Jump to content
Charbe86

Realism and Fluff issues

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mackaywarrior said:

There are a lot of reasons to board a plane but space ships are not planes, they are ships. They would likely fight on a planetary plane and they do not have drag/lift/air forces that would make them hard to hop onto. Think of a boarding action like a Rendezvous with the ISS. 

The ISS is not trying not to avoid being boarded. In fact, it is trying to be boarded. This is like saying since it is easy to open an unlatched two-way swinging door that opening a locked bank vault without the passcode can't be that hard.

18 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

If warships in Firestorm can launch a cyber attack I don't see why a group of marines can't hack into a ship from the inside.

I can blow up your house with a missile from a continent away, I don't see why a group of marines can't do it with a grenade. The reason is it takes an entire ship with a large dedicated weapon system to hack a ship at the distance. Do you think the boarding party can carry that much equipment, power source, and has the time to hack while underfire in my ship?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, alextroy said:

The ISS is not trying not to avoid being boarded. In fact, it is trying to be boarded. This is like saying since it is easy to open an unlatched two-way swinging door that opening a locked bank vault without the passcode can't be that hard.

I can blow up your house with a missile from a continent away, I don't see why a group of marines can't do it with a grenade. The reason is it takes an entire ship with a large dedicated weapon system to hack a ship at the distance. Do you think the boarding party can carry that much equipment, power source, and has the time to hack while underfire in my ship?

True, but the scale of a capsule vs. the ISS is a lot closer than a boading ship so small we don't even have tokens for them and a space ship. The speed, agility, and size allow them to land on those ships like a flea on a dog. The big thing that seems to have disappeared in space is momentum and inertia. To auto-correct your movement like I am proposing, your marines will be goo before they land lol. But that never seems to be a problem in sci-fi so I'll let it go. 

Evasive maneuvers, even with all the planes of motions, are still predictable and slow compared to a futuristic navigational computer. In fact, it would see that the capital ships move SO much slower than the boarding ships that they rely on PD to repel them and even those can't hit them all the time. 

And maybe killing the AI of a ship is as easy as installing a future disc and changing the OS lol. 

Now I agree with you about doing all things at once. That is why if I made a boarding system it would take a few turns to fully capture a ship. It would be like taking a city. Doable but needs time. Maybe a system where the boarders go through the initial, then are treated as a special hazard marker that given enough time can kill the crew and take the ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/07/17 at 10:50 AM, alextroy said:

I don't see why a group of marines can't do it with a grenade.

Why would you use a grenade. C4 is much more effective at destroying a building than grenades. 

On 05/07/17 at 11:02 AM, Mackaywarrior said:

Now I agree with you about doing all things at once. That is why if I made a boarding system it would take a few turns to fully capture a ship. It would be like taking a city. Doable but needs time. Maybe a system where the boarders go through the initial, then are treated as a special hazard marker that given enough time can kill the crew and take the ship.

I suggested something similar to that earlier. 

First take out the defenders then take out the various systems inside the ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that is why they are removing ship capture from the rules. Or it could just be to condense the rules.

But I thought this was the realism thread? I don't care if they change boarding or eliminate it. Boarding a hostile space ship under fire is just not realistic. Boarding it with enough forces to do anything once you get there is even less. Why not just lobs some explosives at them and save the lives of your troops?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering its far future sci fi setting realism went out of the window long time ago and spartan have creative licence to do whatever they like with realism as long as it makes for a cool game. Fun trumps realism imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/07/17 at 11:13 AM, Xerkics said:

Considering its far future sci fi setting realism went out of the window long time ago and spartan have creative licence to do whatever they like with realism as long as it makes for a cool game. Fun trumps realism imo.

You have hit the nail on the head. In all honesty we do not know what the future may bring. So this discussion is really pointless. Hence the reason I stopped taking it seriously after my first few posts. In all honesty I have enjoyed reading everyones take on this boarding issue though. I have seen alot of different points of view, some realistic some not(such as the Miss Wormwood clones!). If you make up your own universe you get to make up the rules.  I don't know about you all, but I enjoy the games, the books, the movies, the comic strips because they let me escape from reality. Lets not worry about if its realistic or not and enjoy the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Actually if anyone wants to read up on realistic things like shields and FTL in a lighter context delve into the Mass Effect codex stuff, really fascinating, good read and takes a decent stab at logically explaining many of the technologies without going to the point you get lost.

A codex with a rich and dynamic setup of semisoft science fiction rules and tactics...and then in the games we get "Let's go straight at them, lined up like we're fighting Napoleon!" I lost a part of my soul there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Skyhawk said:

Why would you use a grenade. C4 is much more effective at destroying a building than grenades. 

I suggested something similar to that earlier. 

First take out the defenders then take out the various systems inside the ship. 

there is stuff the military is using now that is a whole lot better than C4 and by the time FSA's time roles around the stuff will be even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alextroy said:

Maybe that is why they are removing ship capture from the rules. Or it could just be to condense the rules.

But I thought this was the realism thread? I don't care if they change boarding or eliminate it. Boarding a hostile space ship under fire is just not realistic. Boarding it with enough forces to do anything once you get there is even less. Why not just lobs some explosives at them and save the lives of your troops?

Because war, that's why.

ship schematics, captured crew telling them their protocol for certain situations, battle analysis, etc. Seeing a war from your opponents perspective is a HUGE advantage and a lot can be said from holes in steel. Also, capturing a vessel and still having it functioning means that is one less ship you have to build, saving at least some level of resources.

And I know what you are thinking. These are alien ships and may not be usable and to that I reply "They did it in Independence Day and it was awesome" lol.

Capture a vessel, sail it to a safe port, retrofit it to work for you, go back and fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Skyhawk said:

You have hit the nail on the head. In all honesty we do not know what the future may bring. So this discussion is really pointless. Hence the reason I stopped taking it seriously after my first few posts. In all honesty I have enjoyed reading everyones take on this boarding issue though. I have seen alot of different points of view, some realistic some not(such as the Miss Wormwood clones!). If you make up your own universe you get to make up the rules.  I don't know about you all, but I enjoy the games, the books, the movies, the comic strips because they let me escape from reality. Lets not worry about if its realistic or not and enjoy the game.

very very true the game is where it is at for all of us. lets not forget that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who have forgotten or never knew, multiple turn boarding actions were how v1.x worked.  They were removed because they slowed the game down with no appreciable gain.

And while an attack might be a single dice roll, thematically it wasn't really considered one torpedo launch or trigger pull or anything else.  Turns in FSA last an undefined amount of time long enough for significant movement to occur (on an interstellar scale that includes asteroids, nebula, planetoids, etc...), and the thinking was that means there is enough time for boarding actions.  As far as attacks go, the roll represents sustained barrages and the like, not a single order of "Fire!".  A single roll determines results for ease of play; they don't represent a single attack that only takes a few seconds (if they did, a 6 turn battle would represent what, a minute or two of action?).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, reddwarf said:

For those who have forgotten or never knew, multiple turn boarding actions were how v1.x worked.  They were removed because they slowed the game down with no appreciable gain.

And while an attack might be a single dice roll, thematically it wasn't really considered one torpedo launch or trigger pull or anything else.  Turns in FSA last an undefined amount of time long enough for significant movement to occur (on an interstellar scale that includes asteroids, nebula, planetoids, etc...), and the thinking was that means there is enough time for boarding actions.  As far as attacks go, the roll represents sustained barrages and the like, not a single order of "Fire!".  A single roll determines results for ease of play; they don't represent a single attack that only takes a few seconds (if they did, a 6 turn battle would represent what, a minute or two of action?).  

I remember those days. I liked them lol but your turn analysis makes a lot of sense. I had never thought of it that way. The way I was looking at it then beams and torpedoes would take the same amount of time which just does not make sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything expressed here is Opinion. 

There is no "Reality " for Boarding Spaceships. Even Navel Warfare, Historical or Modern, does not prove or disprove what the future of Space Warfare could hold. Not one of us can tell the future. Not one of us knows exactly how a Spaceship would be Constructed, Operated, Crewed, Powered etc. While it is fun to talk about what may work or fail, remember it is your opinion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "realism" is the wrong word, because after all we are playing a 3D space game on a flat wooden board. 

I think "believable" is a far better word, as a person should imagine, believably so, that ____ might work 'like so' several hundred years from now, given a general knowledge of scifi fandom, in a way that makes pseudo-sense.

That said, the following things aren't believable in 2.0 IMHO:

  • SRS activate and reach the target first, before direct weapons (lasers... speed of light anyone?)

  • ship pegs represent a tiny dot hundreds of kilometers apart yet at 4" radius

    • mines represent thousands (millions?) of cubic km

    • nuclear explosions and reactor core are just as far reaching explosions

  • after a ship's own marines depart for a boarding action (whether you succeed or not) its own defensive AP is unaffected

  • a ship can rotate on one axis to "belly up" quite easily, but finds it difficult to rotate on another axis to change firing arc as it floats along

  • gravity weapons' effectiveness, powerful enough to crunch or displace a battleship, are completely un-reduced by damage

  • interceptors are twice as good in a dogfight as fighters, y tho?

  • certain factions just haven't figured out quite how to coordinate 4 cruisers in a squad, whereas others with equal or inferior fleet tactics have

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stoobert said:

I think "believable" is a far better word, as a person should imagine, believably so, that ____ might work 'like so' several hundred years from now, given a general knowledge of scifi fandom, in a way that makes pseudo-sense.

  • certain factions just haven't figured out quite how to coordinate 4 cruisers in a squad, whereas others with equal or inferior fleet tactics have

 

Believability is just as much in the eye of the beholder as "realism" is.  I find it perfectly believable (and realistic) that a factions's doctrine, training, and experience would lead them to smaller or larger squadron size independent of fleet tactics.  The real problem with Fleet Tactics, to me, is that it's completely arbitrary with no particular reason, explanation, or balancing factor to explain why some factions are +1 and others +3.  There might be some logic behind it somewhere, but none I recall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of very good points @Stoobert

IMHO the compression of a space game to a 2D board will always be an issue in miniatures games.

The inability to rotate, Pivot, slide etc properly in FSA has always annoyed me. I played a Lot of B5Wars. That game has so much more "crunch" in its movement phase than FSA but people moved their ships faster. When you only get to turn 45* once per turn, you really have to think several moves ahead. 

The Lasers must use the artificial form of light known as Slow Light. ;)

I agree @reddwarf the Tactics bonus does feel like they just drew straws. 

But hey Games are supposed to be entertaining (sometimes educational). I will play Smash Up any chance I get, not very realistic or believable 

WA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried making a game that used more accurate orbital mechanics once. Depending on the scale, Z-axis can be effectively negated due to the desire to/ease of be on matching orbital planes. This is my justification in FSA. 

The other variables...well let's say that it is better if we all agree to use straight lines and measurements rather than enormous tables of numbers or burn up brain cells trying to remember trigonometry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stoobert

 

Quote

a ship can rotate on one axis to "belly up" quite easily, but finds it difficult to rotate on another axis to change firing arc as it floats along

Most ships are roughly cylindrical in shape, meaning they are long but thin and flat compared to that. Rotating around that long axis puts significantly less stress on the structure than rotating the around one of the shorter ones due to less leverage and the rotation being neutral relative to the direction the ship is flying in. That's why ships can basically rotate around their length as fast as their thrusters (or whatever) allow (so it doesn't take time in game terms), but have to respect certain limits when it comes to turning around any other axis to avoid damage to the internal structure (so we have turn limits).

 

Quote

gravity weapons' effectiveness, powerful enough to crunch or displace a battleship, are completely un-reduced by damage

We have absolutely no idea how they work. They might just be quite small devices that usually aren't hit as ships take damage and their varying power levels might result from other limitations. To me, torpedoes are far worse in that regard, because they should generally work like modern torpedoes or missiles, so they'd require large hardware close to a ship's outer hull that might get damaged.

 

Quote

interceptors are twice as good in a dogfight as fighters, y tho

Fighters carry anti cap-ship weapons (taking away space for PD weapons), therefore they have a larger mass, turn slower and are easier to hit for the more maneuverable Interceptor ? Not that hard to imagine.

 

Quote

certain factions just haven't figured out quite how to coordinate 4 cruisers in a squad, whereas others with equal or inferior fleet tactics have

Culture, military doctrine, tradition ? One might be more effective than the other in game terms, but that's only because we assign them arbitrary (from an in universe point of view) point values and Battlelog rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've mentioned in the past on the segments @Landlubber and I have done for the MBS podcast on space boarding and carrier operations, I regard FSA as a game and setting that has been designed from the "Top Down." That is to say, the designers came into the process wanting to have things like carriers and boarding actions in their space game, and designed the background and game mechanics to support them. This is opposed to what I call the "Bottom Up" approach used for settings such as the Honorverse, where the designers start with a set of relatively fixed assumptions about technology and doctrine and everything else flows from there. If that flow leads to Carriers...Innnnn Spaaaace!, then great. If not, oh well. 

Given the Top Down approach, there will naturally be some logical disconnects with the way things work in the game. The best we can do in those situations is come up with some techno-bable to provide a semi-plausible explanation for why things happen as they do. 

 

On 5/5/2017 at 11:05 PM, murphy'slawofcombat said:

I am sure the military has back ups on most things. our US Navy has it's CIC in the middle of the ship and I see FSA in the same light. Space ships would have there CIC well protected in the center of the ship and I'm sure there would be an ALT CIC. I could also see a commander scuttling  his or her own ship before the enemy got that far. but the thought of pulling off a boarding and getting away with a BB would be BLAST

You might be surprised...I can safely say as a submariner that if the control room were taken out, there is no suitable backup control space. AFAIK regarding surface ships, while the CIC is where combat engagements are managed, it's not where the ship is "conned" from (ie, go left/right, forwards/backwards, etc). There is one primary place to do that from, and its the pilot house or "bridge." Outside of that, you have local readouts for things like the gyrocompass buried deep in the ship in equipment spaces, and local controls for things like the rudder and engines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of shape, spiraling while moving forward seems easier to manage than tumbling, or wobbling 

and unlike a bullet, where such actions can be made by the barrel, a ship has to use its thrusters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, fracas said:

Regardless of shape, spiraling while moving forward seems easier to manage than tumbling, or wobbling 

and unlike a bullet, where such actions can be made by the barrel, a ship has to use its thrusters

Yes a ship does have to use thrusters. You would be hard pressed to find anything other than a rear thruster on these Miniatures. No wonder they can't turn properly. Also it is no harder to gyroscopically rotate an object in zero-g than it is to spin it  

My problem with movement in FSA, TF and PF. It is restrictive not simple. Players spend ages trying to line things up. 

Share this post


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

×

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.