D.K.:

Mines...well spotted.

By Ethan Dawe (Wild_Guesser) on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 10:01 pm: Edit

MJC said "Actually in this case no."

Dave noted that in the post prior to yours after consulting the chart. I didn't have the chart in front of me att he time, but Dave got the point, despite my poor example. :-)

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 11:53 pm: Edit

The more I understand about this chart the more I like it. It would greatly simplify a multi-player free-for-all. It will never see tourney play but that doesn't make it a bad optional rule. I would like to see this included in SSJ2.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 12:15 am: Edit

IF SVC ever gets around to doing another SSJ I wouldn't mind it. But don't hold your breath. Since SSJ1 did so poorly in sales. It's very unlikely that SVC's boss (Leanna) will let him do another any time soon.

Duck's and run's for cover

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 12:35 am: Edit

This revised chart does make it much easier to manuever around a seeking weapon when closing with it. The revised chart also makes plasma and other fast seeking weapon launches most effective if done early in the turn. I doubt increasing the potency of the turn break is a good idea.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 03:46 am: Edit

Look, we're only talking about some impulses and range 1 when the defender is travelling at some speeds.


Here's a tip, never let a seeking weapon user get to R1!!!
Why because if he gets to R0, you're a dead man.

Want to ignore speed 8 drones and run about at some speed like 10 and visit R1, either; stay out of R1, go at speed 8 or go at speed 12.

You can't expect to have victory served on a platter.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 06:34 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Want to ignore speed 8 drones and run about at some speed like 10 and visit R1, either; stay out of R1, go at speed 8 or go at speed 12.

---

---

Quote:

Want to ignore speed 8 drones and run about at some speed like 10 and visit R1, either; stay out of R1, hold enough Tractor & Phasers in reserve, go at speed 8 or go at speed 12.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 06:47 am: Edit

Quality reasons not to visit Range 1 against a Non-Plasma Seeking Weapon User.

1) Feedback Damage from your own phot-torps.

2) Kzinti Ph-3s do increadible damage at R1.

3) The Kzinti Forrest of Ph-3s do really worthwhile damage at R2.

4) Orion, Kzinti and Gorn Anchors all get really effective at R1.

5) With high speed R1 reduces the chance that one can actually Mizia the target.

6) Increased likelyhood or running through the detection radius of a T-bomb, rolled out of the shuttlebay hatch.

7) Stupid SS tricks.

8) Stupid Drone Tricks.


Honestly I don't see why this little event should even occour, muchless break the game.

By Ken Rodeghero (Ken_Rodeghero) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 07:04 am: Edit

I like the new chart and think it would make free for alls or even big fleet battles a lot easier for the moderator. I think it is a cool optional idea, although it could never be used for tourney play as some pointed out.

mjc: I don't think anyone is saying that the game is broken, but the impulse chart does defy logic in some situations. ADB had even discussed making rules to plug impulse chart loopholes (turned out to be too complicated to be worth it).

Ken

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 08:45 am: Edit

Wait I have a great Idea lets just multiply all ranges for weapons and the number of hexes by 30 then you can move your speed in hexes per turn.

Just kidding.

By Matthew J. Francois (Francois42) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:11 am: Edit

All in all, a nice way to stop the knuckles in the Impulse Chart. And it does it without sacrificing the phased movement system we know and love. Unfortunetly, it probably suffers from the worst flaw known to man: Bad timing. SSJ1 didn't do well... so an SSJ2... hmm..

Good idea, though, Dave. You've come up with one more proposal than I have!

mjc: Calm down, buddy. I don't think we're switching to this chart tomorrow.

-Francois
francois@purdue.edu

By Dave Morse (Dcm) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 09:20 am: Edit

Sweet gedanken experiment!

While we're at it, lets replace digital hexes with analog X,Y coordinates. Ship's facing is recorded as an angle and changes constantly over time. Every turn calcualate new coordinates for ship with: X1 = X0 + speed * cos (angle). Y1 = Y0 + speed * sin (angle). This can get rather slow, so might as well have a computer do it for you and render the game map.

Yes, this is a joke too.

By Matthew J. Francois (Francois42) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 10:14 am: Edit

Ooo, ooo, ooo, I've got it.

3-D Star Fleet Battles.



-Francois
francois@purdue.edu

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 11:50 am: Edit

Nooo. Spacemaster had a 3D combat system complete with inertia movement.

The maths involved was a nightmare. Pity, because some of their other ideas were quite good.

By Richard K. Glover (Fahrenheit) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 03:11 pm: Edit

This would have implications on people wanting to go fast for the first few impulses of a turn, then drop speed at maximum intervals. Since the lower speeds have most of their movements in the latter half of the turn, such a plot would cost more. Probably only 1 or 2 more over the course of the entire turn, but when you're going for an early-turn Anchor attempt (when you'll commonly use such a plot), 1 or 2 points of power matter.

F°
*I* didn't do it, the *computer* did it!

By Jay Paulson (Etjake) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 03:32 pm: Edit

The big problem with 3D movement is that hexes have a huge amount of error for rendering free movement. Much better off using squares since you have to use the square rule to figure distances. Or better yet plain table with rulers.

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Or use one of the simplified 3D systems used by other games. Basically count the hexes and add 1 to the range for each elevation difference, not exactly accurate but many games have used some variation on that theme.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 05:44 pm: Edit

In 3-D, you just need to use dodecahedrons instead of hexagons. How exactly you make a 3-D gameboard, I don't know...

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 07:03 pm: Edit

A.V.:

Are you sure it's a dodechahedron?

That's a pentagon on all twelves sides ( See 1D12).


M.J.F.:

Sorry for loosing my cool...I just don't like the idea. Mind you. I've put forward several Impulse charts myself.

1) Having the right hand margin filled with the impulse boxes, in reverse, so that with a seperate Impulse counter, you can break up movement by one team away from movement by the other and thus loose huge numbers of 2 hex jumps, especially at speeds below 16.

2) Put thwe top half of the Impulse chart at the bottom ( Keep it the same way up as before ) and thus ships cross the boudary line between hexes in the middle of the period of travel between the hexes, rather than at the end. This represents that fact that ships start and finish any movenment in the middle of the hex.


D.M.:

Hang on...isn't that my turning by degrees rule...ah no, I simplified it by having forced side-slips and thus retained the hex grid map.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 08:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Hence there is no value in launching an SS at speed 3. Except maybe for SHOWING OFF PURPOSSES.

---

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 08:29 pm: Edit

J.D.:


I can only understand your statement if I keep swapping between being the defender and being the enemy...huh!?!

Launching a Speed 3 SS might be able to time for a mizia with drones or plasma better then speed 6, so the statement doesn't hold as much water as I thought it did.


Hey wouldn't the enemy know that they'ld crippled an MRS by the damage it took to be crippled?

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 10:44 pm: Edit

3-D Movement:

I know how to make SFB a 3-D game. I've already made a 3-D space combat game, and it's much simpler than anything described above, and much more accurate.

The only math you need to be able to do for 3-D done right is to go "Hmm. He's 17 hexes out, and 4 altitude levels up. Is he 4x as far away as he is up?" (There are 4 conditionals, but they all break down to the same kind of question.)

It would take about as many pages as tractors do, and that's with illustrations every step of the way.

However, to do it right (as opposed to something that's 'tacked onto' SFB with the general utility of, oh rules for Romulan Cloaked Decoys), major surgery would need to be done to the game. A laminated color play aid would need to be printed...

Movement would require a second impulse chart for when a ship is flying at a 30 or 60 degree incline.

We'd have to define "point the ship at a hex corner as well as a hex spine". Turn modes would need to be redefined the way I do in DV.

Shield 3 and 5 become top and bottom, respectively, and each of the remaing shields covers more area than before. On the other hand, we lose every single ambigious shield boundary in the game....

Firing arcs need to be redefined for 3-D; however, once they're defined so it's impossible to create ambiguous firing arc cases.

Seeking weapons are going to simply be impossible to make work in any way consistent with SFB, where they're "flown to the target". This is one place where the DV method for seekers really doesn't map well to SFB; SFB seekers are too slow compared to the ships.

The prime difficulty is getting people to think in 3-D movement terms.

Which is good, because 3-D tactics are radically different from standard SFB tactics. Playing hex games with narrow range bands is much more difficult, simply because you lose some of the artificial precision of the hex map.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 11:36 pm: Edit

Weapons arcs might not need too much work. Weapons could be apended with a 'U', 'B', and 'A'.
The degree of arc remains the same but when noted with a 'U' that weapon can fire in it's arc at targets on the same level and above. 'B' for below and 'A' for All levels. 'A' would cover hard points that are on the edge of the ship and most torpedos. Mark the letters on the SSD after referencing a chart. (Or the mini!)

Ships could have three flight modes. Level, incline, and decline. Incline would allow 'B' weapons to fire one level up for three hexes and two levels up beyond three hexes. The reverse for weapons marked with 'U'(i.e. in inlcine mode 'U' weapons cannot fire at targets in the first level or the second level beyond three hexs). Reverse the process for decline mode. This would be applied to forward firing weapons. Rear firing weapons would be reverse of the current status of the Fore weapons. (unless the ship is traveling in reverse). Side firing weapons would be (for simplicity) unaffected by 'I' or 'D' Mode and always considered as level. Forward and Rear weapons are defined as "Currently firing through the FA (or RA) arc. Example: A "LS P-1B" on a ship in incline mode fires as Level if firing out the L arc. As Inclined if out the LF arc. As Declined if out the LR arc.

Seekers could be allowed to raise or lower one level free every 4 horizontal moves. If it has to climb faster it takes it from it's regular speed.

Be sure to have plenty of note paper!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 11:55 pm: Edit

Oh ya, weapons can fire in their arc from the 'X' all the way to the 'Y' axis. Not beyond or else you get really complicated! ( 'I' or 'D' modes being an exception.)

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 08:55 am: Edit

Loren:

Not a bad solution, but much too cumbersome to use in actual play.

The method I have in mind allows for more diverse weapon arcs, and is simultaneously much easier to use in 3-D play, and roughly as easy to use in 2-D play.

The problem with seekers is that you have to handle their rate of closure on a 3-D reference frame. Given that ships are nearly as fast as most seekers, giving you 18 more directions to run from them in makes them nearly impossible to play.

For a picture of the play aid I use, check out

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/delta_v/default.asp