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

Jorgen_CAB

Spartan old rules!

Recommended Posts

I started my journey with Spartan models through Firestorm Armada back in the day and unfurtunately I never got to purchase any of the Dystopian wars models, mainly because the Spartan rules never really spoke to me that well. For example I would say that Star Wars Armada have a much more robust rule system at its core which produce more tactical battles through ship manoeuvring as one example.

 

I ended up making my own rules for Firestorm armada which still retained the basics of the exploding dice mechanics but which in my opinion produced better battles overall.

 

Here are some of the things I think make for a better gaming experience in Firestorm armada and they directly more or less transfer to Dystopian wars as well.

 

1. Ships fire BEFORE they move, this is very important for good tactical decisions and don't make retreating or baiting a stupid thing to do but a smart tactical option. Smaller ships that are faster and more manoeuvrable can stay out of arc of most big ships if you move smart enough. The best solution is otherwise to separate movement from firing... all ships move, then all ships fire. Fire could even be simultaneous. This would be the most fair and realistic option in my opinion.

2. Get rid of rigid firing arcs for torpedoes, those just feel gamy as ships don't really teleport from one position to another rather than its position being an abstraction of time and place and a limitation of a turn based game. They should be at least 90 degree fire arc in any direction. Especially if ships fire before they move or all ships move before they then all fire.

3. Less difference in speed between ship classes, ships in general move too fast in contrast to their firing ranges. But only slightly. Ship turning rate in Firestorm armada was insane, even for large ships, in Dystopian wars it was a bit better.

4. Use different dice to represent Primary Secondary and Tertiary targeting rather than modification, each dice works differently. A Heavy turret would only treat Large target as primary, medium as secondary and small as Tertiary targets as one example. Primary attacks roll red dice and function as normal. Secondary roll blue dice and treat the exploding "six" as only ONE hit not two. Tertiary attacks only hit on a five and treat the "six" as only ONE hit not two. This way those heavy turrets will be useless against small targets as they were in reality and you can gain a much better granularity AND you need to roll less dice in general as a bonus. Less dice also mean a greater spread of the result which in my opinion is a good things since it represent all those unknowns we can never see on the board.

Another great effect of this targeting system is that you don't need inflated values of ships damage/crit and hit-point ratings. It will be much easier to balance both weapons and defences this way since damage is relative to the target they are made for.

 

These were more or less the main changes I made to the game. Of course I only converted ship cost and balance of the ships that we owned and played with so not a total conversion of the game. But it did produce a much more tactical and interesting game overall.

 

I hope that Warcradle will have made the game more tactical and interesting. I never liked the way ship moved and fired, made movement much less of a thing from a tactical perspective and the only thing you did was moving ships straight at your opponent and tried to overwhelm them before they overwhelmed you, which usually resulted on most ships sinking. In real naval battle during WW1/2 ship casualties was rarely above 10%. Most ships was damaged rather than sunk in the majority of engagements. Some might not consider it fun, but  saving your points by finding a tactical way to disengage  ship is also fun if that means denying the opponent the points for them.

In our battles a sunk ship was worth twice its points a heavily damaged one full points and a ship that retreated of the board with minor or no damage was half the points. The game would end when one side managed to either sink or force half of the opponents ships of the board. The tactical winner was the one that pushed the other from the board, the strategic winner was the one the lost the least number of points... not necessarily the same player. So both could essentially win the game... these are things that is fun for me.

 

I also know that likes are subjective and I respect people that liked the Spartan rules, I just didn't. My hope is that Warcradle have made them a bit more tactical and less gamey than the old Spartan rules felt to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jorgen_CAB thanks for your feedback.  I really value different customer perspectives on FSA.   From my experience as a former Vanguard most gamers don't like FSA 2.0 enough to buy product or play again.  Some prospective customers who said 'no thanks' to FSA had similar ideas and feedback as you.  There are also those who bought a fleet, played, and then quit. 

Granted rejection will happen for ANY game, but the frequency/percentage at which it happens is the difference between a thriving player community and not. 

As much as I played myself, I have to admit the 2.0 version of the game had deep flaws and was often repetitive.

I'm wondering if this should be moved to the Firestorm Armada section of the forums since that's mainly what this is about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you clarify what you mean in points 2 and 3? I thought thats how torpedoes work already, and I dont see an obvious reason why different ship classes wouldn't have different movement speeds

The all ships move, all ships fire concept is more realistic I suppose, maybe harder to keep track of than gettig everything done by activation. I'd have to tey it out.  Not sure I like the idea of firing before moving. Great! Now next turn I'll be in my optimal range as long as they sit perfectly still until next turn! I might need to be sold on using Primary, Secondary and Tertiary attacks, is this more conplicated for fun or more complicated for the sake of being more conplicated?

I strobgly disagree with points that you just move ships straight at each other and try to overwhelm each other with dice. Positioning and arcs definitely make an important difference, as does terrain. Are you playing with the battlelog or not? There's strong incentive to FSD damaged ships to safety 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some torpedoes have limited arcs and aren't on turrets(any arc).   A torpedo can apparently be programmed to fly through asteroids or around a planetoid (they ignore terrain of this type).  If that is true I suppose it doesn't make much sense torpedoes cannot be programmed to fire out of the left side of a ship and immediately turn around and fly to the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Stoobert said:

Some torpedoes have limited arcs and aren't on turrets(any arc).   A torpedo can apparently be programmed to fly through asteroids or around a planetoid (they ignore terrain of this type).  If that is true I suppose it doesn't make much sense torpedoes cannot be programmed to fire out of the left side of a ship and immediately turn around and fly to the right.

Ah I gotcha, just didnt understand the wording. I can certainly agree with that, the wall of Point Defense makes me happy to give torps a buff like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rowansl said:

I've always preferred the way torpedoes worked in bfg. i.e. a spread of tokens that travelled a certain distance each turn until they hit something,  friend or foe.

Though it was satisfying watching a salvo smash into an enemy formation, it got very fiddly in bigger battles. FA's torpedo rules are one of the reasons I picked up the game.

Very good points made by the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... my post was actually meaning to target Dystopian Wars new rules and me referencing Firestorms Armada was only because the core mechanics of those games are the same and Firestorm is the game I have played.

 

I was trying to convey my ideas of what I would have liked to see from the new Dystopian Wars game in terms of strategic movement to make positioning the most deeming factor in winning a game rather than weapon load out or throwing dice in general. There certainly is some tactical movement in both these games but mostly deployment dictate the outcome more in my experience and it is very difficult to disengage since you can quite easily turn and train your best weapon at your preferred target.

 

If you... for example have a separated movement and fire phase it will be more important where you end up and trying to anticipate where the opponent will be in a turn or two become much more important.

 

In Dystopian Wars ships tended to turn a bit slower than in Firestorm Armada even really large ships could turn relatively fast in my experience, with some exceptions.

 

When I compare say Star Wars Armada to Firestorm Armada I always feel that Star Wars allow for farm more tactical granularity in tactical movement. Granted Star Wars Armada have much fewer ships in play in general and focus more heavily on fighter combat since that is a deep part of the Star Wars world. They are different games in that respect.

 

Take the new X-Wing version 2.0 that come out in a few months... an excellent game if you are not too serious. It had mainly devolved into power creep and ships flying straight at each other and rolling dice until one side won. What they now did with version two was asking what players actually wanted and that was to fly their ships, manoeuvre and try to outwit their opponent. In the new rules they have clearly emphasised this and restricted dice manipulation and adding dice in favour of more restrictive arcs and more on ship movement.

I really think that most people (outside really competitive players) want to fly their ships and do cool manoeuvring to fool the opponent and win by superior positioning. Winning by rolling the better dice from the best combination of weapons is not what I think most people consider fun in comparison.

 

I also feel the torpedo rules in FSA are quite OK. They are abstracted in a good way. I don't want the game to become more complicated. Complexity is not always good unless it add some meaningful decision making. Complexity often add means to power-game rather than giving meaningful decisions. You obviously need some complexity otherwise we could just play chess.  ;) 

 

I would also clarify that my remarks to torpedoes was mainly targeted at Dystopian Wars which was what my post was all about in the first place, NOT Firestorm Armada... ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

Can you clarify what you mean in points 2 and 3? I thought thats how torpedoes work already, and I dont see an obvious reason why different ship classes wouldn't have different movement speeds

The all ships move, all ships fire concept is more realistic I suppose, maybe harder to keep track of than gettig everything done by activation. I'd have to tey it out.  Not sure I like the idea of firing before moving. Great! Now next turn I'll be in my optimal range as long as they sit perfectly still until next turn! I might need to be sold on using Primary, Secondary and Tertiary attacks, is this more conplicated for fun or more complicated for the sake of being more conplicated?

I strobgly disagree with points that you just move ships straight at each other and try to overwhelm each other with dice. Positioning and arcs definitely make an important difference, as does terrain. Are you playing with the battlelog or not? There's strong incentive to FSD damaged ships to safety 

I know that the game is not just about pointing the ship and fire, that was a somewhat oversimplification.  ;)

I compare my experience between FSA and SW Armada which work the way I said.

The best solution is to have all ships move and then all ships shoot. If you really go this route then mark ships in the order they move and then they shoot in that same order. This would really give you some thinking to do. If you move first you give up some tactical positioning advantage but you will fire before the opponent in the fire phase.

I never played with the battle log and I really think that seem like a great adon to the game, I really liked that. Make it really important to save ships from destruction i a different way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2018 at 3:48 AM, Jorgen_CAB said:

1. Ships fire BEFORE they move, this is very important for good tactical decisions and don't make retreating or baiting a stupid thing to do but a smart tactical option. Smaller ships that are faster and more manoeuvrable can stay out of arc of most big ships if you move smart enough. The best solution is otherwise to separate movement from firing... all ships move, then all ships fire. Fire could even be simultaneous. This would be the most fair and realistic option in my opinion.

2. Get rid of rigid firing arcs for torpedoes, those just feel gamy as ships don't really teleport from one position to another rather than its position being an abstraction of time and place and a limitation of a turn based game. They should be at least 90 degree fire arc in any direction. Especially if ships fire before they move or all ships move before they then all fire.

3. Less difference in speed between ship classes, ships in general move too fast in contrast to their firing ranges. But only slightly. Ship turning rate in Firestorm armada was insane, even for large ships, in Dystopian wars it was a bit better.

4. Use different dice to represent Primary Secondary and Tertiary targeting rather than modification, each dice works differently. A Heavy turret would only treat Large target as primary, medium as secondary and small as Tertiary targets as one example. Primary attacks roll red dice and function as normal. Secondary roll blue dice and treat the exploding "six" as only ONE hit not two. Tertiary attacks only hit on a five and treat the "six" as only ONE hit not two. This way those heavy turrets will be useless against small targets as they were in reality and you can gain a much better granularity AND you need to roll less dice in general as a bonus. Less dice also mean a greater spread of the result which in my opinion is a good things since it represent all those unknowns we can never see on the board.

Another great effect of this targeting system is that you don't need inflated values of ships damage/crit and hit-point ratings. It will be much easier to balance both weapons and defences this way since damage is relative to the target they are made for.

 

Well... on the first point, at least until fixed arc weapons go away, this straight up breaks a good number of factions' weapon loadouts. This seems like it just changes the game's pacing, I'm not sure what extra tactical options you would have with this. Retreating always has been smart, its just that you don't typically move backwards to retreat, you move to cover and spool FSD, as is baiting a ship with low movement or a fixed weapon to move a certain way so another squad can line up rear shots or avoid damage. The difference is that you take hits in the process, which isn't a bad thing- it might be if the game were scored entirely on damage dealt, but again you can escape ships and chase objectives and do all sorts of things to change the relative value of just slugging it out.

On 5/22/2018 at 4:01 PM, Jorgen_CAB said:

I never played with the battle log and I really think that seem like a great adon to the game, I really liked that. Make it really important to save ships from destruction i a different way.

This is pretty much where I'm going with that. The game only really devolves into a slugfest with certain factions (Ba'Kash kind of have to go for the throat, for one, but that's their thing) and at certain levels of play combined with certain ship types (patrol fleets with Battleship on Battleship is kind of awful, I would not mind seeing restrictions on that... Also Dreads and Stations at like 900. Seriously, bro, that's your list?) I can't imagine playing without some form of Battlelog equivalent, partially because it does fix some of your concerns about not retreating or tactically attempting to make trades.

 

I don't really have comment on two and three, I'm used to using slow ships that need to be up close with my Relth against fast ships that don't need to be as close. I like the differences in movement, just some of the closer-range factions right now are kind of also slower, and so Aquans and other factions that combine beams and loose arcs  with mobility are kind of nuts. I wouldn't mind the sliding scale of movement being tightened, though- in a lot of cases its like... large ships move 6-7", mediums move 8-10", and then smalls move 10-14", its kind of a huge jump and there isn't really a smooth scaling up. The fact that DtM has such a relatively large impact on the big boys kind of reflects what I mean. If we moved to 5-6, 7-8, and 9-11 being the trend that'd be cool, but games might have to go longer in turns since BBs and above already have trouble getting across the board.

 

For point 4, I have 2 points to make. Keeping statblocks similar across sizes and such is... When you say inflated values, its really not inflating the value per se, so much as more literally representing the impacts of the interactions of the rules. It's the difference between showing somethings relative defensive value in the statistic as opposed to implying it- if there's a way of making it easy to read AND tightening the stat spread in this way, cool, but otherwise I'd rather have the more literal version, you know? And point two- more spread is not really better or worse, but it doesn't really support being tactical if your decision-making has less consistent results. I'm also not really sure what you're trying to say with the primary, secondary, tertiary thing.  How are we defining heavy? Does this need to be in addition to the rules behind things like Beams or Kinetic? Could we write this up in a way that the rule is easier to understand without needing to look it up each time (ie., there are trends in the way the targeting chart works)? Could we use simple hit modifiers instead of changing how the rolls work (again for the sake of ease of understanding)?

How would you feel about this chart? It follows an easy to understand rule- you get a bonus against your ideal target size, and that modifier gets 1 point worse each step away from the ideal target you go. You could just as easily remove the +1s, and go to a sliding scale of no penalty, -1, -2.

 

Chart.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I want to remind everyone that my feedback actually was on Dystopian Wars rules with my experience of the rules from Firestorm Armada since they share the same core mechanics. So all reference to speed, turning and weapon arcs was mainly aimed for Dystopian Wars not Firestorm Armada.  ;)

 

I still like to use different dice rather than modification, allot neater. Each weapon has a primary target (rolls the red dice), each step away from that downgrade the dice to blue (secondary) and then further to black (tertiery) dice. You then have special dice with hit symbols on them since the dice themselves are never modified.

 

Red dice have one exploding double hit and two hit sides.

Red%20Dice.jpg?raw=1

Blue dice have one exploding hit and two hit sides.

Blue%20Dice.jpg?raw=1

Black dice have on exploding hit side and one hit side.

Black%20Dice.jpg?raw=1

Any more modification half the pool and any more after that make the attack impossible or rather useless.

 

This way all ships can more or less use the same DR/CR rating and HP with just some slight changes, even smaller ships can now have a few more hitpoints and recive crit effect or such of you like to. You don't have to roll droves of dice since you can manage the damage and balance in a more nuanced way. Using special dice is also more streamlined and easy to understand than modification tables. This makes the game more user friendly without dumbing it down in any way.

 

When it comes to speed and weapon ranges I just feel that slower speed, less manoeuvrable ships and less range will make the game more tactical and the battlefield feel larger. The game have a huge problem with the battlefield feeling very small in comparison with some other similar games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest thing I dont understand and maybe really don't like about this concept is that you dont usually have a ton of weapon systems on a FSA capital ship. Perhaps at most four different types with 2-3 available arcs per weapon. You're going to take an overall hit to ship effectiveness by ruining one weapon system to delegate it to tertiary status. What benefit does this bring gameplay when I can already fire any weapon at any ship and small vessels have the Difficult Target and Elusive Target MARs to effect their chance to be hit by capital ships? I don't think FSA necessarily has a bad system for negotiating damage, so I just need actual reasons why this system would be an improvement.

Hate the idea of homogenizing DR/CR and movement speeds. Ships from different factions should have different characteristics, you haven't sold me on getting rid of those

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jorgen_CAB said:

First I want to remind everyone that my feedback actually was on Dystopian Wars rules with my experience of the rules from Firestorm Armada since they share the same core mechanics. So all reference to speed, turning and weapon arcs was mainly aimed for Dystopian Wars not Firestorm Armada.  ;)

 

I still like to use different dice rather than modification, allot neater. Each weapon has a primary target (rolls the red dice), each step away from that downgrade the dice to blue (secondary) and then further to black (tertiery) dice. You then have special dice with hit symbols on them since the dice themselves are never modified.

 

Red dice have one exploding double hit and two hit sides.

Red%20Dice.jpg?raw=1

Blue dice have one exploding hit and two hit sides.

Blue%20Dice.jpg?raw=1

Black dice have on exploding hit side and one hit side.

Black%20Dice.jpg?raw=1

Any more modification half the pool and any more after that make the attack impossible or rather useless.

 

This way all ships can more or less use the same DR/CR rating and HP with just some slight changes, even smaller ships can now have a few more hitpoints and recive crit effect or such of you like to. You don't have to roll droves of dice since you can manage the damage and balance in a more nuanced way. Using special dice is also more streamlined and easy to understand than modification tables. This makes the game more user friendly without dumbing it down in any way.

 

When it comes to speed and weapon ranges I just feel that slower speed, less manoeuvrable ships and less range will make the game more tactical and the battlefield feel larger. The game have a huge problem with the battlefield feeling very small in comparison with some other similar games.

^  sorry this sounds too much like the Other Armada game with three dice that work at different ranges.  Or if you will Fleet Action and Taskforce with their colored dice mechanic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to go with what is easier and fastest to use... and the mechanic is still the same in the ground. You just replace the modifier with different coloured dice with symbols on them. Other games use it for a reason, ease of play and quick to learn but still the same depth.

 

There is nothing wrong with taking part of what is good about other games and use part of them, it's not a rip of from any one  game since it still uses the same mechanic with the exploding dice.  You can of course use more unique symbols than I did on the dice I made.

 

You don't pick dice for range here, you still pick number of dice for range band but pick the dice based on the weapon versus target, rather easy. 

 

The ship card could even list what dice colour you use against what target, some weapons might use primary against more than one class of ships and really bad ones on some, some weapons are more well rounded and use the blue dice on almost all targets. Blue dice means you will not crit very often but will damage almost anything.

 

There are so many interesting things you can do with this which  bonuses back and forth can't do without getting to complicated and math heavy or hard to remember. It is WAY easier to remember what coloured dice you use rather than +/- you apply to a roll.

 

In my opinion games have evolved from the eighties and nighties brick games for a reason. We have learned that complexity does not always equal depth and meaningful decision making. Firestorm Armada had way to much record keeping for games to close in a reasonable time. You can streamline the game while still making it more tactical in the process, detail does not equal strategy in many cases. I'm not saying the game should get simple or that there should be no record keeping... but everything you do and every time you roll a dice should be easy to understand and quick to perform or you will loose allot of players will to play the game in the long run.

 

For me personally it was OK to play a five hour game in my twenties but as people get older and have allot more to do than play games I now find it hard to play games at three hours... better if I can get it done in two. As time have passed the gaming market are not only young people anymore as it was when I was young. I would say that a large group of the strong purchasing power in the figure gaming market are people that can't spend 3-5 hours to play a single game very often. This is why I think that making every thought process in any game today easy and as quick as possible to be very important without for that matter sacrifice tactocal depth, they should instead concentrate on tactical movement and thought rather than game rules, modifications and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See thats the thing. This makes your weapons less effective but I dont see how it streamlines your game any compared to using regular dice. In comparison now I just use different dice. By the time youve figured out which dice to be using I could have already rolled a regular attack and just not counted any rolls of 4 and below if I was attacking a frigate. When you limit successes by weapon type and not just by how many dice that weapon can throw, you are arbitrarily limiting the usefulness of that weapon system.

Your system is definitely more complicated than the base system and makes some weapons less effective overall. I dont think using different dice is more efficient than the current system, dice are dice and whether you use a chart or do it in your head I think the base version gives me more options on the field. Are you maybe thinking of throwing less dice per attack overall and streamlining things with less dice being rolled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

The biggest thing I dont understand and maybe really don't like about this concept is that you dont usually have a ton of weapon systems on a FSA capital ship. Perhaps at most four different types with 2-3 available arcs per weapon. You're going to take an overall hit to ship effectiveness by ruining one weapon system to delegate it to tertiary status. What benefit does this bring gameplay when I can already fire any weapon at any ship and small vessels have the Difficult Target and Elusive Target MARs to effect their chance to be hit by capital ships? I don't think FSA necessarily has a bad system for negotiating damage, so I just need actual reasons why this system would be an improvement.

Hate the idea of homogenizing DR/CR and movement speeds. Ships from different factions should have different characteristics, you haven't sold me on getting rid of those

The rules will be re-written and again I was mainly speaking about Dystopian Wars not Firestorm Armada in the context of weapon firing arcs and types of weapon.

 

There is no reason why ships in FSA can't get more varied types of weapon batteries in the new Warcradle rules with different arcs of fire. We should not be stuck in the old mindset here. FSA only had two types of gunnery weapons Primary and Secondary not a great variation for tactical purposes in my opinion. It is not a good way to handle everything with MARs since that just get complicated fast for no good reason and just make the game take longer to play.

 

Speed should be less or at least turning should cost more movement,  ships should loose momentum when they turn as ships do in real life (space or otherwise). Range of weapon should also decrease to speed to range ration remain roughly the same. But ranges and speed always felt a bit off for me in FSA and even seems that way in DW as well. Too easy to fire at what you want when you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

See thats the thing. This makes your weapons less effective but I dont see how it streamlines your game any compared to using regular dice. In comparison now I just use different dice. By the time youve figured out which dice to be using I could have already rolled a regular attack and just not counted any rolls of 4 and below if I was attacking a frigate. When you limit successes by weapon type and not just by how many dice that weapon can throw, you are arbitrarily limiting the usefulness of that weapon system.

Your system is definitely more complicated than the base system and makes some weapons less effective overall. I dont think using different dice is more efficient than the current system, dice are dice and whether you use a chart or do it in your head I think the base version gives me more options on the field. Are you maybe thinking of throwing less dice per attack overall and streamlining things with less dice being rolled?

I guarantee that it is simpler... I have tried this with several rules system. Special dice is WAY easier to use than regular dice with modification. 

 

Peaple pick it up faster and more importantly remember it much faster without referencing anything.

 

I do have experience with this through constructing convention rules for one off strategy games. Special dice with symbols speeds up the game and is way easier to introduce to new players, even if they do the same thing as regular dice with table modifications.

 

In this example you do the same thing... look at the dice pool and which colour dice you should use, all is printed on your ship card. The best thing is that it is easier to remember, that is just how our minds work.

 

Rolling less dice is a benfit of such as change as well, less dice means faster gaming in general. That is always a plus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2018 at 3:48 AM, Jorgen_CAB said:

3. Less difference in speed between ship classes, ships in general move too fast in contrast to their firing ranges. But only slightly. Ship turning rate in Firestorm armada was insane, even for large ships, in Dystopian wars it was a bit better.

Slowing movement down will mean that you will be exposed to a specific range band for longer. A major boon for the Dindrenzi and death nell for Terrans and Sorylians when trying to get close enough to do any damage.

On 5/22/2018 at 3:48 AM, Jorgen_CAB said:

4. Use different dice to represent Primary Secondary and Tertiary targeting rather than modification, each dice works differently. A Heavy turret would only treat Large target as primary, medium as secondary and small as Tertiary targets as one example. Primary attacks roll red dice and function as normal. Secondary roll blue dice and treat the exploding "six" as only ONE hit not two. Tertiary attacks only hit on a five and treat the "six" as only ONE hit not two. This way those heavy turrets will be useless against small targets as they were in reality and you can gain a much better granularity AND you need to roll less dice in general as a bonus. Less dice also mean a greater spread of the result which in my opinion is a good things since it represent all those unknowns we can never see on the board.

It wasn't that they were less effective against small targets, but that they less effective against small targets at close range. And there is a big difference between a WW2 battleship and a starship. I cannot see how this simplifies the game.

5 hours ago, Jorgen_CAB said:

This way all ships can more or less use the same DR/CR rating and HP with just some slight changes,

The different DR/CR ratings were meant to differentiate the different factions and help with balancing. When you start adding in shields you need the different DR/CR, otherwise ships with shields will be over powered.

Yes Firestorm Armada needs to be streamlined. If you look through the various threads in here you will find several ideas on how to streamline the game without sacrificing the complexity it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jorgen_CAB I might just have to try it out. How did you figure out the conversions for a weapon to what dice / mechanics it uses? I guess a second big question is did you try this with Firestorm already or are you just trying to bring ideas from other naval/space games into this one? Did you have to change DR/CR at all for that and how did you balance it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Skyhawk said:

Slowing movement down will mean that you will be exposed to a specific range band for longer. A major boon for the Dindrenzi and death nell for Terrans and Sorylians when trying to get close enough to do any damage.

It wasn't that they were less effective against small targets, but that they less effective against small targets at close range. And there is a big difference between a WW2 battleship and a starship. I cannot see how this simplifies the game.

The different DR/CR ratings were meant to differentiate the different factions and help with balancing. When you start adding in shields you need the different DR/CR, otherwise ships with shields will be over powered.

Yes Firestorm Armada needs to be streamlined. If you look through the various threads in here you will find several ideas on how to streamline the game without sacrificing the complexity it has.

 

You would change the range bands as well to balance it. You need the gaming board to be bigger so you actually can manoeuvre ships around more. That is the crucial thing.

 

FSA (and most space strategy games) is basically WW2 or naval battle in space anyway so we are always coming back to that point in some way shape or form... ;) 

 

You would streamline the DR/CR to the new weapon system, does not mean you still have the range to make each factions different in the same way as before. You just don't need battleships to have much more DR/CR than a smaller ship anymore. Most ships could therefore end up like most cruisers are now which means more granularity between ships in the same class in general, especially for smaller ships. That would be all about balancing any new rules anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wolfgang Jannesen said:

@Jorgen_CAB I might just have to try it out. How did you figure out the conversions for a weapon to what dice / mechanics it uses? I guess a second big question is did you try this with Firestorm already or are you just trying to bring ideas from other naval/space games into this one? Did you have to change DR/CR at all for that and how did you balance it?

Yes... I tried it out for FSA a couple of years ago.

 

The things that I changed from what I remember was splitting the movement and fire phase in two and using relative weapon strength. I'm pretty sure I reduced both speed and weapon ranges as well so the play area got bigger. At the time I used regular dice so I did modify them with +/-. With experience I have learned that I should use special dice whenever I can, that is why I would do that if I did the same conversion today.

 

As I remember I balanced all DR/CR around the cruiser (medium) ship standard. 

 

I also added some more weapon batteries to ships like cruisers and battleships (dreadnought) so they had some more variety on their primary and secondary weaponry but still maintained the faction identity on them.

 

First thing is to always make any change simple and don't involve special rules too much.

 

To be honest I might rekindle that old rule system again.. and remake it with the experience I learned since then. But I feel it would just turn out to be  a completely different game with some of the identity of the old in there... ;)

 

An example of a more characterising weapon would be the devastating Dindrenzi main railguns. I would make them fire in 90 degree arc with such rules to the front and be primary against Huge, Large targets and Tertiary against medium and useless against anything else. I would give it poor dice at short range as well. But that is just an example of what you could do and thins would be easily printed directly in the card.

gunstats.jpg?raw=1

Or some such...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't playtest it with that explanation, but I'd definitely be curious how it works on the table. When you've got something I can take to the table and see how it feels I would love to give it a shot and compare. Right now I really dont like these ideas, but I haven't gotten a chance to try them. I dont understand how you balanced your ships for this system

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • 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.