Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Baphod_Zeeblebrox

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't disagree with you, Pok - I can certainly see why it would annoy people. But when retcons happen, we can either protest angrily or throw ourselves forward into the new stuff. Either way, it's not going to change what Warcradle (which abbreviates to WC, oh dear, only just noticed that) do with the franchise, but it is going to change our own personal enjoyment of it. Just my 2 cents, anyway - if folk want to be angry about it, that is totally fine and justifiable, too. I've always been more of a "go with the flow and see what happens" kinda guy.
  2. Exactly...and because it's fun. Even if we had a Black Library of content, everyone has their own head-canon, their own fan theories and their own stories that they've made up to further enrich their own perception of the universe. That's what fans do. As far as lore and fluff goes, I enjoy the massive over-arching stuff explaining why we fight, but I also love descriptions of famous campaigns, battles, or even just fleeting moments in the (short) life of a gunner officer, interstella marine or frigate captain - those little microcosms in a bigger conflict reminding us that every decision is coming off the back of human (or alien) personalities, each with their own experiences, successes and failings. That adds a lot more weight to it for me. So, for example, whilst it'd be cool to get a bit more of a historical description of the Terran's obliteration of Dramos, what I'd really enjoy reading is a personal account of some grim-faced Dindrenzi scrambling to get off his (or her) planet amongst millions of their fellow citizens, and how they feel while watching their planet burn. That would start a potentially awesome story-arc of their rise through the ranks of the RSN or the Dindrenzi Navy, hell-bent on a quest for their own, personal, revenge.
  3. Isn't that the very nature of fluff, though? It should be dynamic, and where things don't appear to make sense there should be scope for them to be re-written. Sure, it might cause a bit of upset in the short term, but longer-term, if it leads to a more interesting, balanced, rich universe, then that's all to the good, isn't it?
  4. I'd never thought of them like that before. I love it. Intergalactic SPECTRE. Now it makes sense.
  5. Sure, but FTL travel makes no sense, and sentient fish-people make no sense, and spaceships the size of small islands make no sense either. Technology through theft only works if you can convincingly infiltrate the other culture to thieve their tech. Assuming the Aquans are a race of very advanced but very alien beings, that might be tricky for the (largely human) Directorate to achieve. Sometimes the application of brute force might be the easiest way to get what you want - especially in space, where the consequences for such actions are likely to be less severe than a war on our own small planet. There doesn't appear to be a "Galactic United Nations" to resolve disputes... Revenge might not make sense - but it's been a pretty powerful motivator historically, and it's been the basis of nuclear deterrent since just after the Second World War, after all . Once something escalates into a shooting war, it's often quite hard de-escalate that situation again - and that's on our own planet with instantaneous communications. It could take weeks to communicate between planets in the depths of space, and by that time local planetary governors or admirals might have been forced to take action on their own. That's one thing I'd like to see a bit more of in the fluff - how centralised and controlled are all of the civilisations? Can they effectively coordinate their entire empires, or do they rely on heavy delegation and intermittent communications between semi-autonomous worlds? If it's the first, then I agree - all out conflict seems less likely. If the second - well, then why not think of it a little like the Age of Sail? Large empires effectively "at war" with one another for territory, resources, sheer bloodymindedness or ideological differences. A central governmental structure deciding on policy, overall military expenditure, where to send resources etc, and individual admirals or colonial governors in infrequent communication with their own central government back home? That seems a bit more "realistic" than instantaneous communication anyway, and allows plenty of reasons for conflict between individual fleets, worlds, and even between entire civilisations - as well as allowing for alliances of convenience, uneasy truces and smaller-scale political machinations...
  6. Don't forget we've then got the Terrans fighting to cling onto their old empire, the Aquans fighting for survival against the Directorate (as, frankly, who'd want to end up as a conquered species under that corporate hegemony?) and the Sorylians, who are slow to anger and prepare (as per the fluff) - but, being logical and forward-thinking, are likely to be fighting for the possible gains for the far future rather than any immediate short-term goal. There are plenty enough reasons for the meta-conflict...the fluff just needs padding out a bit!
  7. Stoobert, thanks for the video - you've got a pretty good way of explainging things. Ever considered doing an "introduction to FSA" for newbies? I like your ideas - would definitely want to try them out in a game before committing though. Good job!
  8. Those are smashing...I love the Sorylian frigate! Now for the important question: Do they shoot things?
  9. This. Absolutely 100% this. For me, the fluff should give you this wonderful, rich, over-arching universe to play in. Space is big. Really big (etc etc, thanks Douglas Adams), so there should be more than enough room for every conceivable combination of alliances and enemies, from little border clashes to huge multi-fleet engagements. The stories, lore, and history of the fluff should be encouraging players to make their own scenarios, forge and break alliances and generally enjoy the game . It might give people the incentive to replay famous battles or scenarios, to recreate historical campaigns, or it might inspire them to create their own stories and adventures. It certainly shouldn't get in the way or dictate how things have to be done. Similarly, the game rules shouldn't necessarily dictate how each and every story takes place. Sometimes narrative takes precedence over rules for the sake of interesting reading - and of course, in a story, ships can be outfitted with different weapons, plot armour, etc etc - none of which would necessarily fly in a tabletop situation.
  10. I agree - but conversely, if we're expanding on the fluff, it would be easy enough to include some stories/famous battles involving Dindrenzi vs Dindrenzi. It's a big galaxy, after all - lots of stories to be told...
  11. You're entirely right, of course, and realistically it's utterly ridiculous. Maybe I'll have to content myself with thinking of Death Star trench run style fighter attack runs instead.
  12. Wolfgang, good point. Ship sizes have been well and truly covered, and nicely "realistic" as such - an elegant solution, even if I love the idea of a burning cruiser on its last HP engaging in some death or glory ramming against an enemy battleship...
  13. Fracas, when you say flat, do you mean 2-dimensional? I agree entirely, of course - but I'm personally not too worried about adding in a third dimension. That - for me - takes the game beyond "playing on the kitchen table for an hour in the evening" to "serious 3-dimensional space combat"...and I'd rather play Homeworld for that. Of course, for you, playing a more 3-dimensional game, that's not going to work terribly well (or indeed at all) - unless you do the same with torps as you do with ship heights. That is to say, keep the torps at the height they were fired, and you keep the mobile "area denial" aspect, potentially allowing you to simulate your more mobile ships diving under (or over) incoming torpedoes, whilst cap-ships/supercaps might not be able to maneuver so easily. The alternative, I suppose, would be to say that the explosions from the torpedoes are 3-dimensional, and large enough to impact ships at any height, which nicely negates the problem, but might not work technically. Of course, the nice thing about rules is that they can be changed or amended to fit your own "in house" play style, of course.
  14. Torpedoes, under the old rules, don't add anything to the game for me - they're just guns which you can block with PD. I feel that they need to have a different flavour - and, for my money, I'd head for a similar system to battlefleet Gothic, where torpedoes are essentially unguided single use strike craft. Represented by a counter, they head forwards from the point at which they are fired, at a far faster movement speed than any ships, but do not turn. Once they impact with a target, work out the attack/PD as usual - or they pass harmlessly off the board. The same could work for boarding torpedoes, with a boarding attack worked out instead of a straightforward explosion - much quicker, but much riskier than assault shuttles. If the torps are quick enough, they won't be hanging around on the board for long (just a turn or two), but I think it would significantly change the tactical maneuvering side of things - working out where the target is likely to be in a turn or two, or conversely maneuvering to bring your guns to bear without wandering straight into the path of incoming torpedoes. Firing salvoes of torps from far back on the board to force the opposing fleet into fracturing, or from up close for devastating damage - but only one set of torpedoes per ship on the board at a time. I guess, if you wanted to get technical, you could choose to split your salvo (say into 2 salvoes of 3 torpedoes for a ship with a torp value of 6) and fire them at different times. Aft torpedo launchers on a few select vessels to discourage pursuit...I think it would add some interesting variety. Conversely, I don't think all of the different "weapon types" in the FSA rules add much. Why not deal with the weapon types in the fluff, have a standard number system for detailing their attack value, and anything else (coherence effects, scatter, etc) detailed in the MAR section - much easier to remember, and easily referenced mid-combat. Just a thought, anyway - feel free to disagree.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.