Space STGOD planning.(2k9)

[Dahak]

If you need to constantly refer to or read a rulebook, you're doing it wrong...
If you can keep it to "10-pt destroyer, fast" instead of "DD-ECCM, 5.58 speed, -4 against xxx, +5 against yyy, +3 shields,...." it's ok. Anything else should be up to the person (if your ship is powered by sacrificing sheep at midnight or core taps should be fluff, not game mechanics).

[Ryan Thunder]

If you need to constantly refer to or read a rulebook, you're doing it wrong...

Or you just have, y'know, rules to keep things manageable...

[Ohma]

If you need to constantly refer to or read a rulebook, you're doing it wrong...
If you can keep it to "10-pt destroyer, fast" instead of "DD-ECCM, 5.58 speed, -4 against xxx, +5 against yyy, +3 shields,...." it's ok. Anything else should be up to the person (if your ship is powered by sacrificing sheep at midnight or core taps should be fluff, not game mechanics).

Hey, you'll get no argument from me, part of the reason it took me so long to resolve the first round of actual combat between myself and another player in the last game was because it felt like we HAD to consult the stupidly complicated (even if the actual rule we needed to be reminded of was actually fairly simple the handbook is just a mess in terms of actually explaining things, it's like I wrote it) STGOD Handbook to figure out how the shit anything worked instead of just RPing it out.

[Darkevilme]

Yes we probably were doing it wrong last time. Which is why i'm keeping from any combat specializations(which were never used cept for flavour anyway) and going with those three as they cover seeing and moving ships only.
I only include speed cause it means strategic speed which would matter in rp as its how fast fleets get from A to B.
I only include stealth cause people love being sneaky.
I only include sensors cause some people like to shoot the people being sneaky.
So technically we could remove sensors if we removed stealth.
Though i suspect some will miss their ECM a bit as that's no longer a specialization and the 'hide your fleet behind a wall of jamming' is pure rp flavour now. You could always tell roughly how big a fleet was when they did that though so it's no big loss that they rp it now.

The trouble with the slow gradients system is the maths is more complicated than with the weak and balanced method. I'm tempted to modify it to a tack on system as well, reminiscent of the stealth rating. So its the proportion of engine to everything else, and i'm leery of it so i'll make it weaker. Each level of speed costs twenty percent of the value of the rest of the ship. First two levels are free.

So a fast cruiser is 10 points+2 and has a speed of 3. a normal cruiser is 10 points and has a speed of 2.
And most ships will be that simple, cept for infiltrators and sensor ships.

[Dark Hellion]

Dahak, I think we all understand your concerns. Rules are a problem within these games. In retrospect I will agree that STGOD 2k8II had too many rules, which did stifle ship creation. Despite being a major part of the creation of the rules, I was still somewhat foggy on some of the intricacies, and I believe that I had created a fleet that would have skirted the rules if I had ever gotten into combat.

On the other hand, I believe it is very naive to believe that Rping is a viable solution. Despite the fact that we would like to assume that we are all mature individuals, there is no rules enforcement available in Cowboys & Indians, which Rping essentially reduces to. Besides basic problems of whether my "transphasic shields" block your "phase Beam" we have to deal with the general retconning that goes on.

I think we need a balance between the two views. The rules should be quick and easy, requiring little more than a minute of calculation to solve any problems that can't be simply RPed away. While RPing is the first recourse in any battle were defeat in detail is in play, large battles are too complex to simply talk them out, and too much is on the line to expect level-headedness. Thus, we need a simple point-based rules system that makes it apparent who wins, or at least allows us to approximate what will happen based upon the actions of the participants.

My proposal is that we start from the ground. We use very few broad stats for ship description, industry, conquest, and trade. I think if we discuss in good faith what we wish to represent and what problems we think will arise from RPing we should be able to come up with a system that satisfies both camps.

I plan on making an attempt at a quick and dirty battle system. I have an idea in mind that requires very little complex calculation and should be able to represent a vast number of different ship design stratagems, but I have to do a bit of paperwork first.

[Dahak]

Dahak, I think we all understand your concerns. Rules are a problem within these games. In retrospect I will agree that STGOD 2k8II had too many rules, which did stifle ship creation. Despite being a major part of the creation of the rules, I was still somewhat foggy on some of the intricacies, and I believe that I had created a fleet that would have skirted the rules if I had ever gotten into combat.

On the other hand, I believe it is very naive to believe that Rping is a viable solution. Despite the fact that we would like to assume that we are all mature individuals, there is no rules enforcement available in Cowboys & Indians, which Rping essentially reduces to. Besides basic problems of whether my "transphasic shields" block your "phase Beam" we have to deal with the general retconning that goes on.

But...it worked. In at least two STGODs, which only bogged down to entrenched alliances and some people not having time anymore.
Sure, there were huge discussions in the OT-thread, but despite *not* having rules above rules, the game went on. RPing *was* a viable solution then, nothing has changed now.
As for what goes or not, that's what the mods have always been for.

My proposal is a very simple one. Do it as it was done before the armada of rule lawyers came charging through. The rules that are there are just for OOB-design purposes. It worked, I see no reason why it shouldn't again...

[Darkevilme]

Okay i'm going to try and write down all the rules I've come up with for this so far and think we need to steal from previous STGODS.

Ship creation, there are three specializations which will be described below. All specializations have a limit that you may not spend more than ten points on each per ship.
Sensors, linear value, the more sensors the higher this rating regardless of ship size. Counters stealth and other stuff.
Stealth, proportionate value, each tenth increases stealth rating by one.
So stealth rating = value spent on stealth/(value of the rest of the ship not spent on stealth/10)+1

Note: I'm beginning to think that due to sensors being now monorole these two might need to revert to rp perhaps.

Engines, proportionate value, each tenth increases engine rating by one. Default is two
engine rating = value spent on engines/(value of the rest of the ship not spent on engines/10)+2

Note: This is the only specialization i think is actually vital.

Anything not spent on these three is base weight of warship, you're welcome to have non combat things but they're not part of ship cost.

Industry: (ripped from previous STGOD)
Each planet, orbital, starbase, whatever produces X amount of resources each game turn.
Subtract a fifth of the value of your fleet from that as maintenance and spend the rest on new ships and stuff.

Combat:In a battle each fleet inflicts baseweight/5 damage on the other fleet each round. This is to be used either cause A. the players prefer it that way or B. they cant agree on how the battle should work.

Everything else is rp.

And I agree with Dahak, it can work with pure rp between some players. Course this doesnt apply to everyone and some of us like a little structure which is why we need a minimum of rules.

[Dahak]

Combat:In a battle each fleet inflicts baseweight/5 damage on the other fleet each round. This is to be used either cause A. the players prefer it that way or B. they cant agree on how the battle should work.

Well, I think that point values should only be used as rough yard sticks. A 500-pt fleet is most likely to destroy a 50-pt one. If you have 500 vs 480, the thing should be roleplayed, not put into an Excel sheet and marvel at the result...

Deciding on ship power is a good rule, as it keeps people from pulling Super Ships of DOOOOOM out of their asses, but in battles, it can be rp'ed quite nicely without rules for tiny details. It just requires the ability (and willingness) of people to talk to each other and enjoy the game.

Everything else is rp.

And I agree with Dahak, it can work with pure rp between some players. Course this doesnt apply to everyone and some of us like a little structure which is why we need a minimum of rules.

Well, as I said, that's what you have mods with the Big Stick for They give some nice structure

[Darkevilme]

Well, I think that point values should only be used as rough yard sticks. A 500-pt fleet is most likely to destroy a 50-pt one. If you have 500 vs 480, the thing should be roleplayed, not put into an Excel sheet and marvel at the result...

Deciding on ship power is a good rule, as it keeps people from pulling Super Ships of DOOOOOM out of their asses, but in battles, it can be rp'ed quite nicely without rules for tiny details. It just requires the ability (and willingness) of people to talk to each other and enjoy the game.

Overral i agree that it should be used as a rough yardstick, that's why i'm saying the rules are A. for those who like it that way or B. for times when the aforementioned rping it out hits an unresolveable snag.

Now here's an important question for everyone. As i find the stealth versus sensors rules kinda dubious right now (sensors have one purpose here, not good) who here thinks it would be a good idea to drop them and just rp out the skullduggery? That would leave us with one specialization only, speed.

To be honest if people thought they could all rp stealth stuff out i'd be okay playing a ruleset of.
1. raw points per ship.
2. speed specialization
3. industry rules
4. combat system fallback.

[Nephtys]

I rather find even matches more interesting if the result is in question, which is what a system for determining things is good for. Even damage randomization helps a bit, as if that 50 point fleet vs your 500 managed to cripple or sink one cruiser squadron flag, or whatever as a surprise.

RPed means that.. well, two people may have two differing ideas on what they'd want to see, and from there on...

[Dark Hellion]

Exactly what Nephtys said. Lets just lay out a really likely scenario.

Space race A and space race B (played by players A & B respectively) both bring half their fleet to a battle. Now, which ever side loses is probably crippled for the rest of the game. So there is not incentive for either player to try and play fair at all. Both side wants to walk away without being hurt, so Player A will say "I fire broadsides into your ships, ripping apart their shields with mass plasma fire." Player B goes "No, my ships maneuver laterally, dodging the majority of the fire, and return a volley of AM missiles that rip into your exposed starboards." Player A then goes "My overlapping shields absorb your missiles with nary a scratch, together being far more powerful than individual and I return fire with AI drones, which cannot be dodged so easily." To which Player B goes "My point defenses rip apart your drones as my ships close to fusion beam range." And so on and so forth...

Neither player has done appreciably damage, not stepped outside things possible to stick into OoB fluff, and yet two giant fleets have fired multiple volleys of weaponry at each other. This is the Cops & Robbers bullshit that always sinks STGODs.

If you want to utilize RPing more, then please make non-Mechanical suggestions of how to fix the numerous RP problems that have arisen the last 3 times. Darkevil suggested a solution to the indefensibility of systems with Node FTL. Now how do we solve the problem of losing even 20% of your ships is so crippling you might as well just quit, and the problem of encouraging aggression, or how to encourage complex, dynamic political relations, instead of the bland treaty making that it always boils down to?

[Ohma]

If you want to utilize RPing more, then please make non-Mechanical suggestions of how to fix the numerous RP problems that have arisen the last 3 times. Darkevil suggested a solution to the indefensibility of systems with Node FTL. Now how do we solve the problem of...how to encourage complex, dynamic political relations, instead of the bland treaty making that it always boils down to?

I think what may help in that area would be a central place for everyone (who isn't a SINISTER FORCE FROM BEYOND SPAAAACE) to locate diplomats etc. Which should exist prior to the game's start.

Rather like Babylon 5.

[Ryan Thunder]

Exactly what Nephtys said. Lets just lay out a really likely scenario.

Space race A and space race B (played by players A & B respectively) both bring half their fleet to a battle. Now, which ever side loses is probably crippled for the rest of the game. So there is not incentive for either player to try and play fair at all. Both side wants to walk away without being hurt, so Player A will say "I fire broadsides into your ships, ripping apart their shields with mass plasma fire." Player B goes "No, my ships maneuver laterally, dodging the majority of the fire, and return a volley of AM missiles that rip into your exposed starboards." Player A then goes "My overlapping shields absorb your missiles with nary a scratch, together being far more powerful than individual and I return fire with AI drones, which cannot be dodged so easily." To which Player B goes "My point defenses rip apart your drones as my ships close to fusion beam range." And so on and so forth...

Neither player has done appreciably damage, not stepped outside things possible to stick into OoB fluff, and yet two giant fleets have fired multiple volleys of weaponry at each other. This is the Cops & Robbers bullshit that always sinks STGODs.

You need a moderator, then. Both players describe what they try to do, the mod decides (perhaps by randomly rolling dice) what the results are.

Oh, and the moderator would have to be somebody who isn't actually involved in the game otherwise. So they can be a mod, but they can't actually play.

[Dark Hellion]

Good luck finding that Ryan. If we need such harsh moderation why don't we simply have rules that decide it, without the whim of a biased person?

You act like the mods sit on their asses doing nothing. Unless the mods are actual board mods, nothing can be done to prevent players from simply ignoring them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just want to say that I could probably participate if such a thing ever got off the ground. I'm in a few of these things now on various sites, but in every case I've either stopped participating for weeks (like SD.Net Kingdoms), or it seems to be wrapping up. So I probably have time.

[Nephtys]

Good luck finding that Ryan. If we need such harsh moderation why don't we simply have rules that decide it, without the whim of a biased person?

You act like the mods sit on their asses doing nothing. Unless the mods are actual board mods, nothing can be done to prevent players from simply ignoring them.

Because their word should be accepted before the game begins. Just since we need to set rules, and if someone goes 'NYUH UH!' against what others would deem a fair ruling, we have a problem.

If you guys were interested in starting up again though, I'd love to Moderate. I want to see an STGOD go to completion, darnit!

[Ryan Thunder]

Good luck finding that Ryan. If we need such harsh moderation why don't we simply have rules that decide it, without the whim of a biased person?

You act like the mods sit on their asses doing nothing. Unless the mods are actual board mods, nothing can be done to prevent players from simply ignoring them.

Well, there's really nothing to prevent players from ignoring the rules of the game, either, are there?

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, there's really nothing to prevent players from ignoring the rules of the game, either, are there?

This I agree with. Having a ruleset may make it clearer what behavior is acceptable (though too many rules can be restrictive to roleplaying), but at the end of the day, it largely comes down to the integrity/sense of the individual posters. A strict ruleset can still be ignored. The only way to prevent this would probably be to have a rule that allows mods to title/ban users who violate STGOD rules or ignore whoever the game moderator is.

Actually, I will consider posting this suggestion in the House of Commons, since I don't believe we have such a rule as yet.

[Nephtys]

Calm down people. An STGOD is a GAME. If someone literally just says 'Nuh uh! My fighter blows up your battle fleet', refuses to listen to why they can't do that from mods and other players... you can just ignore that person because clearly they're not being reasonable. They'll drop out of the game then, or they can accept things and move on.

If they make a fuss after that, we can just call a standard mod to boot/title/whatever.

[Dark Hellion]

Well, I super-modded 2K8II and I believe I had to put on the mod hat once ever. And it wasn't over any actual rules.

Really, we need to fix the RPing problems that have crippled the last 3 STGODs.

1) There is no incentive to risk ships, as losing even a small percentage of fleet strength (10%) makes it impossible for you to actually compete anymore.

2) There is no advantage to defense. Planets are generally indefensible as split forces are going to come up against sizable fleets, always. The attacker has an inherent advantage, except of course #1 means no one really wants to attack.

3) The is no reason to be any general political alignment but an extreme. Either you are going to be friends with everyone so you have plenty of allies, or be enemies of everyone because they are all going to ally up against you anyway. This makes politics boring and black and white.

4) Nothing compels players to interact at all. Simply sitting in your corner and building your fleet for X turns means you get to fight a bunch of weakened opponents, or they notice you are doing this and gangbang you, because of #'s 2 and 3.

Now, if someone can suggest solutions that aren't completely reliant on player fiat I would be interested in debating on them.

[Dahak]

Well, I super-modded 2K8II and I believe I had to put on the mod hat once ever. And it wasn't over any actual rules.

Really, we need to fix the RPing problems that have crippled the last 3 STGODs.

1) There is no incentive to risk ships, as losing even a small percentage of fleet strength (10%) makes it impossible for you to actually compete anymore.

And what makes you think forcing players to follow your idea of the game makes it a better one?
The STGODs I have been in had battles, and ships lost, even though it used the reviled "RPing"...

2) There is no advantage to defense. Planets are generally indefensible as split forces are going to come up against sizable fleets, always. The attacker has an inherent advantage, except of course #1 means no one really wants to attack.

This has been the consensus of most if not all players in the past, that turtling behind defenses is a losing strategy. Given enough mobile units, you'll overcome the static defenses in time.

3) The is no reason to be any general political alignment but an extreme. Either you are going to be friends with everyone so you have plenty of allies, or be enemies of everyone because they are all going to ally up against you anyway. This makes politics boring and black and white.

That's a player problem. In STGODs people usually *want* to play some extreme, because this is more fun. And even then, there were some shades of grey. This is something you cannot just "rule-lawyer" away, whatever you may think.

4) Nothing compels players to interact at all. Simply sitting in your corner and building your fleet for X turns means you get to fight a bunch of weakened opponents, or they notice you are doing this and gangbang you, because of #'s 2 and 3.

But there's been always going on a lot of things and interactions. If you want you might try to set up an in-game situation were people are more likely to interact. Just putting up rules or somesuch is not going to lead to a happy game there...

Now, if someone can suggest solutions that aren't completely reliant on player fiat I would be interested in debating on them.

If you want to play a completely ruled game, then say so and go with it. But it won't be a STGOD...

[Darkevilme]

While people are argueing over whether rules are a good idea I think now would be a good time to bring up the need for a backstory or some such for this. The only set things are.

1. No one gets earth, eithers it's an NPC planet or blown to smithereens but we're not having the STGOD 2k7 phenomena of six powers there making it an unbeatable powerbloc. And we're not having an arguement over who is the one person to get earth, no one gets it.

2. FTL is done using nodes: Each node links to another in a different system, you trundle over to the node location and activate the node drive. the transition is instant so most of the time taken by strategic movement is taken by STL movement from node to node across the respective systems.

3. How quickly should we make the default time to make one node jump on the strategic map? this will determine the time it takes a newly arrived fleet to reach a planet in system as well as it's a rough guide for their STL speed and such.

4. We need a way of getting a nodemap, it must be expandable however as we dont know how many players will come aboard.

5. On the subject of node maps how big should the empires be? i'm thinking small scale, half dozen systems max.

5. Ohma's idea of a diplomatic place would be useful if that could be accomodated by the story.

[Dark Hellion]

Can I know assume that you are being purposefully dense Dahak, or are you just that naive? No where did you actually answer any of the problems I laid out, just pretended that such problems didn't exist.

Sure, people do get in fights, but there is little incentive for them to. Why should I lose ships to fight you? Political differences? So? I am not going to risk my empire to attack you. We saw this all the time. No one attacked anyone in STGOD 2k7 and only 1 major combat action happened in 2k8. It wasn't like there weren't a lot of people who had ideological differences, there just weren't the difference that were extreme enough to make you want to risk losing everything in some vainglory charge. You act like this isn't a problem and that players are going to willingly RP there races into losing situations. But why?

And of course defense is a losing proposition, it is simply that attacking anyone with a fleet in system is also suicidal, even when you win, your weakened fleet can't defend your home territory at all. So no one attacks. It isn't playing defense, it is simply not committing suicide, because the last 2 years attacking alone has meant suicide. So, how do we fix this. Give me a suggestion, don't invoke RP like it is some magic solution.

For your third objection. Of course factions are shades of Grey. This doesn't mean shit as the alliances are all as black as night. There is no stick to make it so that people don't just RP all friendly, thus ensuring their safety. Unless you are xenophobic, you are going to form power-blocs with anyone similarly minded, and then you just have big, boring faceless alliances in a standoff. Like 2k7. Are we simply going to have the moderator break up alliances he/she deems "too convinient" or what? Make some fucking suggestions you stupid prat.

So far, all I have ever seen you do regarding STGODs is bitch about rules, invoke RPing as a magical solution, and rehash the same fucking idea of a race over and over again. Are you actually interested in contribution or is this just some arena for you to act haughty, pretend everyone turned against you and storm off bitching about 'too many rules'? Would you like to actually suggest real solutions or are you going to keep up the high and mighty bullshit act?

[The Romulan Republic]

While people are argueing over whether rules are a good idea I think now would be a good time to bring up the need for a backstory or some such for this. The only set things are.

1. No one gets earth, eithers it's an NPC planet or blown to smithereens but we're not having the STGOD 2k7 phenomena of six powers there making it an unbeatable powerbloc. And we're not having an arguement over who is the one person to get earth, no one gets it.

Could be interesting if you work that into the backstory somehow. MIght add a little interest to the setting if their's a back story involving the destruction of the Earth. Maybe its just that the best RPG I was ever in was a post-catastrophy setting, but I think those work well.

2. FTL is done using nodes: Each node links to another in a different system, you trundle over to the node location and activate the node drive. the transition is instant so most of the time taken by strategic movement is taken by STL movement from node to node across the respective systems.

One nitpick: how did the network get built if you need nodes in place to travle between systems? It may not seem like a big deal, but that kind of thing can put a bullet through the proverbial head of one's suspension of disbelief.

I can think of two possible explanations (only need a node at the start point but not the destination, or else all colonization was done over centuries with STL), and you can probably think of variations on these. It doesn't really matter much, just a nitpick.

3. How quickly should we make the default time to make one node jump on the strategic map? this will determine the time it takes a newly arrived fleet to reach a planet in system as well as it's a rough guide for their STL speed and such.

Why not make node jumps instantaneous, with the time involved being the STL transit time to and from the nodes (say they have to be out on the edge of the system for some technobable or safety reason)?

4. We need a way of getting a nodemap, it must be expandable however as we dont know how many players will come aboard.

No idea how to handle that, sorry.

5. On the subject of node maps how big should the empires be? i'm thinking small scale, half dozen systems max.

Half a dozen is a bit small, if we go the usual route of sci-fi and warfair is in terms of "capturing a system." With half a dozen systems, it would be too easy to lose everything very fast, especially if we go with a rigid ruleset that will spell out the value of each fleet and system, and the losses suffered in each battle. If however we have the option of split-control systems, where perhaps a player had the forces to take only part of the system, then its fine. After all, each system could have dozens of planets or moons, and millions of asteroids. Why must conquering a system be an all-or-nothing affair? Another option would be to go with a game more focussed on diplomacy and small-scale operation than with big conquest, but that's up to you and ultimately the individual players.

5. Ohma's idea of a diplomatic place would be useful if that could be accomodated by the story.

Maybe have it set up after the old diplomatic and political centres were destroyed along with the Earth? Maybe as a place to negotiate in the future with whoever blew up Earth, though in somehow I doubt anyone would wish to negotiate with the destroyers of the home world.

[Ohma]

While people are argueing over whether rules are a good idea I think now would be a good time to bring up the need for a backstory or some such for this. The only set things are.

Yay! I feel like I can contribute here.

1. No one gets earth, eithers it's an NPC planet or blown to smithereens but we're not having the STGOD 2k7 phenomena of six powers there making it an unbeatable powerbloc. And we're not having an arguement over who is the one person to get earth, no one gets it.

I think a simple solution (going along with your later suggestion of smaller scale civs) would be to just say that this is taking place in an entirely different part of the galaxy. Any human descended civs (which I think mine will be in part) are from a few FTL colony ships that (somehow) in their search for habitable worlds, wandered all the way over here.

4. We need a way of getting a nodemap, it must be expandable however as we dont know how many players will come aboard.

We could just use another hex grid and say that each hex (with a system in it) is a node point, I think that would be fairly simple. Though it could also end up being nightmarishly confused.