Jump to content
Vedar

Firestorm Armada 3.0 headed our way?

Recommended Posts

Wasn't there ship collision rules in the older edition, because a lot of the time we are finding the game becomes a mash of ships in the middle, where stuff just cant move. Now if there was collision rules like dystopian wars, that would be different :)

Given the immense distances involved in space combat accidental collision is unlikely. Keep in mind your ships really only occupy the space of their stem, the models are just there to look good. I hope that 3.0 refines this concept and removes all mentions of models touching etc since it really shouldn't matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often it is the larger games that have the much higher level of abstraction and simplicity and the smaller games having the higher degree of granularity and detail. Taskforce vs Armada seem to be flip flopped in this aspect.

Interesting point. Makes me think of 40k (the core game and its basic mechanics) vs the Kill Team rules. Kill Team is a great way to play that universe but breaks down into unplayability the larger you decide to go with it. Same with Apocalypse 40k. Many things are abstracted in Apoc to keep such a large game chugging along at a decent pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Many things are abstracted in Apoc to keep such a large game chugging along at a decent pace.

The problem with Apocalypse is that it's Epic 40k, only on an unplayably large scale. A bit like FSA..half the problems stem from the movement template...and the fact the models are so goshdarn big they get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were able to make a space combat wargame I would one with tiny ships, so you can bring loads of them to table. Basically like epic in space. I liked Macross II and similar series  ^^.

 

more on topic I hope they change the way of cyberdefence is implemented. It seems odd to me seeing the Directorate being the masters of cyberwarfare and only having a cyberdef of 1 :/

 

I think it would be much better if each faction has a stated value like FT for cyberdef or a variable number depending on certain ships you have in play due to a MAR or just being capital ship, the admiral ship or ships with cyber weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to 40K (which is a skirmish game now trying to become a 6mm mass battle game using 28mm models, and failing at it most of the time), Firestorm can actually scale up very well. Did a demo game at the Plymouth Association of Wargamers convention a few weeks back (as Xen, gr1mdan and Spartan Beth can attest to) with 5000 or so points (I don't know how much each fleet ended up with. All I know is it was a lot!) a side, 4000pts of which was simply my entire Terran fleet. Now, we did manage 4 turns in two days, mainly because we kept on getting distracted by people asking about the game and the factions, coffee/smoke breaks and all the shinies on the Spartan booth next door! Movement didn't pose a problem, the template didn't prove problematic, I managed to kill two Zenian admirals, fun was had and it proved the point that 10,000 points worth of ships can fit on a 4' by 6' table (we would have gotten a bigger table if one was available, but someone had nicked an extra table for a rendition of the Battle of the Bismarck Strait... GRRRRRRRRRR!). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were able to make a space combat wargame I would one with tiny ships, so you can bring loads of them to table. Basically like epic in space. I liked Macross II and similar series  ^^.

 

more on topic I hope they change the way of cyberdefence is implemented. It seems odd to me seeing the Directorate being the masters of cyberwarfare and only having a cyberdef of 1 :/

 

I think it would be much better if each faction has a stated value like FT for cyberdef or a variable number depending on certain ships you have in play due to a MAR or just being capital ship, the admiral ship or ships with cyber weapons.

At our group, we believe that the Directorate actually do have really good cyberdefense.   We also think that their fleets are made up of ships from different corporations.  As a result, they spend a great deal of time and energy spying on each other, trying to find out what the others are up to.  The end result being that the firewalls are already under stress when the ships go into combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the immense distances involved in space combat accidental collision is unlikely. Keep in mind your ships really only occupy the space of their stem, the models are just there to look good. I hope that 3.0 refines this concept and removes all mentions of models touching etc since it really shouldn't matter

 

Even intentional collisions would be hard to pull of, and ramming an evading ship next to impossible.

 

So it's a good thing there's no ramming in FA, and I sincerely hope it stays that way.

 

Pity they didn't get rid of that other “age of sail” combat tactic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with Avien about hoping to see the removal of the models can't touch rule. It makes some factions really hard to line up and doesn't make sense with the ship being where the peg is. Not to mention the gradual size increase on the models.

It's another reason I'd like an official sentence added that modifying peg height is totally legal so fleets can look cool at different heights. I think having definite rulings like that can really help with tournament minded play, combining with making the game look cooler in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i can see your point, but its pretty much a staple of SF space combat by now

Honestly, beyond Firestorm and BFG, I can't think of any game, or show (beyond SW, and even that had it after grabbing the other ship with tractors!) that has boarding as an important part of it. I mean, Stargate does, but it does have teleportation tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, beyond Firestorm and BFG, I can't think of any game, or show (beyond SW, and even that had it after grabbing the other ship with tractors!) that has boarding as an important part of it. I mean, Stargate does, but it does have teleportation tech.

 

Maybe that's what it is?

 

Boarding in Sci-fi I have seen in Halo, Starship Troopers, teleportation style in Star Trek (sort of), 40k, blah blah.

 

Boarding adds that nitty gritty part where it puts "people" in to the action and you imagine them scrapping it out on board the ships. Okay it might not be 100% accurate but I can live with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boarding is something that would only happen after a battle, with the victor trying to capture disabled ships, and even then it would be risky business at best.

 

As a standard offensive tactic in space combat it's pretty ridiculous.

 

For me FA would be a better game without it, but tastes differ of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could speed up the game by removing it, but it's another aspect that can differentiate fleets a bit more and it would look cool in artwork and in stories. As a game mechanic at the moment, it's clunky and often underused because it's perception of it being useless in all but the most specialised ships. So much to the point, you could have ships DEDICATED to it and restrict other ships by banning them for assaults. Make it a MAR I guess. In fact, I actually really like that...

 

I enjoy it in Homeworld 2 with the Marine Cruisers that "latch" on to the ships and send marines over. It's fun, it's visceral and crafty. Nothing is more fun than capturing enemy ships to then use against them ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally assume boarding assaults represent specialized boarding Torpedos full of marines; maybe one PF infantry base per torpedo. They're functionally the same as normal Torpedos, which is why ship PD is just as effective against Boarding as it is against regular Torpedos. However, the boarding Torps can't accelerate nearly as fast as normal Torpedoes (the G-force would squash the marines) which is why they're so short-ranged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSG also had boarding assaults (and ramming attacks, on three separate occasions). Is that sort of thing realistic in FS-A, for boarding I'd say yes. Some fleets can be built entirely around facilitating boarding assaults (Directorate, Sorylians, Veydreth, Terquai and Works Raptor jump to mind). In a game with ships that are over a mile long, with lasers, gravitational weapons and aliens, I don't see the idea of chucking marines at something as that outlandish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too see them as large, slower moving torpedoes.  Equipped with a magnet or suction hold of some sort with the "warhead" being a breaching charge with some goop coming afterward to seal up the vacuum and maybe some kind of ramp/ladder to quickly deploy the marines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 However, the boarding Torps can't accelerate nearly as fast as normal Torpedoes (the G-force would squash the marines) which is why they're so short-ranged.

 

Ever wondered what would happen when those Torpedoes arive at their intended target?

 

The whole concept sounds cool, but when I try to visualize it, after realizing that by just slamming into the target the G-forces alone would already liquefy your troops, I end up somewhere between some German paratroopers trying to board a B-17 Flying Fortress in mid air over Schweinfurt, a bunch of US marines in a C-47 trying to land aboard Akagi during Midway, and a platoon of British marines in dinghies trying to board Bismarck at Denmark Strait.

 

So what I end up with is something so ridiculous it will effortlessly sink any suspension of disbelief I might still manage to create while playing Firestorm Armada in the blink of an eye.

 

And as a result I really really don't need boarding to be a part of FA 3.0, but the chances of that going to happen are pretty close to zero of course... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.