|
Post by tinker on Oct 19, 2018 4:54:16 GMT -7
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? Even that cannot be a deciding factor because that was based off of an Enterprise built for war - not exploration. Again, I must emphasize that game mechanics must take precedent over the "reality" of the Star Trek universe.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 4, 2018 14:16:33 GMT -7
Again, I must emphasize that game mechanics must take precedent over the "reality" of the Star Trek universe. This is true.
Coming up with a rule system that completely encompasses all the variability between ships can be satisfying, but what's the point if you have to alter the dice for every roll and consult charts, then do a shit ton of math? (Not that I mind math, i'm just elbow deep in statistics all day).
Anymore I think the level of detail in STCS is all I have time or patience for.
Better to make rules that approximate the game mechanic you are after. Incidentally I think this is why attack wing failed. Feature creep is a sumbitch.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Nov 6, 2018 6:36:09 GMT -7
Anymore I think the level of detail in STCS is all I have time or patience for. This is a significant key to this game's success. It is simple, streamlined and it is fast and easy to play. I believe this element should be preserved.
|
|
|
Post by Keik Lassila on Jun 20, 2019 10:23:46 GMT -7
Being Malicious against College haters sdon't work Captain Polit.
'd justice, and wilt beest
You have a lot of nerve to bring down my website, Smiley.
You still haven't shown how I am the slightest bit idiotic, much less retarded and evil, you Homunculus, and my work is not just here, but everywhere, greatly dwarfing what you have any effect on.
You are still a Politically Correct Hellshit who hasn't learned to reason effectively, much less be a good arbiter of right and wrong, and what's the point of doing a whiny, wannabe silly "What have I done wrong" thread, when you should be consistent with your nonsense and Just Call Anything insulting and dismiss it out of hand.
Everyone here is productive and rational next to you, and you have no judgement over them, and do not try to measure anything.
I am the Mover and Shaker here, there and everywhere, and you don't notice a single thing I've done, much less cogitate it
Irritating 1946 aman rabbit.
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Jun 20, 2019 10:36:43 GMT -7
Being Malicious against College haters sdon't work Captain Polit. 'd justice, and wilt beest You have a lot of nerve to bring down my website, Smiley. You still haven't shown how I am the slightest bit idiotic, much less retarded and evil, you Homunculus, and my work is not just here, but everywhere, greatly dwarfing what you have any effect on. You are still a Politically Correct Hellshit who hasn't learned to reason effectively, much less be a good arbiter of right and wrong, and what's the point of doing a whiny, wannabe silly "What have I done wrong" thread, when you should be consistent with your nonsense and Just Call Anything insulting and dismiss it out of hand. Everyone here is productive and rational next to you, and you have no judgement over them, and do not try to measure anything. I am the Mover and Shaker here, there and everywhere, and you don't notice a single thing I've done, much less cogitate it Irritating 1946 aman rabbit. Have I missed something here? Jim
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 20, 2019 11:13:43 GMT -7
I was kinda wondering the same thing. Sounds like a case of mistaken identity
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 20, 2019 11:22:06 GMT -7
So, on a brighter note: now granted I only have the ST: III version, but, do all the rules have the same turning radius for all ships regardless of size/class? It seems strange to me that a Class XX ship can turn as tightly as a Class II, especially with a damage table set up for emergency heading changes. I know SFB has a turn mode for each ship, but I’m not buying that whole mess just to siphon one little tidbit of info from it
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jun 20, 2019 17:21:08 GMT -7
So, on a brighter note: now granted I only have the ST: III version, but, do all the rules have the same turning radius for all ships regardless of size/class? It seems strange to me that a Class XX ship can turn as tightly as a Class II, especially with a damage table set up for emergency heading changes. I know SFB has a turn mode for each ship, but I’m not buying that whole mess just to siphon one little tidbit of info from it Yes the next version of the rules (Star Trek Starship Combat Simulator) has the same turning radius rules as the STIII rules. I mentioned in my House Rules thread about trying to add something similar to the SFB turn mode to FASA rules. I haven't played in years, but I was thinking it might be fun to try and add it, so smaller ships would be more manueverable than larger ones. But no one here thought the rules needed them.
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 20, 2019 19:28:47 GMT -7
Apparently no one here has tried playing a naval combat game or an aerial combat game on table or pc. I’m looking at working it out using the “emergency heading change” table and making a tighter turn would fall into that realm. It’s quick and dirty but will do the trick since it will be some time before I can get my grubby little paws on a construction manual 😄
|
|
|
Post by cowboy40 on Jun 20, 2019 20:22:09 GMT -7
Apparently no one here has tried playing a naval combat game or an aerial combat game on table or pc. I’m looking at working it out using the “emergency heading change” table and making a tighter turn would fall into that realm. It’s quick and dirty but will do the trick since it will be some time before I can get my grubby little paws on a construction manual 😄 Actually I play Harpoon on the table top, Command on the PC, Iron Men Wooden Hulls, War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific, War in the Pacific...etc etc etc..
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Jun 21, 2019 1:38:15 GMT -7
I guess the turning arc over size of ship belongs in the same section as why a ship can move at speed 10 at the end of a turn and then at the start be stationary. Inertia is ignored for the sake of overt book keeping. Playing even a moderately large game of SFB with more than 4 ships results in a clutter of counters to record each ships turn point, slip point, point of acceleration/deceleration etc. This all slows the game to a crawl (along with the other bazillion rules linked to a one hex move per impulse).
I moved away from SFB many years ago to the FASA system as I felt I was doing a huge book keeping exercise each impulse instead of playing a simple game.
Keep it simple and keep it fun that's my motto for game play.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by tinker on Jun 21, 2019 4:55:38 GMT -7
Like in WWI where all major battles were to be fought in daylight for the convenience of the photographers, so our gaming group mandated that all combat was to be fought at sub-light speed for the convenience of the less adequate craft. We felt it silly that the Excelsior should be able to outmaneuver a gunboat.
We also often battled over a star system of some kind - nothing beats adding a little terrain to the gameboard. Who wants to fight over just a vacuum?
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Jun 21, 2019 9:52:30 GMT -7
I think the reason sea battles were mostly faught during the day was because Radar was still quite primitive and unable to track fall of shot and thus made gauging over or under shots almost impossible at longer ranges. I recall a few battles in the Pacific being faught at night but they were close action things using searchlights to locate targets.
Size and mass should have no impact on turning in the vacuum of space, there is no resistance caused by air or water etc. Turning etc. Would all have to be done using RCTs alone.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 21, 2019 11:17:45 GMT -7
[quote source="/post/16484/thread" timestamp="1561084127" Actually I play Harpoon on the table top, Command on the PC, Iron Men Wooden Hulls, War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific, War in the Pacific...etc etc etc.. [/quote] I loved Iron Ships Wooden Men ... Ha ha! Also played a friend’s Jutland. On PC my fav was Aces Of The Deep and Red Baron 1st edition
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 21, 2019 11:19:58 GMT -7
I guess the turning arc over size of ship belongs in the same section as why a ship can move at speed 10 at the end of a turn and then at the start be stationary. Inertia is ignored for the sake of overt book keeping. Playing even a moderately large game of SFB with more than 4 ships results in a clutter of counters to record each ships turn point, slip point, point of acceleration/deceleration etc. This all slows the game to a crawl (along with the other bazillion rules linked to a one hex move per impulse). I moved away from SFB many years ago to the FASA system as I felt I was doing a huge book keeping exercise each impulse instead of playing a simple game. Keep it simple and keep it fun that's my motto for game play. Jim You can still have a simple turn mode rule AND keep it simple.
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 21, 2019 11:27:28 GMT -7
So, bottom line: if STSTCS doesn’t have such a rule, I will make one for my own use. Once I’m satisfied with the play-testing I will post it for others who feel a similar need for a destroyer to out turn a cruiser. And do it without a bunch of counters or markers thrown all over the galaxy! Ha ha
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 21, 2019 11:37:16 GMT -7
And Bazbaziah: I don’t see why you couldn’t treat a sudden stop as an emergency heading change and require a ship to “decel” not more than 1/2 of it’s max speed per turn. As seen in several TOS and movie scenes, inertia dampeners can be slightly overwhelmed by sudden velocity or heading changes. Remember Khan almost falling over the helm when they entered the Mutara Nebula dust cloud?
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jun 21, 2019 12:14:05 GMT -7
So, bottom line: if STSTCS doesn’t have such a rule, I will make one for my own use. Once I’m satisfied with the play-testing I will post it for others who feel a similar need for a destroyer to out turn a cruiser. And do it without a bunch of counters or markers thrown all over the galaxy! Ha ha If you want, I could link you to a post in my House Rules for a suggested rule, made by someone on one of the FASA Yahoo Groups, if you want to try it out?
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 21, 2019 17:12:40 GMT -7
Trynda1701: Found it. Like it. Also like all the ‘discussing’ it provoked. Many different views on the subject. I’ll find one that suits my purposes and go with it. Tanx for the info
|
|
|
Post by trynda1701 on Jun 22, 2019 5:55:30 GMT -7
tosfan1956You're welcome. Let us know what you find, or come up with it you don't like this one. Here's the link for any newer members of the forum who haven't seen the House rule. It's about a dozen posts down... ststcsolda.proboards.com/thread/23?page=1As you will see, it generated a few replies, but didn't seem to gather any favour! No problem, I don't expect everything I post here to be taken up!
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Jun 24, 2019 9:00:51 GMT -7
I have had an idea to update the construction process but don't want to say much until I'm sure what works in.my head does the same in the real world. Mechanics will stay basically the same but the need for engine and shield tables should be removed IF my brain fart does actually work.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 24, 2019 15:06:29 GMT -7
I think the reason sea battles were mostly faught during the day was because Radar was still quite primitive and unable to track fall of shot and thus made gauging over or under shots almost impossible at longer ranges. I recall a few battles in the Pacific being faught at night but they were close action things using searchlights to locate targets. Size and mass should have no impact on turning in the vacuum of space, there is no resistance caused by air or water etc. Turning etc. Would all have to be done using RCTs alone. Jim The final words about water/air resistance has been on my mind the last few days. I think you misunderstood my meaning here. Inertia is what I was speaking of. I guess I have a good imagination when playing such games. I lean in the chair like inertia is trying to throw me out. I can hear the dishes in the galley crashing to the floor. I can see that young ensign grabbing air instead of a pipe or bulkhead and sliding across the deck on his butt! It’s you saying: we’re turning here and your vehicle saying: oh no me not!!!
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Jun 25, 2019 9:58:08 GMT -7
I think the reason sea battles were mostly faught during the day was because Radar was still quite primitive and unable to track fall of shot and thus made gauging over or under shots almost impossible at longer ranges. I recall a few battles in the Pacific being faught at night but they were close action things using searchlights to locate targets. Size and mass should have no impact on turning in the vacuum of space, there is no resistance caused by air or water etc. Turning etc. Would all have to be done using RCTs alone. Jim The final words about water/air resistance has been on my mind the last few days. I think you misunderstood my meaning here. Inertia is what I was speaking of. I guess I have a good imagination when playing such games. I lean in the chair like inertia is trying to throw me out. I can hear the dishes in the galley crashing to the floor. I can see that young ensign grabbing air instead of a pipe or bulkhead and sliding across the deck on his butt! It’s you saying: we’re turning here and your vehicle saying: oh no me not!!! I imagine that ships moving at such high speeds would require some form of inertial damper built in to to artificial gravity systems.without it anything not fastened down would either fail to accelerate or fail to decelerate quickly enough to avoid being mushed against the first bulkhead they encountered? I do appreciate your mental images that have sparked a long lost memory of Alexander Kent's Napoleonic naval fiction Jim
|
|
|
Post by bazbaziah on Jun 25, 2019 10:17:14 GMT -7
And Bazbaziah: I don’t see why you couldn’t treat a sudden stop as an emergency heading change and require a ship to “decel” not more than 1/2 of it’s max speed per turn. As seen in several TOS and movie scenes, inertia dampeners can be slightly overwhelmed by sudden velocity or heading changes. Remember Khan almost falling over the helm when they entered the Mutara Nebula dust cloud? Using FASA game mechanics there is no such thing as an emergency stop, I can (it would be a bit silly) allocate power to move my ship 6 times in phase 1 of a turn and decide to spend each point to remain in the same hex. Hence I don't move, it's not an emergency stop as I am spending 1 point to remain where I am per point I have to "move" in the phase. Once the movement phase is over ships no longer "move" until the next movement phase of the turn. Emergency heading changes are handled after all movement and during the firing phase to try and avoid incoming missiles. Jim
|
|
|
Post by tosfan1956 on Jun 25, 2019 11:32:31 GMT -7
Ya, I get that. I’m not exactly happy with all the mechanics of this game. But, as I stated somewhere else, I mostly play against myself so I’m not upsetting anyone with rule changes. And I do try to keep my changes simple and logical. I have good reasons (to me) to have all combat at sublight speeds. Reading about the theories of warp drive only encourages me. ;)
|
|