the Hero Cards. These are just concept trials, though - colours etc. may change. Plus faction availability symbols will appear on there somewhere at some point.
> 
> Couple of variations here.



I think the colors will require more work indeed. I have no real idea how it should look in the end, but I think currently it's all a little to... colorful, and unfortunately combinations of colors. I think the same about the stat blocks for ships. 

Otherwise though: Awesome work.


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think the colors will require more work indeed. I have no real idea how it should look in the end, but I think currently it's all a little to... colorful, and unfortunately combinations of colors. I think the same about the stat blocks for ships.




I think things like colours are so far down the list of priorities that I couldn't even see them if I borrowed the Hubble Telescope!  When it's done, a proper layout person will do it, not me and Open Office! 

Any thoughts on some of the changes?


----------



## Morrus

The Fantastic Mr. Pozas has sent in the latest art piece!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> I think things like colours are so far down the list of priorities that I couldn't even see them if I borrowed the Hubble Telescope!  When it's done, a proper layout person will do it, not me and Open Office!
> 
> Any thoughts on some of the changes?



Haven't had time to read them in detail yet.

Though a few things that a quick read-through didn't make clear to me or at least seemed inconsistent:
I believe one hero (spy?) has the ability to reveal heros. In another point you say heroes must be placed on the vehicle they are on. Did I read this correctly? 

The heroes seem to have very differerent power levels, some granting always +4 bonuses, others just revealing information or having a limited chance to affect a ship once.

What are the cool uber-features of Shadows/Machines that they have so few heroes? Do you just expect them to have very powerful craft and Heroes exist to compensate for that?

I suposse a "Assimilate Hero" ability might be in order for the Borg-equivalent. (Destroying a squadron or ship with an hero aboard assimilates him?). 
Should there be a Psion/Telepath hero? (The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father  ).


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Haven't had time to read them in detail yet.
> 
> Though a few things that a quick read-through didn't make clear to me or at least seemed inconsistent:
> I believe one hero (spy?) has the ability to reveal heros. In another point you say heroes must be placed on the vehicle they are on. Did I read this correctly?




I don't think you're looking at the latest version. In the present iteration, the Spy can assasinate.



> The heroes seem to have very differerent power levels, some granting always +4 bonuses, others just revealing information or having a limited chance to affect a ship once.




Oh yes. Not all Heroes are equal, just like not all ships are equal. Some of them are better to have than others. Although they've all been severly rewritten in the current version (they get their own initiative now and take actions just like a ship does). Plus they can level up.



> What are the cool uber-features of Shadows/Machines that they have so few heroes? Do you just expect them to have very powerful craft and Heroes exist to compensate for that?




It's a flavour thing. These guys rely more on technology than individuals. The game's purpose is to reflect the factions it is representing; the Shadows or the Borg, for example, never had plucky pilots, bold captains, and the like. 

Balancing out sides for fair battles is going to be a challenge, but it's one of the initial design concepts I am determined to retain - no arbitrary standardising balancing factor which takes away the exception-based flavour. It'll be fine for published scenarios, as the designer will be expected to design a balanced scenario, but at some point I am going to need to work out how to make it easy for players to do so, too.



> I suposse a "Assimilate Hero" ability might be in order for the Borg-equivalent. (Destroying a squadron or ship with an hero aboard assimilates him?).




There's already one. At least, I think I put it in there under the Hive ship (its boarding parties can do that). Transfers the Hero to the Hive player's countrol.



> Should there be a Psion/Telepath hero? (The Corps is Mother, the Corps is Father  ).




Absolutely (also think Deanna Troi). I have a half-dozen more Heroes in mind, although I intend to save them for an expansion. For example: Medical Marvel (a doctor who can restore a dead Hero back into play), Red Shirt (can take the place of another Hero's demise), etc.


----------



## Alex319

I've read through the rules and it seems like there are a few things that need clearing up:

1 - Where are the breakpoints for things that happen "per round"? For example, an aura damages all the ships in it once "per round" - when in the round does that happen? And shields protect against a certain amount of damage "per round" - when is the beginning and the end of the round in that case? Probably the easiest thing to do for shields is to make a round be from the shielded ship's turn to the next ship's turn. That way shields basically work like temporary HP in D+D, and whenever the player activates their shields they set their "temp HP" to the shield level.

In general I would suggest rewording everything that requires you to spend APs "each round" to just be spend the APs to get an effect that lasts until the start of the ship's next turn. That way there is no confusion.

2 - Am I correct to assume that you can only activate each ship system once per turn?

3 - Can two or more ships occupy the same hex? If they end up in the same hex (say because a ship gets crippled and can't thrust, and its speed moves it into the same hex as another ship) what happens?

4 - I don't see much reason for ships to form up into squadrons. It seems like it makes them strictly less powerful offensively - if they each fire individually they can do their full damage per shot (usually around 1d4 per fighter) while if they are squadroned they will do at most 1 damage per fighter per shot. Just about the only reason to squadron up would be to protect against auras and other AoEs (because they would only get hit once).

5 - You say that in a boarding action, a ship is captured once "one force" is defeated. I assume you mean the ship is captured when the "defending force" is defeated.

6 -  What's an "area burst"?

7 - If the Bold Captain moves from ship to ship, does that affect the initiative order? (This also applies to if the Seasoned Admiral is killed or switches sides.)

8 - Is it possible to heal defending forces during or after boarding actions?

9 - What does "capacity 6" mean on transporters?

10 - Does the Saboteur have to be on the ship it is sabotaging?

11 - When it says ships can defend with "combat forces detailed in its stat block" that means forces that are listed as forces that it can send to board other ships with, right? (I can't find any examples of other combat forces that are listed in stat blocks.)

12 - As written the laser tower will never be able to use its repair ability, because as soon as it gets knocked down to 2 or less hit points it will be at zero AP (because 25% less than 1 is 0.75, rounded down is 0). This is probably also an issue with other craft that have 1 AP - probably you want to say that the number of AP per turn can never be less than 1.

13 - What's a "Raptor" (Colonial Battleship power)?

14 - The Colonial Support Vessel's "8 marines" - are the stats per marine? Same question for the Spartan Scout's boarders.

15 - If a ship's shields have been activated this round, but all its damage absorption has been used up, does it still count as "shielded" for the purpose of effects such as the Alliance Warship's Neutron weapon?

16 - How do you know whether a weapon is an "energy weapon" for purposes of the Shadow Battle Spider's ability?

17 - Can a ship with a boarding power send boarding forces over to a friendly ship to help that friendly ship fight off enemy boarders? (In general what happens if there are more than two groups of forces on one ship - I assume each group decides which other group to attack.)


----------



## Alex319

Oh, and a couple more things I noticed after I wrote the above post:

1. What do tractor beams do? There are several ships that have them, but no rules for them.

2. When a ship is captured by boarders, it says it operates as if it's crippled but can be repaired as normal. Does the ship's hit point total actually get reduced after it is captured? If so to where (the top of the crippled range? the middle?) If not, this must mean that the "damage track" state is no longer directly tied to the hit point total, so how does the repairing work to move it up the damage track?


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> 1 - Where are the breakpoints for things that happen "per round"? For example, an aura damages all the ships in it once "per round" - when in the round does that happen? And shields protect against a certain amount of damage "per round" - when is the beginning and the end of the round in that case? Probably the easiest thing to do for shields is to make a round be from the shielded ship's turn to the next ship's turn. That way shields basically work like temporary HP in D+D, and whenever the player activates their shields they set their "temp HP" to the shield level.




Correct. One thing I need to do is really standardise the terminology (also, some terms like "AC" or "Aura" won't stay).



> 2 - Am I correct to assume that you can only activate each ship system once per turn?




Yep! I'm glad you spotted that; sometimes I'm so familiar with it that things seem obvious to me when in fact they haven't actually been explicity said.



> 3 - Can two or more ships occupy the same hex? If they end up in the same hex (say because a ship gets crippled and can't thrust, and its speed moves it into the same hex as another ship) what happens?




They can. One of the design goals was so that I could have fighters racing along the hulls of battleships. A ship entering another's hex is either above or below it.



> 4 - I don't see much reason for ships to form up into squadrons. It seems like it makes them strictly less powerful offensively - if they each fire individually they can do their full damage per shot (usually around 1d4 per fighter) while if they are squadroned they will do at most 1 damage per fighter per shot. Just about the only reason to squadron up would be to protect against auras and other AoEs (because they would only get hit once).




You've hit on the area I'm least happy with and which I've been struggling with since the start. Needless to say, the squadron rules need a serious overhaul.

The design goal there is simply one of simplicity. I want to allow large battleships to deploy fighters numbering up to 80 or so in some cases, and it's just not feasible to expect players to track each one, or for each round to last 80+ turns. The squadron concept is intended to make that manageable. But it's not in a good state right now, as you've correctly surmised.



> 5 - You say that in a boarding action, a ship is captured once "one force" is defeated. I assume you mean the ship is captured when the "defending force" is defeated.




Yep! Well spotted.



> 6 - What's an "area burst"?




Not in use yet, but will refer to large-yield weapons. Nukes and so forth will use the rule. It'll be a burst 1,2 or 3 area which the weapon damages. I haven't yet designed any weapons which use it yet, though I will!



> 7 - If the Bold Captain moves from ship to ship, does that affect the initiative order? (This also applies to if the Seasoned Admiral is killed or switches sides.)




I hadn't intended it to; that should probably read "at the start of the battle".



> 8 - Is it possible to heal defending forces during or after boarding actions?




Yes, but that hasn't been written yet. Basically, a sick bay's repair rating will be able to be applied to a combat force aboard that ship. Also, a future Hero (the Medical Marvel) will be able to affect this.



> 9 - What does "capacity 6" mean on transporters?




It defines how many people the transporter can transport.



> 10 - Does the Saboteur have to be on the ship it is sabotaging?




Yes. Heroes have to be on ships they affect or on the same ship as other Heroes they effect. I envisage something of a sub-game going on where Heroes are effectively battling each other, and the movement of Heroes will be a factor in that. 



> 11 - When it says ships can defend with "combat forces detailed in its stat block" that means forces that are listed as forces that it can send to board other ships with, right? (I can't find any examples of other combat forces that are listed in stat blocks.)




That's right, yep. Otherwise it has a standard (not as effective) security force defined by its size.



> 12 - As written the laser tower will never be able to use its repair ability, because as soon as it gets knocked down to 2 or less hit points it will be at zero AP (because 25% less than 1 is 0.75, rounded down is 0). This is probably also an issue with other craft that have 1 AP - probably you want to say that the number of AP per turn can never be less than 1.




Good catch!



> 13 - What's a "Raptor" (Colonial Battleship power)?




It's a Colonial Support Vessel. I had them called "Raptors" previously (based on the BSG ships), and must have missed that reference.



> 14 - The Colonial Support Vessel's "8 marines" - are the stats per marine? Same question for the Spartan Scout's boarders.




Nope, that's the entire force. It's not enough to worry a big battleship, but a small vessel won't want them charging aboard!  Bear in mind, though, that the stats there were pretty much thrown in; I haven't thought seriously about boarding party stats yet.



> 15 - If a ship's shields have been activated this round, but all its damage absorption has been used up, does it still count as "shielded" for the purpose of effects such as the Alliance Warship's Neutron weapon?




And for transporters and the like - good point. Yes, it does.



> 16 - How do you know whether a weapon is an "energy weapon" for purposes of the Shadow Battle Spider's ability?




At the moment, it's common sense, but weapons will eventually have categories. Basically it's any beam weapon - phaser, laser, blaster, disruptor, etc.



> 17 - Can a ship with a boarding power send boarding forces over to a friendly ship to help that friendly ship fight off enemy boarders? (In general what happens if there are more than two groups of forces on one ship - I assume each group decides which other group to attack.)




Absolutely!

Regarding the multiple forces - I actually updated the document about half an hour ago with that very detail! 



> 1. What do tractor beams do? There are several ships that have them, but no rules for them.




Not written yet. I'm not completely sure how I want to handle them. I think I'll be giving them a power level which negates thrust.



> 2. When a ship is captured by boarders, it says it operates as if it's crippled but can be repaired as normal. Does the ship's hit point total actually get reduced after it is captured? If so to where (the top of the crippled range? the middle?) If not, this must mean that the "damage track" state is no longer directly tied to the hit point total, so how does the repairing work to move it up the damage track?




I envisaged the actual HP total being reduced - the crew has been massacred, consoles blasted, and so on.


----------



## Morrus

The latest update (uploaded prior to the above post) contains a couple of new things. One is a brief section on faster-than-light drives. 

More importantly, in an appendix at the end, I've put a new concept design for the ship stat block/cards. I think it looks a lot cleaner than the old design.

It also contains an additional column, "Crit", which will deal with the to-be-written critical hit rules. In addition, systems are separated a little more to make it clearer what a Saboteur can actually sabotage.  Comments welcomed!


----------



## Morrus

Plus one more quick update which covers any typos mentioned above.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Hmm, is it possible to add a link to the download area from this news page: EN World D&D / RPG News: The world's premier fan community for Dungeons & Dragons news and more! ?


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Hmm, is it possible to add a link to the download area from this news page: EN World D&D / RPG News: The world's premier fan community for Dungeons & Dragons news and more! ?




There is one!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> There is one!



Ah, clearly a sideways-scrolling failure on my part. 

I suppose I might have found it at home where I do have a 16:9 monitor, but at work I "just" have two 4:3 monitors.

Might want to consider that, though. 4:3 ratio is still a little more common, and no one likes to scroll sideways...


----------



## Alex319

> 9 - What does "capacity 6" mean on transporters?                         It defines how many people the transporter can transport.



This part seems incomplete. The only time you're actually transporting individual people is with heroes, and it seems like you'll never even get close to needing to transport 6 heroes at a time. There's also transporting boarding parties, but boarding parties are just one entity in game terms and aren't composed of individual people, so transporting "6 people" wouldn't make any sense.

By the way, here's a suggestion. It seems to me (although I haven't played so I don't know for sure) that the boarding party mechanic has a couple problems:

1. It seems unnecessarily complicated. You have to keep track of two hit point totals - the "boarding defender" hit points and the ship's hit points. Which is strange because it says that the ship's hit point total partly represents "crew complement." And it's even more strange that damage to defenders doesn't hurt the ship at all until the last HP is taken off, unlike the ship's hit points. And it adds this extra attack step to every turn.

2. There's nothing a ship can do about boarding parties once they're on board. There's no way for a ship to divert resources to fighting off the boarding parties or even repair the damage they do. The only thing they can do is wait for another ship with a boarding ability to come rescue them, get an Indomitable Leader on board, or hope they roll well enough to kill them with their default defense.

Here's a possible suggestion:

1. There's no "defending force." Boarding parties do damage to the ship's HP every turn (like ongoing damage in D+D) until they are destroyed. (May need to rebalance damage values.)

2. Ships have systems (security droids, armory, etc.) that can be activated (using AP) to attack boarding parties.

3. If a boarding party reduces the target ship's HP to zero, it can choose to capture it instead of destroying it. The ship then has 1 HP and can be repaired by the new owners as normal.

What this does, essentially, is make the mechanics a little simpler and also give defending ships more options (do I want to spend lots of AP trying to fight off the boarding parties, or do I want to keep spending them on weapons and such and do as much damage as I can before I'm captured?)

---

Also, I had an idea about how to handle squadrons. Don't consider them as separate ships that can be formed into squadrons, just consider them as one unit which has a "squadron template" applied to indicate that it is really lots of ships. The squadron template gives the unit the following abilities:

- Only damaged 1 point by any effect other than auras and AoEs.
- Weapons not limited to one activation per turn (only limited by number of APs). This represents that there are lots of copies of the weapons (one on each ship).
- Does not suffer damage track effects other than AP loss.

For example a squadron of 12 Rebel Fighters might look something like this:

*Rebel Fighter Squadron
HP 12, AP 4, Thrust 8, Agility 5, Size Tiny(15)

Weapons (1 AP each):
Quad-Linked Laser Cannons (+2 to hit, 1d6 damage, range 4)
Dual Proton Torpedo Launchers (-2 to hit, 2d6 damage, range 5)

Repair (1 AP):
Astromech Droid (Repair Rating 1)

*Now each HP represents one "ship", but it's all one unit. When the squadron is at full strength it will be able to make 4 attacks per round divided up however it wants between laser cannons and torpedos. (Each ship only has one of each weapon, but there are lots of ships, so they can make lots of attacks.) Once it's down to, say, 2 hit points, now it's "crippled" - but really that means there are 2 ships left, so since there are fewer ships they can make fewer attacks (hence the lower AP) but they can still use all their systems.
*
---

*Oh, and by the way: the Plucky Pilot and Seasoned Admiral's "free turn" powers - does "turn" mean "rotation", or does "turn" mean a whole ship's turn?

---

Also I'm a little confused - pages 7-8 talk about being careful not to collide with anything - but you've said you can't collide with other ships unless you intentionally ram them. So what can you collide with and how do those collisions work?


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> This part seems incomplete. The only time you're actually transporting individual people is with heroes, and it seems like you'll never even get close to needing to transport 6 heroes at a time. There's also transporting boarding parties, but boarding parties are just one entity in game terms and aren't composed of individual people, so transporting "6 people" wouldn't make any sense.




Boarding parties still have a man-count. For example, the Colonial Supoprt Vessel can only carry 8 people. You couldn't stick a 20-person boarding party on there, only an 8-or-less boarding party. 

For example, a Federation Cruiser is boarded via an Imperial Assault Craft, which contains 12 Imperial Soldiers and a Dark Lord.  If control of the Federation Cruiser is achieved, the Imperials can use the Federation Cruiser's transporters.  However, it can't transport all 12 soldiers with a capacity 6 transporter.

I'm not completely sold on making that important, of course.  I may just standardise it to "a boarding party" and not worry about the actual numbers except as fluff text.



> 1. There's no "defending force." Boarding parties do damage to the ship's HP every turn (like ongoing damage in D+D) until they are destroyed. (May need to rebalance damage values.)




Hmmm. I'm not convinced on that one! 



> 2. Ships have systems (security droids, armory, etc.) that can be activated (using AP) to attack boarding parties.




Now that I like!



> What this does, essentially, is make the mechanics a little simpler and also give defending ships more options (do I want to spend lots of AP trying to fight off the boarding parties, or do I want to keep spending them on weapons and such and do as much damage as I can before I'm captured?)




I like the decision-making process that the target ship would find itself in. I'll definitely try to incorporate APs into shipboard defence in some way!



> Also, I had an idea about how to handle squadrons. Don't consider them as separate ships that can be formed into squadrons, just consider them as one unit which has a "squadron template" applied to indicate that it is really lots of ships. The squadron template gives the unit the following abilities:
> 
> - Only damaged 1 point by any effect other than auras and AoEs.
> - Weapons not limited to one activation per turn (only limited by number of APs). This represents that there are lots of copies of the weapons (one on each ship).
> - Does not suffer damage track effects other than AP loss.
> 
> For example a squadron of 12 Rebel Fighters might look something like this:
> 
> *Rebel Fighter Squadron*
> *HP 12, AP 4, Thrust 8, Agility 5, Size Tiny(15)*
> 
> *Weapons (1 AP each):*
> *Quad-Linked Laser Cannons (+2 to hit, 1d6 damage, range 4)*
> *Dual Proton Torpedo Launchers (-2 to hit, 2d6 damage, range 5)*
> 
> *Repair (1 AP):*
> *Astromech Droid (Repair Rating 1)*
> 
> Now each HP represents one "ship", but it's all one unit. When the squadron is at full strength it will be able to make 4 attacks per round divided up however it wants between laser cannons and torpedos. (Each ship only has one of each weapon, but there are lots of ships, so they can make lots of attacks.) Once it's down to, say, 2 hit points, now it's "crippled" - but really that means there are 2 ships left, so since there are fewer ships they can make fewer attacks (hence the lower AP) but they can still use all their systems.




That could work! Nice thinking!



> Oh, and by the way: the Plucky Pilot and Seasoned Admiral's "free turn" powers - does "turn" mean "rotation", or does "turn" mean a whole ship's turn?




It means a whole ship's turn, but that is too much. Instead, I've changed it to extra APs (the Admiral can give one ship of size Medium or larger an extra 1d4 APs that round).



> Also I'm a little confused - pages 7-8 talk about being careful not to collide with anything - but you've said you can't collide with other ships unless you intentionally ram them. So what can you collide with and how do those collisions work?




Asteroids, mainly.


----------



## Morrus

OK, I liked the Squadron idea so much that I've incorporated it with a small change. Instead of not limiting repeated use of a system in one round, I've simply given the squadron 12 copies of the system. This voids the need to have an extra exception in the rules, and allows the player to follow the rules as normal for AP expenditure.

New document has been uploaded, including the sample Colonial Fighter Squadron.

With this change, I think I'll make the Squadron Leader's ability to be that he grants his squadron extra Action Points.

It occurs to me that with this change a squadron should no longer be able to do full damage to another squadron, because we're now treating the shots individually instead of as a cumulative squadron damage. We don't want squadrons wiping out entire other squadrons with a single torpedo! It should also lose the Weapons Down status when it reaches Crippled on the damage track, since that doesn't make sense when applied to multiple ships._  [Edit - ah, yes - you mentioned that!]_


----------



## Morrus

Update uploading now - includes tractor beam rules, the new squadron rules, a couple more ships converted to the new stat card format.


----------



## Alex319

*Movement:

*When a multi-hex ship rotates, which hex does it pivot around?

Do you activate ship systems such as weapons etc. before, during, or after movement (or can you do it at any of those times)?

Do special movement abilities (such as Wingover) cost thrust points to use? Do they count toward "number of hexes moved" for the round (since you always move a number of hexes equal to your speed)?

*Shields:

*Do you have to spend AP each round to maintain shields, or do you just spend it once and they're up (and absorb damage each round)? The first one would make the most sense, otherwise everyone would just put their shields up at the beginning and keep them up (there's rarely times when you would prefer to have shields down).

*Bombers:
*
In the proton bomb example, what's the "range" of the bomb - i.e. what hexes can it target?

*Death of a Starship:

*The text mentions "the hex" that a ship is in, but many ships take up more than one hex. If this is the case then how does that work?

*Sensors:

*Do you have to spend AP each round to maintain the sensor lock? I assume not, because you can only activate sensors once per round and some sensors let you maintain simultaneous locks on multiple targets.

"Changing your sensor lock target requires an action point" - does it also require a to-hit roll? And is it only ONE action point, even if activating sensors normally requires more than one AP for that ship? Probably a more intuitive way to word this would be to say that when you activate sensors, you try to get a sensor lock on another target (which is in addition to the sensor locks you have now) and if that makes it so you're over your sensor lock capacity, then you have to lose a sensor lock of your choice.

Also is there any range limit on sensor locks? Can you get a sensor lock on anything on the board?

*Tractor Beams:

*Let me see if I understand how these work. Suppose an Imperial Destroyer (ID) is trying to tractor a Rebel Freighter (RF). Suppose the ID goes before the RF in initiative order.

1. (ID round 1) The ID activates tractor beams and targets RF. (Any to-hit roll required?) At this point RF has its speed reduced. (If it's reduced to negative, I assume he doesn't get tractored in just yet, because in the example he doesn't, and he can't spend thrust points to increase his speed to positive until his turn.)

2. (RF round 1) RF spends thrust to increase his speed. (It's only now that if his speed is negative, he gets tractored in.)

3. (ID round 2) ID continues tractoring this ship (Does he have to spend AP to activate tractor beams again? Does he have to make another attack roll, if any?)

4. (RF round 2) Let's say at the end of this round, the RF's speed is negative. This sets up the next question:

5. (ID round 3) Let's say the ID stops tractoring the RF. Is the RF's speed still negative or does it get reset to zero? If it's still negative...

6. (RF round 3) What happens if the RF's speed is still negative (from previous tractoring) even though it is no longer being tractored?

*Heroes:

*_Legendary Engineer:_ How many hit points does the LE's "free repair roll" give its ship?

_Science Genius:_ How does the "attack cloaked ships" power work? Does the attack happen on the SG's turn (and if so does that mean that the ship has to save AP from its previous turn in order to have AP to fire at this time)? Or does it happen on the ship's next turn?

_Spy:_ The "look at opponent's stat card" power should probably be changed. All the stat cards are in the back of the rulebook, so anyone who's read the rulebook will already know what all the stat cards are. Also there are other abilities (like the Saboteur's ability) that require the user to choose an entry on the opponent's stat card, which only makes sense if they already know the cards by default.

_Plucky Pilot: _Can the PP be part of a squadron? If so does he grant his squadron a free turn?

_Levels:_Do heroes that have a bonus that doesn't require a roll (like the Seasoned Admiral or Squadron Leader) benefit in any way from levels besides the + to initiative and the - to enemies affecting them?

*Ship Powers:

*_Colonial Support Vessel:_ Does the ECM ability get rid of sensor locks, or just suppress them temporarily? How soon after the ECM ability is used can you use sensors again?

_Imperial Destroyer:_ The tractor beam has a range but no listed strength rating. And wow it has a lot of hit points!

_Hive Cube:_ Is the assimilation ability in addition to, or instead of, the Drones' normal damage roll on a turn? And does the Shield Neutralizer require an attack roll?

_Shadow Battle Spider:_ Does the "Cloak" ability require APs each round to maintain? Does it require APs to decloak?

_Spartan Scout:_ I think the "it can be detected with a dedicated sensor sweep" part belongs under "cloak" and not "tractor beam". And why does this ship need special rules for detecting it with sensors, when there are already rules for detecting cloaked ships with sensors?

_Alliance Warship:_ I think you forgot to change the name from "Tinashi" to something else.

*Scenario: When Universes Collide*:

What are the rules for the asteroids in this scenario?


----------



## Morrus

Some of the answers to those questions are "to be determined" (rules which haven't yet been written, or which have been briefly intoruduced but not fully fleshed out).

Those which are of a clarification or typo nature - I've gone through the document and clarified those points. That covered nearly all of them, fortunately - easy clarifications. 

This is an excellent example of why extra sets of eyes are important. Many of the questions seemed really obvious to me, but I have to remember that you're not inside my head and don't know what my intentions were unless I specifically write them down! 

I think the document is about half done at this point. Lots to add and areas to expand. The basic structure is there, and I think it's a basically playable game in the form it is, although continued playtesting will result in tweaks and changes.



> When a multi-hex ship rotates, which hex does it pivot around?




That's a question I can't answer yet.  The answer is "whichever ends up being the least fiddly in play".  I'm trying different options.



> What are the rules for the asteroids in this scenario?




I hadn't written any asteroid rules at that point.  I've just quickly added some, although they aren't playtested and a little rough.


----------



## Alex319

There's a mistake in the new style stat card for the Imperial Assault Craft. It has 10 hit points but the damage track is for a 3 hit point ship.


----------



## Morrus

Fixed.

New document uploaded with drastically rewritten boarding/combat unit rules.


----------



## Morrus

Updated with minefields and asteroid fragments, plus new art.


----------



## Elephant

When are you planning to publish this, Morrus?


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> When are you planning to publish this, Morrus?




When it's done!  Technically, it's already published.

It's a new (to me) way of doing it I'm trying - develop in public, develop gradually, allow people to have the game at each stage of the process.  

At some point, when I think it's as good as it's going to be, I'll put out a POD softcover version and then move on to the supplements.


----------



## Morrus

New update today - targeting specific hit locations.

Opinion question: critical hits currrently do max damage (like in 4E).  I'm considering having them temporarily disable a ship system (save ends).  Any preferences on either?


----------



## Alex319

*Targeting Ship Systems:

*Do ship systems that have multiple copies (like the Colonial Battleship's "Launch Fighter Squadron", or many weapons) count as one system, or a separate system for each copy? Can you target "weapons" to disable all weapons, or do you disable one specific type of weapon (like a Federation Cruiser's phaser banks) or one weapon (like one of the phasers)?

If a system is disabled by being reduced to zero hit points, can it be repaired above zero by a repair roll? If so, does this un-disable the system?

*Boarding Actions:

*When in the round does boarding combat occur?

Do the Shadow Emissaries remain cloaked even after attacking? (In other words, can the Shadow Emissaries give up their first attack in order to cloak, and then in subsequent rounds attack while maintaining the benefit of the cloak?)

Can the Spartan Warriors wait to see if they hit before deciding to use their Rage ability?

*Heroes:

*Does the Indomitable Leader's ability to restore hit points to friendly combat units require a roll, as does his ability to damage enemy combat units?

The Plucky Pilot's ability still mentions "AC".

*Auras:

*When in the round does aura damage happen? Is it on the turn of the ship with the aura? Is it on the turn of the ship that is getting damaged? If a ship moves through the aura's AoE but doesn't end its turn there, does it take damage and if so when?

Do auras affect friendly ships? It's confusing because at first you say auras affect enemy ships, and then at the bottom (after the picture) you say friendly fighters take damage from the aura as well.

Do auras affect all enemy vessels in the AoE, or just fighters? Is the text on some auras (like the Colonial Battleship's) that say that they "target enemy fighters" just flavor text, or does it actually mean they only target enemy fighters? How small does a ship have to be before it is considered a "fighter" in this case?
*
Ships:*

Am I correct to assume that abilities with a "-" in the "Crit" column (like the Colonial Battleship's "Decentralized" ability) are innate abilities and cannot be disabled in the same way as other ship systems (e.g. the Saboteur)?

How does the Colonial Battleship's nuke's "burst" attack work? Is it like in D+D, where you pick a location (in this case a hex) to target and you make a separate attack roll against each target in the AoE? Or do you make one attack roll against one target, and if you hit then the nuke explodes and damages everyone in the AoE?

Does the Colonial Battleship's "Decentralized" ability protect against ECMs, or are ECM and EMP separate things? (I don't see any ship that has anything labeled as an EMP.)

The Colonial Support Vessel and Imperial Assault Craft have the "Boarding Party" ability but do not have any combat units to transfer over. Presumably you are supposed to move combat units from the ships that they launch from onto them so they can board the enemy ship. If so, it should say this in the description of the ships that they launch from. Also, is there a limit to how many combat units can fit on each of these ships?

The Imperial Destroyer's damage track is still the damage track for a 2000 hit point ship, even though its starting hit point total was changed to 600.

Does the Rebel Freighter's "Sensor Jammers" ability get rid of existing sensor locks, suppress them temporarily, or not affect them at all? (This ability probably needs a wording change similar to that of the Colonial Support Vessel's ECM ability.)

The Imperial Destroyer's "Tractor Beams" ability still lists alternate boarding party stats, even though this was based on the old boarding party system.

There is a typo in the description of the Colonial Support Vessel's "ECM" ability - "sued" should be "used".

If the Spartan Scout is cloaked, can it decloak to fire weapons, then reactivate its cloaking device on the same turn (assuming it has enough APs)? If so, then this would effectively eliminate the penalty of not being able to fire while cloaked, since it's only decloaked for part of its turn, when other ships won't be able to fire at it anyway.


----------



## Morrus

Some of these answers will be "not written yet - what would you prefer to see?"



Alex319 said:


> *Targeting Ship Systems:*
> 
> Do ship systems that have multiple copies (like the Colonial Battleship's "Launch Fighter Squadron", or many weapons) count as one system, or a separate system for each copy? Can you target "weapons" to disable all weapons, or do you disable one specific type of weapon (like a Federation Cruiser's phaser banks) or one weapon (like one of the phasers)?
> 
> If a system is disabled by being reduced to zero hit points, can it be repaired above zero by a repair roll? If so, does this un-disable the system?




Don't know yet!  Opinions welcomed!



> When in the round does boarding combat occur?




Haven't decided yet.  I'm leaning towards giving units initiative rolls too, although we could end up with too many turns in the round.



> Do the Shadow Emissaries remain cloaked even after attacking? (In other words, can the Shadow Emissaries give up their first attack in order to cloak, and then in subsequent rounds attack while maintaining the benefit of the cloak?)




It says "Once cloaked, the unit remains cloaked and may continue to act as normal."  Is that badly phrased?  It seems clear to me, but then I'm the person who wrote it.
 


> Can the Spartan Warriors wait to see if they hit before deciding to use their Rage ability?




Good question.  I'd be inclined to say no, but thoughts are welcome.



> Does the Indomitable Leader's ability to restore hit points to friendly combat units require a roll, as does his ability to damage enemy combat units?




Yep.  It says "In addition, on his turn, the Indomitable Leader may inflict 1d8 damage to an enemy combat unit with a roll of 11 or more on a d20, or he may inspire and restore 2d6 hit points to a friendly combat unit."
 


> The Plucky Pilot's ability still mentions "AC".




Good catch.



> When in the round does aura damage happen? Is it on the turn of the ship with the aura? Is it on the turn of the ship that is getting damaged? If a ship moves through the aura's AoE but doesn't end its turn there, does it take damage and if so when?




Good catch.  I meant it to be like in D&D - when you begin your turn in or enter a hex covered by the aura.



> Do auras affect friendly ships? It's confusing because at first you say auras affect enemy ships, and then at the bottom (after the picture) you say friendly fighters take damage from the aura as well.




Yes.  It affects all ships.  Needs a little clarification.



> Do auras affect all enemy vessels in the AoE, or just fighters? Is the text on some auras (like the Colonial Battleship's) that say that they "target enemy fighters" just flavor text, or does it actually mean they only target enemy fighters? How small does a ship have to be before it is considered a "fighter" in this case?




Yes, all ships.  It's fluff text.



> Am I correct to assume that abilities with a "-" in the "Crit" column (like the Colonial Battleship's "Decentralized" ability) are innate abilities and cannot be disabled in the same way as other ship systems (e.g. the Saboteur)?




Yes.  The sample stat card (the Rebel Freighter) explanation section near the beginning of the book needs to be updated to reflect the new stat cards and information.



> How does the Colonial Battleship's nuke's "burst" attack work? Is it like in D+D, where you pick a location (in this case a hex) to target and you make a separate attack roll against each target in the AoE? Or do you make one attack roll against one target, and if you hit then the nuke explodes and damages everyone in the AoE?




It needs to hit its target (otherwise it just drifts off endlessly into space).  If it hits, it detonates, damaging everyone in the area.  



> Does the Colonial Battleship's "Decentralized" ability protect against ECMs, or are ECM and EMP separate things? (I don't see any ship that has anything labeled as an EMP.)




There aren't any ships with EMPs yet.  This is more in anticipation of Ion Cannons and Interdictor Ships which will likely be ina  supplement, but I might slip one in somewhere in the core rulebook.



> The Colonial Support Vessel and Imperial Assault Craft have the "Boarding Party" ability but do not have any combat units to transfer over.




Correct.  You use them to move combat units from one vessel to another.



> Also, is there a limit to how many combat units can fit on each of these ships?




In the boarding section it says:  "A boarding craft such as the Colonial Support Vessel or the Imperial Assault Craft can hold *one *unit. To  nstigate a boarding action, the craft must be adjacent to the target vessel and moving at the same speed. A roll of 11 or more on a d20 immediately transfers the combat unit to the target vessel."
 


> The Imperial Destroyer's damage track is still the damage track for a 2000 hit point ship, even though its starting hit point total was changed to 600.




Good catch.



> Does the Rebel Freighter's "Sensor Jammers" ability get rid of existing sensor locks, suppress them temporarily, or not affect them at all? (This ability probably needs a wording change similar to that of the Colonial Support Vessel's ECM ability.)




Yep.  I'll change it to reflect the verbiage in the Colonial Support Vessel's ECM.



> The Imperial Destroyer's "Tractor Beams" ability still lists alternate boarding party stats, even though this was based on the old boarding party system.




Good catch!



> There is a typo in the description of the Colonial Support Vessel's "ECM" ability - "sued" should be "used".




Good catch!



> If the Spartan Scout is cloaked, can it decloak to fire weapons, then reactivate its cloaking device on the same turn (assuming it has enough APs)? If so, then this would effectively eliminate the penalty of not being able to fire while cloaked, since it's only decloaked for part of its turn, when other ships won't be able to fire at it anyway.




I'm in two minds, and that depends on whether I introduce the ability to Ready Actions.  If so, then the quick decloak-fire-cloak combo works quite well because ships can be waiting for it to decloak and then fire.  If I don't add an ability to Ready Actions, then instead the cloak will need to be once per turn only.

Very much open to opinions on that!


----------



## Morrus

Updated version uploading now. The typos and clarifications from above have been incorporated. The unanswered questions (where opinions are welcomed) haven't been touched. To recap, these are:

1) Should critical hits do max damage or should they disable a random system (save ends)?

2) Should systems count as one system per instance, or should all copies count as separate systems? In other words, do you shoot at each of 12 phaser banks, or do you simply shoot the fire-control mechanism for the whole lot?

3) Should combat units have their own initiative scores?

4) Should the option to Ready Actions be available?


----------



## Elephant

On another note, is there any chance you could shrink the images on the main Space Fight page?  It needs a humongous 1720 pixel-wide window to display without side-scrolling, that bane of the Internet.

My 1024x768 monitor doesn't even come close 

One possibility would be to thumbnail the images and bring up a lightbox to display the full size when a visitor clicks on the image.  It makes for a friendlier page, and it's a cinch to set up, too.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> Updated version uploading now. The typos and clarifications from above have been incorporated. The unanswered questions (where opinions are welcomed) haven't been touched. To recap, these are:
> 
> 1) Should critical hits do max damage or should they disable a random system (save ends)?



I am not sure the "flavor" of critical hit temporarily disables a system and it repairs itself makes sense to me. Combat will sure be more swingy when you allow critical hits to disable systems. Maybe that's a good idea, depending on how predictable you feel combats go at the moment?

In D&D 4E, the max damage on a crit rule avoids swinginess - and brings it right back in - but only in favor of the PCs - with magical items adding extra damage. So I think the design goal was to find a system that resolves relatively fast for critical hits, and have swinginess that would not be turned against the PCs. You don't have the PC/NPC divide in your system. 

I have played a little Battletech via Megamek, and I noticed that system definitely suffers from too much swinginess - one lucky critical hit, and your major assault mech is gone. 
But disabling subsystems should not be that powerful, as long as a ship can't be totally crippled by them. The question is - should it really be "save ends" and not just "one turn". A cloaked ship that can't cloak for one turn is probably already in a lot of trouble. 

I would probably combine things - max damage on a crit, one random subsystem is disabled until the end of the ships next turn.



> 2) Should systems count as one system per instance, or should all copies count as separate systems? In other words, do you shoot at each of 12 phaser banks, or do you simply shoot the fire-control mechanism for the whole lot?



Well, in Startrek, all they always say is "disable the enemies weapon systems", without mentioning specific weapons (though of course that would be logically required.). 
The risk to me seems to be that some ships might have very diverse systems (particular weapon systems), and others don't. The other risk might be that some ships might not have many weapons but very powerful one, and then the ships with lots of them benefit.
I think all in all I am in favor for treating all instances as belonging to the same subsystem.



> 3) Should combat units have their own initiative scores?



I don't think so. If, they all should have the same - at the start or the end of a round for example, making combat units have their own "phase".



> 4) Should the option to Ready Actions be available?



I like the concept of reading actions particularly for cloaked ships. The question might be what the cost for readying actions is, and how you declare them? Does readying on its own costs action points?


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am not sure the "flavor" of critical hit temporarily disables a system and it repairs itself makes sense to me. Combat will sure be more swingy when you allow critical hits to disable systems. Maybe that's a good idea, depending on how predictable you feel combats go at the moment?
> 
> In D&D 4E, the max damage on a crit rule avoids swinginess - and brings it right back in - but only in favor of the PCs - with magical items adding extra damage. So I think the design goal was to find a system that resolves relatively fast for critical hits, and have swinginess that would not be turned against the PCs. You don't have the PC/NPC divide in your system.
> 
> I have played a little Battletech via Megamek, and I noticed that system definitely suffers from too much swinginess - one lucky critical hit, and your major assault mech is gone.
> But disabling subsystems should not be that powerful, as long as a ship can't be totally crippled by them. The question is - should it really be "save ends" and not just "one turn". A cloaked ship that can't cloak for one turn is probably already in a lot of trouble.
> 
> I would probably combine things - max damage on a crit, one random subsystem is disabled until the end of the ships next turn.




I think it depends what gets hit.  A single crit isn't going to really hurt a ship that badly - shields might go down for a round or two at worst, or it migh have to delay a squadron launch by a round or two.  



> Well, in Startrek, all they always say is "disable the enemies weapon systems", without mentioning specific weapons (though of course that would be logically required.).
> The risk to me seems to be that some ships might have very diverse systems (particular weapon systems), and others don't. The other risk might be that some ships might not have many weapons but very powerful one, and then the ships with lots of them benefit.
> I think all in all I am in favor for treating all instances as belonging to the same subsystem.




I'm inclined to agree.  In addition, it makes things so much simpler.



> I don't think so. If, they all should have the same - at the start or the end of a round for example, making combat units have their own "phase".




Hmmm.  I'm not completely sold on that idea.  But I agree that having an iniatiative score for every ship, every Hero, and every combat unit on the map is going to get too much.



> I like the concept of reading actions particularly for cloaked ships. The question might be what the cost for readying actions is, and how you declare them? Does readying on its own costs action points?




The more I think about it, the more I like it.

I'm thinking something like this:

You can ready an action by spending double the usual number of action points on it.  A readied action can take place at any time (outside the ship's own turn), but the additional cost reflects the fact that your crew is sitting there tensely waiting for the "Fire!" order rather than doing something else.  If a ship does not use its readied action by the time its next turn comes around, the action goes to waste.


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> On another note, is there any chance you could shrink the images on the main Space Fight page? It needs a humongous 1720 pixel-wide window to display without side-scrolling, that bane of the Internet.




Do you mean the original large-size mages when you click through, or the smaller versions on the page itself?


----------



## Alex319

> Do the Shadow Emissaries remain cloaked even after attacking? (In other words, can the Shadow Emissaries give up their first attack in order to cloak, and then in subsequent rounds attack while maintaining the benefit of the cloak?)
> 
> It says






> "Once cloaked, the unit remains cloaked and may continue to act as normal." Is that badly phrased? It seems clear to me, but then I'm the person who wrote it.





In this case, the best strategy would almost always be to cloak them as soon as the battle begins (they can be cloaked even when they would otherwise be sitting on their ship with nothing to do) and leave them cloaked the whole battle. Is this what you want?




> Do auras affect friendly ships? It's confusing because at first you say auras affect enemy ships, and then at the bottom (after the picture) you say friendly fighters take damage from the aura as well.
> 
> Yes.  It affects all ships.  Needs a little clarification.




That seems really weird. You would think that since auras usualy represent point-defense systems like turrets, that they would be programmed not to fire at friendly ships. An I certainly don't recall seeing, say, a Star Destroyer's turbolasers firing at TIE fighters. What's the reasoning behind this decision?



> How does the Colonial Battleship's nuke's "burst" attack work? Is it like in D+D, where you pick a location (in this case a hex) to target and you make a separate attack roll against each target in the AoE? Or do you make one attack roll against one target, and if you hit then the nuke explodes and damages everyone in the AoE?
> 
> It needs to hit its target (otherwise it just drifts off endlessly into space). If it hits, it detonates, damaging everyone in the area.




First of all, if you target a multi-hex ship, which hex do you count the AoE from? Or is it 3 hexes away from any hex in the target ship's space (so the larger the target, the larger the AoE)? And can you target a hex of space that has no ship in it (I would guess not)?

This could lead to some quite unorthodox tactics. For example if there were several squadrons of enemy fighters clustered in an area of space with no other ships, a good strategy would be to move a friendly Large or bigger ship in there and then nuke it - a large ship can easily soak up 3d6 damage and it would probably wipe out (or come close to wiping out) all of the squadrons (since it's an AoE, it does full damage to squadrons).



> Does the Indomitable Leader's ability to restore hit points to friendly combat units require a roll, as does his ability to damage enemy combat units?    Yep.  It says "In addition, on his turn, the Indomitable Leader may inflict 1d8 damage to an enemy combat unit with a roll of 11 or more on a d20, or he may inspire and restore 2d6 hit points to a friendly combat unit."




The wording here is confusing, because the clause "with a roll of 11 or more on a d20"  is placed in between the two powers, so it seems like it should be parsed as "On his turn, the IL may (a) inflict 1d8 damage to an enemy combat unit with a roll of 11 or more on a d20, or (b) restore 2d6 HP to a friendly combat unit".

Probably a clearer wording would be "...the IL may roll a d20. On a roll of 11 or more, the IL may inflict 1d8 damage to an enemy combat unit or restore 2d6 HP to a friendly combat unit."


*Hero and Combat Unit Movement:*

Am I correct in my understanding that heroes and combat units have no ability to move from ship to ship under their own power? The ways to move them from ship to ship are (a) you can move them from a carrier to a ship that that carrier launched, when the carrier launches it; (b) you can use transporters, boarding party breach abilities, or other ship actions, which happen when those ships use those actions on their turns.

*Colonial Support Vessel:*

Does the "let allies benefit from sensor locks" ability only apply to allied "fighters," or to all allied ships? If the first one, what ships count as a "fighter"?

The ECM pulse is centered on the ship itself, right?

*Imperial Assault Craft:

*Can the breach ability move heroes from the IAC to the target ship? You said the IAC can carry only one combat unit, but ca it carry a combat unit and a hero, or multiple heroes? In general, do heroes count as combat units for purposes of abilities that move them, or are they different?

*Rebel Fighter Squadron:*

It might be a good idea to remove repair abilities from squadrons. If we're operating under the idea that in a squadron, 1 HP = 1 ship and loss of HP represents ships being destroyed, then it doesn't make sense that the HP could be repaired. Also since they have an extra copy of this for each ship, then they could repair themselves very quickly.

*Rebel Freighter:*

The "Wingover" maneuver is listed twice.

Also, just like with the CSV, the ECM pulse is centered on the ship itself, right?


----------



## Alex319

Also another thing this document needs is a table of contents and reorganization to make it easier to read. Here's how I would organize it:

*1. Introduction*
1.1. Welcome
1.2. How the Game is Played
1.3. What you Need

*2. Ship Overview*
2.1. Stat Card Overview (here is where you show the stat card and explain the terms on it - but don't explain the different ship systems like weapons and shields yet)
2.2. Sizes
2.3. The Damage Track
2.4. Death of a Starship
2.5. Action Sequence

*3. Movement

4. Ship Actions
*4.1. Weapons (explain attack rolls and stuff here, explain targeting specific systems here too)
4.2. Shields
4.3. Defense Grids (I assume defense grids are the only things which have "auras" - in that case explain auras here)
4.4. Repairs
4.5. Sensors
4.6. Transporters and Boarding (this section just explains how these abilities move heroes and combat units, how the boarding combat happens is explained in a later section)
4.7. Tractor Beams
4.8. Faster than Light
4.9. Other (just mention that there are other ship abilities like ECMs and that ships with special rules have them on their stat card).

*5. Special Ship Types
*5.1. Squadrons
5.2. Bombers
5.3. Laser Towers

*6. Boarding Combat

7. Special Terms
*7.1. Bursts (you don't explain these in the current document but they need explanation)
7.2. Saving Throws

*8. Starscape Terrain Features

9. Heroes

10. Ship Stat Cards

*(these three sections can basically remain unchanged)


----------



## Alex319

Also, I have a question about movement:

Suppose I have speed 6 and agility 2.

Can I do the following:

(1) Turn 60 degrees
(2) Move 3 hexes
(3) Turn 60 degrees
(4) Move 3 hexes
(5) Turn 60 degrees

I am leaving 3 hexes between each turn, so is that right? And suppose I don't change my speed, but I do the same thing next turn. That means that I've turned 60 degrees twice (once at the end of first turn movement and again at the beginning of second turn movement) with no intervening movement. Is that allowed? If not, that means at the end of each ship's turn you have to record how many hexes it moved since the last time it turned.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> In this case, the best strategy would almost always be to cloak them as soon as the battle begins (they can be cloaked even when they would otherwise be sitting on their ship with nothing to do) and leave them cloaked the whole battle. Is this what you want?




Yup, I figure that's what they'll do.  You're right.  Hmm.  How to handle that?  Make it an action with a duration?  Cloak for one round only?



> That seems really weird. You would think that since auras usualy represent point-defense systems like turrets, that they would be programmed not to fire at friendly ships. An I certainly don't recall seeing, say, a Star Destroyer's turbolasers firing at TIE fighters. What's the reasoning behind this decision?




I thought it would add an extra level of tactical play; you think it's a bad idea? I'm not completely attached to the idea, so I can certainly be talked out of it! 



> First of all, if you target a multi-hex ship, which hex do you count the AoE from? Or is it 3 hexes away from any hex in the target ship's space (so the larger the target, the larger the AoE)? And can you target a hex of space that has no ship in it (I would guess not)?




It would be the nearest hex- the point of impact. The point is that the nukes go off on impact; so if they don't hit anything, they just drift off into space.

But I like the idea of choosing which hex of the target ship you're firing at. I think I'll add that in.



> This could lead to some quite unorthodox tactics. For example if there were several squadrons of enemy fighters clustered in an area of space with no other ships, a good strategy would be to move a friendly Large or bigger ship in there and then nuke it - a large ship can easily soak up 3d6 damage and it would probably wipe out (or come close to wiping out) all of the squadrons (since it's an AoE, it does full damage to squadrons).




I can certianly envisage tactics whereby someone shoots at the easiest target rather than the intended, just to get the explosion. Heck, even shooting an asteroid!




> The wording here is confusing, because the clause "with a roll of 11 or more on a d20" is placed in between the two powers, so it seems like it should be parsed as "On his turn, the IL may (a) inflict 1d8 damage to an enemy combat unit with a roll of 11 or more on a d20, or (b) restore 2d6 HP to a friendly combat unit".
> 
> Probably a clearer wording would be "...the IL may roll a d20. On a roll of 11 or more, the IL may inflict 1d8 damage to an enemy combat unit or restore 2d6 HP to a friendly combat unit."




Sounds reasonable.




> Am I correct in my understanding that heroes and combat units have no ability to move from ship to ship under their own power? The ways to move them from ship to ship are (a) you can move them from a carrier to a ship that that carrier launched, when the carrier launches it; (b) you can use transporters, boarding party breach abilities, or other ship actions, which happen when those ships use those actions on their turns.




Correct. Infantry units can't fly in space! 



> Does the "let allies benefit from sensor locks" ability only apply to allied "fighters," or to all allied ships? If the first one, what ships count as a "fighter"?




A ship called a fighter - Rebel Fighter, Colonial fighter, Imperial Fighter.



> The ECM pulse is centered on the ship itself, right?




Yep.




> Can the breach ability move heroes from the IAC to the target ship? You said the IAC can carry only one combat unit, but ca it carry a combat unit and a hero, or multiple heroes? In general, do heroes count as combat units for purposes of abilities that move them, or are they different?




I plan to allow folks to "attach" Hero units to units. So they're part of the unit they're atached to.



> It might be a good idea to remove repair abilities from squadrons. If we're operating under the idea that in a squadron, 1 HP = 1 ship and loss of HP represents ships being destroyed, then it doesn't make sense that the HP could be repaired. Also since they have an extra copy of this for each ship, then they could repair themselves very quickly.




Well, it could equally represent all of them being damaged to a lesser extent, in whihc case astromech droids can put out small fires etc.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> Also another thing this document needs is a table of contents and reorganization to make it easier to read.




I totally agree that the current organization of the document could be improved.  

Right now things keep moving, page numbers change and the book gets longer. The table of contents needs to be the last thing I do unless I want to rewrite every time I change something! 

That ToC looks great, though! I'll refer back to it in the closing stages of development when everything needs to be put into place and the fancy layout and stuff gets done.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> Also, I have a question about movement:
> 
> Suppose I have speed 6 and agility 2.
> 
> Can I do the following:
> 
> (1) Turn 60 degrees
> (2) Move 3 hexes
> (3) Turn 60 degrees
> (4) Move 3 hexes
> (5) Turn 60 degrees
> 
> I am leaving 3 hexes between each turn, so is that right? And suppose I don't change my speed, but I do the same thing next turn. That means that I've turned 60 degrees twice (once at the end of first turn movement and again at the beginning of second turn movement) with no intervening movement. Is that allowed? If not, that means at the end of each ship's turn you have to record how many hexes it moved since the last time it turned.




Nope. It resets each round - they don't carry over - too much book-keeping (we tried carrying it over in playtests and unanimously agreed it didn't improve the game and added extra work), and you have to move the distance _before_ you can turn.

So you could _only_ do:

Move 3 hexes
Turn 60 degrees
Move three hexes
Turn 60 degrees

And then the same the next turn.


----------



## Elephant

Morrus said:


> Do you mean the original large-size mages when you click through, or the smaller versions on the page itself?




What's the original size of those images?  I don't think it matters if they're gigantic after I click through -- I expect a closer look if I do that.  Besides, when the image is the only thing I'm looking at, it's not like needing to scroll to see part of the image will hide a bunch of other stuff on the page.


----------



## Elephant

Morrus said:


> It would be the nearest hex- the point of impact.  The point is that the nukes go off on impact; so if they don't hit anything, they just drift off into space.




The guys with nukes never heard of a timer?  It seems like a painfully obvious feature -- have a timer and a network connection to the nukes, and the targeting computer sets the timer and cuts the wire just before launch.

You might still want a miss chance, though -- depending on the speed and proximity of engagement, quality of sensors, and ECM involved, there might be some estimation and guesswork needed for targeting.  Oops, the enemy ship suddenly decelerated while the nuke was _en route_, so the nuke detonates early, etc.


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> The guys with nukes never heard of a timer? It seems like a painfully obvious feature -- have a timer and a network connection to the nukes, and the targeting computer sets the timer and cuts the wire just before launch.




Ask the guys who who wrote_ Battlestar Galactica_.  The nukes on the Colonial Battleship are modelled on those; and they went off on impact.

There's no reason someone else might not have nukes with timers; but that ship doesn't! 

Unless I'm really very much misremembering the TV show (which is possible, of course).


----------



## Morrus

OK, I've taken your advice and had a spare hour or so, so I totally reorganized the book.

I based it on your structure above, Jack.  Note that I haven't changed any text - just moved sections around.

I agree that it's a more intuitive structure.  Whilst being a vast improvement, there are a couple of things which strike me as not quite right.

The main one is the turn sequence being buried at the end of the ship overview.  I feel it's such a fundamental aspect of the game that it needs its own section.  That section probably needs some more overview type stuff, too.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> OK, I've taken your advice and had a spare hour or so, so I totally reorganized the book.
> 
> I based it on your structure above, Jack.  Note that I haven't changed any text - just moved sections around.
> 
> I agree that it's a more intuitive structure.  Whilst being a vast improvement, there are a couple of things which strike me as not quite right.
> 
> The main one is the turn sequence being buried at the end of the ship overview.  I feel it's such a fundamental aspect of the game that it needs its own section.  That section probably needs some more overview type stuff, too.



Wether Auras/Flak should hurt enemies only or not - this could be in the realm of preferences and what you want to model. Battlestar Galactica style flak definitely hurts indiscrimetely - but of course the ship doesn't have to fire its Flak if it doesn't want to. It is essentially the final line of defense, when the Vipers fail to intercept Raiders or missiles. BSG Flak cannons are not targeting individual ships, instead they just fill the vacuum with shrapnels at a certain distance. (There are some shots in the series that make this more obvious). 

If the Enterprise would set its Phaser Banks to a point defense mode (assuming that's possible), it would probably only hurt enemy ships. But in my view Startrek (or at least Federation) tech is all about controlled firepower and precision.

Regarding nukes - I think they work on impact because they are useless if they just explode in mid-space. In vacuum, they don't cause Shockwaves like they would in an atmosphere. So you will usually have lots of radiation flying around, most of it missing any target. Very inefficient, and probably also ineffective. At least I think that are the BSG assumptions on nukes. In essence, in BSG they work as HEAT missiles for space ships. 

Of course, this would also mean that generally all area burst effects are unlikely to work, unless you use something that creates shrapnels. That's probably not reflected with Startrek style Photon Torpedos - near misses count, IIRC. 

If you still like burst effects, you could make a different between a direct hit and a miss when close by. (Full damage on impact, half damage on targets in burst radius). In the end, this can also be a detail you vary based on spaceship and race.


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Wether Auras/Flak should hurt enemies only or not - this could be in the realm of preferences and what you want to model. Battlestar Galactica style flak definitely hurts indiscrimetely - but of course the ship doesn't have to fire its Flak if it doesn't want to. It is essentially the final line of defense, when the Vipers fail to intercept Raiders or missiles. BSG Flak cannons are not targeting individual ships, instead they just fill the vacuum with shrapnels at a certain distance. (There are some shots in the series that make this more obvious).




Good point, and solves the question completely.  It can vary from ship-to-ship and be noted on the stat card.


----------



## Morrus

Fairly major update - after the re-org of the document, I've gone through and cleaned it up, added cloaking devices, and inserted a table of contents.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I think what wouldn't hurt with the new stat blocks is to still give some visuel cues indicating different system types, most importantly seperating attacks/weapon systems from others systems. The colors in the original stat block where probably too intrusive, but maybe there is something in them that you can reuse.


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think what wouldn't hurt with the new stat blocks is to still give some visuel cues indicating different system types, most importantly seperating attacks/weapon systems from others systems. The colors in the original stat block where probably too intrusive, but maybe there is something in them that you can reuse.




You're the one who wanted me to get_ rid_ of all the colours, man!


----------



## Alex319

Let's look at some of the heroes:

*Bold Captain (BC):* This seems a little overpowered, and not necessarily in the theme of a "bold captain." Effectively it lets you duplicate the power of any friendly hero on the ship you are on - so you can BC an SA to get two sets of bonus action points, or BC a saboteur to get two chances to sabotage an enemy ship - the best strategy is often not to be a "captain" and just go on an enemy ship to help heroes out there. A good strategy for the Federation (since they're the only faction that gets BC as a favored class) is, let's say if they get 4 hero points, to get two BCs and an SA, put them all on the same ship, and get three activations of the SA ability per round (instead of two if he just got two SAs).

*Seasoned Admiral (SA):* This seems like a not very well designed ability. Not because it's overpowered or underpowered, but because it's basically "free" APs every round - you don't have to do anything special to use it. Most of the other heroes' abilities you have to get the guy on the ship you want to use it on, and that takes time and resources, and risks putting them in harm's way. The SA can use his ability from anywhere, so if I were the Colonials, say, I could put my SA on a CSV, send it way away from the battlefield to protect it, and he'll still be just as useful as before. Also, do the bonus APs stack (say if you BC him, or have two SAs, and use the two activations on the same ship?)

*Legendary Engineer (LE):*  You still haven't made clear how many hit points the LE's free repair roll is worth. Also it might be a good idea to allow the free repair roll to be a free saving throw instead (that way the LE can try to repair a system that's been reduced to zero HP).

*Indomitable Leader (IL):* Can he destroy enemy boarding parties even if there's no friendly combat units on the ship, just him? If so a useful tactic might be to put him on an enemy ship, slowly whittle away their combat units (and the only way to kill him is with a Bounty Hunter) and then after they're all destroyed, bring a friendly combat unit in to capture the ship.

---

Also, another potential problem I see is that the only heroes that can get rid of other Heroes are the Dark Lord and Bounty Hunter, and only two of the factions even have access to those Heroes. So if you're fighting another faction you can get as many Saboteurs, Spies, or ILs on board enemy ships as you want to do havoc, and there's nothing they can do about it.


----------



## Morrus

This is definitely a slowly-devoloping area; and I'm far from happy with it as it is.



Alex319 said:


> Let's look at some of the heroes:
> 
> *Bold Captain (BC):* This seems a little overpowered, and not necessarily in the theme of a "bold captain." Effectively it lets you duplicate the power of any friendly hero on the ship you are on - so you can BC an SA to get two sets of bonus action points, or BC a saboteur to get two chances to sabotage an enemy ship - the best strategy is often not to be a "captain" and just go on an enemy ship to help heroes out there. A good strategy for the Federation (since they're the only faction that gets BC as a favored class) is, let's say if they get 4 hero points, to get two BCs and an SA, put them all on the same ship, and get three activations of the SA ability per round (instead of two if he just got two SAs).




I'm in agreement. My vision for the Bold Captain is as a support unit; on his own he's not that much use, but surrounded by other heroes he's indispensible. My inspiration is the 4E Warlord. 

The problem is getting that to work well.

*



			Seasoned Admiral (SA):
		
Click to expand...


*


> This seems like a not very well designed ability. Not because it's overpowered or underpowered, but because it's basically "free" APs every round - you don't have to do anything special to use it. Most of the other heroes' abilities you have to get the guy on the ship you want to use it on, and that takes time and resources, and risks putting them in harm's way. The SA can use his ability from anywhere, so if I were the Colonials, say, I could put my SA on a CSV, send it way away from the battlefield to protect it, and he'll still be just as useful as before. Also, do the bonus APs stack (say if you BC him, or have two SAs, and use the two activations on the same ship?)




An excellent point; I hadn't envisaged people moving him out of harm's way and still benefitting from hhis ability. That certainly needs fixing.

I wouldn't have the bonus APs stacking - you either have to listen to one's orders or the other. 

*



			Legendary Engineer (LE):
		
Click to expand...


*


> You still haven't made clear how many hit points the LE's free repair roll is worth.




I'm sure I have? I revised the verbiage after your last comment of a similar nature; I'm not sure that I can imagine a clearer way to say it. He gives the ship a free repair roll (as you know, the ship's repair roll is defined on its stat block.)



> Also it might be a good idea to allow the free repair roll to be a free saving throw instead (that way the LE can try to repair a system that's been reduced to zero HP).




I thought of offering that as an additional option. 

*



			Indomitable Leader (IL):
		
Click to expand...


*


> Can he destroy enemy boarding parties even if there's no friendly combat units on the ship, just him? If so a useful tactic might be to put him on an enemy ship, slowly whittle away their combat units (and the only way to kill him is with a Bounty Hunter) and then after they're all destroyed, bring a friendly combat unit in to capture the ship.




I see him as a support unit much like the Bold Captain (he forces/inspires his troops to fight harder) - so, no, I don't want him fighting enemey combat units on his own. This needs some work.




> Also, another potential problem I see is that the only heroes that can get rid of other Heroes are the Dark Lord and Bounty Hunter, and only two of the factions even have access to those Heroes. So if you're fighting another faction you can get as many Saboteurs, Spies, or ILs on board enemy ships as you want to do havoc, and there's nothing they can do about it.




Absolutely - you've hit on something I've been feeling uncomfortable about. I've been thinking of various ways to handle this - from combat units being able to disable them to _all_ heroes being able to fight each other. I've not come up with anything great yet - totally open to ideas.

Perhaps a "fumble" on a roll of 1?  If you roll 1 then your Spy or Saboteur makes a mistake and is discovered?


----------



## Alex319

And one more thing I can't believe I didn't notice before - on an attack roll, if the roll exactly equals the target's defense is it a hit or a miss? The description under the attack section says you have to roll HIGHER than the target's defense, but in the explanation of defense under "sizes" it says that the defense is the number you need to hit it (presumably implying exactly that number would hit it).


----------



## Morrus

Yeah, fixed.  Equal to or greater.

Also last of the ship cards moved over.  Still a couple more ships I haven't designed at all yet.


----------



## Alex319

One more important thing that's missing - a diagram of the firing arcs!


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> One more important thing that's missing - a diagram of the firing arcs!




Yup. I keep putting it off because, while typing is easy, drawing diagrams on a computer is - to me - not. 

Plus there's a complication when it comes to larger ships.

Gotta do some for movement examples, too, at some point.  Dreading it though - it'll take me hours to get it to look even vaguely presentable.  Not my skill set!


----------



## Morrus

Update - ship art in the vessel guide.  Nice big clear images of the ships.  Well, most of them.


----------



## Morrus

Firing arcs done.  Not the best graphical work in the world, but it serves its purpose.

Also downsized the resolution of all the images in the PDF, reducing it to a 2MB file - it was starting to get pretty big!


----------



## Morrus

At the moment, Defence is purely a function of size. I'd like to tie Agility and Thrust into that - a more agile ship of the same size should have a higher agility.

Here's my intial thoughts on a formula:

DEFENCE = SIZE + AGILITY + THRUST

(In this equation, the size values need to be reversed so that lower is better - Tiny =6, Small =5, etc.)

This gives the following preliminary defence scores (not done all ships, just some examples):

Alliance Starfighter = 22 (was 15)
Colonial Battleship = 6 (was 4)
Federation Cruiser = 9 (was 8)
Hive Cube = 3 (was 4)
Imperial Destroyer = 5 (was 4)
Imperial Fighter = 22 (was 15)
Machine Starbase = 7 (was 4)
Rebel Freighter = 17 (was 13)
Spartan Destroyer = 9 (was 8)

As can be seen, most ships end up with a boost to their Defence, with the smaller agile ships getting a much larger boost.

It's not perfect; defnitely needs tweaking, but I think it's a good direction to be going in.

Alternatively, the importance of each factor can be tweaked. Size should remain the most important ting, followed by Agility, with Thrust being the least. So:

(SIZE x3 + AGILITY x2 + THRUST) / 2

Alliance Starfighter = 20
Colonial Battleship = 4
Federation Cruiser = 7
Hive Cube = 3
Imperial Destroyer = 4
Imperial Fighter = 20
Machine Starbase = 5
Rebel Freighter = 15
Spartan Destroyer = 8 

Looking at the various fighter-sized craft with this formula:

Alliance Starfighter = 20
Colonial Fighter = 17
Imperial Fighter = 20
Machine Raider = 18
Rebel Fighter = 18

I'd also be inclined to increase the size category of a fighter squadron by 1 - making a squadron size Small instead of Tiny.  This would make the above numbers drop by two points when in a squadron (technically by 1.5, but we round down).


----------



## Morrus

New faction emblems form the inestimable Mr. Pozas.  Expected soon is the artwork and counters for the combat units.


----------



## Alex319

> I'd also be inclined to increase the size category of a fighter squadron by 1 - making a squadron size Small instead of Tiny. This would make the above numbers drop by two points when in a squadron (technically by 1.5, but we round down).




If you do that, squadrons would be able to do explosion damage when they self-destruct. If you don't want that, you may want to put in an exception for that.

Also, I would be very wary of giving ships very high defense scores. The game is already tilted in favor of the defense:

Ways to gain attack bonuses

- Weapons that have built-in attack bonuses
- +2 from Spy on enemy ship
- +4 from Sensor Lock on enemy ship

Ways to gain defense bonuses:

- +2 from Speed 10, +4 from Speed 20
- +4 from Evasive Maneuvers
- +4 from Plucky Pilot
- +8 if attacker is trying to hit a specific system

Notice that the attack bonuses all require specific ship systems or heroes which not every faction has access to and you can't use all the time, while the defense bonuses come from things that are much more common. So already it's pretty easy to defend - and if you've got a ship that has base defense 18, once it gets moving it's going to be almost impossible to hit.


----------



## Morrus

Oh yes, I picked up on that too.  The goal was to have a greater spread of defence scores with agile counting for more, not to simply make everyone impossible to hit.

What I plan to do is go through ALL of the attacks/weapons and assign attack bonuses to them.  That makes the attacks more like 4E, where every attack will have a modifier.  

I also plan to add an aiming option - spending more AP on a shot allows you to take your time, line it up, and get a more accurate shot.


----------



## Alex319

The "aiming" option definitely makes a lot of sense. It definitely seems to me like one thing this game needs is more ways to buff attack rolls. The reasons are:

(1) Players generally prefer buffing attacks to buffing defenses, because if you buff an attack you get to control where the attack goes, which if you buff a defense the opponent can just try to attack someone else.

(2) Buffing attacks helps the game move faster and is generally more fun. Which do you think is more fun: "I better be the first to pull of my big attack buff plan before my opponents can get theirs off" or "Well, we've both got our defenses maxed, so I guess we'll just keep attacking each other until one of us rolls a natural 20."

Of course this doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to buff defenses - the existing ways of buffing defenses (like evasive maneuvers and speed bonuses) are both flavorful and add strategy to the game. It just means that you want to balance that out with ways of buffing attacks to get through it.


----------



## Morrus

Absolutely - I agree completely.

At the moment we have sensors and we'll be adding aiming.

In addition (for some ships) I'd like to have different defence values depending on your direction of attack - an Imperial Destroyer has a much bigger cross-section from the side than it does from the front. That adds a sort of buffing mechanic based on tactical maneuvering.

Any other ideas for attack biffing options? Perhaps ways to increase damage?

I've been discussing a couple of other options ith a friend, and we both feel that we'd like to increase the amount of maneuvering needed.  The different defences from different directions is one way to accomplish that; also when targetting systems we could define a direction of attack required.  Finally, perhaps shields and defense grids can be split into separate directional abilities based on firing arcs.


----------



## Morrus

Updated with shield and defence grid arcs and directional defense scores.  That should increase the amount of maneuvering.


----------



## Morrus

Here's a question: do you guys think that a good design goal would be to (at a much later date) have a system which allows people to build their own ships?  Or, in a campaign mode, salvage systems from a captured ship?

If so, the ship designs at this stage would need a certain level of standardization - I was thinking that each entry is a system/component which can be selected and added to a ship. 

If that's the case, each item needs to be given a name and added to a master list. For example, we know the Feration Cruiser's phasers do X damage, have Y range, and cost Z action points to use, so we give that a name like "Federation Phaser Mk. I" and add it to a master list. Another ship using the same phaser type will have the same stats in its phaser entry, whereas a ship using the "Federation Phaser Mk. II" would have different stats.  Equally, the Spartan Scout uses a "Spartan Cloaking Device Mk. I", and so on.


----------



## Alex319

Comments on the latest version:

(1) Why doesn't the SA's power work on a ship with a BC on board? The original problem I identified was that a BC could use his power on an SA to give the SA two activations and thus lots of additional action points - since the BC doesn't give his ship any benefit by himself after the start of the game, I don't see any reason to prohibit that.

(2) What do the defenses with two values (like 11/9) mean? I assume that has something to do with the "different defenses on different firing arcs" thing, but I can't find where that is explained.

(3) The Hive Cube still needs a determinate hex, because it can rotate.

(4) I don't understand the "vessel ratings" at all. How come some of them have two numbers separated by a slash, some of them only have one number, and the Colonial Fighter has another number in parentheses?

(5) Can the Shadow Fighter Squadron activate its Bio-Shields 4 times to absorb 8 damage per round? (Same question about the Shadow Fighter - can it absorb 24 damage per round if it uses all its AP on its shields?) If so it's going to be almost impossible to kill because you can only do 1 point of damage to it at a time. If not, then how come it says "Bio-Shields x4"? Finally, how is it ever supposed to use its Cloak ability, if the Cloak ability requires more AP than the squadron has?

(6) The example under "Targeting Specific Systems" needs to be updated because the Imperial Destroyer's defense changed.

------

And as for more weapon attack bonuses:

Definitely adding something where you spend extra AP for an attack bonus would work well. It also seems to me like a good idea would be to make "light weapons" that don't do much damage tend to have higher attack bonuses (like +4 or higher) while heavier weapons tend to have smaller attack bonuses, so they're best against larger ships.

One thing you need to think about is, about how often do you want people to be hitting those high defense ships? If the Alliance Starfighter Squadron has defense 18, you'd better be giving ships +4 to attack or greater if you want them to be hitting more than about a third of the time.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> Comments on the latest version:
> 
> (1) Why doesn't the SA's power work on a ship with a BC on board? The original problem I identified was that a BC could use his power on an SA to give the SA two activations and thus lots of additional action points - since the BC doesn't give his ship any benefit by himself after the start of the game, I don't see any reason to prohibit that.




If his power doesn't work with a BC on board, the BC can give him another activation but to no avail. As far as I can tell, that addresses your original concern exactly?  I also figured - there's only one person in command of a ship.  You can't have a captain and an admiral shouting out orders.  



> (2) What do the defenses with two values (like 11/9) mean? I assume that has something to do with the "different defenses on different firing arcs" thing, but I can't find where that is explained.




In the ship card overview under "Defence".



> (3) The Hive Cube still needs a determinate hex, because it can rotate.




That's true.



> (4) I don't understand the "vessel ratings" at all. How come some of them have two numbers separated by a slash, some of them only have one number, and the Colonial Fighter has another number in parentheses?




Really don't worry about them yet - those things are just notes to myself.



> (5) Can the Shadow Fighter Squadron activate its Bio-Shields 4 times to absorb 8 damage per round?
> 
> (Same question about the Shadow Fighter - can it absorb 24 damage per round if it uses all its AP on its shields?) If so it's going to be almost impossible to kill because you can only do 1 point of damage to it at a time. If not, then how come it says "Bio-Shields x4"?




See the Shields section. Those are four shield arcs.



> Finally, how is it ever supposed to use its Cloak ability, if the Cloak ability requires more AP than the squadron has?




That was supposed to read 5, not 15. Typo. I think that may be a bit low, though.


----------



## Alex319

> If his power doesn't work with a BC on board, the BC can give him another activation but to no avail. As far as I can tell, that addresses your original concern exactly? I also figured - there's only one person in command of a ship. You can't have a captain and an admiral shouting out orders.




The way it's worded now, the _target_ of the SA's ability is the one that can't have a BC on board. A ship with both an SA and a BC can still give out two AP boosts, it's just neither of them can be on the ship that the SA and BC are both on.

Also, another thing - it might be worth reducing the AP cost of shields a bit, now that each shield activation only protects one arc, not all four arcs.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> Here's a question: do you guys think that a good design goal would be to (at a much later date) have a system which allows people to build their own ships?  Or, in a campaign mode, salvage systems from a captured ship?
> 
> If so, the ship designs at this stage would need a certain level of standardization - I was thinking that each entry is a system/component which can be selected and added to a ship.
> 
> If that's the case, each item needs to be given a name and added to a master list. For example, we know the Feration Cruiser's phasers do X damage, have Y range, and cost Z action points to use, so we give that a name like "Federation Phaser Mk. I" and add it to a master list. Another ship using the same phaser type will have the same stats in its phaser entry, whereas a ship using the "Federation Phaser Mk. II" would have different stats.  Equally, the Spartan Scout uses a "Spartan Cloaking Device Mk. I", and so on.



The salvaging idea sounds interesting, in general, but I am not sure I would really boil it down to components. 

I think it might be better to have something like a "thematic" guideline for each race. It fits better in the exception based design model. Instead of trying to identify individual components and systems, consider the general ability related to a system as one aspect and its "value" for a ship. That will guide your cost. If you use it based on components, you probably end up with a kind of "simulation" system for spacecrafts. 

So, you don't think of Spartan Cloaking Device Mark 2, but of "Cloaking Device for a ship with the following size and other properties". 
Salvaging a ship gets you access to salvage points or something like that, and access to its unique "thematic" abilities. 

If you salvage Colonial starfighters, their "theme" might be something like "Tactical FTL" and "180° turns once per round". A 180° turn is worth a certain number of points for any given ship, so if you salvage enough points, you can install it on a ship.


----------



## Morrus

We had a long, long playtest session yesterday (all day!) - here's what we concluded:

- AP total changing from damage or repairs should not take effect until next turn
- Aura damage must apply at the very start of the turn prior to actions or movement
- Remember to reduce those shield costs
- Launched fighters placed next to carrier immediately, but should not act at all until next round
- Adding a +2 bonus to hit from the rear totally changes fighter combat dynamics for the better
- There should be a +2 bonus to hit a stationary ship
- Fighters are way too powerful - impossible to hit. Adjustments to hit probabilities needed.  Adding agility to attack rolls seesm to work perfectly.
- Heroes in their current form have no effect on the game whatsoever.
- The biggest issue: user interface. How to record all the info? Small speed counters on the ships created a horribly messy and cluttered game map, especially with lots of fighters. Tracking HP and shields and readied actions and sensor locks all gets messy and players forget things a LOT. Need a really good user interface for all this stuff.


----------



## Morrus

Given some of the interface difficulties we encountered, I'm proposing a new trial stat card layout.  The card now has areas to record changing information.

This means, of course, that every ship will need a card, rather than one for each type.  A player launching 10 squadrons will have a lot of cards lying around, something I wanted to avoid.

This can clearly be improved further - it's just a start.


----------



## Morrus

I'm now no longer totally sold on the way shields work.

Mechanically, they're just fine.  Interface-wise, they're a pain - you have to adjust each of four shields every time you have a turn, and on a stat card that's gonna get messy real quick even if you have the world's best eraser. 

I wonder if there's another way to handle it?  Perhaps a binary system based on damage reduction - reduces X off each shot, and the shield's either up or down.  Then you're not having to count off damage absorbed by each shield and then delete them all the following turn. 

That doesn't allow for the "shields down to 30%!" scenario, of course, which is a shame.  It does, however, allow for "intensify the forward shields!" by allowing an action whereby you get 50% more DR in one shield at a cost of half DR in the other three (or something).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

IRRC, Star Wars Saga shields worked this way: They gave DR (typically in increments of 5), but if you broke through the DR, the shield rating dropped. Maybe that's a way to handle variable shield strength without having to track damage continously. Of course, you still have to track some amount of information on shield strength.

Regarding "exception based design" for shields: 
In the game series "Independence War", shields worked a little differently than this. The shields could only protect against certain angles of attacks - typically the most likely to attack the ship at any point, as determined by the computer. The shield could be penetrated if multiple enemies attacked the same shield area, or if you had just enough firepower (to penetrate it, or have a higher rate of fire to overwhelm the shield). Small ships typically had only one shield generator, leaving some areas unprotectd, more advanced one (like the ship the player was flying in the first game) had two. In this game, being "flanked" when you had two shields was actually better than having your enemies all on the same side. (But having them in the back was bad, since the area around the engine exhaust had to be left unprotected).


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> IRRC, Star Wars Saga shields worked this way: They gave DR (typically in increments of 5), but if you broke through the DR, the shield rating dropped. Maybe that's a way to handle variable shield strength without having to track damage continously. Of course, you still have to track some amount of information on shield strength.




I'm not sure that's any easier on the interface front.


----------



## Elephant

I think the goals of having a system that's simple and quick for a large number of ships *and* being able to model single-ship details like "intensify forward shields", "full power to the death ray", and "shields down to 30%" are largely incompatible.  For the fine-grained detail of the latter, you need to manage lots of details for each ship.  For the speed and simplicity of the former, you need to keep things as abstract as possible.

A naval minis game I've played uses stat cards, sort of (really it's just a photocopied sheet with about a dozen different ship stats on it, and you mark up the section corresponding to the ship you actually have).  It works well, but the gameplay moves slowly -- maybe one turn per hour with 4-6 players.


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> I think the goals of having a system that's simple and quick for a large number of ships *and* being able to model single-ship details like "intensify forward shields", "full power to the death ray", and "shields down to 30%" are largely incompatible. For the fine-grained detail of the latter, you need to manage lots of details for each ship. For the speed and simplicity of the former, you need to keep things as abstract as possible.




I refuse to say "can't be done"!  I'm going to try my darndest!

So, we have a shields proposal:


Shields have a rating which applies like damage reduction.  Excess damage applies to the ship as normal.
Damage absorbed by the damage reduction comes off the shield's "hit points" (for want of a better word)
Shield goes down completely when shield's hit points reach zero
Shield's hit points can be restored with repair rolls
A mechanism to intensify one specific shield


----------



## Morrus

On another note, I just discovered that printing the counters on card, laminating and then cutting out with a craft knife produces gorgeous results!

You can't tell from the crappy photo below (done on my phone), but those counters are thick and glossy.

I've just ordered a pack of magnetic printer paper. I have some experimental ideas regarding magnetic counters and the like.  Also for the stat cards with magnetic counters moving to indicate speed, shields, and the like.


----------



## Alex319

> - Aura damage must apply at the very start of the turn prior to actions or movement



So you mean you think that if you move into an aura on your turn, you shouldn't take damage? Which means that if a bomber can go all the way through the aura zone, over the target ship, and out the other end in one turn it shouldn't take any damage? Interesting. What problems did the current way cause?



> - Launched fighters placed next to carrier immediately, but should not act at all until next round



That makes sense. Probably the best way to do that would be to say that the fighters get placed immediately *before* the carrier in initiative order (so you have to go all the way around before you get to the fighters.) Another advantage of that is that it means the initiative order doesn't keep getting more and more complicated.



> - There should be a +2 bonus to hit a stationary ship



Of course, then everyone would just move at speed 1 if they didn't really want to move much. But I don't see any harm from this rule change.



> Fighters are way too powerful - impossible to hit. Adjustments to hit probabilities needed. Adding agility to attack rolls seesm to work perfectly.



Interesting. It still seems like capital ships would have a very hard time hitting fighters with anything except auras.



> - Heroes in their current form have no effect on the game whatsoever.



Why did this happen? Was it too hard to get the heroes onto the ships they needed to affect? Were the heroes' powers not powerful enough? Were the heroes too easy to get rid of by hero removal effects or by being blown up?

Maybe one thing that might make it work better is to get rid of the whole "heroes having turns" thing and just give them (beefed up) passive abilities. For example:
Bold Captain - +3 to all attack rolls
Legendary Engineer - Repair rolls auto-succeed
Plucky Pilot - +4 defense and attack rolls on Medium or smaller ships

and so on.

It might help to know what factions you were playing with and what kind of heroes you were using. The heroes seems to be of highly varying levels of power.



> - The biggest issue: user interface. How to record all the info? Small speed counters on the ships created a horribly messy and cluttered game map, especially with lots of fighters. Tracking HP and shields and readied actions and sensor locks all gets messy and players forget things a LOT. Need a really good user interface for all this stuff.



Let's compare this game with D+D, which we've all had experience keeping track of. HP is just like in D+D, and shields are mechanically the same as temporary hit points (where activating shields is the power that gives you the temporary hit points). 

As for speed counters - one idea would be to get rid of the whole thrust/speed mechanic altogether and just say each ship has a top speed, and they can move up to that speed each turn.

Readied actions are one thing that's more complicated (and often tend to cause problems even in D+D). Maybe one way of stopping lots of readied actions is to change some of the mechanics that tend to require readied actions. The main times it seems like readied actions would come into play is as follows:

1. Taking a fighter out as it launches from a carrier. In the current system this requires a readied action because if the enemy fighter rolls initiative and lands in between the enemy carrier and your ship, it will get to act before you. But if you use my idea then that won't be a problem because the fighter has to wait the full time around before it can act.

2. Manipulating shield timing. For example suppose I have two ships A and B, the opponent has ship X, the initiative order is X, A, B. Suppose that X has a 10 HP/round shield, and A and B each have a 10 damage weapon. If A misses then it's useless for B to fire because even if it hits it will get absorbed and the shield will go up to full next round. But if B readies until after X goes, then I'll get 3 shots total at him in one shield cycle. I'll talk about alternative shield systems in my next post.

3. Killing an enemy that moves into my range and then moves out in one turn. If you use the movement idea I mentioned above it might be harder to go really fast and thus less reason to use this.

Sensor locks are also a harder thing to keep track of because it's a "binary relation" - i.e. it's not a property of one ship (like HP or speed) it's a relation between two ships (A has a sensor lock on B). So if you put the counter or mark on A, for example, the counter has to say "has a sensor lock on B" and thus have a way of identifying B. One way to fix this is to effectively give all ships the Colonial Support Vessel's power of giving their friends sensor lock benefits - so you just have to mark ship B as "sensor locked" and don't have to worry about which of side A's ships marked it. Thematically you can assume that all the ships are transmitting sensor data to each other, so even if something happens to one ship's sensors the other ships can "pick up the trail." Then you could also have ways that a ship can "shake off" the sensor lock. The idea of "a particular ship focusing all its sensor resources to target one thing" could be modeled by the "spend APs to get attack bonuses" idea that you had mentioned before.
As for the "lots of fighters" issue *-* if there are lots of fighters we'll need to keep them simple. Some of the ideas I've put up above help in that direction, but it might be worth having some special rules or design guidelines just for fighters to keep them simple. For example, say that the only systems they have are weapons - that way the only thing you'll ever need to keep track of is hit points on them, and don't give them any of the things that make it harder to keep track of, like shields or special powers.

Also, IIRC, there already exists a collectible miniatures game that simulates Star Wars space battles (I think it was by WotC, I don't know - I saw it in a game store once and don't remember anything else about it). If you can find that it might be worth looking in it for ideas.

---------------------

And by the way, did boarding combat every get used during your playtest and if so, how did it go? My impression on reading the boarding combat rules is that it gives significant advantage to the defender, because the defender gets to attack with all of their combat units as soon as the attackers come on board, while the attacker usually has to get combat units on one at a time - and unlike with just blasting the ship to bits (where each step down the damage track gives progressive effects) with boarding combat there's no negative effect until the ship is captured.


----------



## Alex319

Also, I was going to give my ideas for shields. Here is an idea:

- You have "shield points." The shield points should be a significant fraction of total hit points. For example, a Federation Heavy Cruiser (100 HP) might have 75 shield points.

- The shield also has a "deflection rating" which is how much damage it can deflect off of each attack. Let's say the deflection rating is 5, then it can deflect 5 hit points out of each attack. This means that if the attack does 8 points of damage, then 3 of that is taken off hit points, and 5 is taken off shield points.

- There's also a "recharge rate." This is the number of shield points you get back each time you spend AP on the shields on your turn. Some ships might have a "full power to shields" option or something that lets you get, say, double the recharge at a cost of 3 times the APs.

This does make the stats for each ship more complicated, because the shields need to have 3 stats (max shield points, deflection rating, recharge rate). However it also handles the "shields down to 30%" idea better (the way you have it now, the shields go up to 100% every turn, then go down when the other ship attacks, then go up to 100% again, which I don't recall ever seeing on Star Trek, although I confess I only watched Voyager). It also avoids all the weird timing tricks that the current system invites, and still requires only one variable to keep track of.

As for sectional shields, it seems like the best way to do that would be to not have it be "default", and just have it be a special option (say, spend extra AP to double the deflection rating on one side for a turn). The problem with forcing players to choose shield arcs every turn is:

(1) As stated before, it makes the game more complicated, and means more to keep track of.
(2) It gives yet another advantage to fighters and other maneuverable ships, because they can see which shield arcs their target powered up, and then maneuver on an unshielded part. To defend against this, the target could ready an action to power up the shields after seeing where the fighters moved to, but that makes the game move slower (I move here, do you want to power up shields? Okay, I turn then move one more hex, how about now? How about now?)
(3) It also means more to figure out each turn. "Okay, the bad guy is moving at speed 3 and has thrust 4, so he can go 7 next turn ... let me count hexes to see if that's enough to get on to my side so I'll have to power up the side shields, and if not then how I can maneuver to force him to attack the shield arc I want him to attack next turn."
(4) It's more thematic. I don't recall Captain Janeway giving the order to "power up front and left shield arcs - oh wait, the Klingon on the left moved on back, power up front and back now - I think there's another Klingon cloaked so let's ready an action to power up whichever shield arc he decloaks from." Usually things like "Maximum power to forward shields!" are special orders given in specific situations, and shield arcs aren't something they have to worry about in every single fight.


----------



## Diplomat123

I was the other half of the play test with Russ the other day.  He has covered most of what we found, but didn't say why Heroes didn't work.

In the fight he had two capital ships, one of which had a legendary engineer and a bold captain, meaning that that ship could make four rolls a round at +2 to repair, repairing 12 points a time.  The other capital ship could make one roll at +0 for 10 points.  So i ignored the first and threw everything at the second.  It wasn't that the heroes had no effect, but the effect was to make that ship unattackable (as i saw it).

On my side i had a fighter squadron leader.  The squadron moved on its inititiative and attacked.  The target ship moved off.  THe squadron leader then got to blast empty space a bit on his turn.  Russ and I agreed that for most things it would work better if the hero acted on the initiative of the ship he was on.

Generally the battle (Galactica vs Enterprse and friends) felt very good thematically and the ships acted much as they should do from the screen.  tbc


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> So you mean you think that if you move into an aura on your turn, you shouldn't take damage? Which means that if a bomber can go all the way through the aura zone, over the target ship, and out the other end in one turn it shouldn't take any damage? Interesting. What problems did the current way cause?




Sorry, I slightly mispoke myself there.  What I meant to say was that the "when beginning its turn" part of the aura effect should be made clear to mean that it's _right_ at the beginning before anything else is done. 



> That makes sense. Probably the best way to do that would be to say that the fighters get placed immediately *before* the carrier in initiative order (so you have to go all the way around before you get to the fighters.) Another advantage of that is that it means the initiative order doesn't keep getting more and more complicated.




I think sticking them randomly in the next round worked, but we're going to run the same fight a few more times to be sure.



> Of course, then everyone would just move at speed 1 if they didn't really want to move much. But I don't see any harm from this rule change.




Sure.  It's partly thematic ("sitting duck"), and partly to keep the game moving a little since completely stationary capital ships proved to be a bit boring.



> Interesting. It still seems like capital ships would have a very hard time hitting fighters with anything except auras.




They'll find it a tiny bit easier, but fighter vs. fighter is where that'll really shine.  It'll also increase the attrition rate of fighter squadrons quite a bit, keeping the number of counters down.

I'm thinking of revising the auro rules anyway.  While they worked just fine, autodamage proved to simply not be much fun for the players involved.  I may make it 4 attacks with a substantial bonus to hit squadrons.



> Why did this happen? Was it too hard to get the heroes onto the ships they needed to affect? Were the heroes' powers not powerful enough? Were the heroes too easy to get rid of by hero removal effects or by being blown up?
> 
> Maybe one thing that might make it work better is to get rid of the whole "heroes having turns" thing and just give them (beefed up) passive abilities. For example:
> Bold Captain - +3 to all attack rolls
> Legendary Engineer - Repair rolls auto-succeed
> Plucky Pilot - +4 defense and attack rolls on Medium or smaller ships
> 
> and so on.




Doug (above) pretty much summed it up, but yes, I'm inclined to agree that passive bonuses are the way forward there.




> As for speed counters - one idea would be to get rid of the whole thrust/speed mechanic altogether and just say each ship has a top speed, and they can move up to that speed each turn.




We were pretty much in agreement that - should we solve the interface issue - the thrust/speed/agility mechanic worked really well and created exactly the type of movement from different ship types that we wanted.  Fighters were swopping round fast in large arcs, etc., while capital ships were plodding aong, and the aesthetic of that was very appealing.



> Readied actions are one thing that's more complicated (and often tend to cause problems even in D+D). Maybe one way of stopping lots of readied actions is to change some of the mechanics that tend to require readied actions. The main times it seems like readied actions would come into play is as follows:
> 
> 1. Taking a fighter out as it launches from a carrier. In the current system this requires a readied action because if the enemy fighter rolls initiative and lands in between the enemy carrier and your ship, it will get to act before you. But if you use my idea then that won't be a problem because the fighter has to wait the full time around before it can act.
> 
> 2. Manipulating shield timing. For example suppose I have two ships A and B, the opponent has ship X, the initiative order is X, A, B. Suppose that X has a 10 HP/round shield, and A and B each have a 10 damage weapon. If A misses then it's useless for B to fire because even if it hits it will get absorbed and the shield will go up to full next round. But if B readies until after X goes, then I'll get 3 shots total at him in one shield cycle. I'll talk about alternative shield systems in my next post.
> 
> 3. Killing an enemy that moves into my range and then moves out in one turn. If you use the movement idea I mentioned above it might be harder to go really fast and thus less reason to use this.




Yeah.  Basically I think my issue (I didn't actually talk to Doug about this one, so I don't know how he felt) was that there were just too many readied actions.  I viewed them as being an occasional thing, and it turned out to be the standard.




> Sensor locks are also a harder thing to keep track of because it's a "binary relation" - i.e. it's not a property of one ship (like HP or speed) it's a relation between two ships (A has a sensor lock on B). So if you put the counter or mark on A, for example, the counter has to say "has a sensor lock on B" and thus have a way of identifying B.




I think I've solved this one with an easy fix - simply use coloured counters.  Now I'm experimenting with magnetic printer paper, I think this issue is simply going to solve itself.  



> As for the "lots of fighters" issue *-* if there are lots of fighters we'll need to keep them simple. Some of the ideas I've put up above help in that direction, but it might be worth having some special rules or design guidelines just for fighters to keep them simple. For example, say that the only systems they have are weapons - that way the only thing you'll ever need to keep track of is hit points on them, and don't give them any of the things that make it harder to keep track of, like shields or special powers.




One thing I thought of was maybe some kind of command/control limit on the capital ships.  So a Colonial Battleship can provide C&C bonuses to a certain number of squadrons at a time, or something.  Not sure what would happen if it exceeded those thought - needs an encouragement to keep it down to X at a time.



> And by the way, did boarding combat every get used during your playtest and if so, how did it go? My impression on reading the boarding combat rules is that it gives significant advantage to the defender, because the defender gets to attack with all of their combat units as soon as the attackers come on board, while the attacker usually has to get combat units on one at a time - and unlike with just blasting the ship to bits (where each step down the damage track gives progressive effects) with boarding combat there's no negative effect until the ship is captured.




You've nailed the problem exactly.  I wanted to use the Federation transporters to board the Colonial vessel, but there seemed no point - I'd get a unit or two on board, and it'd get wiped out.  This at the expense of lowering my shields, which I was loathe to do (which was good, I guess - because transporters could potentially be a very powerful ability).  

On the other side, the Colonial Support Vessel was just unable to close and board a larger ship.  First, the shields were always up; second, it was easy for a Federation ship to swat the CSV out of the sky like a gnat.  

I'm wondering if - in the latter case at least - some sort of fighter escort/cover rule could help with that, allowing the CSV some protection while it did its thing.  Or, I guess, the CSV could just be made tougher.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> Also, I was going to give my ideas for shields. Here is an idea:
> 
> - You have "shield points." The shield points should be a significant fraction of total hit points. For example, a Federation Heavy Cruiser (100 HP) might have 75 shield points.
> 
> - The shield also has a "deflection rating" which is how much damage it can deflect off of each attack. Let's say the deflection rating is 5, then it can deflect 5 hit points out of each attack. This means that if the attack does 8 points of damage, then 3 of that is taken off hit points, and 5 is taken off shield points.
> 
> - There's also a "recharge rate." This is the number of shield points you get back each time you spend AP on the shields on your turn. Some ships might have a "full power to shields" option or something that lets you get, say, double the recharge at a cost of 3 times the APs.
> 
> This does make the stats for each ship more complicated, because the shields need to have 3 stats (max shield points, deflection rating, recharge rate). However it also handles the "shields down to 30%" idea better (the way you have it now, the shields go up to 100% every turn, then go down when the other ship attacks, then go up to 100% again, which I don't recall ever seeing on Star Trek, although I confess I only watched Voyager). It also avoids all the weird timing tricks that the current system invites, and still requires only one variable to keep track of.
> 
> As for sectional shields, it seems like the best way to do that would be to not have it be "default", and just have it be a special option (say, spend extra AP to double the deflection rating on one side for a turn). The problem with forcing players to choose shield arcs every turn is:
> 
> (1) As stated before, it makes the game more complicated, and means more to keep track of.
> (2) It gives yet another advantage to fighters and other maneuverable ships, because they can see which shield arcs their target powered up, and then maneuver on an unshielded part. To defend against this, the target could ready an action to power up the shields after seeing where the fighters moved to, but that makes the game move slower (I move here, do you want to power up shields? Okay, I turn then move one more hex, how about now? How about now?)
> (3) It also means more to figure out each turn. "Okay, the bad guy is moving at speed 3 and has thrust 4, so he can go 7 next turn ... let me count hexes to see if that's enough to get on to my side so I'll have to power up the side shields, and if not then how I can maneuver to force him to attack the shield arc I want him to attack next turn."
> (4) It's more thematic. I don't recall Captain Janeway giving the order to "power up front and left shield arcs - oh wait, the Klingon on the left moved on back, power up front and back now - I think there's another Klingon cloaked so let's ready an action to power up whichever shield arc he decloaks from." Usually things like "Maximum power to forward shields!" are special orders given in specific situations, and shield arcs aren't something they have to worry about in every single fight.




The directional shields came about through conversatons with another playtester.  They're a common feature of games because they encourage maneuvering - ships trying to keep their shielded side towards the enemy, and the enemy trying to maneuver to attack unshielded sides.  It adds an extra tactical element to the game.

But yes, it's slightly awkward.  I like your idea; shields power all around, with a option to divert extra power to just one shield.  If we reduce the readied action stuff somehow, then that would hopefully avoid the scenario you're describing.


----------



## Morrus

So, to summarise (largely repeating what we've been saying above):

Shields have an overall Shield Points total.  When shield points reach zero, shields go down.
Shields have a Rating which tells you how much damage they absorb from each attack.
When hit, damage equal to the Rating is applied to Shields Points  and the remainder damages the vessel as normal.
Recovering Shield Points requires an action.
Some ships can divert power to one specific shield as an action.  This increases its Rating for that round.
The thing I'm not keen on with the above is that there's one Shield Point difference between shields being fully functional and being down.  I wonder if a scaled rating is a better idea - when you have 30% of your Shield Points, you only have 30% of your Shield Rating (but simplified, more like the damage track).


----------



## Alex319

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alex319*
> 
> 
> _Also, I was going to give my ideas for shields. Here is an idea:
> 
> - You have "shield points." The shield points should be a significant fraction of total hit points. For example, a Federation Heavy Cruiser (100 HP) might have 75 shield points.
> 
> - The shield also has a "deflection rating" which is how much damage it can deflect off of each attack. Let's say the deflection rating is 5, then it can deflect 5 hit points out of each attack. This means that if the attack does 8 points of damage, then 3 of that is taken off hit points, and 5 is taken off shield points.
> 
> - There's also a "recharge rate." This is the number of shield points you get back each time you spend AP on the shields on your turn. Some ships might have a "full power to shields" option or something that lets you get, say, double the recharge at a cost of 3 times the APs.
> 
> This does make the stats for each ship more complicated, because the shields need to have 3 stats (max shield points, deflection rating, recharge rate). However it also handles the "shields down to 30%" idea better (the way you have it now, the shields go up to 100% every turn, then go down when the other ship attacks, then go up to 100% again, which I don't recall ever seeing on Star Trek, although I confess I only watched Voyager). It also avoids all the weird timing tricks that the current system invites, and still requires only one variable to keep track of.
> 
> As for sectional shields, it seems like the best way to do that would be to not have it be "default", and just have it be a special option (say, spend extra AP to double the deflection rating on one side for a turn). The problem with forcing players to choose shield arcs every turn is:
> 
> (1) As stated before, it makes the game more complicated, and means more to keep track of.
> (2) It gives yet another advantage to fighters and other maneuverable ships, because they can see which shield arcs their target powered up, and then maneuver on an unshielded part. To defend against this, the target could ready an action to power up the shields after seeing where the fighters moved to, but that makes the game move slower (I move here, do you want to power up shields? Okay, I turn then move one more hex, how about now? How about now?)
> (3) It also means more to figure out each turn. "Okay, the bad guy is moving at speed 3 and has thrust 4, so he can go 7 next turn ... let me count hexes to see if that's enough to get on to my side so I'll have to power up the side shields, and if not then how I can maneuver to force him to attack the shield arc I want him to attack next turn."
> (4) It's more thematic. I don't recall Captain Janeway giving the order to "power up front and left shield arcs - oh wait, the Klingon on the left moved on back, power up front and back now - I think there's another Klingon cloaked so let's ready an action to power up whichever shield arc he decloaks from." Usually things like "Maximum power to forward shields!" are special orders given in specific situations, and shield arcs aren't something they have to worry about in every single fight._
> 
> The directional shields came about through conversatons with another playtester. They're a common feature of games because they encourage maneuvering - ships trying to keep their shielded side towards the enemy, and the enemy trying to maneuver to attack unshielded sides. It adds an extra tactical element to the game.




There are still ways to do this that don't involve choosing new shield arcs every time. For example, directional defense bonuses, or some ships having one shield arc that's just always more powerful than another (i.e. you don't have to decide each turn which ones should be powered up).




> I wonder if a scaled rating is a better idea - when you have 30% of your Shield Points, you only have 30% of your Shield Rating (but simplified, more like the damage track).




That might work, although you do have to be careful about the math to make sure that you don't end up with it being impossible to take a shield completely down because as you hit the shield more, it starts absorbing less from each attack, so it goes down slower.


----------



## Alex319

> I was the other half of the play test with Russ the other day. He has covered most of what we found, but didn't say why Heroes didn't work.
> 
> In the fight he had two capital ships, one of which had a legendary engineer and a bold captain, meaning that that ship could make four rolls a round at +2 to repair, repairing 12 points a time. The other capital ship could make one roll at +0 for 10 points. So i ignored the first and threw everything at the second. It wasn't that the heroes had no effect, but the effect was to make that ship unattackable (as i saw it).



It sounds there like the problem wasn't that the heroes were too weak; it was that they were too strong. If I were the Federation player in this situation, I would have kept teleporting the heroes over to whichever ship needed repairs most.



> On my side i had a fighter squadron leader. The squadron moved on its inititiative and attacked. The target ship moved off. THe squadron leader then got to blast empty space a bit on his turn. Russ and I agreed that for most things it would work better if the hero acted on the initiative of the ship he was on.



At least the way I'm reading the rule book, it says the SL gives his squadron extra action points, which would presumably apply extra AP on the squadron's turn (since that's when the squadron gets AP).



> You've nailed the problem exactly. I wanted to use the Federation transporters to board the Colonial vessel, but there seemed no point - I'd get a unit or two on board, and it'd get wiped out. This at the expense of lowering my shields, which I was loathe to do (which was good, I guess - because transporters could potentially be a very powerful ability).



A while ago I made the suggestion of having a system where defending forces have to spend AP to attack boarding parties. Then a boarding unit on an enemy ship could reduce its effectiveness even if they couldn't capture it - because the defenders would have to spend AP to fight them off.



> On the other side, the Colonial Support Vessel was just unable to close and board a larger ship. First, the shields were always up; second, it was easy for a Federation ship to swat the CSV out of the sky like a gnat.



The rules don't say anything about shields blocking breach abilities; just that they block transporters.

By the way, if I were the Colonial player and I had a CSV, I would have spent a hero point on a Plucky Pilot, put him in the CSV, then launch out, fly near the enemy while activating ECM all the time. I would be at effective defense 22 with evasive maneuvers (evasive maneuvers doesn't prevent ECM, so I could just use it all the time) and they couldn't get a sensor lock, so they could only hit me on a natural 20 and I could jam their sensors with impunity.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> It sounds there like the problem wasn't that the heroes were too weak; it was that they were too strong. If I were the Federation player in this situation, I would have kept teleporting the heroes over to whichever ship needed repairs most.




Teleporting would have required me to lower my shields. I was too scared to do that!



> At least the way I'm reading the rule book, it says the SL gives his squadron extra action points, which would presumably apply extra AP on the squadron's turn (since that's when the squadron gets AP).




Probably just a flat AP bonus would work best.



> A while ago I made the suggestion of having a system where defending forces have to spend AP to attack boarding parties. Then a boarding unit on an enemy ship could reduce its effectiveness even if they couldn't capture it - because the defenders would have to spend AP to fight them off.




That's an idea. Although you the end up in the weird situation where one ship's troops act for free (because they're on an enemy ship) while the other vessel's troops are paying in AP to defend.



> The rules don't say anything about shields blocking breach abilities; just that they block transporters.




Ah, OK I must have overlooked that. I meant to include breaching also. I could've sworn that was in there! We certainly played that rule.

Anyway, here's my rough idea for a shield interface. Needs something added to mark an "intensified" toggle for specific shield arcs, but it gives a rough idea of how I'm imagining it. You cross of the shield points (from the right first, and as you move into each new box the shield rating goes down).  Shield damage will slow down towards the bottom end, which is OK I think.


----------



## Elephant

Morrus said:


> I refuse to say "can't be done"!  I'm going to try my darndest!




LOL, good luck.  However you end up dealing with it, I'm sure you'll have a tough balancing act.

Edit:  IRT shields - is each line of boxes one arc?  If so, could you just put a little circle at the right-hand end for "intensified"?

If not, how do you intend to distinguish arcs from each other?


----------



## Alex319

> Edit: IRT shields - is each line of boxes one arc? If so, could you just put a little circle at the right-hand end for "intensified"?
> 
> If not, how do you intend to distinguish arcs from each other?




At least in my idea, you dont track shield points separately for each arc. The only time the different arcs matter is if you use an "intensify specific arc" action.


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> Edit: IRT shields - is each line of boxes one arc? If so, could you just put a little circle at the right-hand end for "intensified"?




No, each section is 25% of the total shield points.  It's just coincidental that on that particular diagram 80 shield points worked out to four blocks of 4x5.



> If not, how do you intend to distinguish arcs from each other?




As I said, I need to figure out a way to note which arc is intensified.


----------



## Alex319

> Teleporting would have required me to lower my shields. I was too scared to do that!




If the two ships go right after each other in initiative order then in fact that would not be a problem, although it would cost some more APs. Suppose you had two ships A and B, in that order, and you want B to transport something to A. Do the following:

A's turn: Don't spend APs to maintain shields right now, but spend APs to ready them.

B's turn: Don't spend APs to maintain shields right now, but spend APs to ready them. Also ready transporters.

At the end of B's turn shields go down, then B uses readied transporters action to transport, then uses readied shields to put shields back up again. Then A activates his shields again using his readied action. By the time any opponents get to act, both the shields will be back up.

Admittedly that depends on the ships being in the right initiative order.  But this did inspire the following idea:

- Include a "drop shields temporarily" action that you can perform on your turn, or ready. When you do this, the shields go down, then go up at the end of the current ship's turn. So you could use that action to drop your shields temporarily to do the transport. An opponent would only be able to sneak in and hit you while your shields were down if they had a readied action to do so.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> If the two ships go right after each other in initiative order then in fact that would not be a problem, although it would cost some more APs. Suppose you had two ships A and B, in that order, and you want B to transport something to A. Do the following:




With about 20 ships on the map (including squadrons), the chances of my two ships going straight after each other are pretty slim!  As it was, the ships were nowhere near each other in the initiative order (and we agreed that a delay turn option was a bad idea for a game with constant movement).



> At the end of B's turn shields go down, then B uses readied transporters action to transport, then uses readied shields to put shields back up again. Then A activates his shields again using his readied action. By the time any opponents get to act, both the shields will be back up.




I don't like the "feel" of all this readying. I originally envisaged it as an occasional action people would use for occasional circumstances; as it turns out, it seems to be the default way of acting and the whole game incolves remembering what actions ships have readied. Needs work.


----------



## Morrus

Incidentally, we have another marathon playtest session tomorrow afternoon. We intend to play exactly the same ships as last time, the idea being that we're replicating the scenario where we noticed issues and trying to see if the changes have solved those issues.

I'm really enjoying this process!  I hope that at some point we can get some playtest reports from other people.


----------



## Morrus

I've just updated the book with the latest changes - shields and revised heroes.  I'm really not happy with the revised heroes, though - they're now remarkably bland.


----------



## Morrus

OK, so this would be how a stat card looks after these changes. Printed on card, laminated, and using washable markers should make quite a nice interface.

With these stats, assuming two identical ships, the shields would on average halve the photon torpedo damage or, if intensified, would just about absorb the torpedo's damage on an average damage roll. Phasers will rarely get through an unintensified shield.

These shield changes totally nerf fighters vs. shielded capital ships, though. At least for a while until the shields have been battered down. It'd take on average 20 hits from squadrons to bring the shields down.

I like the way intensified shields will go down quicker. Because they're absorbing more damage, the shield points are reduced faster. That's a side-effect that seems like a good bonus quirk to the way it works in my mind.

At the moment, shield points are restored though repair rolls.  I'm not totally sold on that, although it seems it'll work OK.


----------



## Morrus

Stat card in use (bad phone pic, unfortunately).  Boxes all seem about the right size for clear use, all seems very easy and accessible.  Great laminated with washable marker.  I think we're defnitely zeroing in on a very useable user interface.


----------



## Alex319

To make the heroes more interesting, one thing you could do is to, rather than just give each hero a passive benefit, also give them active abilities. But rather than have these be separate things a hero can do on their turn, they're abilities that the hero grants to the ship. And these abilities are things that cost something to use or require tactics that aren't normally used, so you have to decide whether and when to use them. Borrowing from 4e you could have an "at-will" that can be used all the time and a "encounter/daily" that you can only use once per game. (The "once per game" is by hero rather than ship, so you can't get it back just by moving from ship to ship.) For example:

*Legendary Engineer:*
"We Need More Power" - Once per turn, the LE's ship can spend double the normal action points on any one action to get a +4 bonus to that action.

"Overload Reactor" - Once per game, the LE's ship can use up to 10 action points over its normal allotment. At the end of the turn, it takes 1d4 damage per extra action point it used.

*Science Genius:*
"Subsystem Targeting" - Once per turn, when targeting a specific system on an enemy ship, the SG's ship can choose to disable it until the end of the SG's ship's next turn instead of doing damage.

"Reverse Polarity" - Once per game, after the SG's ship rolls a d20 for any ship system, it can flip the die over (so a 1 is instead treated as a 20, a 2 is treated as a 19, etc.)

*Plucky Pilot:*
"Shake Sensor Lock" - Once per turn, the PP's ship can spend 1 AP to roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, all sensor locks that enemies have on his ship are dropped.

"Target Weak Point" - Once per game, if the PP's ship ends his turn in the space of a Huge or larger ship, he can declare that he is going for a "weak point." On the PP's ship's next turn, if the PP's ship is in the target ship's space (or moves there) the PP's ship can spend 2 AP to make a special attack roll at a -10 penalty. If the attack succeeds, the target ship takes damage equal to 1/4 of its maximum hit points. (Note: This is intended to simulate something like the Death Star "trench run" where you fly over an enemy ship looking for a weak point.)

*Squadron Leader:*

"Covering Maneuver" - Once per turn, the SL's squadron can give another Medium or smaller ship within 2 hexes +2 to defense until the end of the SL's squadron's next turn.

"Attack Pattern Alpha" - Once per game, at the beginning of its turn, the SL's squadron may initiate a coordinated attack on an enemy ship system. This increases the squadron's available AP that turn to its remaining HP value, and gives it a +4 bonus to attack, but all the attacks have to be made at the same specific system on the same target.


----------



## Morrus

That's definitely an avenue worth exploring!  It's getting late and I need some sleep, but I'll think more on this tomorrow.  Our playtest is in the afternoon, so I'll be sure to report results (and probably post pictures, since I've been working so hard on the props!)


----------



## Alex319

> I don't like the "feel" of all this readying. I originally envisaged it as an occasional action people would use for occasional circumstances; as it turns out, it seems to be the default way of acting and the whole game involves remembering what actions ships have readied. Needs work.




I agree, and that's part of the reason why a lot of my comments have been about what you can do with readied actions. I think the reason that there's so many readied actions is because there's so many mechanics in the game that allow you to gain an advantage by manipulating action timing.

How about the following idea, which is used in a lot (if not most) wargames like Warhammer 40K and Warmachine. You don't have initiative for individual ships; you just have a turn for each side, and each player can just choose to activate their ships in whatever order they like. As far as I can tell, this would eliminate the need for pretty much all readied actions except in the following two cases:

(1) The player doesn't have anything to do this turn but expects to have something to do after the enemy acts. (e.g. readying weapons for the enemy to come in close, or readying repairs for when you take damage). But for this the game won't break if you don't have readied actions - the player can always just wait until his next turn.

(2) The "lowering shields to allow transporters" thing. Was the intent with this to make you drop the shields on both ships for a whole turn? If so that seems harsh - as you said, in your example the heroes were powerful enough to render the ship they were on "unattackable," yet not powerful enough to be worth dropping the shields for a turn to transport. Probably the best solution is to say that shields on friendly ships don't block transporters - that could be explained as the friendly ships just dropping their shields just long enough to let the transporter through (which takes such a small fraction of a turn that it doesn't matter.) If you still want to make it harder you could do that a different way, like having it cost extra AP, rather than the current clunky system.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> OK, so this would be how a stat card looks after these changes. Printed on card, laminated, and using washable markers should make quite a nice interface.
> 
> With these stats, assuming two identical ships, the shields would on average halve the photon torpedo damage or, if intensified, would just about absorb the torpedo's damage on an average damage roll. Phasers will rarely get through an unintensified shield.
> 
> These shield changes totally nerf fighters vs. shielded capital ships, though. At least for a while until the shields have been battered down. It'd take on average 20 hits from squadrons to bring the shields down.
> 
> I like the way intensified shields will go down quicker. Because they're absorbing more damage, the shield points are reduced faster. That's a side-effect that seems like a good bonus quirk to the way it works in my mind.
> 
> At the moment, shield points are restored though repair rolls.  I'm not totally sold on that, although it seems it'll work OK.



I keep thinking about how to better organize the cheats with colors without making them too colorful. Maybe one possibility would be to group the equipment list in the types you used earlier, and surround each group with the color associated with the type of equipment. It should be easy to always find the stat entry you need for a "task".

Attached is one photoshoppedpaint.netted attempt. The grouping here doesn't make sense to me. I think the organization in that list is "suboptimal".

One way to distinguish them might be "procedural" - at what point in resolving a full round of combat become they relevant? How do they fit into my decision-making process.

Maybe these group work, if the existing one is lacking: 
- Weapon Systems
- Shields
- Repair systems
- Hangars
- Special/Miscellanous systems (like sensors, jamming devices.)

I am not sure if I'd group tractor breams under weapon systems or miscellanous systems. It kinda makes sense, since they are offensive in use and all that, but they don't follow the standard rules for weapons and they might require "spcecial note". 

Either way:
- Shields you probably need to know out of your turn (how well am I defended?) and during your turn (what do I have to do to raise/repair them, if anything?)
- Repair System are relevant on your own turn.
- Hangars require you to decide when and what to launc at some point on your turn.
- Special/Misc Systems are probably unique to your ship and they might be relevant at any point, depending on the system. You basically know "always keep a look at these entries, they might be important.)
- Weapon Systems are used on your own turn and determine how you can attack.

I would probably put weapon systems and hangars at the top. Maybe shields and repair go to the bottom, keeping them closer to the damage track and the shield track.


----------



## Morrus

Those little coloured squares are genius!  I have no idea why I didn't think of that!  Good work, my friend!

Regarding the actual order - I agree that grouping them is easiest for the player.  One thing the card doesn't do yet is incorporate a directional random hit location mechanism (and we may welld ecide never to do that).  The idea being that if you rolled randomly for a hit location, it makes a difference whether you're attacking from the front, side, or aft, encouraging tactical maneuvering.  If that were the case, they'd probably need to be grouped differently - according to direction.  But that's just a future maybe at present.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

The squares could also be used as a kind of marker for the condition or something like that...


----------



## Morrus

Long, very enjoyable game session played! Same battle (fully stocked Galactica vs. Federation Cruiser and Flagship plus 5 Rebel Fighter Squadrons). This battle seems remarkably even every time we play it, which is good.

The interface improvements made SUCH a massive difference. It made the game 1000% faster and easier to play. We were very pleased with them, although thought of a few minor tweaks to them. 

Observations from today's session:

1) The new shields system is a million times better. It *feels* right.

2) Damage track having things suddenly shut off at certain points does not feel right. There are big jumps - moving from one category to the next and suddenly having all sorts of stuff stop working is too much of a killer. Given that shields already had a built-in mechanism to drop after a battering, it also seemed redundant. We felt that Action Points, being the universal resource, were all that we needed to reduce (and Thrust). 

3) Along the lines of above, instead of defence grids suddenly shutting down, their efficacy should decrease like shields do. We felt we prefered some randomness/attack rolls in the defence grids anyway, rather than auto-damage.

4) Fighters are maybe a tad _too_ fast and nimble, being able to be pretty much wherever they like.

5) Boarding is almost impossible with the matching speeds (and we decided that you couldn't instigate a boarding action while doing evasive maneuvers). 

6) When you do manage to get someone on board, combat unit fights are a pain. Tracking the HP of each unit, and which unit is fighting who was NOT a fast, stramlined aspect of play! We did agree that the 1 AP penalty for each enemy unit aboard was perfect.

7) Every time we've played, it's come down to capital ships exploding and trying to take out other capital ships when they do. It gets kinda predictable. Also self-destruct/suicide maneuvers are too common.

8) Heroes giving initiative bonuses are pretty useless!

That sounds like a list of negatives, but there were SO many positives. At this stage it is a working, fun game which we feel is better than many other games we've played. It's all tweaking from here.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

> Same battle (fully stocked Galactica vs. Federation Cruiser and Flagship plus 5 Rebel Fighter Squadrons). This battle seems remarkably even every time we play it, which is good.



Question might be:
- Did you just balance the battle and ships well?
- Or is the system too random so that the actual stats matter little for the end result? 

I suspect the first is more likely, but maybe there is something to check out. 



> 6) When you do manage to get someone on board, combat unit fights are a pain. Tracking the HP of each unit, and which unit is fighting who was NOT a fast, streamlined aspect of play! We did agree that the 1 AP penalty for each enemy unit aboard was perfect.



Maybe you need your own power/stat cards for them?
Or you need to simplify further? No "hit points" anymore perhaps, maybe more something along the lines of tracking three states or success grades: 
- Unit advances
- Unit retreats
- Unit destroyed
When all boarding units have retreated, they leave the ship and the ship can't be boarded again for full round. When all defending units retreat, the ship is under enemy control but the defenders are still aboard, continuing the fight. 

You could allow Units that advance to take over subsystems... But that would make things more complicated again, I suppose. But then, that is pretty much what the Cylons wanted to do in the second season of the BSG:TNS. Get secondary damage control and weapons control to turn of life support and fire weapons at the civilians... 



> 7) Every time we've played, it's come down to capital ships exploding and trying to take out other capital ships when they do. It gets kinda predictable. Also self-destruct/suicide maneuvers are too common.



Feels like Star Trek.  I suppose it might not fly in campaign play. "Yeah, I won. Oops, only two fighters left for the next battle."


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Question might be:
> - Did you just balance the battle and ships well?
> - Or is the system too random so that the actual stats matter little for the end result?
> 
> I suspect the first is more likely, but maybe there is something to check out.




The first, very clearly.




> Maybe you need your own power/stat cards for them?
> Or you need to simplify further? No "hit points" anymore perhaps, maybe more something along the lines of tracking three states or success grades:
> - Unit advances
> - Unit retreats
> - Unit destroyed
> When all boarding units have retreated, they leave the ship and the ship can't be boarded again for full round. When all defending units retreat, the ship is under enemy control but the defenders are still aboard, continuing the fight.
> 
> You could allow Units that advance to take over subsystems... But that would make things more complicated again, I suppose. But then, that is pretty much what the Cylons wanted to do in the second season of the BSG:TNS. Get secondary damage control and weapons control to turn of life support and fire weapons at the civilians...




Yikes, that sounds even more complex!



> Feels like Star Trek.  I suppose it might not fly in campaign play. "Yeah, I won. Oops, only two fighters left for the next battle."




Well, it needs to be fixed, because having every battle end up being "does the ship manage to explode in the right place to take out the enemy?" is fundamentally unsatisfying.


----------



## Elephant

Perhaps you could do something to make it a little easier to disable rather than destroy enemy ships?

Some mechanic to discourage self-destruct might be in order, too.  It ought to be a rare, desperate last resort, not a default "my ship is crippled.  *BOOM*" last attack.

How big *are* the self-destruct blasts?  For space combat, I'd expect them to be quite small compared to the battle board.  Maybe damage everything in the same hex -- or everything in the adjacent hexes at most.  Space is _really big_.


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> Perhaps you could do something to make it a little easier to disable rather than destroy enemy ships?
> 
> Some mechanic to discourage self-destruct might be in order, too. It ought to be a rare, desperate last resort, not a default "my ship is crippled. *BOOM*" last attack.
> 
> How big *are* the self-destruct blasts? For space combat, I'd expect them to be quite small compared to the battle board. Maybe damage everything in the same hex -- or everything in the adjacent hexes at most. Space is _really big_.




There are diagrams in the book.  Space may well be big, but each hex in this game is only about 100m or so.


----------



## Morrus

*Defence Grids*

So here's my proposed Defence Grid change.

Defence Grids do more damage but require hit rolls
They get a number of attacks against each each target
This number of attacks is reduced through the damage track (4, 3, 2, 1)
This will eliminate the sudden cut-off (at present once the grid goes down, the carrier is effectively dead because fighter squadrons just continually unload into it with impunity at about ten times the rate that the ship can repair).  It also adds a little more flexibility in grids, as accuracy, etc. can be changed on a per-ship basis.

*Combat Units*

I propose removing hit points and damage.  One hit kills.  Nice and simple.

*Ship Explosions*

Ship explosions need to happen much more quickly.   Start at 4-6 on d6, next round it's 3-6, next round 2-6, final round 1-6.  Less of the ships just flying on for ages while the player tries to guide it towards the enemy capital ships.

*Self Destruct*

Make the countdown much longer, making it very hard to time tactically and allowing opponents to move away or blow up the ship first.  A minimum of 5 rounds or so.

*Turning*

A minimum of two hexes between turns, allowing a turn at the end of your movement if you haven't made one.  I also propose removing sidelip - it manifests as a "get out of jail free card" and renders asteroids pointless.

*Speed*

Need to slow fighters down a little.  Whizzing round at speed 24 is pretty much "just place the fighter anywhere you want it on the map".  It's almost a teleport ability.   I suggest giving the fighters penalties to hit at high speeds similar to the Defence bonus they get.

*Heroes*

Still needs reworking.  Passive bonuses need to be useful - initiative isn't uselful enough (Bold Captain and Seasoned Admiral).  

*Sensors & ECM*

ECM should provide a penalty to sensor rolls instead of simply blocking them.  This allows the Science Genius to shine, as well as ships with sophisticated sensors.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> *Defence Grids*
> 
> So here's my proposed Defence Grid change.
> 
> Defence Grids do more damage but require hit rolls
> They get a number of attacks against each each target
> This number of attacks is reduced through the damage track (4, 3, 2, 1)
> This will eliminate the sudden cut-off (at present once the grid goes down, the carrier is effectively dead because fighter squadrons just continually unload into it with impunity at about ten times the rate that the ship can repair).  It also adds a little more flexibility in grids, as accuracy, etc. can be changed on a per-ship basis.



Multiple attacks against multiple targets? That sounds like it could take some time to resolve each round. Would it be better to just have a varied attack bonus? 



> *Combat Units*
> 
> I propose removing hit points and damage.  One hit kills.  Nice and simple.



Do you still have something like variable attack and defense scores? It might be nice to be able to "simulate" a highly trained crew vs. just losts of troops. 



> *Ship Explosions*
> 
> Ship explosions need to happen much more quickly.   Start at 4-6 on d6, next round it's 3-6, next round 2-6, final round 1-6.  Less of the ships just flying on for ages while the player tries to guide it towards the enemy capital ships.



You mean the final round is autoamtic?



> *Self Destruct*
> 
> Make the countdown much longer, making it very hard to time tactically and allowing opponents to move away or blow up the ship first.  A minimum of 5 rounds or so.



Sounds like this could work.  THough I still wonder if the explosion just shouldn't be weaker. Less damage or less range...



> *Turning*
> 
> A minimum of two hexes between turns, allowing a turn at the end of your movement if you haven't made one.  I also propose removing sidelip - it manifests as a "get out of jail free card" and renders asteroids pointless.



Sideslip could turn in a ship's special ability. It might make sense for some of the maneuverable fighters. 



> *Speed*
> 
> Need to slow fighters down a little.  Whizzing round at speed 24 is pretty much "just place the fighter anywhere you want it on the map".  It's almost a teleport ability.   I suggest giving the fighters penalties to hit at high speeds similar to the Defence bonus they get.



Would you apply the penalty to everyone or just fighters? 
You could base it on thrust spent each round.



> *Heroes*
> 
> Still needs reworking.  Passive bonuses need to be useful - initiative isn't uselful enough (Bold Captain and Seasoned Admiral).



Hmm. Attack or Defense bonuses will probably be always appreciated. 



> *Sensors & ECM*
> 
> ECM should provide a penalty to sensor rolls instead of simply blocking them.  This allows the Science Genius to shine, as well as ships with sophisticated sensors.



Either that or ships with sophisticated sensors and science genius get special abilities to counter it. But Counter-COunter-measures have the tendency to get awkward...


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Multiple attacks against multiple targets? That sounds like it could take some time to resolve each round. Would it be better to just have a varied attack bonus?




How do you mean?  



> Do you still have something like variable attack and defense scores? It might be nice to be able to "simulate" a highly trained crew vs. just losts of troops.




Could have, yeah.



> You mean the final round is autoamtic?




Yup.  But expressing it as a die range means that it retains numerical flexibility - should we ever decide we want someone to be able to modifiy the die range.



> Sounds like this could work. THough I still wonder if the explosion just shouldn't be weaker. Less damage or less range...




Yeah.  I think I'll tone 'em down.  Right now it's Max AP x 10 at the determinate hex, halved for each hex distance.  Reducing it to a level where it's a threat to fighters and forces them to pull back but not a viable weapon against capital ships is the key here, I think.




> Sideslip could turn in a ship's special ability. It might make sense for some of the maneuverable fighters.




True enough.




> Would you apply the penalty to everyone or just fighters?




Yup.  Though in practice the capital ships simply don't accelerate to those speeds.   Their agility is low enough that it's too dangerous in combat.



> You could base it on thrust spent each round.




Nah.  I had a couple of squadrons simply moving at 24 for the entire game; they didn't use any thrust points to change speed once they reached 24.



> Hmm. Attack or Defense bonuses will probably be always appreciated.




Yup.  We've found that +/-2 modifiers really affects behaviour.  The fighters try as best they can to get in behind each other because of the +2 from the rear. 



> Either that or ships with sophisticated sensors and science genius get special abilities to counter it. But Counter-COunter-measures have the tendency to get awkward...




Yeah.  Modifiers are the way to go, I think.  ECM gives -8 or something.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> How do you mean?



The way I understood your suggestion it means that a defensive grid makes multiple attacks each against every fighter in the grid. That sounds like a lot of rolls. 

I'd rather give them a higher attack bonus (plus damage) and apply a penalty or reduce the bonus for a weakened state. 

I forgot, don't defensive grids also require action points? Don't you think limiting action points will do enough?


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The way I understood your suggestion it means that a defensive grid makes multiple attacks each against every fighter in the grid. That sounds like a lot of rolls.
> 
> I'd rather give them a higher attack bonus (plus damage) and apply a penalty or reduce the bonus for a weakened state.
> 
> I forgot, don't defensive grids also require action points? Don't you think limiting action points will do enough?




I think it does, but maybe the AP reduction down the damage track needs to be increased slightly to make sure that the larger ships really are making hard choices as they get damaged.  Plus we then get into an interesting dynamic of AP modification with heroes and the like, which I like.  I like the idea of the engineer being able to bring the grid back online (by earning a couple of extra APs for the ship).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> I think it does, but maybe the AP reduction down the damage track needs to be increased slightly to make sure that the larger ships really are making hard choices as they get damaged.  Plus we then get into an interesting dynamic of AP modification with heroes and the like, which I like.  I like the idea of the engineer being able to bring the grid back online (by earning a couple of extra APs for the ship).



Maybe the action point cost of the individiual systems just aren't high enough? I am not sure that reducing action points more will help otherwise... 

For example, the Alliance War Star grants you 50 shield points and resist 10 to damage for 3 action points. His standard attack seems to deal about 1d6 points of damage for 1 action point. So basically 3 action points can fend off up to 14 enemy action points. (assuming identical ships and no one using more effective weapons, but the weapon always hitting). Maybe that's just not the ideal ratio. 

The Federation Cruiser has almost the same chance, except that sometimes it will take real damage. 

I feel that you might be able to make similar calculations with the auto-hit defense grids, but this time looking at how many targets are affected and taking into account hit ratios. Of course now that you revamp them, that might be moot.
Though I am thinking about - why do you change it? Are the defense grids to effective against squadrons or too effective against capital ships? You could reverse the rules for their effectiveness against capital ships - they deal only 1 damage against capital ships but 1d4 against squadrons...


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe the action point cost of the individiual systems just aren't high enough? I am not sure that reducing action points more will help otherwise...
> 
> For example, the Alliance War Star grants you 50 shield points and resist 10 to damage for 3 action points. His standard attack seems to deal about 1d6 points of damage for 1 action point. So basically 3 action points can fend off up to 14 enemy action points. (assuming identical ships and no one using more effective weapons, but the weapon always hitting). Maybe that's just not the ideal ratio.




Doesn't really play out like that in game. With all the dynamics going on, shields are a lot weaker than you'd think just looking at the numbers. 



> The Federation Cruiser has almost the same chance, except that sometimes it will take real damage.




That's the one we used yesterday. Turst me, nobody thought the shields were too effective!



> Though I am thinking about - why do you change it? Are the defense grids to effective against squadrons or too effective against capital ships?




No, it's that they need to scale down instead of being 100% - 100% - 100% - 0%. When up, the ship's OK; once down it may as well be dead, because it ain't ever coming back up again! With a hundred points of damage per round raining in on it from various sources, no defence grid up to whittle down those attacks, and a repair rating of 5, a Colonial battleship is dead as soon as its defence grid goes down - it's a point of no return.

A scaled system gets rid of that "100% or 0%" thing that the Battleship has going for it.

So the nnumbers work like this: if you want the damage from a grid to scale down through the damage track, then you need to start at something higher than d4; that can give you a nice scale (say, d8, d6, d4 or something).  To compensate for extra damage, assigning a hit probability rather than auto-damage stops it becoming too deadly.


----------



## Elephant

Morrus said:


> There are diagrams in the book.  Space may well be big, but each hex in this game is only about 100m or so.




 100m?!  In _space_??!?  What, are you kidding me?  If we mounted weapons systems on *satellites* and were duking it out with Russia in orbit, engagement ranges would be more like 10-100km.

100m would be a friggin' *knife fight* in space.

Shoot, a quick Googling suggests that Star Trek phasers have ranges of 2000 km at a minimum -- some sources peg 'em at an effective range of 200,000 km.

100m per hex just seems way too small to me.



On another note, do you have any ship designs for this inspired by the Goa'uld ships from Stargate?  'cuz that would be positively peanutty!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Startrek Phasers are even supposed to have a range of 300.000 km. Never seen on screen, they are always way closer.

If you use such large scales, most ships will end up take up only a single hex. Pretty boring. 

I agree. Stargate ships would be cool. As would be FarScape, by the way. But I guess there's always room for some "homebrew" ships - or later supplements.


----------



## Diplomat123

Elephant said:


> 100m?!  In _space_??!?  What, are you kidding me?  If we mounted weapons systems on *satellites* and were duking it out with Russia in orbit, engagement ranges would be more like 10-100km.
> 
> 100m would be a friggin' *knife fight* in space.
> 
> Shoot, a quick Googling suggests that Star Trek phasers have ranges of 2000 km at a minimum -- some sources peg 'em at an effective range of 200,000 km.
> 
> 100m per hex just seems way too small to me.
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, do you have any ship designs for this inspired by the Goa'uld ships from Stargate?  'cuz that would be positively peanutty!



Star Trek combat almost always happens within rock throwing range with ships banking past each other.  Star Wars, B5 and Galactica are also in your face fights more akin to WW2 planes attacking a fleet, rather than Battleships standing off and firing at each other.

With regards to self destruct.  Maybe the simple answer is to remove it as an option.  I am struggling to think of a single Trek example of a combat use of self destruct (ramming yes).  If the idea is to recreate the fell of TV and film, why put in an option that was never used.  Standing by for multiple examples of uses in TV and Film.


----------



## Diplomat123

Russ,

Following our latest playtest you have covered most of the stuff that came up, and i generally like the suggestions.  It certainly played a lot quicker with the revised ship cards, and the new shields were a much better mechanic, although from the Bridge they didn't seem to be stopping all that much stuff as it came in.

For boarding combat, how about have a separate card for boarding actions.  As soon as a ship is boarded, write its name onto the sheet and move the combat units onto that sheet.  You can then use that to track in as much detail as you like without cluttering up every ship card.  eg, rather than hit points, each unit is healthy, wounded, crippled or dead.  The boarding combat card has areas for each of those and you just move the units betweeen them as appropriate.

My major niggle is how determinate hexes work on large ships.

Taking the Galactica for an example.  It is about 8 hexes long and 3 wide, and has a single determinate hex.  To be shot at you count range to its determinate hex.  It counts it own firing  range and arcs from that hex as well.  So far so good.

It can lauch fighters to any hex adjacent to the ship.
It projects an aura from the edge of the ship.
When flying along, every hex is susceptible to hitting an asteroid.
When being threatened by a self destrucing ship the determinate hex was the one to count to.
I'm not sure what the rule is where it comes to ramming - is it the determinate hex or the edge of the ship that makes contact.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but it creates a lot of confusion having two totally different mechanics in play for effectively the same thing (where is the Galactica), depending on what you are doing.


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> 100m?! In _space_??!? What, are you kidding me?




I am not.



> 100m would be a friggin' *knife fight* in space.




Take that up with George Lucas, J Michael Strackzinski (however you spell his name), plus the makers of _Star Trek_ and _Battlestar Galactica_! Fighters race along the hulls of capital ships at a distance of a few feet and weave in and about each other at ranges similar to WW2 air combat, Star Trek capital ships fire at each other from distances of only a few ship lengths, and so on. Examples of ships engaging each other at rages of thousands of kilometers are virtually nonexistent in sci-fi space combat.

It's a fun space combat game based on TV and film, not a simulation of what space combat would be like in real life. And space combat on TV and film is pretty much like WW2 battleships and fighters (mainly because that's more cinematic). 




> 100m per hex just seems way too small to me.




Have you tried playing it yet? I assure you that the scale works perfectly!  You really need to play this game to get a sense of how it feels.



> On another note, do you have any ship designs for this inspired by the Goa'uld ships from Stargate? 'cuz that would be positively peanutty!




Just the ones in the book so far.


----------



## Morrus

Diplomat123 said:


> For boarding combat, how about have a separate card for boarding actions. As soon as a ship is boarded, write its name onto the sheet and move the combat units onto that sheet. You can then use that to track in as much detail as you like without cluttering up every ship card. eg, rather than hit points, each unit is healthy, wounded, crippled or dead. The boarding combat card has areas for each of those and you just move the units betweeen them as appropriate.




Possibly.  That's yet another record sheet in play, though.



> My major niggle is how determinate hexes work on large ships.
> 
> Taking the Galactica for an example. It is about 8 hexes long and 3 wide, and has a single determinate hex. To be shot at you count range to its determinate hex. It counts it own firing range and arcs from that hex as well. So far so good.
> 
> It can lauch fighters to any hex adjacent to the ship.
> It projects an aura from the edge of the ship.
> When flying along, every hex is susceptible to hitting an asteroid.
> When being threatened by a self destrucing ship the determinate hex was the one to count to.
> I'm not sure what the rule is where it comes to ramming - is it the determinate hex or the edge of the ship that makes contact.
> 
> I'm not sure what the right answer is, but it creates a lot of confusion having two totally different mechanics in play for effectively the same thing (where is the Galactica), depending on what you are doing.




I agree.  The difficulty is balancing simplicity (a determinate hex pretty much cutting out any potential arguments re. range and targeting) and realism (a 3 hex wide ship squeezing between asteroids one hex apart shouldn't happen).

Perhaps simply reverting to using the edge of the counter is the way to go.  I can foresee disagreements in play arising then, though!


----------



## Morrus

For those interested, I put together a basic mission pack/scenario PDF detailing the playtest scenario. It works well as an introductory scenario, I think (although a far more basic one will be included in the core rulebook - probably one with just a couple of ships, no heroes or baording parties). We've played this mission three time now, swapping sides, and it seems very balanced.  That was more luck than anything else!

It kinda gives a starting glimose at the role I imagine for such Mission Packs in the product line. This one just uses ships from the core rules, but Mission Packs can contain new ships and counters, too, as well has new heroes or terrain features or other stuff particular to that scenario.

It'll need some prettying up, some art, and some better photos, of course.


----------



## Elephant

Morrus said:


> I am not.
> 
> 
> 
> Take that up with George Lucas,




Not a sci-fi director.



> J Michael Strackzinski




Never heard of him.



> (however you spell his name), plus the makers of _Star Trek_




WTF?  The examples I cited were from the Star Trek universe!  The fact that most firefights in ST happened after the ships zoomed up to kiss each other doesn't reduce the effective weapons range.  Just because I could shoot a target with a rifle from 5' away doesn't mean that I should wait until *all* targets are 5' away before engaging them.  That would just be stupid.



> and _Battlestar Galactica_!




I've never seen it.



> Fighters race along the hulls of capital ships at a distance of a few feet and weave in and about each other at ranges similar to WW2 air combat, Star Trek capital ships fire at each other from distances of only a few ship lengths, and so on. Examples of ships engaging each other at rages of thousands of kilometers are virtually nonexistent in sci-fi space combat.




I've been reading the wrong "sci-fi", then, I guess.  Ships in the Honor Harrington novels certainly engaged each other at longer ranges.



> It's a fun space combat game based on TV and film, not a simulation of what space combat would be like in real life. And space combat on TV and film is pretty much like WW2 battleships and fighters (mainly because that's more cinematic).




Aaand...my interest in space fight just evaporated.  "Fun and cinematic" shouldn't have to mean "turn your brain off before you start".



> Have you tried playing it yet? I assure you that the scale works perfectly!  You really need to play this game to get a sense of how it feels.




Oh, I would have loved to play sometime in the past couple of months.  Unfortunately, it's not available for download.


----------



## Morrus

Elephant said:


> Not a sci-fi director....Never heard of him....I've never seen it....I've been reading the wrong "sci-fi", then, I guess.




The game is very specifically designed around _Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5_, and _Battlestar Galactica_. If you're unfamiliar with two of the four, dismiss the third, and prefer to base things on some technical manuals from the fourth rather than what happens onscreen, I'd agree that you probably won't get much out of the game - it's pretty much geared at those whose tastes mesh with the styles of battle shown onscreen in those four shows/movies.

You haven't been reading the "wrong" sci-fi; your tastes and preferences aren't wrong. They just appear to be aligned with things other than those that this particular game is modelled on.



> WTF? The examples I cited were from the Star Trek universe! The fact that most firefights in ST happened after the ships zoomed up to kiss each other doesn't reduce the effective weapons range. Just because I could shoot a target with a rifle from 5' away doesn't mean that I should wait until *all* targets are 5' away before engaging them. That would just be stupid.




I'm not sure what you mean by "the Star Trek universe", but this game is based on the types of battles shown onscreen. If you're not a fan of those space battles then the game _definitely_ isn't for you, since it has been specifically designed from the start to model the style of space battles shown onscreen in _Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica_, and_ Bablyon 5_.

But if the ranges are that important to you, it's easy enough to say "OK, each hex is 1000 km", since distances are measured in hexes. Won't change the gameplay.



> Aaand...my interest in space fight just evaporated.
> 
> "Fun and cinematic" shouldn't have to mean "turn your brain off before you start".




Fair enough on the interest level; everyone's tastes vary. No idea what you mean with the second sentence. The game has a lot of tactical depth and requires a lot of thought. 



> Oh, I would have loved to play sometime in the past couple of months. Unfortunately, it's not available for download.




It's been available for download for over 6 months now (since 11 June 2009). That's how people are reading and commenting on it.


----------



## Imperialus

Elephant said:


> I've been reading the wrong "sci-fi", then, I guess.  Ships in the Honor Harrington novels certainly engaged each other at longer ranges.




Well in that case play attack vector.  Just don't forget to bring your graphing calculator.


----------



## Imperialus

Morrus said:


> Fair enough on the interest level; everyone's tastes vary. No idea what you mean with the second sentence. The game has a lot of tactical depth and requires a lot of thought.




I think he's trying to play the 'speculative fiction snob' card.  Unfortunate, since he cited Honor Harrington as an example of accuracy.


----------



## Morrus

Just a quick update of where we're at (after the Xmas break) - combat unit art is starting to come in, another long playtest tomorrow for which we'll use different factions, and I started work on the first faction book (The Colonists) with a bunch of new ships, heroes and combat units.


----------



## Diplomat123

Following yesterday's play test session...

We wanted to try out cloaks, so had the standard two Federation ships facing off against two Spartan destroyers, and three scouts that could cloak.  In the first fight the Spartans used their cloaks to get close without being shot, but after that they cost too many APs to be worth using.  The fight was a fairly easy win for the Spartans, thanks to their battle tactic of not bothering to switch on their shields and relying on their numbers and high defence numbers to keep them safe.  This allowed them to fire all weapons and take down the Lucky and Hood in turn. for the loss of one destroyer.

We talked about the game and agreed on making the cloak cheaper to use and adding in a specific tactic of decloaking and firing a single shot with bonus damage and a crit chance.  We also introduced a crit chance when ships took certain amounts of damage. (50% chance).  We then ran the game again with one less Spartan Destroyer.

This went even worse for the Feds.  Whilst the cloaked Spartan ships sped around getting sensor locks on the Lucky, all the Feds could do was fly along with shields up and a readied intensify shield action.  Then the Spartans did sequential uncloaking attacks and in one round vaporised the Lucky's shields and damaged some critical systems.  By its next turn they had finished it off with concentrated disruptor fire.

Following this we had more discussion and agreed that there needed to be a counter to cloaked ships.  Ideas that we discussed.

Allow sensor locks on cloaked ships as a penalty.  Combined with this, cloaked ships moving fast are easier to lock onto.  This should then mean that the bonus damage for the uncloaking attack is not received as it is no longer a surprise attack.  However, at the end of a cloaked ships turn it automatically shakes off all sensor locks.

In the first fight there was a lot of transporter activity.  We agreed that beaming your own people between your own ships should not require a sensor lock, but i found the AP cost of trying to get boarding parties aboard very high.  It is very inefficeint for a small ship with one transporter as you need a sensor lock, and a lot better for a large ship with multiple transporters.  Russ and I disagreed on that being a problem...


----------



## Morrus

I've updated the document with a bunch of changes from yesterday.  I haven't yet included our suggestion that cloaked ships be limited in speed; I feel that will go a long way towards making them less uber-powerful.

The boarding combat it starting to come together well.  The first system was not good; the current one (the one we used yesterday) is getting there.  It's still not perfect, but it's a lot more playable and_ feels_ right in play.  Needs more playtesting and tweaking though.


----------



## Morrus

Incidentaly, this is the current iteration of the ship cards we're using.


----------



## Diplomat123

It would be better if the crit numbers were in sequence, ie Combat Units =1, Thrust 2-5, Sensors 6-7 etc.


----------



## Morrus

Diplomat123 said:


> It would be better if the crit numbers were in sequence, ie Combat Units =1, Thrust 2-5, Sensors 6-7 etc.




Says the man who, when presented with an Intensified Arc box, manages to completely miss it and invent his own notation!


----------



## Morrus

Combat troop art coming in!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> Incidentaly, this is the current iteration of the ship cards we're using.



How about the idea on grouping / colors for better idenitifaction and finding of important stats?


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> How about the idea on grouping / colors for better idenitifaction and finding of important stats?




I worry it'll get too garish (we're already using a lot of colours to distinguish damage tracks and stuff already).  In play, we certainly didn't experience any issues with finding stuff, although I'll ask Doug if he feels that colourising the systems would add anything.


----------



## Morrus

Here's an idea I'm toying with - formations and patterns. These are like "stances" in D&D - they grant broad bonuses or effects. A ship may only be in one stance at a time, must remain in it for the entire turn, and not all ships are able to use all stances.

Some brief notes/examples - just brainstorming, really, to give an idea of what sort of thing I'm thinking of. I'm thinking both individual stances, and multiple ships gaining synergistic effects from formations.


*Attack Run*
_“Stay on target!”_
Prerequisite: Squadron; speed must be equal to thrust; may not change heading during this turn.
Effect: The squadron gains twice as many attacks as it would normally have, but becomes very vulnerable to enemy fire, suffering a 4-point penalty to Defence.

*Cover Me!*
_“Cover me – I'm going in!”_
Prerequisite: None.
Effect: A vessel or squadron may cover another vessel or squadron within its weapon range, using its weaponry to fire shots which distract and deter attackers. The covered vessel gains a +4 bonus to Defence, but the covering vessel may not fire at a target. 

*Attack Vector Zero*
_“Form up on my wing!"_
Prerequisite: Within 3 hexes; size small or lower.
Effect: Three vessels may fly in a formation designed to optimize their capabilities. All three must select this pattern and be within 3 hexes of each other; if any of them moves more than three hexes from another or changes pattern, all three ships lose the benefit of the pattern. While in formation, the three ships all gain a +2 bonus to attack and defence.

*Damage Control*
_"Seal those bulkheads!"_
Prequisite: Size large or greater.
Effect: A vessel may divert all available resources to the repair effort, pulling crew away from other departments and shutting down all nonessential systems. The vessel gets a +2 bonus to repair checks and doubles the Repair Rating of its engineers, but all other systems go temporarily offline.

*Evasive Maneuvers!*
_"Get us out of here!"_
Prerequisite: Must be moving at a speed at least equal to its Thrust score.
Effect: The vessel gets a +4 bonus to its Defence score, but may not fire.

*Guard*
_"Hold the line!"_
Prerequisite:  Must be moving at Speed 0 (stationary).
Effect: A vessel in a Guard pattern may not move. The vessel guards an area, creating an aura which causes damage to enemy vessels passing through that area. Multiple vessels may overlap these auras to create areas of intensified damage. The aura size is equal to the ship size (i.e. tiny = aura 1, small = aura 2, medium = aura3, etc.) A vessel in a Guard pattern is very vulnerable to enemy fire, suffering a -2 penalty to Defence.


----------



## Alex319

A few more points of clarification about the new rules:

*Damage to Systems:* 

1. Can any repair facility be used to repair a damaged system, including both engineering departments and sick bays?

2. Suppose that a system is damaged twice, so its "11" and "15" damage boxes are checked off. If a repair facility gets a repair roll of 15 on it, does that restore it to full functionality, or does it just erase the "15" box and you need another roll to remove the "11" box? If so, do you have to repair the boxes in order from right to left, or can you, say, repair the "11" box (leaving the "15" box for later) if you only roll an 11? Do you have to declare which damage box you are trying to repair before you attempt the roll?

*Shields:*

1. Suppose that a shield that normally has Shield Rating 5 is intensified (to SR 10) and is hit with an attack that does 6 points. Am I correct to assume this would take 3 points off the shield (as in the example, you take off half the amount that the shield absorbed?)

2. Does "recharge at the beginning of each round" mean beginning of the whole round, or beginning of that ship's turn? Probably it would make more sense to say at the beginning of that ship's turn. And does it still recharge even if you don't spend APs to keep them up? If not then you will want to make them recharge when the player spends APs to keep them up (at the beginning of his turn he might not know whether he is spending the APs to keep them up yet).

*Auras:*

Is each arc considered a separate aura for purposes of calculating damage? For example, suppose that Ship A has a 1d8 aura, and Ship B moves past Ship A in such a way that it goes through both its front and side arcs - does it take 1d8 or 2d8 damage? What happens if it goes through both an intensified and an unintensified arc?

*Transporters:*

Do you need a sensor lock to beam crew from your ship to another friendly ship? In a previous discussion IIRC you said that's how it would work, but the current rules just address beaming back, not beaming out to another friendly ship.

Also, there's a sentence in there about shields completely blocking transporters - that's been removed from the game right, now it's just a penalty?

And also to clarify, you need a sensor lock to even attempt the teleport, and once you have that you still need to make the roll right?

*Cloaking:*

How is this tracked on the board? Do you remove the mini from the board and track secret movement somehow? Otherwise it will still be pretty obvious to the enemy where the "cloaked" ship is.

*Boarding Craft:

*Do you have to match direction as well as speed? For example, if Ship A is going at speed 10 going right, and Ship B is going at speed 10 going left, can Ship A put boarding parties on board Ship B?

*Boarding Combat:

*Have you thought about rebalancing the attack/defense numbers now that combat units only take 1 hit to kill rather than the 3-4 hits they took before? If not then it seems like combat units will be very short-lived.

*Repair Ends:*

This part is very confusing. Let me see if I am understaing it correctly:
In order to try to end a "repair ends" condition you have to activate a repair facility, and when you do that you can choose to try to end a "repair ends" condition. Since you can only activate each facility once per turn, this means that you couldn't also use that facility to, say, repair hull damage that turn. A few more implications of this are:

- If you have only one repair facility you could only try to repair one "Repair ends" condition per turn, even if you have more than one on you.
- If you have two repair facilities then you could try to repair the same condition twice on a turn if the first attempt failed.
- If your only repair facility is damaged or disabled, there's no way to fix it.

And also, it seems like repair facilities are getting quite versatile in the latest version. By my count there are at least four things you can do with a repair facility:

1. Restore hit points
2. Restore shield points
3. Repair ship systems
4. Get rid of "repair ends" conditions


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> A few more points of clarification about the new rules:
> 
> *Damage to Systems:*
> 
> 1. Can any repair facility be used to repair a damaged system, including both engineering departments and sick bays?




Nope.  Sick bays can repair combat units (and, later when I write it, heroes).  Engineers repair systems.



> 2. Suppose that a system is damaged twice, so its "11" and "15" damage boxes are checked off. If a repair facility gets a repair roll of 15 on it, does that restore it to full functionality, or does it just erase the "15" box and you need another roll to remove the "11" box? If so, do you have to repair the boxes in order from right to left, or can you, say, repair the "11" box (leaving the "15" box for later) if you only roll an 11? Do you have to declare which damage box you are trying to repair before you attempt the roll?




At the moment, a single roll to repair completely.  However it hasn't been playtested yet (we have a session on Thursday) so we'll be seeing how that works out.



> 1. Suppose that a shield that normally has Shield Rating 5 is intensified (to SR 10) and is hit with an attack that does 6 points. Am I correct to assume this would take 3 points off the shield (as in the example, you take off half the amount that the shield absorbed?)




Yup.  Otherwise intensifying doesn't create an advantage.



> 2. Does "recharge at the beginning of each round" mean beginning of the whole round, or beginning of that ship's turn? Probably it would make more sense to say at the beginning of that ship's turn. And does it still recharge even if you don't spend APs to keep them up? If not then you will want to make them recharge when the player spends APs to keep them up (at the beginning of his turn he might not know whether he is spending the APs to keep them up yet).




It's slotted into the turn sequence near the beginning of the book.  At least, it is in the copy I have - hopefully the latest version is uploaded!




> Is each arc considered a separate aura for purposes of calculating damage? For example, suppose that Ship A has a 1d8 aura, and Ship B moves past Ship A in such a way that it goes through both its front and side arcs - does it take 1d8 or 2d8 damage? What happens if it goes through both an intensified and an unintensified arc?




Oh yes!  Seeing fighters trying to curve in without crossing into another arc was fun!



> Do you need a sensor lock to beam crew from your ship to another friendly ship? In a previous discussion IIRC you said that's how it would work, but the current rules just address beaming back, not beaming out to another friendly ship.




You would, yeah.  Transporters are simply far too powerful otherwise.



> Also, there's a sentence in there about shields completely blocking transporters - that's been removed from the game right, now it's just a penalty?




That's right.  Sentence needs removing.



> And also to clarify, you need a sensor lock to even attempt the teleport, and once you have that you still need to make the roll right?




Yup.  



> How is this tracked on the board? Do you remove the mini from the board and track secret movement somehow? Otherwise it will still be pretty obvious to the enemy where the "cloaked" ship is.




We simply turn the counter over.  The _player _knows where the ship is (although his ship tecnically doesn't until it gets that sensor lock), although he still ahs to make a difficult sensor lock to even try firing at it.  We did consider removing the counter from the board like some other games do, but we find it so clumsy.




> Do you have to match direction as well as speed? For example, if Ship A is going at speed 10 going right, and Ship B is going at speed 10 going left, can Ship A put boarding parties on board Ship B?




Boarding proved absolutely impossible, so we're looking at lowering the requirements.  At present you have to be within 3 of its speed and don't have to match direction.  We'll see how that works out.l



> Have you thought about rebalancing the attack/defense numbers now that combat units only take 1 hit to kill rather than the 3-4 hits they took before? If not then it seems like combat units will be very short-lived.




It seemed to work out about right in the one playtest we did.  But we'll keep testing it.




> This part is very confusing. Let me see if I am understaing it correctly:
> 
> In order to try to end a "repair ends" condition you have to activate a repair facility, and when you do that you can choose to try to end a "repair ends" condition. Since you can only activate each facility once per turn, this means that you couldn't also use that facility to, say, repair hull damage that turn.




That's right.



> A few more implications of this are:
> 
> - If you have only one repair facility you could only try to repair one "Repair ends" condition per turn, even if you have more than one on you.
> - If you have two repair facilities then you could try to repair the same condition twice on a turn if the first attempt failed.




At present, yes, that's correct.



> - If your only repair facility is damaged or disabled, there's no way to fix it.




That is true, and is something which came up.  We've proposed a couple of fixes:

1) Repair facilities can't be damaged; or
2) Damaged repair facilities can repair themselves but nothing else.



> And also, it seems like repair facilities are getting quite versatile in the latest version. By my count there are at least four things you can do with a repair facility:
> 
> 1. Restore hit points
> 2. Restore shield points
> 3. Repair ship systems
> 4. Get rid of "repair ends" conditions




Yup.  Although we find that they mainly end up doing (3).


----------



## Alex319

> Have you thought about rebalancing the attack/defense numbers now that combat units only take 1 hit to kill rather than the 3-4 hits they took before? If not then it seems like combat units will be very short-lived.    It seemed to work out about right in the one playtest we did.  But we'll keep testing it.




Wait a second: Does each side in the boarding combat get one attack per round, or one attack per combat unit? For example, if you have a boarding combat with each side having 5 combat units, is each side attacking 5 times (once with each combat unit) or is each side attacking only once?


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> Wait a second: Does each side in the boarding combat get one attack per round, or one attack per combat unit? For example, if you have a boarding combat with each side having 5 combat units, is each side attacking 5 times (once with each combat unit) or is each side attacking only once?




Each combat unit gets one attack on one other combat unit. They cannot gang up on each other (this makes it pointless beaming a unit aboard, say, a Colonial Battleship). 

The assumption is a bunch of isolated battles taking places in various locations about the ship. No more than one unit can fight another. 

The advantage of having lots of units is that once a boarding unit has beaten one of your units, it has to defeat another.  But it has to do so sequentially.


----------



## Alex319

I see. So if the attacking side has X combat units and the defending side has Y combat units, then each side makes a total of min(X,Y) attacks each turn.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> each side makes a total of min(X,Y) attacks each turn.




I don't understand what "min(X,Y)" means.

Each combat unit gets to attack one other combat unit only each turn, and each cmnat unit can only be attacked by one comat unit each turn.

Basically, they pair up one vs. one. Excess units wait in line.


----------



## Alex319

min(X,Y) means the minimum of X and Y - that is whichever number is lower. So if one side has 3 combat units and the other side has 5, the minimum is 3.

The way you describe it that is correct - if one side has 3 and the other has 5, then each side would get to make 3 attacks.


----------



## Alex319

And also, with the "each combat unit can only be attacked once":

1. You will need to have a rule about who gets priority for choosing attack targets, in the case where there are three or more sides in the same boarding combat, and two of the sides both want to attack the same opposing combat unit.

2. There are cases where it is worthwhile to attack your own combat units in order to prevent your enemy from attacking them. For example, suppose I'm defending a ship with 2 Imperial Soldiers against an attacking force of 5 Spartan Warriors led by a Dark Lord. It's highly unlikely that I will be able to successfully repel them, but if I had my Soldiers attack each other, then they would only hit each other on a 14 or higher, while if I let my enemies attack me then they would hit me on a 6 or higher. So I would survive a lot longer. And since each combat unit can only be attacked by one other combat unit, if my Soldiers attack each other, then the Spartan Warriors can't attack them.


----------



## Morrus

Alex319 said:


> 2. There are cases where it is worthwhile to attack your own combat units in order to prevent your enemy from attacking them. For example, suppose I'm defending a ship with 2 Imperial Soldiers against an attacking force of 5 Spartan Warriors led by a Dark Lord. It's highly unlikely that I will be able to successfully repel them, but if I had my Soldiers attack each other, then they would only hit each other on a 14 or higher, while if I let my enemies attack me then they would hit me on a 6 or higher. So I would survive a lot longer. And since each combat unit can only be attacked by one other combat unit, if my Soldiers attack each other, then the Spartan Warriors can't attack them.




We laughed out load when we read this - it would never have occured to us in a million years!  Brilliant! 

You're right, that's definitely not the intention, and I'll stick a few words in there to plug that little leak.


----------



## Morrus

Yesterday's playtest concentrated on objective based games rather than straight fights.

The first used a rough version of the stance/formation rules - a group of fighters escorting three civilian vessels, being attacked by a group of fighters whose objective was to destroy the civilian vessels before they left the play area.

The second was a dense asteroid field populated by mines and laser towers. There was a McGuffin on the central asteroid guarded by two combat units from an unknown race. The objective was to be the first to get to the asteroid, defeat the combat units on the surface, collect the McGuffin and escape the battlemap.

Both worked very well, and we noticed that scenarios can utterly change the style and feel of play, which bodes well for replayability of the game. The formation stuff worked fairly well - needs a bit of tweaking, but the basic concept worked perfectly. 

We did have one amusing incident where my Ferederatio Cruider was negotiating the asteroid field. I'd taken to destroynig smaller asteroids rather than going round them (as reaching the central asteroid first was vital), while the opposing Spartan Scouts were able to negotiate the field fairly easily. At one point, my cruiser approached the large central asteroid; I intended to come to a stop immediately at the beginning of the next round to avoid collision. Unfortunately, a cloaked Spartan Scout decloaked right behind me, fired a torpedo into my rear and luckly hit my engines, making me unable to alter speed until I repaired it. Result? My cruiser plowed straight into the asteroid and exploded.


----------



## Morrus

Added some more ships today to fill in the big gap in medium ships.

Alliance Flyer (revised)
Alliance Corvette
Imperial Light Cruiser
Rebel Blockade Runner
Hive Probe
Federation Scout


----------



## Morrus

Some more very rough new ships I've been playing with.  I probably won't include these in the core book, and they need some work.

Various Federation starships, and some larger Rebel ships.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Morrus said:


> Some more very rough new ships I've been playing with.  I probably won't include these in the core book, and they need some work.
> 
> Various Federation starships, and some larger Rebel ships.



If you like to designate a ship as "common" for a faction, it might make sense to include it in the core book. The "Federation Frigate" is described as such, for example. If it's such a common sight, why not include it in the core set? (Of course there are pratical answers - you need to commission more artwork, which is expensive!)

I am not sure for how many ships you're aiming at per faction in the core book, or if you want to keep all factions currently contained in it.

The game might feel "incomplete" if you do not have enough ships per faction, on the other hand the engagements described so far don't really seem to feature all that many ships.


----------



## Morrus

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you like to designate a ship as "common" for a faction, it might make sense to include it in the core book. The "Federation Frigate" is described as such, for example. If it's such a common sight, why not include it in the core set? (Of course there are pratical answers - you need to commission more artwork, which is expensive!)




Well, there's the rub.  The art budget is well and truly blown.



> The game might feel "incomplete" if you do not have enough ships per faction, on the other hand the engagements described so far don't really seem to feature all that many ships.




We've been testing very specific things.  We'll do a big fleet engagement test at some point.


----------



## Iron Sky

Just wanted to drop in to say the newest ship designs in the .pdf look pretty good.  The earlier ones looked pretty garish with all the different solid colors, but the newer ones are pretty sharp.  Only tiny thing that stood out on a first look over was the pale-yellowish and salmon colors in the damage regions.  I'm not sure what I would replace them with 'twere in my project, but those colors kinda stood out since the rest is fairly clean and appealing.

Art is the real killer, huh?  Rules are cheap (and often fun!) to tinker with, but finding quality, affordable artwork - not so much...


----------



## Stormonu

Diplomat123 said:


> Following yesterday's play test session...
> 
> We wanted to try out cloaks, so had the standard two Federation ships facing off against two Spartan destroyers, and three scouts that could cloak.  In the first fight the Spartans used their cloaks to get close without being shot, but after that they cost too many APs to be worth using.  The fight was a fairly easy win for the Spartans, thanks to their battle tactic of not bothering to switch on their shields and relying on their numbers and high defence numbers to keep them safe.  This allowed them to fire all weapons and take down the Lucky and Hood in turn. for the loss of one destroyer.
> 
> We talked about the game and agreed on making the cloak cheaper to use and adding in a specific tactic of decloaking and firing a single shot with bonus damage and a crit chance.  We also introduced a crit chance when ships took certain amounts of damage. (50% chance).  We then ran the game again with one less Spartan Destroyer.
> 
> This went even worse for the Feds.  Whilst the cloaked Spartan ships sped around getting sensor locks on the Lucky, all the Feds could do was fly along with shields up and a readied intensify shield action.  Then the Spartans did sequential uncloaking attacks and in one round vaporised the Lucky's shields and damaged some critical systems.  By its next turn they had finished it off with concentrated disruptor fire.
> 
> Following this we had more discussion and agreed that there needed to be a counter to cloaked ships.  Ideas that we discussed.
> 
> Allow sensor locks on cloaked ships as a penalty.  Combined with this, cloaked ships moving fast are easier to lock onto.  This should then mean that the bonus damage for the uncloaking attack is not received as it is no longer a surprise attack.  However, at the end of a cloaked ships turn it automatically shakes off all sensor locks.




I'm probably way late on this, but as has been mentioned before where the capital ships are much treated like battleships/aircraft carriers of WW2 and the fighters as WW2 dogfighters, cloaked ships are the submarine wolf packs of the game.  As such, to counter them, there likely should be a class of weapons that can be used like depth charges to smoke out cloaked ships (check out the "Balance of Terror" episode of Star Trek, they actually use phasers in this manner, though it'd probably make more sense with torpedoes).  On the cloaked ship's side, it's main attack ought to act like a sneaky torpedoing of the enemy vessel.


----------



## Firebeetle

Has anyone posted about this site?:

Studio Bergstrom Catalog

which has inexpensive knockoffs of virtually all the ships described in Space Flight? It's all very cool and very cheap. I'm eyeballing this as my ticket into spaceship miniature gaming, although I'm interested in Cold Navy eventually.


----------



## e4Mafia

Is there any update on the status of this project? I have to be honest, its the main reason I have subscribed to ENWorld. Not that I don't enjoy the other content, but I hope that at least some work is being on because of my contributions. I'm not about to cancel or anything though.

Russel, have you thought of doing Space Fight! as a patronage project? Like using kickstart or something like that?

-Bob


----------



## Morrus

I've never really looked into patronage stuff (I'm aware that they exist, but hadn't given it any thought and don't know much about it).  

I was planning to check to see if there was continued interest in this, so it was a pleasant surprise to see the thread jump back to the top of the page.


----------



## e4Mafia

Aside from personal time to work on the project, what are the current hang ups?
I know you were having some art budget issues, is that still the case?


----------



## Morrus

There weren't art budget issues; the art budget was spent well, in my opinion.  

The hardest part is the "props" aspect.  The big problem is that a game like this really needs accessories to work - counters, laminated ship sheets, etc.  Sure, you can print out and make your own, but that gets really tiresome really quicky (I speak from experience).  

The whole props aspect is utterly ouside my spehere of expertise.  I did look into a few "on demand" services, but none were adequate for what we needed.


----------



## e4Mafia

Have you looked at "TheGameCrafter.com"?
He had a booth at Gencon this past year, and I was pretty impressed. Might not be what you need in particular though.


----------



## Firebeetle

I would recommend working the guys at Worldworksgames. They already have a spacemap (a really nice one) and a paper miniature set. I think they would be up to the task. That's still in the "print it out yourself" category, though.

A patronage project is a good idea. This really needs to be a boxed set to work.

Another idea: Sell hard copies to guys who already play starship miniatures by creating rules for different miniature lines (there are many of them out there already, check out Star Ranger: Starship Combat News for a long list. I'm going to start working on those Cold Navy ships I talked about earlier myself, I'll post my results.


----------



## Morrus

e4Mafia said:


> Have you looked at "TheGameCrafter.com"?
> He had a booth at Gencon this past year, and I was pretty impressed. Might not be what you need in particular though.




Looked at it a year ago - they didn't have any of the parts we'd need. Just rechecked, and they still don't.

We need irregularly shaped colour cardboard counters and laminated ship sheets which can be written on and wiped off.  That site doesn't offer either of those things.



Firebeetle said:


> I would recommend working the guys at Worldworksgames. They already have a spacemap (a really nice one) and a paper miniature set. I think they would be up to the task. That's still in the "print it out yourself" category, though.




We already have "print it out yourself". What we're looking for is "Don't have to print it out yourself".


----------



## e4Mafia

Not to change the subject , but along the line of print it yourself (which I've happily done) it seems like there are sheet missing? Or maybe it just wasn't finished? (Or maybe I'm blind. Always a possibility) The main ship control sheets are what I am referring to.


----------



## Firebeetle

Sale on Cold Navy ships from Ravenstar studios. 20% on everything until Dec 30. 

Starship Combat Forum • View topic - Cold Navy Sale 20% off little time left

I'm picking up the whole Terran line for starters. I'll post conversion info as I make it.


----------



## Morrus

e4Mafia said:


> Not to change the subject , but along the line of print it yourself (which I've happily done) it seems like there are sheet missing? Or maybe it just wasn't finished? (Or maybe I'm blind. Always a possibility) The main ship control sheets are what I am referring to.




They're in constant flux; we haven't settled on a final version yet.


----------



## e4Mafia

That would explain it then. Glad its not just my ability to see in question. I rather liked the one you did for the enterprise class star trek vessel, if its of any value to you for feedback 
You wouldn't be willing to share a template would you? Would let me avoid reverse engineering one of my own. I've got a small group of gamers at my FLGS that were pretty big fans of ACTA, and would love something like this to try out. I just need to do the legwork and put something together for them to try out.

For a "1 big ship and some small ships" vs the same, any recommendations?


----------



## Firebeetle

OK, here's a miniature line that is analogous to Battlestar Galactica, the TinMen lineup. He's giving away a free model with any order this weekend.

Ravenstar Studios Blog

My February budget just got complicated. These would definitely fit the bill for two of the factions in Space Flight.


----------



## e4Mafia

Any update? I was hoping for a template or something similar like I mentioned before. Any chance of it?


----------



## Unlogic

I was considering getting a subscription just for this game, but I was wondering about its status. Its been over a year since the last change to the rules... is it finished? Is it abandoned? Is work still progressing on it elsewhere?

Any news at all?

Thanks.


----------



## Unlogic

Bump. Hello? Anyone alive over here? Anyone still care about this game?


----------



## Morrus

Unlogic said:


> Bump. Hello? Anyone alive over here? Anyone still care about this game?




I'm not sure if there will be further updates; the guy I was working on it with died recently, so I'd have to continue it alone.  He contributed a lot of the stuff.

The basic rules are there; it was additional stuff we were thinking about, along with refining the ship combat sheets and the like.  Our largest problem towards the end wasn't rules, it was making tracking and such easy.


----------



## Morrus

Just a note: this PDF has been placed at RPGNow as a charity product.  Proceeds go to [MENTION=45627]Diplomat123[/MENTION] (Doug Massie's) preferred charity.


----------



## Unlogic

I appreciate the notice!


----------



## donm61873

Is SANTIAGO going to have hooks for Space Fight?


----------



## Morrus

donm61873 said:


> Is SANTIAGO going to have hooks for Space Fight?




Hooks? I'm not sure I understand the question.


----------

