Play aids?

Actually if folks have any guidance to share on speeding up damage allocation in general, I'd love to hear your ideas.

I have the battle cards for SFB, but I don't use them for STSTC. It's like substituting generic parts for your Cadillac.

I have made many game aids in order to speed up play, but the only thing along the lines of what you were talking about (speeding up the damage allocation) has been big, easy to read charts that hang on my gameroom wall. I did the same for the firing charts.

I have also recreated the damage charts, along with other pertinant information, on battlescreens that my players can tailor for each ship they are controlling. Everybody has a damage chart and doesn't have to wait to get the copy from someone else.

It just occurred to me, that I could achieve part of what I am looking for by using the option "banked" beam weapons rules

"Hits from banked weapons are treated as two hits to the same location if one die was rolled for the entire bank"

That could cut the # of damage rolls & chart lookups by as much as half. (w/o converting a Cadillac into a Ford Escort in the process)

Yea I know, the results can be different using 1 die roll for a bank instead of 2, but I think the difference is subtle enough to not be of much concern. (and if it keeps my new players, playing then its a great change hehe)

Yes..and I now realize that now that I fell victim to a case of "user error" now that I go back and re-read. (see I am coming off a "Star Fleet Battle" previous experience where every single point of internal damage is rolled out, as such there is no chance for a single volley to devastate the ship but like ripping off a warp nacelle or wiping out ALL the superstructure.

Then I re-read and this came back clear us mud..here is the statement from the rules that vexes me...

"A roll is made for each hit that penetrated the shields matter how many points of damage got through."

then I see a similar, but differently worded statement on a different page down in the "Graduate" rules...

"Only one roll is made for each successful penetration, no matter how many points of damage got through."


(Btw the typo in the first phrase is a straight cut n paste from the OCR copy of the rules on XON and is repeated a cpl times.)

as such, that difference in phrasing has me going "Wtf?"


The rules then go on to say;

"Each successful hit on a target requires a separate damage calculation and roll"

Thus why I have been roiling for every internal hit. Those first statements muddy the water by not being clear about "successful shield penetrations", that is not clearly defining what that means.

Its very easy to interpret that as "any hit NOT absorbed by the shield" is a "successful penetration"

As such, the source of my consternation.

kinshi, you are way over rules-lawyering this thing.

The confusion can be corrected by looking at the Romulan plasma rules, which states that the damage from a plasma weapon, which spreads out over the ship, is broken down into as many five point damage chunks as possible after the shield is reduced to 0; each five point hit being worth one roll on the damage chart tables. NO other weapon in the game does that, therefore one can then assume that a 20 point hit from an FP-4 is concentrated in one massive damage spike in one area; the engines, for example. In my rulebook it is at the top of page 28, right above ship explosions.

Ship explosions, it explains, are also split into five point groups after the shields are sanded away and each five point group qualifies for a roll on the damage chart.

So, to recap. If I hit you with a 15 point torpedo strike, any damage left over after the shield is reduced to zero qualifies for one roll on the chart, regardless of how many points that is worth. If I hit you with a plasma weapon, or you are caught in a ship explosion blast radius, any damage left over after the shields are gone is broken up into as many 5 point clusters as possible, and each five point group qualifies for a roll on the damage chart.

I too, have played SFB, though I had started with FASA first. I can see where your confusion comes from, but you have to let go the SFB completely and embrace the STSTC without any spillover from SFB.

theSwede

Is there anything I can do to help clear this rule up in the OCR manual at XON? What added text (blue text) should I add in there and what page to add it too?

I would investigate myself but I only have time to add in an explanation.

EDIT: Well I did investigate a little bit but I couldn't find the exact text kinshi posted so I'm at a loss...

EDIT2: Okay found some of the text, I could see the confusion, one bit of text from BASIC Course says "Only one roll is made for each successful penetration, no matter how many points of damage got through. "

The GRADUATE Course says "A roll is made for each hit that penetrated the shields matter how many points of damage got through."

Looks like each section needs a bit of explanation. Anyone help me with this?

markfasast, if you could use 'thescreamingswede' description that would cover it I think, and use it in both sections for consistency since it appears there is no difference in damage allocation between the courses as far as how many damage rolls per shield penetration to use.


That being said, some comments I once heard about STCS by some SFB players a long time ago finally make sense..that is we were discussing the games, and one of them referred to STCS as "that game where everyone blows up in the first turn"..and it puzzled me as I had never encountered that.

Now I realize way back when, when I was shown the STIII Starship Combat Game, my 'teacher' was NOT using the 'correct' method of damage allocation, but was doing it SFB-style.

I used tho think that 'blowing up'comment was about how powerful STCS missile weapons could be, but now relaize it was in reference to this damage allocation system which can potentially destroy every sing;e bit of superstructure from a ship in a single volley.

That's something that simply does not happen in SFB (or FedCom for that matter) no matter which damage allocation system is used), so when I saw it being used with STCS, it felt 'normal'. Which is why I started looking into the STCS equiv of Battle Damage Code Red..I LIKE the SFB style damage allocation..BUT..it needs a way to make it easier and quicker w/o losing the desired effects.

Of course SFB players overall rejected BOTH Battle Damage Code Red AND Battlecards because the results were NOT the same as rolling each hit via the damage chart as such most SFB matches force players to do it the tedious way (which is why there are so few SFB players).

At any rate, I still like the notion of rolling individually for each point of internal damage take but ONLY if the process is automated. (which is why I was starting to write a script/web app to do this, so it could be used as a play aid)

I totally understand why a lot of folks want a STCS match to end quickly especially given the game was designed as an add-on to the FASA-Trek RPG, as such starship tactics are not actually central to the RPG campaign.

its also a great system to play out large fleet battles since one does not get bogged down in paperwork.

But it does lack a bit in terms of squadron level encounters where individual captains can have a chance to demonstrate their tactical know-how. (this is why for these type of encounters I prefer the 5-phase movement chart over the 3-phase for STCS...it give them more time and space to maneuver not to mention more chances to fire in a turn WITHOUT descending down the rules-lawyer rabbit hole that is SFB.

I mean lets face it SFB can be incredibly tedious even with a simple 1 vs 1 duel, it only gets worse with more ships.

I've understood this to mean that one roll is done for all of the damage that gets through the shield, and then assigning it to the rolled location. The wording in the graduate section is a little weird because of the use of the term "hit". I'd think if the rule was to assign a location to each individual point of damage, then an example would have been provided. Just my guess.

Ooh, I like that idea, Mark. Maybe there should be a variant rule. Read: Someone please make up a variant rule.

adam

I've posted the proposed turn rule on my House Rules thread to keep this thread clear for play aids.

ststcsolda.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ststcsoldagame&thread=23&page=1

Mark

That is why I like the 5-phase movement from the STIII version of the game. Its not that far removed from the old 8-impulse chart that SFB used to use in its Commander's Edition.

Take a look at 5-phase movement in the STCS context (I even made a 5-phase movement button for the VASSAL module).

It gives some more firing opportunities along with some extra chances to maneuver (especially for performing evasive maneuvering)..and its nowhere near as tedious as SFB's 20 or 32 impulse movement. Now I do think 3-[hase is still appropriate for large scale encounters, for at the squadron scale 5-phase gives you more room to use individual-style ship captain tactics.

STCS does address the turn on a dime element in the advance courses, in the form of damage taken by emergency heading changes. The ship takes superstructure damage which translates into crew casualties, making it something you do not want to overuse. I mean, yea you still turn on a dime but at a cost.

I agree the defaul damage allocation system for STCS is 'fast', but after seeing the difference in ship longevity between the 'default method and what I was doing by accident, I tend to prefer the accidental method.

Why? Because the matches my group have done so far would have ended in 1-2 turns instead of lasting 4-5 turns. (I keep VASSAL logs of our matches and went back to see what would have happened if I was using the default damage allocation and the game would have been over with the FIRST volley in the last match.


In that match, the Federation player took a full hit on the #2 shield, and had enough superstructure damage to gut the ship, drive it into excess damage and pop it on that single volley. The time spent in the match was simply getting close enough to ensure a high probability of all shots scoring a hit.

This scenario was an escort mission, Fed Connie MK II escorting 3x Lotus Flower transports form the bottom to the top of the map, Klingon was flying a D7-M charged with destroying as many escorts as possible.

With that allocation system, the attacker has no need to try to attack the transports, he just roars straight at the defender's Connie and cripples it or pops it in one volley, then can kill freighters at his leisure. The odds are in his favor of surviving the incoming fire from the Connie (plus the D7-M has a bit more superstructure, and a larger crew, which improve its odds of surviving the hit and living to take on the freighters.

Also the D7-M can fly over the top of the Connie and have very good odds of impacting a down or weak shield and tearing a second very large hole in it using the aft missile launcher. The biggest risk is being caught in an explosion blast.

However, with my accidental means of damage allocation, the Connie gets shook up, damaged, but not crippled, and can still engage the D7-M with fair odds, and if the D7-M tries to use the same method, and stays too close, the COnnie can return the favor and tear him a new one in return.

Which means the D7-M captain then has to re-prioritize and go after those freighters first..which makes more military sense in such an engagement since his mission is to kill as many freighters as possible and LEAVE w/ his ship relatively intact.

Think WW II U-Boats..did they seek to engage enemy destroyers? No..they tried to avoid them and take as many freighters out as they could, then leave so they can come back and do it again.

However with the default allocation system, one quickly learns that simply charging your opponent is a viable tactic because the odds are very good of gutting him if you fire everything you have at him at once at close range.