Jump to content

Jorgen_CAB

Member
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jorgen_CAB

  • Rank
    Spica

Recent Profile Visitors

93 profile views
  1. Jorgen_CAB

    Too Easy to Sink Ships.....

    If there was some mechanic and scenario reason to save your ships from being sunk as beneficial that would be nice. I also think that the point that you can't turn ships 180 in a turn is also something the then need to consider... don't move your ships straight at the opponent and risk loosing big then, move them as such so they have an escape route if things goes sideways. In my opinion it add a new layer to the tactical positioning of ships and not the drive towards the enemy and shoot until you sink mentality which frankly is a bit stupid in most cases. Anyway... scenarios should be more important that just line up the ships and fight because that is almost never the case in reality. I understand it is a game, but I usually immerse myself in the story and for me the story fail when ships act like kamikaze pilots without any reason all the time.
  2. Jorgen_CAB

    Too Easy to Sink Ships.....

    Most people that play games do like the role-play and story it tells rather than winning... that is my experience. Of course trying to win is what you do but not the reason why you play. A game is a game... the fact is that majority of people play games based on the look of the models and setting not the rules. Most people want simple and understandable rules and care less about the mechanics as having fun playing. My experience from event games where you can tailor the rules from a specific scenario and set of models is that people really enjoy games that feel realistic and where their intuition of moving the models is more important than understanding the game mechanics and exploiting them to gain victory. When you introduce simulation that is usually what you get. The game mechanic take a backseat to what decision you make based on the position of the models on the board and what happens. It also is BS that realistic simulation turn into turtle tactics, that is because you only line up models and shoot at each other until one wins. Scenarios is what matters in more realistic settings... real battles happen for a reason. Not being able to create a fun and engaging game based on real life tactical choices is just a lack of imagination from most game developers. Scenarios also mean that you don't need to perfect balance of forces to play which is one of the downside of most games. Generals and Admirals are rarely restricted to a set of points or can freely select what resources they like to have. This usually end up games becoming repetitive and predictable eventually.
  3. Jorgen_CAB

    Too Easy to Sink Ships.....

    This might be true using Spartan old gaming rules... those rules are not really geared towards something a bit more "realistic". In real life ship captains will not risk their ship sinking unless they can avoid it, there also are the overall Strategic goals to think about. In the space combat game that I designed for friends and some events was designed with more "realistic" use of the military assets in general. Loosing ships was far more hurting to your goals than saving them. When they are damaged you also need to make sure their efficiency are reduced enough that you don't want them in the fight anymore. Also... captains are going to make decisions the admiral perhaps would not agree with, such as disengaging or even engaging when you don't want to... so some forced behaviour out of player control can be needed to reflect the chaos of a battlefield and represent the FOW... the admiral will never know and understand the details of every situation as the people being there making the hard decisions. A game can still be fun when you add some simulation.... perhaps not good for competitive environment but certainly much better for representing more realistic conditions. Some player enjoy the role-play experience more than the competitive side of things. In my opinion... the ultra competitive players are usually over-represented in forums such as this while the more role-play oriented are the majority of players in real life. So saying such game us boring I don't think are true at all. The most engaging games I see people enjoying at events are those driven by allot of role playing and having lots of random element but enough strategic depth to feel you have agency over your destiny to effect the outcome of the game.
  4. Jorgen_CAB

    Too Easy to Sink Ships.....

    This is my thought exactly... actual losses of ships are often around 10% for a singe large engagement. Smaller engagements obviously can be more one sided and random but large battles rarely is. In reality ranges a which ships engage are usually big enough for damaged ships to slip away in the confusion, such scenarios you rarely see in games of this type. There are really no defensive manoeuvres you can do in the game such as deploying smoke and hiding seem to be even harder than it was before. The examples from history that we have of decisive battles are usually the rare ones not the norm. As always it comes down to myself to do rules of my own liking... ...the ships and the setting is great so for me it is worth the effort and it works as long as you only play friendly games.
  5. Jorgen_CAB

    The Beta Lives!

    Yes... this was mainly how I have experienced the Spartan rules for both Firestorm Armada and Dystopian Wars... after you digested some of the finer point of the movement and when to activate what it mainly felt that games was defined by whoever managed to roll those important "6" first a couple of times. I don't think these rules will fix any of that and from what I read in the rules will just make it worse. The things that I might like from the new rules are the focus on scenarios rather than just lining ships up and fire on each other until one lost 50% of their force. What I generally don't like in most games of this character is the high attritional losses in them... from history we know that actual total losses in navy ships was rather low and those cases where they were more than 5-10% (in a particular battle) of a force are exceptions not the rule.
  6. Jorgen_CAB

    The Beta Lives!

    Well the rules seem pretty similar to the old ones just more streamlined. Since I never liked the old rules I don't like these either... will use my own ones if I ever play with the models. Really like the models though. A bit strange though that ships no longer get reduced firepower from being crippled/damaged... where are the incentive to disengage ships from combat... the game just became more about dice rolling than the old rules... but ah.. well... it is what it is.
  7. Jorgen_CAB

    New Q&A Announced: June 22nd!

    Exactly where is this stream... certainly not on Facebook, Youtube or Twitch... at least I have no idea where to find it?!? Perhaps should have been a link to the actual stream in the first post and on Facebook.
  8. Jorgen_CAB

    Ships from the UK Expo shot!

    One way to handle this is if you can buy forces as smaller Task-Forces what must inlude a certain amount of type of ships. You could then have each Task-force come from different factions within the same Alliance. A "Battle Squadron" might be 1 BB, 2 CR and 6 FF, a Carrier Task Force 1 CV, 3 CR, 4 FF or some such... may differ from faction to faction as well... Some people just like to get more varied ship designs and this might be a good way to do that.
  9. Jorgen_CAB

    Ships from the UK Expo shot!

    You could simply have a range finder generator and use that with a long range turret and then you can have a shield generator with shorter range heat lance turret. This would essentially create just that using the same hull frame. In my opinion, new hull frames should make something more significant to distinguish themselves from other hull frames or you will risk unbalancing the game if you make certain hull type perform certain tasks better than what others can do in a similar way. If they pull of the customisation of these different hull frames they will not need to release gunships, heavy destroyers and hull frames like that since you can use the customisation of the Frigate and Cruiser hull to do those jobs. Instead they should concentrate on hull frames that are very different such as carrier, submarine, flyers, skimmer and many more factions. Since you will play in alliances you should be able to add more variety to your force by using different cruiser hull frames for example to make your force the way you like it to be with a huge amount of variety.
  10. Jorgen_CAB

    Ships from the UK Expo shot!

    I think it looks like turrets and generators have their own hardpoints now, at least the models shown looks like that. So turret hardpoints will only hold weapons and generator hardpoints will only hold generators. I think this is a good approach from a game balance perspective. So now you can choose both what kinds of weapons and what kinds of generators you want to have on your ships in any combination. Or at least what is allowed for that particular ship type. For example the Britannia cruiser have two heavy turret slots and one generator slot, here you can combine any number of turret and generator options to get a cruiser that works well in your force and your play style. Do you want a long range slugger with high damage resistance you can create such a ship or do you want a fast short ranged ship you can customise it for that purpose too.
  11. Jorgen_CAB

    Ships from the UK Expo shot!

    Probably not so much... first of the rules can be changed in a way that certain combination now are required on the older models. So, Britannia battleships will have three heavy turret hardpoints and one or more generator hardpoints. The Britannia battleship model shown had three heavy turrets and four generators. Those four actually might be just two real hardpoints though, one forward and one in the back each pair is one hardpoint. Just guessing here of course, but it would roughly fit the current Britannia ships quite well. I actually expect the old models to follow the same building guidelines as the new ships. You might have to make some tweaks here and there to make it work though.
  12. Jorgen_CAB

    Ships from the UK Expo shot!

    It seem quite obvious to me that these new ships will have many swapable parts and will be able to not only represent most of the equivalent old classes but also a wide variety of new type of ships. I guess that both the cruiser and battleship will have swapable turrets and probably also generators. The ships shown were clearly standard Frigate, Cruiser and Battleship hulls. I must say these new ships look very good. I'm probably going to buy some of these models even if I don't like the rules, never been fond of the Spartan Games rules in general.
  13. Jorgen_CAB

    Spartan old rules!

    Yes... I agree that competitive players rely allot on list building and what I would deem the flaws of having too many options... the truth is that complexity often give you LESS real options if you are to be competitive and it often come down to power combinations to win games. Most games have this problem of illusory choices. This is what my argument was all about. It is much better to have LESS options but make them all viable. It is when you can stack effects upon each other the points you pay for them become too cheap. What I have learned is that when you give powerful options such as dice manipulation they MUST come with some drawbacks or conditions, otherwise they will be abused if stacked with other similar abilities, that is just a fact. X-Wing is a good example of this, I also think they made some damn good changes to the 2.0 version of that game, it remain to be seen if it was good enough though. At least they made the point system and upgrade slots seamlessly changeable so they should better be able to balance that game in the future. I might also again point out that my first post was in general directed at dystopian wars NOT FSA, so me referencing WWI/II had more to do with that game. However I still think it is more or less directly translated to FSA as well. I might not agree that weapons don't act like WWI/II in FSA... I actually think they work almost exactly like that. Given the distances and speeds in space weapons and targeting systems most likely have the same problem as they did in WWI/II in the FSA universe, the rule mechanic and weapons used seem to indicate that is the case in my opinion. Ships seem to work much like ships in what as do their weaponry as well. The similarities between DW and FSA are quite remarkable in terms of interaction. DW even have more of a 3D environment than FSA have too. To be honest I'm probably more interested in DW than FSA in the future. I tend to favour smaller scale space battles where the board become a bigger field to operate in... I would like that for a game like DW as well but I take what I can get and there are no DW type models in a smaller scale available as far as I know.
  14. Jorgen_CAB

    Critical hit table

    In the space games I have developed over the years I have streamlined this more and more and concentrated more on the overall effect of damage than the specifics which is pretty irrelevant. In my latest version I made I basically had two values for ships... Status and Conditions. The condition could be Damaged, Devastated, Knocked Out or Destroyed. The Status could be Stressed, Suppressed, Chocked. Conditions was marked with a yellow, orange or red round small marker. Condition was marked with a white, grey or red cube marker. The status of the ship were temporary effects which the crew would be in based on damage and a variation of different reason from psychological to physical all in one. The status could obviously be fixed while a ships condition was permanent and could only be repaired in a repair yard. There really are no point in tracking things in much more detail since it is the overall effect you are after not exactly what is happening to a ship and exactly how many HP it has received... no ones know what the exact condition or status a ship is in during battle anyway, how it behave is what is important. The overall effect on battle will be quite impact-full but require minimal amount of record keeping. Crit effects might be fun for very large ships but in the end the effect are the same for all ships, or at least it should and it only take time and memory to deal with it for no good reason for the same result. You can use your imagination what a suppressed or chocked ship goes through in the same way if you like. In my opinion... in a game with the number of ships that you have in a typical FSA battle this type of complexity is not really needed. Just my opinion though...
  15. Jorgen_CAB

    Spartan old rules!

    The way that I design games these days are by the use of KEY words and ONLY that. Some text is only for flavor, flavor is also important. It might be that weapons are divided into classes if they have some sort of influence they are then introduced through proper key words and all key words must be unique. In the picture the name was only a name for flavor and I did not include any keywords for the weapon class. Its not like I have made some real rules for this that is up to date or anything... I have an old rule-set I changed for FSA v1.x something... don't remember really and what I wrote were just some examples taken out of the blue.
×

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.