|
Post by tinker on Oct 6, 2018 5:53:49 GMT -7
I assure you that there will be meaningful progression in my overhauled system. A refit Constitution from 2271 would stand no chance against a Galaxy class. Even upgraded to TNG era equipment a Constitution would be highly unlikely to survive long against a Galaxy class. This will be represented in my overhaul. I don't expect my changes to make everyone happy but I wanted to get a feel for where people stand on some of this stuff to get an idea of how well this would be received. I think what everyone was saying is there should not be one design in any given era that should be able to decimate anything else in the same era without breaking a sweat. However, a Connie should be able to penetrate the shields of a Galaxy with its weapons and be able to inflict damage (as it would have comparable firepower to a destroyer in that time frame).
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 6, 2018 11:48:24 GMT -7
Well, certainly that is what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Oct 6, 2018 16:02:54 GMT -7
If you are covering multiple eras with their technology jumps, which may includes tinker s' idea of a cruiser in one era might match a destroyer in the next era, what are your thoughts on where the breaks between eras were, JAFisher44 ? My thoughts would be, at least... 'ENT era', with the warp delta designs up to the NX class The 'Daedelus era' tech The 'Baton Rouge era' tech from the Spaceflight Chronology, which FASA based their timeline on 'Great Awakening' era, which gives us the early FASA designs, including the Mk.I Constitution 'TOS-TMP-TUC' phaser/photon torpedo era, up to the Excelsior class 'post TUC' era, with tech based on Excelsior class components 'Ambassador era', when linear phaser arrays start to appear 'TNG/DS9/VOY' era, with larger phaser arrays on multiple arcs Is this too much?
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 6, 2018 16:07:06 GMT -7
Edit: this was a reply to tinker) I'm not sure I agree with that, like sure a Connie could do damage but based on the TNG I watched it would take them forever. The counter problem is how the galaxy class could one-shot similarly equipped ships and cripple them instantly (I.e. vs cardassians).
If it's a simulation then the scale of advancing technology has to be taken into account. When the same rules are used, TNG ships break the game because it's sort of tedious to deal with so many damage rolls.
I guess that's just my local meta but none of us enjoyed those ships as much, the game board is almost too small for them.
I'm just curious to see how you might address that concern, it's WDF/shield/power inflation, it plagued a lot of board game systems.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 6, 2018 20:00:34 GMT -7
If you are covering multiple eras with their technology jumps, which may includes tinker s' idea of a cruiser in one era might match a destroyer in the next era, what are your thoughts on where the breaks between eras were, JAFisher44 ? My thoughts would be, at least... 'ENT era', with the warp delta designs up to the NX class The 'Daedelus era' tech The 'Baton Rouge era' tech from the Spaceflight Chronology, which FASA based their timeline on 'Great Awakening' era, which gives us the early FASA designs, including the Mk.I Constitution 'TOS-TMP-TUC' phaser/photon torpedo era, up to the Excelsior class 'post TUC' era, with tech based on Excelsior class components 'Ambassador era', when linear phaser arrays start to appear 'TNG/DS9/VOY' era, with larger phaser arrays on multiple arcs Is this too much? I was thinking that the NX would equal a TOS/TMP destroyer and the Enterprise heavy cruiser would equal a TNG destroyer. That would be the limit of the range. Other ships would fall in between these eras. Remember that the further you spread the range, the more simplistic the older ships will have to be and TNG ships would have very cumbersome numbers to work with.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 6, 2018 20:12:25 GMT -7
Edit: this was a reply to tinker) I'm not sure I agree with that, like sure a Connie could do damage but based on the TNG I watched it would take them forever. The counter problem is how the galaxy class could one-shot similarly equipped ships and cripple them instantly (I.e. vs cardassians). If it's a simulation then the scale of advancing technology has to be taken into account. When the same rules are used, TNG ships break the game because it's sort of tedious to deal with so many damage rolls. I guess that's just my local meta but none of us enjoyed those ships as much, the game board is almost too small for them. I'm just curious to see how you might address that concern, it's WDF/shield/power inflation, it plagued a lot of board game systems. The game - as it already exists - does not represent what we see in any series or movie...and for good reason: the game would be too complicated. Part of this game's charm is how easy it is to play. It also has to be sporting to play as well. FASA ensured that a battle would not be hopeless for a less powerful ship through the randomness of the damage charts. A hit to the bridge or engineering could give the smaller ship a chance at a surprise victory (not unlike the time I witnessed a Blackjack defeat a Battlemaster in a game of Battletech...99 times out of 100, the Battlemaster would win...but there is always that chance...). That is why the shields in the game don't function the same "as seen on TV". If you don't let game mechanics supercede "logic", then the game will not work as intended. As for the tedium of so many damage rolls, I revised my own TNG project to a maximum WDF of 250 down from 300 and incorporated more "mega" weapons in place of larger numbers of smaller weapon. Still, the Scimitar does slow down game play a bit more than I care for. Most other ships play much better.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 7, 2018 11:07:46 GMT -7
The game - as it already exists - does not represent what we see in any series or movie...and for good reason: the game would be too complicated. Part of this game's charm is how easy it is to play. It also has to be sporting to play as well. FASA ensured that a battle would not be hopeless for a less powerful ship through the randomness of the damage charts. A hit to the bridge or engineering could give the smaller ship a chance at a surprise victory. Ok, I see your point and I agree with you, that's why in our home versions of the rules we actually simplified them considerably. The game would still allow for that as it does now if the ship's scale well. I have taken down an excelsior by smart positioning and lucky rolls. It feels great to stalk the lion but the odds are heavily against you. I guess I'm sticking on TOS Connie being equivalent to a TNG cruiser. I also think both problems (power point inflation and mismatch between eras) with a simple fix... Maybe it should just be based along the lines of advancing efficiency instead of power? In that way, ships of the same relative mass can actually have the same power and weapon damage, but the newer ships utilize that power with less waste. That way you'd replicate the struggle of old tech vs new (the old adage of "obsolete but effective" comes to mind. There can be some disadvantages to more modern ships as well, for example old diesel subs still run quieter underwater with battery power than nuke types do (generally speaking). Now THAT would be cool. It would also explain how designs like the excelsior stayed viable for so long.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 14:35:59 GMT -7
Why not scale by Tech level?
TOS/TAS would have a scale factor of 1:1, meaning that ships from this era do normal damage to all other ships, from the same era). Versus an NX-era ship, maybe 3:1 (the triple damage against NX, and takes 1/3 damage from NX). Versus TNG ships, 1:3 (Inflicts 1/3 damage, receives triple damage).
A few tables, and you're battling NX-01 against an 1701D
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 7, 2018 19:38:55 GMT -7
that's a simple way to reflect efficiency for sure, perfect for gaming purposes.
but phasers are measured in gigawatts of output which seems fairly standard (they usually throw out numbers in the show within certain ranges). If that were the case we are back to square one.
Either way I am interested to see what JA comes up with...
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Oct 8, 2018 1:19:45 GMT -7
that's a simple way to reflect efficiency for sure, perfect for gaming purposes. but phasers are measured in gigawatts of output which seems fairly standard (they usually throw out numbers in the show within certain ranges). If that were the case we are back to square one. Either way I am interested to see what JA comes up with... As tinker says above, it's a game and trying to simulate real life is beyond the scope of the rules. The game is anything but real -no 3d movement for a start? The scaling idea is a good one but I think I would go 50% as it's easier to calculate. Jim
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 8, 2018 6:05:40 GMT -7
that's a simple way to reflect efficiency for sure, perfect for gaming purposes. but phasers are measured in gigawatts of output which seems fairly standard (they usually throw out numbers in the show within certain ranges). If that were the case we are back to square one. Either way I am interested to see what JA comes up with... As tinker says above, it's a game and trying to simulate real life is beyond the scope of the rules. The game is anything but real -no 3d movement for a start? The scaling idea is a good one but I think I would go 50% as it's easier to calculate. Jim
There are degrees to 'simulation'. People seem to have missed my main point here.
I compared it to X-wing Miniatures, another game I have spent waaaay too much money on. Does the game simulate x-wing combat as we see in the shows/movies? Yes. But it's superficial rather than detailed, they are trying to generate the "feel" of space combat, but in that game you don't spend time adjusting your shield ratio or blasters to thrusters (the old DOX x-wing fighter game is where you go for that). It's a light touch, lacking in detail.
Star Trek: The tactical combab SIMULATOR isn't as light as X-wing miniatures, but it's not as detailed as star fleet battles (where 1 turn can sometimes take an hour depending on how many things each ship is trying to do).
I think any approach to this game has to be slightly more in-depth than X-wing but avoid hyper-detailed, muliple calculation/chart consulting rules that are in SFB or D&D. (On that note it occurs to me that simulator board games and RPG's kind of meet each other in the number of charts you have to consult to play).
Let me say, I agree with the notion that it should be kept light. The main problem i'm pondering is the current point inflation for weapons and damage to account for the abilities of other ships.
EDIT: Because the only way to make TNG ships more awesome has traditionally been to give them more power. THis is fine vs earlier eras but the decimal point should be moved to the right a little bit when fighting TNG vs TNG (but that's just me).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2018 8:13:08 GMT -7
3:1, was basically pulled form thin air as a starting point. The idea of scaling is that it allows a player to build a ship using the rules for TOS-era ships. Then you wave a magic wand over it and "poof" it's a TNG ship. Or "foop"! It's an ENT-era ship.
Some scaling may also be needed for speed since ships from ENT, TOS, and TNG have increasingly more efficient drive systems.
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Oct 8, 2018 12:55:42 GMT -7
How about this?
For TOS and Movies Era ships use 2nd Edition rules with some new systems but max out values for systems at around: WDF 200 Warp power units for single engine around 55 Impulse engines at 44 to 50 shields max SER of 4 and max shield power of around 28 Beam weapons maximum power around 15 Torpedoes max power around 25
Pre TOS Add more low power warp and impulse engines and sub light engines to suit as per race New shields with 1/1 and 1/2 max SER and shield power of 10 max Add more lasers and pre photon weapons Main change add new firing charts that mirror the current A-Y tables but reduce all values by one i.e 1-10 becomes 1-9, 1-9 becomes 1-8 etc. all current values of 1 are removed. This would call for new WDF's to be calculated for weapond but WDF calculation is not a problem.
Post Movie and TNG eara Raise max WDF to around 275 Retain max power of new warp engines at around 55 or raise to 60 max, increase mass and SS proportionally. Impulse engines max out at around 55 Reduce MPR for new engines by one step so they become more efficient without adding excessive power points (eg a new engine that is an improved FWG-1 (currently starts at 5/1 for a single engine) changes to 4/1 for an new engine and adds some mass and SS). Shields set maximum level to around 30 to 32 but add SPR's of 1/5, 1/6 or even 1/7 again increase mass and SS proportionally. Beam weapons raise max power to around 20 and adds some mass and SS. Torpedoes raise max damage to around 30 and allow ranges in excess of 16 and adds some mass and SS. Again add new firing charts that mirror the current A-Y tables but increase all values by one i.e 1-10 becomes 1-11, 1-9 becomes 1-10 etc. add additional number of 1 values below those that become 1-2 in order to increase range but not have significant effect on combat range. This would call for new WDF's to be calculated for weapond but WDF calculation is not a problem.
Original systems do not need to be changed and pre/post TOS/Movie are all new systems.
What do you think, its not perfect but is only a working model.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Oct 8, 2018 15:42:47 GMT -7
Maybe would should look at the construction rules as they are and determine what the flaws are before we lok for the cure?
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Oct 8, 2018 17:41:30 GMT -7
JAFisher, is your goal to make the game better for veterans familiar with the original crunch of the rules or to top down retool the game rules (but use the classic backstory and ships) for new players used to the more abstracted game mechanics common now? I'm curious who your target audience is as I personally don't see much crossover between the two in my neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Oct 8, 2018 18:14:10 GMT -7
I would like the construction system expanded to include the other ship systems like shuttle bays and transporters and show the tradeoffs that a ship design must make. Maybe make the computer provide total points that could be used for weapons, engines, shields and everything else so that unarmed ships with oversized engines aren't just waiting to be converted into military auxiliaries. Reasonableness limits on superstructure would be helpful instead of having designs that turn all the unused mass to the next size limit into superstructure.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 8, 2018 18:19:47 GMT -7
Maybe would should look at the construction rules as they are and determine what the flaws are before we lok for the cure? I like the construction rules as is, some people have made some good versions that approximate TNG.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 8, 2018 19:26:45 GMT -7
SITZKRIEG! The Construction rules I intend to design will make no changes to the game rules. You will be able to build ships that will be compatible with the rules, but will be scaled differently than existing designs and the existing construction rules. This change in scale will allow for detailed ships that are less advanced than TOS era ships. (Yes, this means that at least some existing stuff will be scaled up.) krebizfan This change will not be limited to a scaling adjustment. I intend to change some ship components and include some things that aren't represented in the current game. I intend to rebuild all of the official ships in the game with the new construction rules. The construction rules are going to be mine. I am not looking for any significant input on how to design them. Rebuilding all the ships once the rules are done is something anyone could do. Everyone Some people are happy with the rules as they are. Some people have issues with the rules but would approach a fix in a different way. That is fine. This is something I want to do. If I pull it off I'll be happy to share it with the community. People can use it if they like or discard it if they don't. Once it is finished people can critique it all they want. If they have ideas I like I may even incorporate them. People can take my system and make changes of their own that I don't like. It's a free world. That said, I want to do this and unless something stops me I am going to do it. Edit: I've realized that my claim that my construction rules will make no changes to the game rules may not be entirely true. This should be true of ships within the eras the game was originally intended to represent. However, including things from earlier or later eras may require additions to the game rules. Polarized hulls or ablative armor, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Oct 13, 2018 12:24:04 GMT -7
First of all, it would be utterly retarded not to have all firing arc covered by some weapon. = aft torps and phasers for all eras of Enterprise.
Next, I'd go by the clues from the shows - Archer makes a comment how the USS Defiant could probably do 2 factors of warp higher than NX-01. But we know they could reach W8 and even into W9 So I'd scale to that idea, more than double the power and strengths.
Tougher if you're including TNG, but alternate timeline Tasha remarked that Ent-D shields dissipated heat what, 2x Ent-C? Use them as a guide, I would advise; the shows were notorious for inconsistency. Does Ent-D have 3x or 4x Ent-B's shield dissipation?? Does that make it 8x Ent-A? You will have to be careful with Excelsior class; but I think FASA scaled it well in the 80's.
That's all I got.
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Oct 13, 2018 17:50:23 GMT -7
Well, we've had discussion and now JAFisher44 has clarified his intent. I look forward to see what he comes up with. A few questions though. What are your thoughts on what to count in the timeline? Do you want your system to start with NX level technology, but factor in what may have been mentioned in FASA literature or what FASA was based on, without having official stats (eg the Baton Rouge class from the Spaceflight Chronology).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2018 18:07:00 GMT -7
Actually... It's a good game as is. If it were not, we would not be talking about it all these years later. Yeah... building ships is kind of a pain, but thanks to the magic of spreadsheets, that problem was licked a while ago.
As for ENT and TNG ships... why bother? How often have you considered F4F vs Sopwith Camel? Or F-86 vs F-22? That's pretty much the kind of differences we are looking at.
Certainly this has value as a creative outlet or just an exercise in gaming. When I was writing game material for Fantasy Games Unlimited, I did a lot of work to find things that were in the existing rules and adventures to make another idea work without actually writing new rules from scratch. It was not always easy, but it was very enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Oct 13, 2018 18:33:24 GMT -7
But remember, I don't think that JAFisher44 just wants a new system to enable you to put ENT era vs TOS/TMP ships, or TOS vs TNG. The system as it stands can't scale down well, as he stated, there's not enough numbers for crunch pre Four Years War era. If he can come up with a new system, we could have a variety of ships in the ENT era (Earth Starfleet, Klingons, Andorian, Tellarites etc). And then redesigned classic FASA ships, and potentially a TNG era represented as well in the new system, that won't have as many problems as the current FASA systems have, unless you're creative like tinker has been.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2018 6:38:40 GMT -7
Hmmm... OK. Aside from simple scaling, there are other mechanics. Way back in Mechwarrior 1st edition, a character with a large enough gun could damage a vehicle, but there were mods so it was harder to hit, and if you did get a hit, there was a reduced chance of actually doing a point of damage. The point is that without reinventing the wheel, it is possible the have an NX-01 battle a Vor'cha. I guess we'll see what JAFisher44 comes up with.
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Oct 14, 2018 16:25:23 GMT -7
First of all, it would be utterly retarded not to have all firing arc covered by some weapon. = aft torps and phasers for all eras of Enterprise. I disagree personally. For military purposed vessels? Absolutely. For multirole vessels in a time of peace? Not necessarily and I think some should and others shouldn't. For science specific and/or scout vessels? Not at all. It should depend on the role of the vessel in question.
|
|
|
Post by SITZKRIEG! on Oct 14, 2018 16:35:31 GMT -7
SITZKRIEG! The Construction rules I intend to design will make no changes to the game rules. You will be able to build ships that will be compatible with the rules, but will be scaled differently than existing designs and the existing construction rules. This change in scale will allow for detailed ships that are less advanced than TOS era ships. (Yes, this means that at least some existing stuff will be scaled up.) Thanks for the clarification. It feels like everyone posting here had their own view of the scope of the project and that was part of the confusion. I'm curious to see what you come up with. Are you incorporating canon tactical systems then into the ruleset instead of the now defunct FASA ones (i.e. photonic torpedoes instead of missiles, plasma turrets instead of lasers, etc)?
|
|