Jump to content

We're moving to Discord!

Come join in the discussion here!

You can also still find out all the latest news on TWITTER and FACEBOOK

Thank you for your continued support, and we look forward to welcoming you shortly.

The Warcradle Team

Recommended Posts

another point to consider, most dreadnoughts are more durable, mobile, and pack more punch then a battelstation, battlestaions are however cheap, this implies that they are not to difficult to build, with a lack of thrust being seen as a worthwhile trade off for cheap firepower and durability, and if my corporation can cut corners on cost, and crush my enemies! uh I mean, protect my merchandise...then I' all for it :) I have and do use battelstaions often, only regretting it, when people park out of range :( or shunt away...but that is the tradeoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎06‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 3:37 PM, Frans said:

It just isn't (really) broken from a game-play point of view.

 

But it certainly collides with what's considered normal in established SciFi.

 

Luckily my player group simply discards what we consider to be ridiculous.

 

Which means we'll only use battle stations and defence platforms when the scenario justifies the presence of what are considered to be fixed planetary defences in established SciFi, and only the defending side will be deploying them in such a scenario of course.

This whole post is your main problem.

You're going "It's like this in xyz so it should be like this in Firestorm!".

What says that 'battle stations' HAVE to be stationary vehicles? Nothing. Nothing at all other than things you've seen in separate media. As I've already said, one of the 'immobile' battle stations isn't much slower than a Battleship.

 

Plus, you're thinking of them in terms of massive space fortresses, instead of the Firestorm versions, which aren't actually that big compared to the rest of the ships. For example, a Dindrenzi Dreadnought is bigger than their Battlestation, and the Relthozan one is about the size of 6 Frigates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Secundum said:

This whole post is your main problem.

You're going "It's like this in xyz so it should be like this in Firestorm!".

What says that 'battle stations' HAVE to be stationary vehicles? Nothing. Nothing at all other than things you've seen in separate media. As I've already said, one of the 'immobile' battle stations isn't much slower than a Battleship.

 

Plus, you're thinking of them in terms of massive space fortresses, instead of the Firestorm versions, which aren't actually that big compared to the rest of the ships. For example, a Dindrenzi Dreadnought is bigger than their Battlestation, and the Relthozan one is about the size of 6 Frigates.

 

For starters, I don't have a “main problem”, I don't even have a problem, as I think a made rather clear in my post.

 

And if you want to know why I think “battle stations” have to be "stationary" objects; that's because it is an established name that describes a certain unmanoeuvrable object in space.

That's why the second half of the name is “station” btw, a station is a fixed position (orbit in this case).

 

One of the reasons humans can communicate which each other is that we have this concept of naming.

The community establishes names for things, and when we then use that name everyone knows what we are talking about.

This is a concept that has served us well since speech was invented, and nowadays our vocabulary includes a great many names that describe a great many things.

Now in this great concept of naming there is one thing that's rather stupid, and that's using an established name to describe something that doesn't fit with what the name is supposed to mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really what is bothering people is they see battle station and think of it like a space castle.  This isn't helped by the fact that the MV value is like 1" on stations if they aren't movable terrain.  Of course, it doesn't really make sense why battlestations would move so much faster in orbit around something than moving on their own in deep space.

Really, they should all have a MAR like Energy Transfer (MV, 5), and reduced weapon values stock, as that would get rid of a lot of the arguments seen here. 

So, for example, the Terran station would be MV 6, but could could reduce its MV by 5 to increase its weapon values.  

This way the rules would match the intent of a mobile battle platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll wade in here, even though it looks like a bad idea.

For gameplay reasons for why players might have an issue with someone bringing a Battlestation as part of your standard, take anyone fleet, I suggest reading page one or two.

For the current debate centered on gameplay, remember it is all fictional.  If you have no problem with Battlestations driving all over the place, that's ok.  If you have a problem with Battlestations driving all over the place, that's ok.  Both positions are equally valid, but you need to understand some players have a different opinion.

For example, Frans makes an excellent point on language: Station is a word that means something:

the place or position in which something is assigned to remain

a regular stopping place in a transportation route

a place for specialized observation and study of scientific phenomena

Origin and Etymology of station

Middle English stacioun, from Anglo-French estation, statiun,from Latin station-, statio, from stare: to stand

Mobilty does not mesh well with these definitions and etymology.  While an orbital space station is moving quite fast, it also has an extremely predictable location due to its orbit.  This makes it easy to find for many purposes for which it may have been built.  To me, the difference between a Station and Battlestation is guns and armor, not mobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm rather reluctant to enter these waters myself, but some points here don't really seem logical to me.

To start, Firestorm Armada is a work of fiction, specifically a work of science fiction.  This genre's fiction is based on a presumption of science beyond our capability or knowledge as it stands now, that there is no, "magic," and the worlds are bound to laws of science; even if those laws are fiction either based on actual science or simply the writer's creativity and discretion.  Assuming that scientific laws and models of behavior and design are the same unless the material directly states otherwise is usually correct in science fiction.  The fiction isn't bound by hard science of course, but neither does that mean that hard science isn't supposed to be at least generally applicable.  The works are called science fiction, and the title of the genre should give some understanding of what can be expected.

Similarities and mimicry are common in the genre; and because entertainment is a primary focus for most products, popular elements become a relatively common constant between various products.  The work of fiction in question is not forced to copy or follow the same writing and design as other products, but at the same time it isn't surprising when repeating, "tropes," are found.  That said, if someone expects something seen elsewhere, in either reality or fiction, within a work of science fiction then there's really nothing wrong with that thought process.  Stating a piece of work should be interpreted in a way different than intended is an opinion; and unless this is a question of how to play a game with the rules as intended, that is also not truly wrong.

Rules are an abstraction, and as I was writing earlier, they are intended to interpret the theme, lore if you prefer, of a product into a physical or digital setting where players interact with said setting in the manner designed to (re)produce an experience meant to capture the product's primary theme.  With a science fiction setting conflict among a consumer base is predictable; opinion of scientific law is already divided even before the introduction of fictional elements.  Even with the aegis of being a fictional work, strong opinions of ultimately how coherent a piece of work is will arise.  Again, a long winded way to work up to saying, what makes sense for one person doesn't have to make sense for another.  The only real issue in game play is that players agree what rules they are using.  Whether or not a rule system creates a consistent and accurate interpretation of the product's theme is not primarily important; although I believe it makes for a better experience when the rules do feel accurate and consistent.

 

On some specific notes, I don't see the Death Star as a relevant entity to FSA battlestations.  The Death Star is a colossally expensive and exceptionally rare entity in Star Wars, it is not a poster child for, "work horse," station of the Imperial Fleet.  It is very similar to calling Darth Vader the average Sith.  I point this out because Battlestations and platforms presented in FSA are not written in as being similar in any reasonable way I can see to the Imperial Death Star from Star Wars.

 

Also, Endgame, I'm not sure what you expect to resolve concerning opinions other people have about FSA battlestations.  Without a convincing argument as to why FSA battlestations should be, effectively, just another space ship I don't see why anyone would change their opinion.  Frankly, I can't see why you would want to remove a uniquely identifying element from battlestations.  I believe there are enough problems retaining identity and purpose between Tier 1 models for the main races currently.  Further increasing that number to include battlestations with a similar design and purpose doesn't seem worthwhile, presuming a redesign to maintain game balance after improvements to movement range.

There are very few FSA models which are intended to significantly trade mobility for points cost, weapon systems, and/or defenses in the way FSA battlestations attempt to do.  I would presume the intent is for these battlestations to be akin to, "space castles," since they clearly have significant impairments to their mobility compared to the other similar FSA models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much this matters, but the International Space Station has to be able to move to avoid debris, and also requires a couple kilometer boost every year or so because its orbit decays. Granted, the ISS is a bad example in the direction opposite the Death Star, but still- it shows a precedence for "immobile" stations not being quite immobile and gives a few good reasons for it.

 

In any case, I don't really see a problem with Battle Stations being boosted or aimed at a potential conflict zone, though it does seem odd that they can start as far into the board as deployment for a given mission allows- for most Battle Stations, being 8 inches up the board is further onto the table than they'd advance in the average game's worth of movement. So while I see no reason to restrict them, I'd also be willing to suggest a rule that makes sure they're just entering the table or the like if they aren't defending- "During deployment, if this model is not placed in reserves or deployed via ambush and is not taken as part of a defending force in a mission with both an attacker and defender, it most be deployed touching a board edge in the controlling player's deploymeny zone."

 

Bam. Now they're always just entering the area, no more full health stations starting a battle within arm's reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dr_Vector said:

Also, Endgame, I'm not sure what you expect to resolve concerning opinions other people have about FSA battlestations.  Without a convincing argument as to why FSA battlestations should be, effectively, just another space ship I don't see why anyone would change their opinion.  Frankly, I can't see why you would want to remove a uniquely identifying element from battlestations.  I believe there are enough problems retaining identity and purpose between Tier 1 models for the main races currently.  Further increasing that number to include battlestations with a similar design and purpose doesn't seem worthwhile, presuming a redesign to maintain game balance after improvements to movement range.

There are very few FSA models which are intended to significantly trade mobility for points cost, weapon systems, and/or defenses in the way FSA battlestations attempt to do.  I would presume the intent is for these battlestations to be akin to, "space castles," since they clearly have significant impairments to their mobility compared to the other similar FSA models.

The thing is, space castles generally don't make any sense at all, both fluff wise and game play wise.  To defend an asset, given unlimited effective weapon range (which we know doesn't exist in FSA), you would need at least 6 space castles to protect a planet or moon.   More likely you'd probably need something more like dozens of them to provide any real defense, which means there is little justification to spend that many resources building space castles when instead you could build, say, 1 dreadnought for every 2 space castles.  

Mobile stations solve many of the logistical issues fluff wise.  Oh, enemy is approaching from the galactic north?  OK, move stations 1 - 4 to an intercept course.  When the enemy is nearing weapons range power down the engines and give full power to the weapons.  Keep stations 5 and 6 on the other side of the planet to prevent a flanking force from just jumping in, dropping nukes on the planet, and jumping out.  

Assuming stations can be equipped with a non combat FSD, they could be used as mobile beachheads for invading a system.  A place where you can both locally and safely store all of those torpedoes and kinetic ammo.

Beyond just logical sense, it also nicely solves the question of "how can you have 2 fleets on the table with 2 battlestations within 30" of each other"?  That's nice too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's an idea. Battlestations (with the exception of the fast ones like Aquans and the like) can either move or use weapons, and every time you use them on the battlefield they're using 'weapons mode'.

 

Really nice if we could get an official word from Spartan on 'how' Battlestations work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Endgame said:

The thing is, space castles generally don't make any sense at all, both fluff wise and game play wise. 

Local politicians might prefer paying for defences that can't flee, and central governments might prefer arming far away colonies with weapons that can't come calling when that far away colony doesn't agree with that central government any more.

And from a pure military point of view fixed defences simply offer more bang for the buck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might potentially be the case, but orbital objects maintain predictable paths and it isn't necessary to defend an entire planet's surface simultaneously.  Key strategic spots can be denied by an armed space station's constant presence.  This allows surface forces to be mustered without fear of uncontested enemy orbital action.  Whatever key points on a planet need protecting can be defended by a space station; and if you absolutely need to defend these positions a space station is still going to be economically cheaper to maintain for a defense plan than a dreadnought or other equivalent.  A dreadnought still has the problem that it cannot defend more than it's surrounding, "airspace," at any single point in time much like a space station.

With that in mind, I can't think of why a military would not have identified key planetary points for defense if they had the time to build a space station in the first place.  If presumably there was no time to put a space station in orbit, the comparison to other entities is pointless since deployment and use of a station was impossible to begin with.  Really, I believe one of the key flaws with defense planning is assuming you have to behave like a constantly responsive cavalry force to be effective.  Especially when that can easily play into the enemy's hands.

A defending force should be forcing the enemy to fight on the defender's terms, not whenever and wherever the attacker would desire.  If you absolutely had to defend an entire planet's surface with a minimal force, a single dreadnought is unable to cover all angles of approach, and slow enough to be a poor reactionary force.  A fleet split into two is a simple attacking plan against a slow moving and singular defending force which overcomes the problem of mobility to effectively pin the defender into place while the still offering uncontested access to the planet's surface.

In summary, I doubt any defender has actually planned to defend everything they can, at the same time, all the time.  There may be instances where this was possible, but the main point is there are strategically superior positions to be held and keeping those are what matters in a defender's side of a conflict.  It is unlikely for the entire surface of a planet to be usable, whether for military or civil use, to begin with.  Retreating military and civil population to identified key points is more practical than trying to constantly keep every potential avenue of attack covered.  Orbital stations do not necessarily need to be repositioned in these instances, although it is possible to shift orbiting objects, particularly artificial constructs.

 

Regardless of how much you need to defend, if you want to defend against multiple simultaneous attacks then you need more simultaneous coverage yourself.  A single military entity will not be able to effectively defend against several concurrent attacks, unless they are able to significantly project overwhelming force in several directions at the same time.

A Tarakian space force might be able to project itself through a planet effectively with their sci-fi gravity weapons, but even they would not be able to provide overwhelming defense in all directions at the same time.  They would be able to provide very significant and superior defense compared to other races, and would be comparatively terrifying in my mind to assault, but even then superior positioning and numbers are still vital to either side's victory.  Tarakians would turn a lot of military planning on its' head, as is perfectly reasonable in a sci-fi setting, but they also remain an extreme example case.

 

Edit:  To be clear, I do appreciate the thought you've put into your response, even though it may not seem that way.  Six points on a sphere seems like the most minimal way to project full and uninterrupted lines of coverage against any vector of approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One big topic seems to be the classification "Battle Station" and what traits are to be expected with this classification.

At this point (if I’m right) I want you to take a side-step and take a close look on Destroyers (in this game and in history). In history are many different sizes and functions related with the class “Destroyer” and even in the game there are big differences between some Destroyers (compare Directorate / Ba’kash) but all share the same class.

So why have a “Battle Station” have to match your expectations / understanding of a “Battle Station” (and not another ones expectation / understanding)?

 

EDIT: missing question-mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ref Destroyers, this FSA ship class confused me as well.  When the Class Destroyer was first used in wet navies, it was short-hand for Torpedo Boat Destroyer.  These were non-Capital ships designed to kill small, elusive ships armed with some of the deadliest weapons available.  If FSA Light Cruisers had been classed as Small ships, they would have filled the traditional Destroyer role.

FSA Destroyers fill a completely different role, one which has no comparison to any naval ship to date, not really in any Sci-fi.  So it's a bit easier to accept this redesignation of ship class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ranus_Magnus said:

[...] In history are many different sizes and functions related with the class “Destroyer” [...]

I did not want you to compare history and game.

I want to point out that even in history not every ship with the same designation has the same function.

So this is not a game problem!

 

I'm sure this is gramaticaly wrong but i hope you get what I want to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on Destroyers:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer

A Destroyer is a Ship Type, which is intended to create a bin a specific ship might fall into, if it matches certain characteristics.  Type doesn't directly have much to do with function.  For international treaties, Ship Types are usually defined by size (length and displacement) and equipment, which in theory constrains function without defining it.  This way, different designs and functions can be discussed as a Type.

While these definitions may change over time (modern destroyers are more like WWI cruisers) they still have a definition.  Our little FSA debate is over what 'equipment' is allowed on a space craft designated as a Battlestation.  At what point does a set of stats stop being a Battlestation, and becomes a Battleship or Dreadnought?  Is it a maximum Mv? AD value?

At least interstellar peace doesn't hang in the balance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me I just think of Battle Stations to be FOB's and so are important but not essential.

 

To me they might have originally been stationary but over time have evolved and have changed to the current mobile units. An example of this would be cavalry. Originally this was horse mounted soldiers but even this evolved from un-armoured to heavy armoured back to light or un-armoured due to technology and now in contemporary times only ceremonial units still use horses but combat is either "air" with helicopters or "armoured" with units using AFV or recon vehicles. While cavalry units still exist a original cavalry soldier would not recognise a modern cavalry unit due to the changes in the unit.

 

Overall stationary or meander across the battlefield neither is an issue for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it really the case that in the game for the most part they are (BS's) very slow, as mentioned, weapon platforms? Slow in space terms meaning limited thrust and therefore acceleration. Perhaps even not structurally capable of acceleration over extended periods, hence Mv1 typically for a whole game. With some exceptions possibly alluring to races that have a doctrine of producing large platforms *capable* of greater maneuverability. Probably sacrificing some other capabilities not represented in the game.

Perhaps it's possible to strap enormous FSD drives to them to get them where you want them to go, but they would hamper its combat capability?

For two to 'face off' against each other.. Perhaps one faction FSD'd it in 'nearby', where it dumped its FSD cradle to be combat capable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with those ideas, Xen, is why bother strapping an FSD to a station in order to send it to fight the enemy, when you have ships with FSDs already installed that can do the job? That's the logical fail with Battle Stations in Firestorm Armada. Ships are better for battles than a station would be, stations are better at fixed defence than ships can be, but that isn't taken into account in the game. 

Link to comment
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.