Adam: LMC comes first.

This is a "Well, it could be done, and I know how..." sort of thing. I don't know if I have the time.

By Adam James Villatorio (Merlinfmct87) on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Ok. Just so long as you know there is some support for this product out there .

Merlin

By Chad Carew (Blackhawkckc) on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 08:29 am: Edit

Make the hurting stop...

By Adam James Villatorio (Merlinfmct87) on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Sure bud!

Lighning bolt or Fireball? Either way it'll be over soon...

Merlin

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit

As an update -- I have put together three SSDs (Fed TC, Klingon TC, Rom KR TC) and the play aids.

I could not make the SFB turn modes work at all; I put in the AV:T methodology for doing pivots and rolls, with some timing changes.

Box minis have been done up, using some models done up by SFB fans for SFC.

I also did up the play aids that need lamination; seeking weapons are a slight problem. When I have time to fiddle with this, I will do so. (As it was, the only reason this got worked on was because I couldn't get an internet connection for one night and needed to do something to blow off steam.)

Changes to SFB:

1) 16 impulse movement chart, that goes to speed 32. You either move 0, 1 or 2 hexes per impulse, rather than 0 or 1. With ranges happening on a hypotenuse most of the time, the odds that anyone will be able to do the range 8 to range 4 1 impulse jump is pretty low.

2) Pivots and rolls are linked to time, rather than movement points. The net effect is close, but not an exact match for SFB. I picked pivot mode tables on a whimsy from the AV:T cut file.

3) Because pivots are handled differently, the SoP gets tweaked -- you program a turn in before movement on that impulse, and you're locked on that course correction until it completes.

4) 12 point facing -- you now must face a hex corner to sideslip.

5) Shield 3 is the top shield. Shield 5 is the bottom shield. The other four shields cover 90 degree arcs 'round the ship.

6) Firing arcs use the AV:T firing arc system.

7) I did an experiment with seeking weapons that /almost/ worked. Seeking weapons are handled by a representation of the geometry - the difference in heading between the target and the seeker; the seeker can change heading by up to 90 degrees per impulse.

There's a lookup table that has you count windows of separation from the two headings and cross reference the number of hexes the target moved this impulse with that angle of separation, and that gets plugged into a small worksheet that tells you how much to adjust the range between the seeker and the target.

What it doesn't currently do is give an easily extracted bearing from the target to the seeker for determining weapon arcs. It also removes some of the clever "how to dodge seeking weapon tricks" from the tactical paradigm.

However, in playing it here once or twice:

The 16 impulse turn speeds play a lot. The firing arcs take more time to resolve, but not much more once you know them.

The mapless seekers seem to be a net zero change in play speed.

The tactics get odd.

By Marcin Radzikowski (Warchild) on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Ken,

One question - where?

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit

Marcin, as these A) use standard SFB TCs, and B) I don't have permission from SVC to do so, I'm not entirely comfortable with releasing the URL just yet.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 09:14 am: Edit

Ken: Send it to me and let me look at the stuff.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit

SVC: Cleaning up the SSDs (I'm using Bruce's 6 year old cut files and Illustrator has mangled them.)

This is not a stand-alone-anything. You need to know about 30% of my game to make this work; I'm going over the abbreviated notes that I teach it from, which assume that I'm there in person, teaching someone who knows SFB the things that this replaces.

I'm not sure how it'll fall to someone who's busy, and has 10 minutes to skim it and put it on the stack for "Uh. Yeah. Maybe after I go and write this cool thing for GURPS on the training of embedded Engineers in Klingon Marine Expeditionary Force Units."

By Jim Wise (Jimwise) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

Of course, it's worth noting that modulo some fluctuations in speed, SFB is _always_ in 3D if you have three or fewer objects involved in a scenario.

Something about three points defining a plane... :-)

By Jim Wise (Jimwise) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:51 am: Edit

And actually, if you assume that seeking weapons don't have some equivalent of the pop-up attack used in current anti-ship missiles or the top-down attack used in some anti-tank missiles, they would probably stay in the plane as well, so any scenario with three or fewer _ships_ is okay. :-)

Of course, this goes out the window if you have immobile objects like planets or bases, but hey...

(And for setting justification, such a `pop-up' capability would be less useful against a ship which could turn in three-dimensions to face the incoming seeker, anyhow.)

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:56 am: Edit

Jim: I've got a full 3-D solution that actually works, is playable, and is the basis for a product line that my company produces. We are doing an Honor Harrington adaptation of that product line now, and it's what I'm working on for the month of December.

I've known for over a year that doing a 3-D SFB adaptation was doable, as a merge between the two systems. Both have segmented movement, both use a multiple of 8 segments in a turn.

I finally got around to doing one while stuck without an internet connection on business travel. Had the tools, had the files, was bored.

Of course, the adage in gaming is "Well, it works. Now I have to write the rules" which is where the scut work is.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:12 am: Edit

The trick to "marketing" the 3d solution is just what it will be.

If it's just a few pages of rules (using the original SSDs) then it might do well as an article in captain's log. I suspect it's bigger than that could accomodate.

Assuming it's 40+ pages, separate book.

Assuming 40+ pages and some laminated charts, folio game.

Assuming 40+ pages and some chocolate candy, or maybe some plastic wedge stands and some 3-d ship "boxes", boxed product.

The point is that if it is ultimately just charts and rules we don't want to put them on the web site or we just gave away the product.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:12 pm: Edit

SVC:

It requires either a reference card for the replacement turn modes and firing arc diagrams, or additional information on the SSDs, plus a half page laminated card per player, a set of box minis (which ship flat) and one bag of tilt blocks and two bags of stacking tiles.

So far, without going into SFB case numbering (just the concepts) it's at 4 pages of description and growing. My general rule of thumb is that concepts run about 1/3 the verbiage of fully explicit SFB rules.

(I really should be working on the Honor Harrington product -- but I know that if I don't do this now, it'll vanish.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit

I think we have to use the original SSDs since you'd never sell the product on the basis of "buy 2000 SSDs and then..."

Page count isn't a big deal.

The tilt blocks seem to be "the" issue. I need complete size data. We're switching everything (including F&E) to the white basic set boxes so they need to fit in there if this is going to happen.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 01:10 pm: Edit

SVC: A reference chart setup could work.

My basic assumption was that we could do a product with the TCs for 3-D SFB to test the market. I suspect that nobody really wants to try using this for a fleet action.

The tilt blocks are 24 mm per side on the base (0.96"), and are 22 mm tall (0.91") at their highest point.

How many white basic set boxes are you buying?

I use a similar packaging solution with a larger box, and can send you a sleeve to fit it to show to your printer. (I'm assuming the shipping costs prevent you from running a sleeve at our printer -- though, hmm, it's the same place we do die cut box minis at, so maybe not.)

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Ken,

How many stacking tiles are needed to play the average 1-on-1 game???


Garth L. Getgen

By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Kerry says 4 tilt blocks (2 for each ship) and say 30 stacking tiles of different colors (one color represents a 1, I believe another color is like 5, BLACK tiles mean negative).

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 04:33 pm: Edit

white is 1
light blue is 4
dark blue is 16
black is negative

Kerry's about right in the numbers

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit

My standard kit is a bag of 16 tilt blocks (8 of each color) 8 laminated play aid cards, and two bags of stacking tiles. Each bag has the following numbers:

34 white
8 light blue
4 dark blue
4 black

When I order more stacking tiles this spring, I'll be changing the mix slightly, to:

32 white
12 light blue
4 dark blue
2 black

(It's unlikely that everyone on the board will have a negative altitude at the same time. We run out of light blues more than any other color.)

The reasoning behind the base 4 ratio is that you only need 3 of any given color before moving up to the next one.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

I don't see any deal killers yet. We'll have to seriously look at the blocks. Can you get me one of them sometime? Maybe if we put them "face down" they'll fit better. They will fit the boxes but not along with rules and cards.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit

SVC:

If your box doesn't work, any objections to using mine, which I know will work?

If I havn't gotten you some before GTS, I'll had you some at the booth.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

Least of our problems, Ken.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

You know, I'm not sure you need blocks.
I had a home brew 3D SFB, but having the six shields represent the six surfaces of a cube.

You then use a square grid with the gird being at the altituted of the lowest vessels and the other ships being on stacks of unused counters as one counter per level.

You need about 12 pages of rules to cover the calculation of which shield gets hit and diagonal movement and what not but otherwise it works fine. You might even get away with fewer rules by printing the map with an overlay of squares over the hexes and then just use the hexes for movement and the squares for sheild boundary calculations and off you go.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

MJC: Current system covers all changes needed to do SFB in 5.5 pages of 10 point type. Expanding them into SFB rules with appropriate illustrations of the procedures? Probably about 12 pages of 10 point type with the way I'd format them, ADB would format them differently.

Scariest math you have to be able to do is this:

1) Determine lesser of horizontal distance or vertical (Gee, it's 6 up and 2 out, I guess 2 is less than 6).

2) Multiply the lesser number by 4, compare to the larger number. (Hmm. 2 x 4 is 8. I guess that's greater than 6.)

Everything else is handled by the play aids (and even that can be converted into a lookup table -- I happen to have one that will work for any game of SFB.)

The plastic bits are there to make 3-D visual and fun for everyone involved. No more "Uh, what angle are you at again? And what altitude?"

I've put a lot of thought into making 3-D work. It does so. Not the time to reinvent the wheel, I suspect.