StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dave wrote:

Steve wrote:A bit complex, and use of power rating, while realistic, is probably a bit further than we're looking for.

How would you suggest fleet combat be done?

I'm not Steve, but i'm answering anyway.

Something like this perhaps?

Hostile encounter:
Bob brings five hundred points worth of bobbyville laser battleships.
Max brings three hundred points worth of maximokill cruisers.

They both start narrating back and forth at each other and both acknowledge who has the superior fleet, which of course influences the narration and so on and so forth. That's pretty much how it usually went in the previous space STGODs.

I believe Wilkens laid out how it happens: one guy posts the commencement of battle, the mod looks it over and approves it or disapproves it (or theoretically alters the outcome) based on if the writer was being munchy or not, then the other guy posts a riposte of some sort.

I think it should be more then pure number crunching. More storytelling opportunities that way.

Setzer wrote:I think it should be more then pure number crunching. More storytelling opportunities that way.

Well, if players can determine amongst themselves who wins that's fine, but if the players can't decide then the numbers can help the issue for mod decision.

I do think there should be one limiting factor for alien biology. They should all be biologically similar enough that players can't use bio or chemical attacks with impunity. None of this "I gas the planet with a substance harmless to humans" or people will just be encouraged to cheat.

See, I can't get behind that one. That should be covered by rule 'don't be a dick'.

Couldn't we just replace aliens with space pirates or something?

What's wrong with aliens?

As far as biological/chemical warfare that only affects once species, I think it should be something like a nuke, since you have to consider that everything else on their planet is also adapted to their same ecology, so if you poisoned a species, you're probably also poisoning the rest of the organisms on the planet, or, at least, enough to cause widespread ecological devastation that would render the planet uninhabitable.

Well, if bioweapons are allowed, there would be plenty of virus bombs in my arsenal for certain. Virus bombs meant to exterminate all form of life, and then their decay fumes full of methane would subsequently be ignited by a lance blast.

So Steve maybe something akin to this:

You have "A" many planets, 1/2 are "Outposts, 1/3rd are "Colonies", 1/6 are "Core"
(You get [A-# "Core" planets] systems)
You get "B" many hundred capital ships, 1/2 must be Escort-classes, 1/3rd Cruiser-classes, 1/6 Battleships/Ships of the Line
You get "C" many hundred thousand troops, 1/2 are "Reserve", 1/3rd "Standard", 1/6th "Elite"
You get "D" many warp points for instant system to system travel


So we set numbers for all of those above, if you want to increase A you have to take from B, C, or D. You can also but partial bits...say you want 100 more Cruisers you could get that by either surrendering 1 "Colony", 100,000 "Standard" troops, or you could surrender 50,000 "Elite" troops...or 50 Battleships...etc,etc.

Tech is fluff, weapons are fluff, ship and unit types aside from the general classes above are fluff, and so on and so forth. I would recommend generally that is we are going for a B5-Trek level that Planetary Shields are out but theater shields should be in.

If we try to eliminate non humans we would also eliminate AI nations because they are immune to bio and chemical attacks. And with just doing both of those things we lose a large section of players. Do neither and allow every one the ability to role play it.

If all potential players who wish to play non-human life would PM me I can post just the numbers of players any decision about this involves.

Secondly we are looking at about 2 months before the game even starts, and it is a little early for this much bickering.

Agent Sorchus wrote:If we try to eliminate non humans we would also eliminate AI nations because they are immune to bio and chemical attacks. And with just doing both of those things we lose a large section of players. Do neither and allow every one the ability to role play it.

If all potential players who wish to play non-human life would PM me I can post just the numbers of players any decision about this involves.

Secondly we are looking at about 2 months before the game even starts, and it is a little early for this much bickering.

Bickering? This is mere nitpicking compared to the rancorous MESS-CATO arguments.

Coyote wrote:I think, in retrospect, the Star Wars game got bogged down in rules, and I was partly to blame for that because I wanted a numerical system that would be applied that could circumvent all the expected arguments about the uber-mega-gigaton-ultrawank fleets/shields/weapons/etc that I was certain were lurking around every corner.

I have to say that while I enjoyed the actual story writing and diplomacy of the Star Wars game insofar as I participated (which was admittedly to a limited extent), the complexity of the rules was off-putting for me, and I suspect it was part of why that game didn't last longer. So a different approach sounds great.

Consider me tentatively on board for this, provided any rules are few and simple.

Also, I strongly believe we should allow aliens. Just thought I'd throw out my vote.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Bickering? This is mere nitpicking compared to the rancorous MESS-CATO arguments.

Of course it is nothing compared to those arduous arguments. But it is something that is almost entirely unnecessary to bicker about until people are more committed to going through with their ideas. It could even turn people away prematurely.

Akhlut wrote:What's wrong with aliens?

Eh, I was thinking throwing them out would reduce complexity, since we seem to be in the business of doing that.

CmdrWilkens wrote:So Steve maybe something akin to this:
<snip>

Sounds like what we've been trying to hash out all along.

Agent Sorchus wrote:If we try to eliminate non humans we would also eliminate AI nations because they are immune to bio and chemical attacks.

AIs may be susceptible to computer viruses, and of course the occasional illogical Zen philosophy may prove useful.

Dave wrote:Eh, I was thinking throwing them out would reduce complexity, since we seem to be in the business of doing that.

Our goal is not to limit complexity, but to limit the constraints of having a fun game. And our experience points towards less rules = more fun.

CmdrWilkens wrote:So Steve maybe something akin to this:

You have "A" many planets, 1/2 are "Outposts, 1/3rd are "Colonies", 1/6 are "Core"
(You get [A-# "Core" planets] systems)
You get "B" many hundred capital ships, 1/2 must be Escort-classes, 1/3rd Cruiser-classes, 1/6 Battleships/Ships of the Line
You get "C" many hundred thousand troops, 1/2 are "Reserve", 1/3rd "Standard", 1/6th "Elite"
You get "D" many warp points for instant system to system travel


So we set numbers for all of those above, if you want to increase A you have to take from B, C, or D. You can also but partial bits...say you want 100 more Cruisers you could get that by either surrendering 1 "Colony", 100,000 "Standard" troops, or you could surrender 50,000 "Elite" troops...or 50 Battleships...etc,etc.

Tech is fluff, weapons are fluff, ship and unit types aside from the general classes above are fluff, and so on and so forth. I would recommend generally that is we are going for a B5-Trek level that Planetary Shields are out but theater shields should be in.

What I was thinking about was this, Wilkens.

You get a home sector by default and so many "territory points", if you will, which you can use to buy each kind of sector. Core Sectors have the highest population and starting GDP but almost nil potential for growth; Midrange Sectors get decent population and GDP and room for growth; Frontier Sectors get the least Pop and GDP but the highest growth capacity. Territory points can also be spent to add hyperspace nodes (you can claim greater trade income to justify military expenditures and you can claim quicker military response times) or warp points/wormholes for instantaneous travel to another sector held by someone else - can also be used to claim greater trade income (we're not going for rule mechanics here, but if someone claims you're expanding your military too greatly you're more easily able to defend your capability to do so by pointing to your heightened trade levels).

Once the size of your star empire's determined, you have your economic strength expressed in an abstract GDP figure, and that tells you how big your starting military can be in terms of combat value points.

And that's that. The more Core sectors you start with, the higher your income and starting military but the lower your growth (in fact, if your entire empire is Core Sectors I think it'd be presumed that all emigration is to places outside your empire, unless you settle a Colony Sector) and the smaller your star empire is in terms of overall space. Colonies get rapid growth but, for a time, give lower GDP income and aren't as populated. Midrange is partway between the two - some growth capacity, some starting GDP and population.

As for military forces, I was going with those who say to keep things relatively loose, though for guidelines and some feasibility issues I do think we should clarify minimum costs for hull sizes. A 50 point Star Dreadnought is not as good as a 70 point one... but should we even consider allowing a 20 point one when its very size implies one should've spent at least 30 or 40 or 50?

(Note that Hull Sizes would be referred to in Abstract, something like Shuttle, Fighter, Gunboat, Ultralight, Light, Medium, Heavy, Superheavy, Ultraheavy).

Agent Sorchus wrote:

Dave wrote:Eh, I was thinking throwing them out would reduce complexity, since we seem to be in the business of doing that.

Our goal is not to limit complexity, but to limit the constraints of having a fun game. And our experience points towards less rules = more fun.

TBH, I didn't play the SW STGOD, but from my PoV of SDNW3, the experience was more "bad rules = less fun" than "less rules = more fun".

I will play aliens. So for those guys saying no aliens and no AI, lick my atrocious alien anus!

Suffer not the Xenos to live.

Dave wrote:Couldn't we just replace aliens with space pirates or something?

I don't see the problem in aliens (or space pirates) really, so long as, as loomer said, people play by the "don't be a dick" rule.

Agent Sorchus wrote:And our experience points towards less rules = more fun.

More like "fewer rules + good framework = more fun" IMHO.

Steve wrote:(Note that Hull Sizes would be referred to in Abstract, something like Shuttle, Fighter, Gunboat, Ultralight, Light, Medium, Heavy, Superheavy, Ultraheavy)

I'd sort out how many points we can spend on a ship at most before coming up with classifications. Well, unless the 2000pt Compensating For Something class GSV is allowable ...

Lonestar wrote:Suffer not the Xenos to live.

Then the Republic of the Loin Stars has chosen its fate!

Shroom Man 777 wrote:

Lonestar wrote:Suffer not the Xenos to live.

Then the Republic of the Loin Stars has chosen its fate!

THe Imperium of Man proclaims a Great Crusade against Foul Xenos!

Shroom Man 777 wrote: Then the Republic of the Loin Stars has chosen its fate!

Don't be stupid, I'm not going to be the LSR again.

So, in this scenario, what would Earth's status be? Neutral ground? One among equals? The "superpower hand of Mod"? Or... destroyed, which is why we all left, a la Firefly?