STGOD: A Dead Art?

[Covenant]

What about the destroyers vs battleship example earlier? What if you spend points making that battleship into a destroyer-eating monster? It's still 50 pts, and should be able to kick another battleship's ass, right? Except that it's only got weapons suited for taking out destroyers. Oops. How do you properly say that without putting it into the OOB and giving it points?

You state that this is a 50-point BB with armaments that are specifically designed to take out destroyer-size ships. Then you go into combat, and you RP IT OUT. If you are against 50 points worth of destroyers, you can expect to win the battle. If you are against another 50-point BB, you should probably look into retreat.

It will, of course, bear mentioning in your combat posts that you are maneuvering in such a way as to expose the enemy destroyers to as much fire from this anti-DE BB as you can, as its guns are specialized in that direction.

So what's to stop you from saying in one battle "This BB is specialized against DDs" but in another battle saying "50 points! 1 to 1! My BB tears up your 49pt BB!"

See the problem here? And of course you could say you have to be consistent, get people to call you out for it, but honestly, who's going to remember? Putting it in the OOB and assigning points is so much easier and makes referencing easier and cuts down on potential griefing.

Well, I think the issue is slightly confused there. That's an issue for me too--I don't want someone to do, as Brian is doing, and claim "My ships will kick the shit out of any other 50 pointer evenly no matter what BS he says about it" even though I've specified that my vessels are dedicated ultra-beam platforms. I've specified it in points AND in descriptions, so I've covered every angle. It's a 50 point battleship and it is listed as such, and I'm treating it as such--but I listed the +value so that people can tell at a glance just how seriously it's supposed to be specialized.

And yes, that means, outside of it's situation that it suffers. If I have a 50 point ship that had put 5 points into EW, then it fights similar to a 45. In a fight, a 50 would kill it. That's the way it's supposed to be. Specialization has a side effect, but it lets us tell at a glance what those side effects are, and it bases it with in-game costs so that nobody creates ships that will massively destabilize the game due to retarded 'lolz i win' funky tech.

That's for RP, and for mod purposes. So when I RP that my ship fires a massive blast at Brian's, after setting him up, I'd be a bit peeved if he says it digs into the side and does 'moderate damage.' And it won't be peevage because of the denial of my points spent, it'll be peevage on account of a poor RPing.

If I've specialized my ships and stated it, I expect people to respect that. I intend to RP it out, of course, but the point values give some quantification to it that they would otherwise lack. So when I say my ship is a giant super beam platform, I really do expect people to believe me and not just state: "I fully expect my 50 point battleship to kick another 50's ass, no matter how much min-maxing the other guy's done by mentioning obscure subsystems."

That's a really frustrating subject. Obscure systems? If by obscure you don't mean the +cap points, but EW systems, how is that obscure? Do people not agree that Electronic Warfare vessels could really turn the tide of a battle? That Jammers and hacker ships or whatever you're RPing your EW boats to be are utterly useless? What is this, the age of sail?

These things provide RP hooks and they add extra good fluff. They also add quantifiable fluff. Even though Bugsby said he supports Brian 100 percent, I think he's wrong, as this paragraph illustrates what I'm trying to say:

These advantages and disadvantages are not determined by points, per se. Points serve as guidelines to demonstrate the rough capabilities of your ships. With those capabilities in mind, you RP out the battle and take losses accordingly. The numbers work as a guideline and reference for relative strengths. They are not a combat engine.

That's exactly what I mean. The points on my Tharsis class, for example, are not to be used literally to decide what it does. It's to base RP on. So when someone looks at my post he can check my OOB and go "Oh my, that's awful against fighters, send in the carriers!" and have some general idea of what the hell is going on. I think Brian is pushing for too great a literalism when it comes to point totals. Specializations add a lot more complexity in a good way, as they encourage people to really do a lot more unusual tactics and give them a tangible reason for it.

I'm all for RP'd specializations, but I want some way of documenting them and making them fair. If the Mods want to remove the +points system and go through each OOB and decide with the player what kind of power level we're talking about, okay. But I really can't think of a more horrifying situation to be in then someone else telling me, after combat started, that they refuse to believe that my specialized beam platforms are better one-on-one against another 50 point battleship. That's just the nightmare situation that really proves how useful rules are.

[Thirdfain]

But I really can't think of a more horrifying situation to be in then someone else telling me, after combat started, that they refuse to believe that my specialized beam platforms are better one-on-one against another 50 point battleship. That's just the nightmare situation that really proves how useful rules are.

In a situation like that, the mods would step in. If your situation were to be deemed advantageous, you would be given a favorable ruling. The OOB descriptions of the ships on both sides would be examined, and a decision would be made.

[Adrian Laguna]

You state that this is a 50-point BB with armaments that are specifically designed to take out destroyer-size ships. Then you go into combat, and you RP IT OUT. If you are against 50 points worth of destroyers, you can expect to win the battle. If you are against another 50-point BB, you should probably look into retreat.

The slight problem here is that you could have people saying their BBs are good against destroyers one day, and good against other BBs the next. That's why point allocations are useful, it makes it harder to have people "forget" what their ship is really good for.

However, destroyers vs. battleships is a non-issue. Naval history tells us that guns that are good against large ships are just as good against smaller ships. Just about any battleship was built with capital ship combat in mind, but it was more than capable of ass-raping cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Only really small ships like gunboats and cutters (fighters in a space STGOD) required specialized weaponry.

[Bugsby]

So what's to stop you from saying in one battle "This BB is specialized against DDs" but in another battle saying "50 points! 1 to 1! My BB tears up your 49pt BB!"

50 point BB wouldn't TEAR UP a 49 point BB. Both would get beat to hell. The 49-pointer would, all else eqaul, be the one to finally die in a 1-to-1 fight, but the 50-pointer would spend months in drydock getting repairs... if ti could move at all.

See the problem here? And of course you could say you have to be consistent, get people to call you out for it, but honestly, who's going to remember? Putting it in the OOB and assigning points is so much easier and makes referencing easier and cuts down on potential griefing.

EDIT: OK, I see what you're saying, describe the ship in the OOB. But then what's the cutoff? I may have given the BB an extra pair of anti-DD guns, and now it's specialized more than other BBs. But it's still not going to be much better against DDs. The points give you an easy reference.

Combat in an STGOD is interesting. You are fighting against the other guy, but OOC you are working with him to negotiate the most equitable outcomes in battle. Points aren't strictly necessary. You can put them in for a guideline.

50 point battleship (20 points dedicated to anti-destroyer weaponry)

is an acceptable line in the OOB. But that's just rough. That is kind of shelved until you get into the battle. Remember, in an STGOD, you call the shot, while the other guy calls the damage. So you say your anti-DE guns fire at his DEs, then wait for him to respond. While you are waiting, it couldn't hurt to shoot him a PM reminding him of the increased anti-DE capabilities of your ship, and reccomending he adjust his losses upward. Then your target will make his post where he says how much damage he has taken. Most of the time, this damage is acceptable and within reasonable expectations for how much damage your volley should do. Sometimes your opponent will give you a bit more than you thought you earned... great! And sometimes he will give a bit less. If this happens, you PM again (Or AIM) to discuss what you think SHOULD be the proper losses. Usually you come to an agreement at this point. If you don't, go to the OOC thread and ask a mod for ruling. You will get one.

The point I am trying to make is that while the point system we have in this game serves as a valuable guideline, the actual combat effectiveness of any ship is determined primarily by its use and the negotiation of acceptable damage between you and your opponent.

[Covenant]

The point I am trying to make is that while the point system we have in this game serves as a valuable guideline, the actual combat effectiveness of any ship is determined primarily by its use and the negotiation of acceptable damage between you and your opponent.

I think that's something we all can agree on. Points or no points, there should be some mention of it in your OOB. Those of us who want to use points will have a very obvious guideline to use when deciding our effectiveness, but no matter what, it comes down to negotiation and RP instead of just a straight comparison.

[Hawkwings]

I think everyone here agrees with you that RP and negotiation are the determiners of battle. We're just saying that the points value is important as a reference and it should definitely be included, because it helps everybody out and prevents dishonesty.

EDIT: so what's the ruling on the glass cannon/shield-ship thing?

[Bugsby]

Covenant, I think we are on the same page. I'm against the hyper-specialization that is starting to crop up, where people talk about where every point in there ship is going - Anti-this and boosted that and whatnot. In the end, 50 points is 50 points, and it's the RPing that makes it worthwhile. If you want to spec out your ships, more power to you. But if someone asks what effect +5 fighters will have against +3 shields on a BB-sized vessel, I will kill them with my mind.


Adrian - IRL guns work just as good against ships of all sizes. But this is science FICTION. People can spec however they want. They just need to realize that dumping points into fighter weapons today will hurt them tomorrow when they have to face a battleship. Also, people won't just be able to "forget" what their ships are specialized in. If anyone wants to deviate from a baseline "pretty-good-at-everything", that goes in the OOB.

[Bugsby]

EDIT: so what's the ruling on the glass cannon/shield-ship thing?

Nitram said that it doesn't make a difference, as a glass cannon and a shield-ship of equal point values will fight to a standstill. But he suggested that such hyper-specialization is kind of dumb. Having gone that way before, I tend to agree with him - I had fun doing it, but notice that I'm not doing it again. But that's a matter of personal preference.

If you do want to make those kinds of ships, that should be fine. It's real effect will be on the way you RP the battle, which is what makes the difference. Points allocations would then be used as a signal - "this ship is a glass cannon".

[brianeyci]

But I really can't think of a more horrifying situation to be in then someone else telling me, after combat started, that they refuse to believe that my specialized beam platforms are better one-on-one against another 50 point battleship. That's just the nightmare situation that really proves how useful rules are.

Well I'm sorry to piss on your cheerios (hehe), but I have read the OOB and that's exactly what it says. A point is a point, and who has more points in general will be victor. If you don't like it you'll have to rely on moderation to defend your position, and the moderation might not always go your way. If you want your specialized beam platforms to be better than a 50 point battleship, make it 60 points.

I expect moderation will fully reward creative solutions. But these guys have seen it all and done it all to the point that nothing seems creative or ingenious, not even an ansible or a well thought out argument that planetary invasion is pointless. Unless you want to take a risk that the moderation might not rule your way, the more points invested in something the more powerful.

You seem to be worried about people pulling shit out of their ass. I'm telling you there's no worry, because any asshole who will want to do that will do that anyway. As for irrelevant specialized subsystems, I don't want to get into a debate about starship combat, but you cannot hide in space making so-called "electronic warfare" pointless, and I cannot think of anything more stupid than a ship full of hackers. Nobody's ships are running on Federation LCARS.

The most horrifying situation to me is an ally backstabbing me, not losing in ship to ship combat. I think people who think this is a minatures game with ships moving around in hexes have the totally wrong idea.

[Covenant]

We're allowing people to have ships based on raw magic, so saying that someone can't use Electronic Warfare packages to confuse your sensors and make them hard to track is the height of arrogance. Yes you can. Hiding in plain sight is called cloaking, which is also allowed, but using EW to fuck with someone's sensors is also a totally legitimate strategy, as well as using Interdictor fields to slow down their retreat or improved FTL drives to blast through an interdiction fleet and fly off.

I'm not 'worried' about people pulling shit from their ass, I'm worried about you doing exactly what you're doing now and not bothering to validate either the point total OR the RP'd description of my ships. Your 'points vs points' combat is a guideline for combat, and by no means the appropriate way to decide who is the victor. Descrptions, Specializations, whatever, are all designed to enhance the RP end of the deal so that the winner is decided by agreement based on roleplay and effects, not on you claiming arbitrarily that if I wanted it to be better I should have made it 60 points.

[SirNitram]

By the by.

If two 50 ptrs go at it, and one's specialized anti-cap, and one's generic, the specialized is gonna win.

That's why they're specialized, yanno.

[brianeyci]

We're allowing people to have ships based on raw magic, so saying that someone can't use Electronic Warfare packages to confuse your sensors and make them hard to track is the height of arrogance. Yes you can. Hiding in plain sight is called cloaking, which is also allowed, but using EW to fuck with someone's sensors is also a totally legitimate strategy, as well as using Interdictor fields to slow down their retreat or improved FTL drives to blast through an interdiction fleet and fly off.

Then I submit that generic ships should be good for something besides an indication that a player is too lazy to think up of specifics. Just because there's magic doesn't make hackers suddenly useful. If I have to, I'll think up of a whole bunch of crap for all my ships including an alliance with the Microsoft fucks to make 1024-bit encryption, an alliance with the space aliens to get special goo to destroy boarders on touch with my hull, and an alliance with the Poles to get whores to get +1 to crew morale so my officer never misses. I'd rather not do that though for every little thing.

I'll watch the first battle to see how it's moderated, and sift through older STGODs. If I have a 50 point and I'm fighting a 50 point and that guy has a 5 to electronic warfare, at most I expect to be destroyed with the other guy having 5/50 hit points and limping home a total wreck. Not an annihilation. And that's only if the other guy is an incredibly talented enjoyable writer. But again, it's not up to us if we disagree. It's up to the moderation.

I'm not 'worried' about people pulling shit from their ass, I'm worried about you doing exactly what you're doing now and not bothering to validate either the point total OR the RP'd description of my ships. Your 'points vs points' combat is a guideline for combat, and by no means the appropriate way to decide who is the victor. Descrptions, Specializations, whatever, are all designed to enhance the RP end of the deal so that the winner is decided by agreement based on roleplay and effects, not on you claiming arbitrarily that if I wanted it to be better I should have made it 60 points.

Nothing to worry about because there is moderation. A player will have to accept or quit. Or do you have a problem with that?

Pulling shit out of ass = not in OOB. If it's in the OOB, then it's specified, just not necessarily by points. I don't see a problem with that. In any case I trust moderation, and you seem to be anticipating problems, as if moderation was not enough. I'm saying it is.

[SirNitram]

A ship with no specialization is balanced; it can fight equally well alone, against fighters or drones, or against capital ships. An EW ship, for example, typically needs to be working with a group to get full mileage out of itself; it has less firepower, but can throw up sensor ghosts and jamming to help it's buds.

[Starglider]

So what's to stop you from saying in one battle "This BB is specialized against DDs" but in another battle saying "50 points! 1 to 1! My BB tears up your 49pt BB!"

We're keeping anti-cap versus anti-small-craft as a distinction. So they can't say this if they don't allocate the points. Mid-sized 10pt ships probably get affected a bit by all specialised weapons. We are not having defence vs offence distinctions. It really is pointless with these mechanics. You can RP how your ships win and lose however you like to match your fluff.

Under normal conditions, with no specialisations, a 50-pt BB should win, barely, against 50 points of destroyers. The real-world reason is that the destroyers will take some time to penetrate the BB's shields and armour, while the destroyers will be losing ships fast as the BB picks them off. The DD fire will slack off much faster than the BB fire, and the result will be all DDs dead and the BB heavily damaged. The game balance reason for this is that the DD swarm is much more flexible than the BB; it can spread itself out over multiple systems, and if it chooses to run away it will probably escape with only a few ships going down on the way out. The BB can only be in one place at once and once it is committed it will have a much harder time disengaging (particularly if there is interdiction). This is the basic trade off between small and large ships (before you start getting into RP).

That said the difference won't be that strong. 70 points of destroyers should nail that 50pt BB with 50% or less losses, again for concentration of fire and square-law reasons. But swarms of tiny ships always take some losses.

[Adrian Laguna]

We're keeping anti-cap versus anti-small-craft as a distinction. So they can't say this if they don't allocate the points. Mid-sized 10pt ships probably get affected a bit by all specialised weapons.

I'm not seeing where's the logic in having weapons specialized against large warships and weapons specialized against small warships. Having anti-fighter or anti-missile weapons is different, because those are ordnance, so in the end it's just glorified PD. Again I bring-up the example of real life battleships. What happens if an Iowa-class BB encounters a destroyer? It shoots it with a few 16in guns instead of all of them. However if it encounters a small torpedo boat (equivalent to a fighter in our game), that's what the small cannons are for.

There's absolutely no reason why guns that are good against a full blown 50+ point capital ship should be different from a 5 point escort. Fighters? Again, those are ordnance, fancy missile buses. Having specialized weapons to defend against those makes sense, especially if your fleet relies on slug or energy weapons and must close range through clouds of fighters and/or missiles.

[Starglider]

There's absolutely no reason why guns that are good against a full blown 50+ point capital ship should be different from a 5 point escort.

That would be late battleship era equivalent, all-big-gun designs. Early battleship era had considerable secondary batteries for destroying smaller craft, largely because the big guns couldn't reliably hit the fast maneuvering small ships so throwing a lot of smaller shells at them was the only way to stop them. Our EW-heavy space environment presumably looks more like the early battleship era than the late one. You can go all-big-gun, but most of your shots will miss smaller craft if you do.

[Crossroads Inc.]

One day I've missed ONE Day of this thing and there is a SEA of text to read though... And after the previous incident I can't afford to miss anything... OY!

EDIT: and can we PLEASE get a generasl Game thread started? I am so sick of being forced to post in relation to the going ons at Earth.

[SirNitram]

Game thread posted. Please stop using the Coalition thread for general goings on.

[Starglider]

Game thread posted. Please stop using the Coalition thread for general goings on.

I would appreciate it if people could check my summary of their OOBs if they haven't done so already or have changed it recently, because I'd like to make a static copy of the opening state now and then keep updating the first copy to track construction and losses (subject to secrecy constraints).

Agent Fisher and Darksider still have no OOBs or map location.

AFAIK the following people have OOBs but no map location:
Beowulf
brianeyci (though this is secret anyway, presumably the mods know)
MRDOD
R.O.A
Stormbringer

[Bugsby]

Hurray, game thread! Spyder, I replied to your distress call in game thread because that's obviously not something to do with the Coalition of Nations.

Good to see that things are moving forward!

(gl hf dl dd)

[Spyder]

Continuity Problem

It's not a Starborn vessel, it's a commercial freighter belonging to some random shipping company.

Also, you probably wouldn't recognise a Starborn vessel if you saw it, the Starborn outsource to Nova for their dirty work .

Edit: Quick question:

Are we not going with weapons range modifiers? I spent points on that but in the quick ref they got dumped back into speed.

[Tanasinn]

My OOB has been updated to reflect the mod decision on specialized defense. Other than that, nothing has changed from the updated summary I posted earlier, Starglider. It is, though, different than the one currently in the quick reference thread.

[Agent Fisher]

Finally finished my OOB and I have returned from a week's absence.

[Agent Fisher]

[UCBooties]

First question, why is blackmast off the map? Second question, when will we have a definite FTL speed so we can start planning our shenanigans?