Archive through November 20, 2015
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: Other Proposals: S6.0 Defeating Monsters Alternative: Archive through November 20, 2015
By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Halloween is near - bring out the monsters.

Does anyone else find the existing (S6.0) Defeating Monsters options to be too sterile?

Admiral: "I heard of your bravery and amazing skill in defeating the creature threatening our outpost. Tell me, how did you defeat it?"
Captain: "Uh. I attached a one point tractor to it and it died."

No. Just no.

Here's a few I came up with in hopes even better ideas might be brought forward. These are just scribblings from a few hours of thought with no playtest and little attention to the wording. The order probably could use some rearranging as well but it's a place to start.

Instead of one die - roll two much like the DAC

1. There is more than one action needed to kill the monster. Objectives from both selection #11 and #5.
2. Nuke and reapply as necessary. Monster can be destroyed by suicide shuttlecraft (J2.22) sometimes requiring multiple strikes. One successful SS strike is needed for every two non-fighter shuttle boxes (that’s for you Hydrans) in your forces at the start of the scenario.
3. Tear its heart (or whatever) out. Monster can be destroyed if held in a tractor link from every tractor (if any are damaged they must be repaired or the attempt is fruitless) continuously for 32 impulses then, on the 32nd impulse and still maintaining all tractors, performing a HET
4. Monster is only susceptible to phasers. Monster can be destroyed by inflicting damage equal to the 25 times the number labs & special sensors of your forces at the start of the scenario using only phasers.
5. The silver bullet. A device must be constructed to kill the monster. Engineers work frantically to design and build a device matching the specs provided by the science teams. At the end of each turn (select one ship if more than one) roll one die and if it exceeds the highest available value in the damage control track the device has been constructed. This cannot be attempted before all lab info objectives are fulfilled and the vulnerability of the monster is determined. The device is then mounted on a probe using the (G5.3) anti-matter procedure. A successful hit kills the monster any other result requires the engineers to start over on another device.
6. Communication established with Monster. It becomes friendly and you are not required to destroy it. If you have scored more than 50 points of damage on it, you lose the scenario.
7. Insufficient data. Accumulate 100 more points of information and roll again.
8. Put it to sleep. A poisonous substance has been developed to kill the monster but a scientific team must administer the toxin directly. A single attempt may be made using the Hit & Run transporter procedures at the end of each turn (i.e. only one team per turn regardless of the number of transporters or even ships). A successful Hit & Run “raid” kills the monster.
9. Phasers are ineffective against the monster. Monster can be destroyed by inflicting damage equal to the BPV of your ship using anything but phasers (heavy weapons, drones, SS, etc.).
10. Monster can be destroyed by inflicting damage equal to twice the BPV of your ship
11. The perfect shot. Monster can only be destroyed by, using best available phaser on vessel at range 0 or 1, scoring die roll of one the # of times equal to the number of labs/special sensors on the ship (example: Fed CA has 8 labs and so must roll a one 8 times firing phaser-1s firing within the specified range.)
12. There is more than one action needed to kill the monster. Objectives from both selection #2 and #8.

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 10:14 pm: Edit

So to follow up, I was wanting to give the little ships a little better chance (still limited by fewer labs that are needed to get to this point) and adding the threat of penalizing those monster dominating Feds with their abundance of labs.
Several options make you worry about things you wouldn't otherwise like how many shuttles do you have left or did I take any hits to tractors.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 11:07 pm: Edit

How do you get the suicide shuttles past those monsters with MCIDS?

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Sunday, October 25, 2015 - 03:37 am: Edit

That's already the result for die roll #1 in the current S6.0 rules.

Just completely spit-balling ideas here so if anyone has an idea for an objective that uses admin shuttles in a unique way, please chime in! I'm not a huge fan of the SS option myself but wasn't able to come up with anything better but still wanted some purpose for shuttles so they wouldn't all be used up as disposable labs.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, October 25, 2015 - 04:41 am: Edit

You'll never roll a one with two dice. Heh. :)

#3, tear its heart out, I kinda like it, though you do lose the tractor beam when you HET.

How about adding, "Once you have met all the requirements for destroying the monster, roll a single die. Consult your HET (without bonus). If the result is a breakdown, then your scientists were wrong on how to kill the thing. Re-roll 2D6 and start over."

After all, Commodore Decker was wrong. The result, A wrecked ship and a dead crew.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, October 25, 2015 - 04:53 am: Edit

Option #13,
Only the explosion of a SC4 ship or larger at range one or zero can kill the monster. Hey, this isn't a fair universe but if you don't do this, the next star system will die under the monster's wrath! You get extra victory points for each crew unit removed to relative safety. Another use for shuttle craft in the scenario.

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Sunday, October 25, 2015 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Doh! Ok, so there's one less slot to worry about. :P

As far as #3 and breaking tractor, true but at the point of tractors break is the same point where the critter dies so no need to maintain tractor beyond. Just trying to specify that you still need to have the tractors powered and holding at start of that impulse.

Do like the re-roll idea, though that is kinda what option #7 is already. Need to figure out a good way to use the breakdown values somehow. That's gold.

Not sure how I feel about option #13. Maybe too much real without something more than shuttles to evacuate. Perhaps if there were three dice and it was the result of three rolls of one that would be interesting to have that thought in the back of your mind as you play the scenario.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Sunday, October 25, 2015 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Russ, I agree that #7 covers this to a degree, but the way I see this:
1. Scientist know they don't have enough info, and
2. Scientist was simply wrong (ergo, the final role).
Bear in mind, I love the idea of what you are doing. Considering what you are saying, I'm good with what you want. I do, however, like to push the envelope.

If you want any justification on the re-roll, not that you asked for it, sometimes too many minds on the same problem will cause some level of hesitation on decision (whether accurate or not) unreliable making.

As for 13, well it was just an idea. But I was thinking of the doomsday machine episode.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 - 12:09 am: Edit

If you can come up with 16 different ways to kill a monster, the 3 dice method you mentioned above would be good. It'd certainly make solitaire games more unpredictable (good for people like me without available local players).

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 - 03:43 am: Edit

That's exactly the way I'm working on now... need one more good concept but it has eluded me thus far. Spent all day Sunday and still working on it!

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 - 04:03 am: Edit

Very much liking the flatter bell curve using three dice instead of two. You and I are on the same line of thought as far as the need to be less predictable. Hopefully won't be able to "sandbag" the possible solutions as much as is done with 6 options (i.e. doing 49 points of damage, prepping SS, etc.)

TWO DICE
22.78%
35.56%
48.33%
511.11%
613.89%
716.67%
813.89%
911.11%
108.33%
115.56%
122.78%

THREE DICE
30.45%Escape - if you can
41.39%Nuke and reapply as necessary
52.78%Only susceptible to phasers
64.63%Double the BPV
76.94%The weakest link w/silver bullet
89.72%Tear its heart out
911.57%The silver bullet
1012.50%Insufficient Data
1112.50%Friendly monster
1211.57%Put it to sleep
139.72%I force a great power in the sensor
146.94%No warp & Put it to sleep
154.63%The perfect shot
162.78%Phasers ineffective
171.39%
180.45%The Decker solution

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 - 10:00 am: Edit

Regarding results where only certain weapons are effective, will that mean the following?
1. Before the lab roll, player keeps track of amount of damage caused by (a) phaser, (b)heavy weapon and (c) seeking and others.

2. After the lab roll and if relevant, damage recorded by any of the a, b, or c will not be scored against the monster. This is assumed that the ship's sensors were fooled into thinking those ineffective weapons were actually causing damage.

Looking forward to a final description of all 16 results. If pitched well, I could see this in a Stellar Shadows product or (better yet) a Captain's log (or are they now both one and the same?).

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 - 10:18 am: Edit

The Silver Shield:
As far as your desire to get shuttles more involved, you can use a variant of the silver bullet where instead of a weapon to be designed and deployed, you can have the silver bullet being something where scientist have discovered an electronic shielding (insert technobabble) that makes SC6 units invisible to the monster's MCIDS scanners. In other words, shuttles and fighters are the only real threat to the monster that the monster cannot defend against (doesn't apply to seeking weapons launched by said fighters).
Once (and if) the Silver Shielding result is rolled, one SC6 unit can have its hull modified per turn in 16 (or 32 or whatever) impulse increments.

I know that's wordy but you wanted something shuttles could do.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 - 08:02 pm: Edit

A boarding party may kill the minster. You may not use transporters as the energy will be absorbed by the monster. Landing/docking a shuttle craft on/to the monster and disembarking the boarding party. The boarding party releases a toxic substance that can only be delivered that way.

Note... as the monster close in defense system may kill shuttles launching more then one at a time may be needed.

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 - 12:21 am: Edit

Good stuff! More ideas the better. How cool would a 6x6 matrix of options be! We're halfway there if we can get all the concepts to pan out. Need duplication so the odds work out for things like "friendly monster" are taken seriously but it adds opportunity for variance. Like instead of "friendly monster" you get a "you did more than 50 damage making monster angry. Monster has phoned a friend" and now you have a second monster entering the map. Variants like that could fill a 36 option matrix

One of the best things about this exercise is the possibility to use ship systems that are seldom looked at and find new ways to use them. Yet none of it (done right) effects non-monster game balance.

So some of the concepts I've been considering. All need a lot more work:

Escape: Monster cannot be destroyed and science determines the creature is emitting a previously unknown energy/radiation/whatever that suddenly is killing your crew. Attempt to disengage by accel while losing crew every impulse (maybe a die roll is actual individuals not units).

The silver bullet device placed in space attracts the monster but needs to be controlled via subspace comms. Unfortunately the device dampens comms so you must place/maintain a chain of shuttles as relays. Need some way of weakening MCIDS will still making it a threat to lose your relays. Redundant shuttles wouldn't be enough against standing MCIDS.

Using the sensor track as the weapon. Add up all the (still working) values in the sensor track and funnel warp power (maybe equivalent of warp move points so the little ships can play too) into sensors firing in a mauler arc. The old "modify the deflectors" scheme. Scanner tracks might be used as a range modifier.

These ideas are still full of holes so no point blowing them up just yet. Give me a chance to work something out or better yet, come up with more ideas!

By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 - 07:14 am: Edit

So you need 36 possibilities?

-a BP must successfully perform a Hit and Run

-BP(s) must board and hold off the 10 enemy BPs for 64 consecutive impulses.

-BPs must board and defeat 6 enemy BPs plus a control station. Combat Engineers count double.

- BP must guard a crew unit for 32 impulses from attacks by 6 enemy BPs. Crew unit cannot be beamed into uncontrolled areas.

-Monster can only be killed by 6 OEW from a special sensor.

-10 repair points must be used to build a special thing that can destroy the monster. Then you beam it into the same hex as the monster (or drop it out the hatch in an overrun).

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Couple more crazy @## ideas:

Device to kill it and shuttles can be set up to repel (i.e herd) the monster toward the device. Repel distance at the edges of MCIDS.

Fence it in variants
Device created that can be deployed in hex which the monster then cannot enter. Each device requires a control box to manage it. (rewards ships with more control boxes)

Impulse engines can be reconfigured to put out an ion bust that the monster can't pass. Using warp for movement each impulse engine box powering this options can block one hex. Maybe it dissipates over time? (rewards ships with more impulse engines)

Starting to think the 36 option matrix might just be doable but testing each option out vs. every (S6.0) monster seems a daunting task.

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Thursday, October 29, 2015 - 12:47 am: Edit

Know thine enemy:

These are what I found for monster scenarios. Chime in if I missed one that didn't just re-use one of these verbatim.

RefMonsterS6.0?Publish
SM1.0Planet CrusherOptionBasic
SM2.0Space AmoebaYBasic
SM3.0Moray EelOptionBasic
SM4.0Cosmic CloudYBasic
SM5.0Sun SnakeYAdv Msn
SM6.0Mind MonsterYAdv Msn
SM7.0Space DragonNAdv Msn
SM8.0IgneousNS1
SM9.0Death ProbeNS1
SM10.0ArastozNS1
SM11.0Energy MonsterOptionS1
SM12.0StarswarmNJ
SM13.0BansheesNK
SM14.0Ice MonsterNS2
SM15.0MetamorphNS2
SM17.0MonstersYC4
SM18.0Space BoarsNY1
SM19.0Space SpiderOptionCL50
SG31Intruder AlertNS1
SL1JuggernautNCL1
SL145Spinner BaseNCL15
SL154MulakeeYCL16
SL192OrbNCL21
SL246JuggernautNCL33
SP283CrabOptionP6
SP12xxDire-LictNP6
SP367SharksNCL14
SL178#2Artifact EntityNCL20
SL178#3Space LensNCL20
SL206Space SheepNCL24
SL282Space MantaNCL40
SL314Cyndarian ShipNCL45
SL316ProbeNCL46
SL328HellbaseNCL48

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 02:10 am: Edit

Update:

So after playing around I think I've hit on a system that seems to directly address the issues that I perceive are shortfalls in the current (S6.0) Defeating Monsters rule. Those shortfalls are:

  1. Narrow list of objectives in the monster defeat table limits variety in replaying a monster.
  2. "Sandbagging" the 6 potential selections in the monster defeat table in anticipation of reaching the lab info goal. The unrealistic feel just puts me off. In a "real" situation there should be much more doubt and surprise in how things will turn out. That's the fun of it - not strategies to shortcut the outcome.
  3. Small ships and non-Fed races are more challenging but not necessarily in ways that make it attractive to attempt.
  4. In scenarios where (S6.0) was invoked, there are two distinct games: Get lab info and then follow the script to kill monster. Once your monster defeat option was decided, the games seem to follow a rail. The difficulty of defeating the monster is set and after a few attempts with each objective, rather predictable.

My initial thoughts were we just need to come up with more possibilities in the Monster Defeat Table. After working on more options it still seemed that a larger selection list may have added to the number to times a monster could be enjoyably played but it was obvious that once the strategy for each selection was mastered, we are right back where we started. The solution needed to be more dynamic.

Several of the new options invented assisted (in theory) in dealing with a monster but to be used to destroy the monster didn't really change the game much. I realized that if we broke some of those off into their own separate chart creating something of a "Chance" pile, then a much more dynamic game arises. Selections in the "Chance" chart vary greatly and the results can differ from very helpful, helpful, negligable, impeding, and devastating. The relevance of each choice can vary with the monster at hand. How the "Chance" might work isn't set yet. Thinking along the lines of mandatory selection along with your Defeating Monster roll and optional if you reach a defined goal of more lab info.
Example: "You find a vulnerability in the monster that will reduce it's speed by one if you do X amount of damage". That is a huge help in dealing with a sunsnake who's speed is 3 but doesn't do as much on monsters with a speed of 27+. The vulnerability is a one time thing (unless you roll the option again later) so as to be very unlikely to immobilize a monster and gain a sort of default win.

This "Chance" system along with an expanded Monster Defeat Table (still like the three die roll chart) could do much to address all four of the stated shortfalls.

So I've come up with enough options to fill both tables and am currently going through the rules for each (S6.0) monster and considering viability for each option.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 05:43 pm: Edit

What about a table were at X number of lab points. You gain some information about the monster are possible ways to defeat the monster.

Also You could have a roll for each table based on lab points gained as well as Tactical intelligence.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, November 02, 2015 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Just remember that Lab points are R9- and guaranteed lab points are R4- and the critter under observation may react negatively (scouts do have an easier time as they can start at R15)...

[alligators/swamp]

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Tuesday, November 03, 2015 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Ah yes get close to the strange critter investigate. Oh it is table C. More info... and Table C option 2. Then how is it defeated, after the rest of the lab points are made.

The whole idea of most of the monster scenarios is to help you learn the game as well as that ship. To think a little bit outside of the box and plan ahead.

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Tuesday, November 03, 2015 - 08:47 pm: Edit

"The whole idea of most of the monster scenarios is to help you learn the game as well as that ship."
Exactly right, Vandor - and (S6.0) is firmly set in the rulebook as the default way to play monsters for those still learning. My hope is to find a way to take those stale monsters and throw a little zesty sauce on them to make them interesting again with something akin to a "Commander's Level" version of the rule. Not really focused on making it n official rule per se. If it makes the monster scenarios (the only official way to play solo which many of us are) interesting again then it has done as intended.

As far as multiple levels on info prior to the Defeating Monsters Table, I'm not confident such a thing could be made without tailoring it to each monster.

I am looking into the possibility of using the "Chance" (it really needs a new name) options prior to Defeating Monsters roll. The idea of "Chance is to dangle just enough helpful possibilities to make you consider trying it while having enough gotcha's to make you consider not trying it. I've started testing in the 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 odds range of positive over negative but since there are several monsters and some results affect each monster differently producing possible negligible results it tends to twist the odds around a bit. Which is a good thing IMO. I've never fancied myself a game designer so I'm sure there are some existing theories for all that but I have no idea what they would be.

At any rate, this is going to take some time and ongoing effort. The concepts look promising though. The more I dig into it the more excited I'm getting about how it might work out.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Thursday, November 19, 2015 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Russ, still working on this?

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Friday, November 20, 2015 - 12:06 am: Edit

Absolutely!
Grinding through some early playtesting

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation