Starship combat games

[Curufea]

Re: Starship combat games

 

To some degree, notionalizing the third dimension oversimplifies some of these concepts, but then again, jogging "up" to avoid a collision isn't much different than jogging "left".

 

I'd actually argue that a third dimension is at least as important in a ground combat game as it is in a space game, if not more so. Wellington's tactics at Waterloo can't be reproduced (well) in two dimensions.

 

Yes, but it is far easier to use play aids to represent the 3D nature of ground combat. Miniatures and terrain are not difficult to make or use - there isn't a need to move things to different heights independantly of the surface they are on.

 

It's not just collisions that are changed by a third dimension, but also maneuvers. Turn left, right, up or down. Roll the ship. Pitch the ship. The Star Warriors board game for Starwars fighters simulated this by allowing you to flip your ship and suddenly go backwards.

 

It doesn't matter as much if you have only three objects in a game (say two ships and a planet) because they define a plane and the third dimension could be abstracted away more easily. But - by that simplification, why not have a game with two ships just have linear movement in one dimension? It is as equally realistic.

 

For roleplaying purposes, two dimensions is usually enough - everyone thinks two dimensionally. It's quite counter-intuitive to think otherwise. We are barely aware of the space above our heads (when was the last time you looked up? Do you do it frequently?) or below our feet. But a trained space pilot would be taught spatial awareness and use it to their advantage.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Starship combat games

 

It doesn't matter as much if you have only three objects in a game (say two ships and a planet) because they define a plane and the third dimension could be abstracted away more easily.

Heh...that thought occurred to me this morning.

 

As to two ships in one dimension, that's pretty much what the Dogfight and Chase rules are in Hero. The only thing that matters there, spatially speaking, is distance.

 

General question: So, if one were to set up a three dimensional gameboard (hypothetically speaking here), how would it be marked? Generally, when the third dimension comes into play in a game, we just assume that each hex is about 2m tall, and a stack of identical hexes is piled on it. But that just brings back the same distance fudging that made us gamers drop squares in favor of hexes. How should 3rd dimensional hexes be arranged in relation to the base plane?

[Curufea]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Traveller uses distances in that manner as well to simplify combat.

 

As to hexes in 3D, I must again refer to my favourite realistic space combat game - Attack Vector: Tactical.

The XZ plane it represents with hexes, but the Y axis it represents with height/depth levels. The attitude of your ship is simplified to 30 degree directions in XYZ. They use a chart to work out the thrust ratio based on the angle of your ship's direction - ie if you are pointed more up, than level - you wil raise your level in more phases in the turn than you will move forward on the XZ plane that turn.

 

Ships are always put in the hexes - so if traveling at 30 degrees on the XZ plane you will move into alternate hexes every other phase.

 

I should add - that it is the play aids and the simplifications of the maths and physics involved that made me fall in love with this game.

[Old Man]

Re: Starship combat games

 

It doesn't matter as much if you have only three objects in a game (say two ships and a planet) because they define a plane and the third dimension could be abstracted away more easily. But - by that simplification' date=' why not have a game with two ships just have linear movement in one dimension? It is as equally realistic.[/quote']

 

Traveller High Guard did exactly that. There was no movement system at all other than changing the range from 'long' to 'short'. It was assumed that fleets would remain cohesive and separate and that therefore maneuver didn't matter much. Although the line tactics so described were invalidated by Nelson at Trafalgar, if not earlier.

[tkdguy]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Here's a rules-oriented question to those who play Full Thrust. Since my campaign would use rail guns instead of beam weapons, I was thinking of using the K-guns listed there, but limiting them to class 1 and 2 K-guns. I'd get rid of the bypass armor rule but keep the double damage rule. Would that unbalance the game?

[Curufea]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Traveller High Guard did exactly that. There was no movement system at all other than changing the range from 'long' to 'short'. It was assumed that fleets would remain cohesive and separate and that therefore maneuver didn't matter much. Although the line tactics so described were invalidated by Nelson at Trafalgar' date=' if not earlier.[/quote']

 

It's sacrificing realism for playability - the age old conundrum of game design

 

"Should it be fun, or should it be believable?"

[Curufea]

Re: Starship combat games

 

On a side note (even though I've stated it before) - I really liked first season of the Andromeda scifi television show.

Space combat was done on monitors. Each ship saw radar/sensor images - none of this huge panoramic view of the enemy ship in full technicolour at close range.

External shots of the opponents rarely (or never) showed both sides in the same shot.

Combat was done with seeking weapons, not direct fire weapons (which are useless at anything other than point blank range, astronomically speaking).

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Here's a rules-oriented question to those who play Full Thrust. Since my campaign would use rail guns instead of beam weapons' date=' I was thinking of using the K-guns listed there, but limiting them to class 1 and 2 K-guns. I'd get rid of the bypass armor rule but keep the double damage rule. Would that unbalance the game?[/quote']

Hmm... It would certainly make K-guns quite a bit weaker: the armor-piercing nature of K-guns is their biggest advantage. If both sides use K-guns as their primary armament, it would probably balance out. But if you also allow other weapons (P-torps, missles), you may find them a lot more cost-effective compared to your modified K-guns.

 

Another possibility would be to just use the beam mechanic, but call them whatever you want. (Ah, the joys of generic systems!) Beam fire is somewhat quicker to resolve, and interacts normally with both armor and screens. But if you just like the K-gun mechanic better, then go for it. After all it's an RPG, so strict balance is somewhat less critical than in a wargame.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Starship combat games

 

On a side note (even though I've stated it before) - I really liked first season of the Andromeda scifi television show.

Space combat was done on monitors. Each ship saw radar/sensor images - none of this huge panoramic view of the enemy ship in full technicolour at close range.

External shots of the opponents rarely (or never) showed both sides in the same shot.

Combat was done with seeking weapons, not direct fire weapons (which are useless at anything other than point blank range, astronomically speaking).

Wow! Almost makes me want to go rent it.

 

 

 

 

...Almost. I have an allergic reaction to Kevin Sorbo - nothing I can do about it.

[tkdguy]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Thanks for the reply, bigdamnhero. I'll look further into the topic.

 

Edit: I was also thinking about using the Earth Alliance Railgun and Matter Cannon here. But yes, I do plan to have missiles in the game, as well as armor. No screens or pulse torpedos.

 

I've never actually watched the early seasons of Andromeda, apart from the odd episode. Maybe I'll see if I can rent some DVDs.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Edit: I was also thinking about using the Earth Alliance Railgun and Matter Cannon here. But yes' date=' I do plan to have missiles in the game, as well as armor. No screens or pulse torpedos.[/quote']

I've got the Earthforce Sourcebook, but have only played it a couple of times. Only thing I remember thinking was a little out of whack was the Heavy Beam Weapons made ships go pop way too easily for my taste. (Tho that did match the show farily well.) But the rest of the Earthforce weapons mix should be fine.

[Curufea]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Thanks for the reply, bigdamnhero. I'll look further into the topic.

 

Edit: I was also thinking about using the Earth Alliance Railgun and Matter Cannon here. But yes, I do plan to have missiles in the game, as well as armor. No screens or pulse torpedos.

 

I've never actually watched the early seasons of Andromeda, apart from the odd episode. Maybe I'll see if I can rent some DVDs.

 

I only had problems with Kevin when he became E.P. to the series.

 

And personally, I'm not anti-direct fire. It is good for point blank in realistic games - and it is fun to use in rubbery games. It fits the space opera genre well.

[tkdguy]

Re: Starship combat games

 

I have nothing against Kevin Sorbo. I just wasn't interested in Andromeda when it came out.

 

As for direct fire, my plan would be to use that in close range, while launching missiles at targets that are much farther away.

[Kraven Kor]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Andromeda had promise, but they basically billed it as Hercules in Space, which is exactly what it was. Only Hercules would become Jesus.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Starship combat games

 

It also had some of the best scene selection of Vancouver-shot shows. (With the caveat that I never got into MacGyver or Stargate.)

Plus Lexa Doig. (Although after some Youtubing I've come to the conclusion that I actually like Doig less sexy than she can be.)

Although, to be fair, practically the whole supporting cast was fun, making it even harder to understand the mind-numbing stupidity of the decision to go in a Sorbo-centric direction.

[tkdguy]

Re: Starship combat games

 

I have been trying to get some friends to try out Full Thrust Light. I'd just define beam batteries as railguns (damage is less at far range because salvos become less accurate with range) and pulse torpedoes as missiles (those that miss are presumed to be shot down by point defenses).

[pinecone]

Re: Starship combat games

 

Heh...that thought occurred to me this morning.

 

As to two ships in one dimension, that's pretty much what the Dogfight and Chase rules are in Hero. The only thing that matters there, spatially speaking, is distance.

 

General question: So, if one were to set up a three dimensional gameboard (hypothetically speaking here), how would it be marked? Generally, when the third dimension comes into play in a game, we just assume that each hex is about 2m tall, and a stack of identical hexes is piled on it. But that just brings back the same distance fudging that made us gamers drop squares in favor of hexes. How should 3rd dimensional hexes be arranged in relation to the base plane?

 

An old game..."Godsfire?" used a spiral of hexes inside a big hex map that worked suprising well for a 2D image of 3D...

[Nyrath]

Re: Starship combat games

 

An old game..."Godsfire?" used a spiral of hexes inside a big hex map that worked suprising well for a 2D image of 3D...

 

Trouble was it only accommodated 11 levels

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/51125

 

The same designer later make the game "Holy War", but it only accommodated seven levels

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/69427

 

I tried adapting it to Red-Blue anaglyph 3D glasses:

http://yfrog.com/ephwanaglyphmapjb3g

 

In Battlefleet Mars and Vector 3, they had two maps: top view and side view. Each ship had a counter on each map. Didn't work very well.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/9302

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/16754

 

In Worldkiller, they tried to make an angular representation. It too did not work well.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/510249