| Subtopic | Posts | Updated | ||
| Archive through January 29, 2009 | 25 | 01/29 08:28pm |
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 09:00 pm: Edit |
Now let's talk about how this works mid-turn.
And the fact that if all you're doing is adding 5 to a ship's speed, the best you can hope for is 4 hexes of movement because you will miss your IMP 1 move unless you allocate for this special kind of movement from EA.
Presumably this system allows non-warp power to be used with movement because otherwise nobody will be able to use it for the high costs involved. Even an CX only has 10 warp left over after moving at 30.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 09:59 am: Edit |
Garth,
I'm open to suggestions, but frankly, I think if we make the trans-warp movement energy cost too cheap, it will be abused.
By making the TW energy cost about equal to the X ships batteryr capacity, we give the players a choice between high speed (up to 36 hexes per turn) or the ability to use reserve warp, and the battery power at their descretion.
Note, its an either or choice. Now if we do make the Trans Warp movement cost cheap enough (such as your "six times movement cost") some ships will still have significant batty power left available.
Take for exsample the Fed CX. With 5 batteries with 3 points of power in each, thats a total of 15 points of energy.
If the TW movement is only 6 points (6 times the movement cost) then the player would still have 9 points left in the batteries.
Not saying what you suggest won't work... just saying its too cheap, energy wise.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 10:13 am: Edit |
John trauger,
We need to caution you here... 
This proposal isnt actually increasing the ships actual Warp + Impulse speed.
That portion remains as published in the rules, and is set at a maximum of 31 hexes per a 32 impulse turn.
The "extra" 5 hexes of "Trans-Warp" movement is actually a function of a proposed "trans-Warp Engine Box" (located near the ships Warp engines) that allows the ship to "self transport" the 5 hexes.
Now where this "extra" "Trans-Warp" movement actually occurs hasnt yet been established.
I have given a couple of alternatives in this proposal sofar, and little comment has been received on it.
IMO (not worth very much, admittedly) the logical place for this "extra movement" would be during the single impulse in a game turn where a speed 31 ship doesn't move.
That occurs during the 1st impulse of the game turn.
I recommend that the 5 hexes apparent movement (the Transport function of the "Trans-Warp movment) be resolved during the same part of the game turn where the Sequence of Play resolves transporter activity.
As to the question about using non-warp energy, yes any kind of energy may be used to power the transporter based function of the trans-warp movment.
Hope this helps explain the proposal.
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 02:00 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
A ship moving 31 uses transwarp movement. how does it move?
How is it different if the speed is 27?
How does it work when I only want to use it for the last 16 impulses of a turn?
These questions ut to the core of your proposal. You need to have a clear idea of how you want it to run. If the methodology doesn't work, it will quickly become apparent.
Right now, we're stuck on the exceedingly high energy cost.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 03:38 pm: Edit |
Well, then, Jeff, say somtheing like "TEN times movement cost". Key words were "something LIKE". If you make it too cheap, it will be abused as uyou said. But if you make it too costly, it won't be used because it CAN'T be used.
Garth L. Getgen
| By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 04:16 pm: Edit |
I'd suggest something like a 2+3+4 sort of paradigm but SVC tends to dislike sliding scales.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 05:31 pm: Edit |
Honestly!
I'm not trying to be difficult.
If I had my wishes, the Trans warp movement would work exactly like normal warp for speeds 0 to 31 hexes per turn.
I would like to see each additional hex beyond speed 31 (actual speeds between 32 to 36 inclusive) be incrementally more expensive with each step to the next higher speed.
lets say you have a Fed CX...it requires 30 points of war power to move 30 hexes.
1 point of impulse power adds 1 hex per turn to the toal.
I want the next 5 hexes of "trans Warp movement" to be more expensive in terms of power... but for the life of me, I can't rationalize a sliding scale using transporter technology.
normal transporters allow a 5 hex renge for a fixed cost.
SVC set that up when he designed the game... so I'm guessing any attempt to change it now would pointless fruitless and wasted.
As I see it.
The "self transport ability" is going to cost the same for 1 hex transported as it would for 5 hexes... thats why I'm pushing for a high energy cost for Trans Warp movement, and let player decided how many of the 5 hexes they want/need to actually use based on the tactical situation.
I hope its a Win-Win-Win situation.
SVC wins because there is no sliding scale.
SFBs players win because they have a nifty new toy to play with, and we all win because we discussed the technical challenge and agreed to a compromise.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 09:27 pm: Edit |
It almost sounds like your inventing a limited Displacement Device for all races. Er, make that all EMPIRES.
Have you considered a multi-turn charging concept?? Otherwise, I don't see how you can feed it enough power, not at the cost you've been suggesting above. As John T. pointed out, even the CX has a finite amount of power to burn.
Garth L. Getgen
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 30, 2009 - 10:10 pm: Edit |
Garth,
No....(thinks very carefully) Nope.
never thought about a multi-turn charging concept.
I suppose if we restricted it to warp power only... and claimed that the "Trans-Warp engine Boxes" were actually a kind of Transwarp supercharged Warp drive thingee...
I wonder if the "science" and the "physics" would support a square or a cubed number of power points.
Say that a size class 4 TW ship could have a "cubed" multi arming rate of 2 points of warp power for 3 turns (2*2*2)=8
We could then claim that the "rolling" charging of the trans warp is keeping the equal of 8 points of "immediate" power available for the trans warp power requirement.
Size class 3 ships could have a "rolling charge" of 3 cubed...for 3 turns (3*3*3) equals 27 points of power super charging the trans warp drives.
Of course, that makes size class 2 units able to 4 cube three turns (4*4*4) equals 64 points towards trans warp energy charge cost.
Size class 1 monsters (Juggernaught anyone?!?) could be modified to use trans warp power (say if a trans warp ship attacked a Juggernaught...) the Juggy would then be able to 5 cubed (5*5*5=125)...
Now if we use this "supercharged" trans-Warp movement thingee less the various energy cost levels we talked about earlier, then instead of only X technology ships being able to use the thing...even General War technology shios could be fitted with it.
yeah... maybe multi turned charging could be an approach that would work.
that give players two approaches... a "cold" tran-warp" jump of 5 hexes by using about 100% of the ships battery power... or multi-turn charging that off-sets much or most of the energy required.
| By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 03:31 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
And what Heavy Cruiser in the game can afford 27 points of power just so it can jump a measley five hexes?? Besides, that should be 3 PLUS 3 PLUS 3 for a total of nine. But still, is it really worth it if you have to plan two or three turns ahead to do a five hex jump??? And again, how is this different from an Andro DisDev??
Garth L. Getgen
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 07:10 pm: Edit |
Garth,
We're still "working out the details".
This is a work in progress, so don't go off "the deep end" yet.
Also, we have been talking about a mixture of ships from GW era to the first Generation X ships.
The proposal is to provide a combination of various moves that total 36 hexes (maximum) in a 32 impulse game turn.
As I noted in the very first post on the topic, not all ships can afford to pay the power requirements for Trans-Warp Movement.
As to it being different from Andro DisDev, the first difference is that "normal" starships (say Federation or Klingon, for example) have normal shields... Andro's have power absorbers.
these "trans-warp" capable ships would need to drop atleast 2 different shields inorder to use the Trans-Warp movement capability for speeds 32+.
Did you not read the proposal earlier? These questions were asked before, IIRC.
Not complaining, but I was hoping to move ahead with the discussion... 
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, February 03, 2009 - 09:36 pm: Edit |
Lets Restate the Proposal, and see if we can clarify some of the remaining issues;
Trans Warp Movement is a supplemental movement system option for ships that already use "normal" Warp for movement, and transporter technology to acheive higher than normal speeds during a SFB game turn.
A ship using "Trans-Warp" Movment must pay for normal movement (normally ranges between 0 and 31 hexes per turn, including Impulse Engine power used for movement).
IF the play also wishes to use "Trans-Warp" Movement to supplement the amount of movement his ship can use during a single game turn, he can do so knowing that:
1. Trans Warp is Always more expensive per hex moved in terms of energy than normal Warp or impulse.
2. Trans warp is limited to a maximum of 5 hexes moved in 1 game turn impulse phase. (i.e. the cost of Trans warp is a fixed amount. Player can choose to move 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 hexes during the phase, but the "cost" in energy is the same no matter how many (or how few) hexes the ship is moved.
3. Trans Warp requires that the ship using Trans-Warp movement must drop the facing shield closest to the target hex where the ship intends to "self transport" itself to. The self transported ship must also drop the facing shield closes to the hex where the self transported ship trans ported from. (i.e. the ship is in hex #2215 moving direction A at speed 31 per turn. the ship must drop shield #1 to allow the ship to "self transport itself" to hex #2210. At the same time, the ship must have dropped shield #4, as the shield would have interupted the transport process as the ship materializes in hex #2210.
Pros:
1. allows the "Trans Warp" ship to use existing movement rules, charts for "normal Warp" for speeds 0 to 31.
2. does not introduce "super movement" during 31 of the 32 impulses of a game turn.
3. by combining the "normal movement" with that of "Trans Warp" movement, the "trans warp" capable star ship will seem to move (during a full 32 impulse turn) a total of 36 hexes.
Cons:
1. Vulnerable. the Trans Warp movement ship will need to drop 2 opposing shields (and keep them dropped for a minimum of 1/4 turn)
2. Expensive (discussion continues on that part of the proposal... but for a CX class ship, the estimated energy cost of Trans warp movement for up to 5 hexes is 15 points of energy (from any source).
3. many restrictions.
a) can't trans-warp/transport into any hex that is occupied by any other object (planet, ships, bases, asteroids etc).
b) anything that blocks transporters, also blocks trans warp movement. that includes tholian Web, for example.
c) can't transport into anything (say like a star base, or andromedan ship or a planet etc.)
General Comments:
Again, I made this proposal to ecnourage discussion and debate of the ideas. If it results in something that adds to the game, fine. If it causes some one to propose an alternative that is chosen for publication, wonderful.
In this case, I discovered in reading about the development of a number of "real World" navy ships, the quest for ever increaseingly higher speeds was a case of diminishing returns.
larger hulls had some advantage over smaller hulls, and lower speeds could be easily attained with relatively low levels of power (or ship horse power).
To achieve the higher speeds, required, in increasing porportions, more power, more fuel, and stronger infrastructure (propellors, strutts, boilers, fresh boiler feed water, condensors etc etc etc)
what I was hoping to model with this proposal, was the relationship between total power spent on movement, and what the next 20% increase in total speed would cost in terms of additional energy.
In table form:
| Description | speed 31 energy | Trans-Warp Energy | Trans Warp speed | % increase energy | %spd inc. |
| CX | 31 | 15 | 5 | 48% | 16% |
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 08, 2009 - 04:30 pm: Edit |
An alternatie way of resolving the movement for "normal Warp" vs "Trans Warp" might be (note this is a suggestion, not an actual change to the proposal...this is a "trial ballon") to "break" the trans-warp movement into two sections...
a ship that has paid for trans warp energy (and perhaps it "must" use 5 hexes, not anything less) must also have paid for speed 31.
The "resolution" of the "trans-warp movement" occurs in two sections, the first during impulse #1 of a 32 impulse game turn...the ship moves 3 hexes of trans warp movement during the normal movement part of the SOP. (and must have lowered 2 shields, typpically #1 and #4) and must keep the shields lowered during 1/4 turn (ideally, the shield needed to start the game turn lowered.)
the second "trans warp movemnt" occurs on impulse#16, (1 point normal movement, 2 hexes of "transwarp" movement") and again, requires the shields to be lowered on the #1 and #4 shield facings). (possibly, it may make more sense, that the shields must be lowered for impulses #1 thru #16).
This effectively gives the ship 36 hexes of movement during the game turn... but limits it to 2 impulses divided by 1/2 or the impulses in the game turn) at a cost of keeping the shields lowered for half the turn... and a huge energy cost.
Players would have to wiegh very carefully just how important that extra 5 hexes of movement is... as it comes at a huge opportunity cost.
keeping two shields down for so much of a game turn is a huge disadvantage.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 04:53 pm: Edit |
Thinking more about this... if "normal Warp" allows combat at warp speeds... and "non tactical warp" doesnt... I wonder if perhaps this "Trans-Warp Movement" might not involve some of the same technologiocal challenges that were factors in the "Non-Tactical Warp" progression to "tactical Warp"?
For example, IIRC, ships moving at nontactical warp are at a disadvantage (meaning) exposed to taking disproportionate levels of damage compared to ships moving and fighting at "normal Warp".
What if the "Trans-Warp Movment" involved some other kind of game trade off?
Not sure what would work in this context... but what if a ship using "Trans-Warp Movement" couldnt fire or control seeking weapons during the impulse of the actual trans warp movement?
Its own drones or plasmas would go innert... it loses "lock on" for the impulse on all opposing ships... and at the same time, opposing ships also "lose lock on" (due to the burst of speed of 5 hexes in a single impulse)?
| By Gary Bear (Gunner) on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 05:28 pm: Edit |
And people would use this just as a super WW that doesn't require you to slow down.
Note, the ship's own plasmas wouldn't go inert as they'd just assume their own guidance.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 05:42 pm: Edit |
Which is a drawback to the proposal... perhaps the modification should be a negative increment to the ships EW status... perhaps a -1 to both ECM and ECCM?
Not making a formal proposal... just suggesting some additional "costs" to using the extra movement... perhaps instead of auch a high energy cost, let there be some other "game effects" that make the use of Trans-Warp Movement a little riskier...
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 10:44 am: Edit |
Blech.
This way lies madness.
Go here if you want, but you go without me.@@@@@
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 04:26 pm: Edit |
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
| By Samuel Davis (Tancapkzin) on Tuesday, February 06, 2018 - 11:38 am: Edit |
the sub light years rules need to be expanded . the rules in the master rules edition doesn't fit in with STOS ,task force games version of SFB or star fleet command 3 . each hex in TFG was 10,000 kilometers and speed 31 would be near the speed of light . plus on the STOS Spock claimed a 1960s USAF intercepter armed with nuclear missiles could severly damage a middle era federation CA
| By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, February 06, 2018 - 12:05 pm: Edit |
There are no sublight years rules. It is unlikely there will be any unless a new module introduces them. If they do it will probably be on a different movement scale.
1960s missiles are not in the game (and presumably the Enterprise did not have their shields up) so we do not know what their damage in SFB would be.
| By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, February 06, 2018 - 12:55 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
I hadn't read everything here, yet, but the next time my wife says Algebra was a waste of her time, I'm going to refer her to this thread.
| By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Tuesday, February 06, 2018 - 05:41 pm: Edit |
I assume that a nuclear warhead would be somewhere along the lines of a Romulan nuclear space mine. Depending on yield nukes might range from 15-50 damage. That is probably a good guess without SVC deciding to officially define it.
The SFC games aren't really "canon" within SFB. They made a lot of changes on their own that make a lot of things in those games very different than they are in the SFU.
Sublight would be, technically, less than one hex per turn so as Jon pointed out there would need to be a whole new movement scale for them. In the end it would just be back to working like SFB again only you couldn't combine sublight and warp ships in the same game without warp ships moving more than one hex per impulse. There is almost no point too it, I don't think "Sublight SFB" would ever get played
| By Mark Hoyle (Usa_Retired) on Tuesday, February 06, 2018 - 06:08 pm: Edit |
Quote:I don't think "Sublight SFB" would ever get played
| By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, February 06, 2018 - 06:17 pm: Edit |
A nuke in *atmosphere* is a wholly different beast than a nuke in *space*. In space, you get the hard radiation, the alpha, beta and neutron flux, but you DON'T get the effects from atmospheric heating, i.e. a physical shock wave.
If Enterprise in that scenario were in atmosphere and struggling to climb out of it, a shock wave could put physical stresses on the ship that it simply wouldn't be able to take. Sure the shields could take care of the particle flux and hard rads, but the shockwave? Probably not.
| By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, February 07, 2018 - 04:01 am: Edit |
Just grab the silly thing in a tractor and hold it far, far, away.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |