Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Uncle_Joe
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:27 am

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby Uncle_Joe » Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:41 pm

Yes, I think that approach would work well too. I prefer if 'Command Ships' have to be in range to command and not skulking so something like allowing a Command Ship to activate a friendly ship within 'x' hexes would be good IMO.

That's pretty much what I had in mind with the card draw system and allowing a ship with command to immediately activate another friendly within range.

That doesn't convey a maneuver advantage however and if desirable, that's why I included the ability for a Command ship to force a movement by the opponent.

murtalianconfederacy
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:56 am

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby murtalianconfederacy » Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:48 am

@cricket: Maybe. Would there also be the ability to co-ordinate defensive fire? Maybe state that any ship engaging in anti-seeker or anti-fighter fire in support of another unit in the battlegroup takes place at short range. They'd have to move relative to the command ship, and within 3 hexes of the command ship. Rules for ships falling out of the battlegroup would have to be considered, but I'd think a -1 column shift or similar could work to denote the loss of command. Seeker fire from all units of a battlegroup, if of the same weapon type, gets combined into one salvo, similar to how different banks of a seeker battery in NE get combined when targeting a single unit. So three units with ten seeker dice targeting one unit combine those dice into a single thirty-dice salvo. Finally, all fighters from a single battlegroup can be formed into a single fighter 'wing'.

As for Command with regards to battlegroups: Three units maximum form a battlegroup, and a battlegroup is formed around a command ship. A ship with a Command rating, when chosen as the command ship of a battlegroup, can increase the number of ships by one per Command rating, so a ship with 1 Command can command a 4-ship battlegroup, a ship with 2 Command can command a 5-ship battlegroup etc.

Again, all off the top of my head, so usual disclaimer about it possibly being too broken...
Staff Door at my local Waterstones:

"This door is alarmed"

:) :)

mj12games
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3637
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby mj12games » Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:19 pm

The problem with any form of "Command" is that it has no corollary to anything in the main Starmada game. So, if we make it too much a part of SFO, it becomes a whole new game, rather than a faster-playing, larger-scale version of Starmada.
Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
www.mj12games.com

Uncle_Joe
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:27 am

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby Uncle_Joe » Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:44 pm

Agreed. Given that, I would think that maybe just adding an extra 'card' or two to the action deck would do the trick cleanly and efficiently.

The only real thing to be determined there would be whether to add a fixed number of each level command advantage over your opponent (say 2 per point) or just make it a flat addition to the command pool regardless of opposing command levels.

Example of former:
Side A has one ship with Command:2 and Side B has two ships with Command:1. As in the 1st edition, only the highest on each side is considered so side A has a 1 point command advantage is thus is entitled to two extra 'cards' in the deck.

Example of latter:
Side A has one ship with Command:2 and Side B has three ships with Command:1. Each point of command entitles your fleet to add an extra 'card' to the deck so in this case Side A would add 2 cards and side B would add 3 cards (one for each ship).

I prefer the latter so Command is less 'all or none' but either would work fine and be a simple but effective way to show command ships.

murtalianconfederacy
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:56 am

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby murtalianconfederacy » Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:22 am

cricket wrote:The problem with any form of "Command" is that it has no corollary to anything in the main Starmada game. So, if we make it too much a part of SFO, it becomes a whole new game, rather than a faster-playing, larger-scale version of Starmada.


Yeah, I agree myself, but the word battlegroup, influenced by my recent reading material (the Starfire books) and having looked at Fleet Action 2 only a day before, conjured up an image of tightly-knit units of ships working together to defend individual units targeted by large numbers of seeker weapons or fighters. Now looking at it, I realise it's only got a use as an optional system.

As well as a learned bias against initiative-based games (and an innate desire to insert simultaneous options for movement and combat), I must admit to a certain bias against games with card decks, as its yet another thing you have to have to play the game. I'd much rather have a game where all you need is a map, counters/minis, ship records, dice and the rulebook. Cards mean another thing you 'need', and I'm rubbish at shuffling anyway, so it's not nearly as effective as a random system either for me. That's why I've been pushing for simultaneous movement/combat rules, and a way to have Command as an effective tool in SFO2 that's not tied to initiative-based rules or reliant upon card decks. Otherwise why bother with buying the book if all I'm going to do is convert the ships I've designed for SNE to SFO2?
Staff Door at my local Waterstones:

"This door is alarmed"

:) :)

mj12games
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3637
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby mj12games » Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:02 pm

I see the tension, but my personal bias these days is moving further and further AWAY from record-keeping.

(I actually have a pretty solid idea in my head for a starship combat game that would require exactly ZERO record-keeping...)

The "problem" with truly simultaneous movement is that it requires movement orders to be written down; and if you're already going to have paper lying around for that, you might as well track hull hits/weapon damage/etc. anyway.

It would seem the logical solution would be to alternate movement of ships/groups, so that you don't need cards but you also don't give one side the advantage of moving all of its ships last.

Perhaps, Side A moves 1/2 its ships, Side B moves all of its ships, Side A moves its remaining ships?
Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
www.mj12games.com

Uncle_Joe
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:27 am

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby Uncle_Joe » Sat Feb 15, 2014 4:51 am

Well cards are just one way to do it. Chits in a cup work fine too and are easily provided.

Different color cubes, beads, dice etc all work fine. I don't think that should really be a sticking point if it's a good mechanic.

I've played quite a few games recently with multiple methods:

1) As written...Side A moves first and fires first. It's OK, but it often makes the game resolution dependent on a single die-roll for initiative. Given the relative short ranges, low Thrust values, and high lethality, it's not uncommon for one side to effectively lose in a single turn and that just makes initiative too critical IMO. This is even worse when Fighters are present.

2) Alternating 1 each (adjusted for ratio of Side A to Side B ships). This works pretty well but it requires a bit of calculation (small issue) for it to work right. The predictable nature of the back and forth means that players can count on certain shots to always be made. This isn't a problem per se, but it leads to sometimes rather suicidal maneuvering just to get a good shot with a heavy weapon.

3) Card pool draw. This is my favorite so far. It works similar to '2' above but without the predictable aspect. So I've seen less incentive to send a ship into harm's way to unload a heavy payload because there is no guarantee that it even would get a shot off. I like this effect and it allows for easy Command rules which have a true effect on the game (by adding extra cards to the pool you have more chances of getting the first or multiple shots...works really well).

I can't say I'm really a fan of Side A moving/shooting half, then Side B moving/shooting, and then Side A moving/shooting with the other half. I think it's better than the current default, but still leads to massive initiative importance (because of course you'll fire all your important shots first anyways).

murtalianconfederacy
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:56 am

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby murtalianconfederacy » Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:59 am

Deleted post. Wasn't thinking clearly.
Last edited by murtalianconfederacy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Staff Door at my local Waterstones:

"This door is alarmed"

:) :)

murtalianconfederacy
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:56 am

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby murtalianconfederacy » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:58 am

Okay, as I've had a couple days to think things over, I apologise if I went too far. I haven't had much sleep over the last few days, and I was starting to develop tunnel vision on this issue. Taking a few days out to print up some of my supplements has given me time to relax and think things over from a fresh prospective.

My main concern with regards to SFO2 is the ability to have a Command system that works effectively in both plotted movement and initiative-based systems. Working on card-draw systems only addresses initiative-based systems, and as you can tell, I'm not that keen on them...;)

If we can have such a system, then I'm quite happy if initiative-based movement is the default, as long as plotted movement has a clear turn sequence, and I can easily work around counters. But having an effective Command system for use in plotted movement games is a must for me, because it determines whether I actually build units in SFO2 or just convert my SNE designs. And that could mean the difference between 1000 designs and 2000 designs...:D
Staff Door at my local Waterstones:

"This door is alarmed"

:) :)

The Oz
Midshipman
Midshipman
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:51 pm

Re: Since a 2nd Editions is planned...

Postby The Oz » Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:39 pm

I have always liked the idea of having units move and shoot in order of size, from largest to smallest.

Perhaps something like this:

Movement Phase
Side A Hull size 9-12 ships move
Side B Hull size 9-12 ships move
Side A Hull size 5-8 ships move
Side B Hull size 5-8 ships move
Side A Hull size 1-4 ships move
Side B Hull size 1-4 ships move
Side A Fighters move
Side B Fighters move

Combat Phase

Side A Hull size 9-12 ships shoot
Side B Hull size 9-12 ships shoot
Side A Hull size 5-8 ships shoot
Side B Hull size 5-8 ships shoot
Side A Hull size 1-4 ships shoot
Side B Hull size 1-4 ships shoot
Side A Fighters shoot
Side B Fighters shoot

This allows bigger ships (presumably with better fire control) to fire first, but allows smaller ships (presumably more nimble) to gain better firing positions.

You could even add initiative rolls for each size class, to give even more crunchy tactical goodness.


Return to “Starmada: Fleet Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest