Feds and Klingons need to be in the first file, because they're the most popular, and the chance of a second file is (imo) extremely low.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 10:20 pm: Edit

In any case, one thing I'd look forward to in such a project is the means by which it would make familiar terrain pieces that much more prominent on the tabletop.


Take, for example, A Call to Arms. The same game engine has been adopted for tactical warp combat (ACtA:SF), sublight engagements (B5 and NA), and pre-spaceflight wet-navy action (Victory at Sea). The same is true for Starmada, which also runs the gamut from ocean-going to tactical warp-powered combat across different settings and universes.

Actually, one point that came up recently in the version 1.2 discussions was how terrain is much bigger in ACtA:SF than in other games set at tactical warp. The main reason for this is that the terrain rules were written with sublight combat in mind, so a planet or moon would loom much larger on the board relative to the single hex each takes up (wholly or partially) in SFB or FC.

If the right scale is picked that allows sublight ships to move a fair distance on the board (and/or hexmap) each turn, that would open up the likes of planets, moons, even asteroids and ring systems to being much more prominent terrain pieces for one to consider. Since the action would start much closer in to the planet, and take much longer to try and fly to and from (or around) within the range of engagement, things would get very interesting relative to what one might otherwise expect.

This would be particularly true in a 3D game system, where a class-M planet would fill up as much space in the z-axis as along the xy-plane.

(And if a class-M world takes up so much space, imagine the presence a Jovian gas giant would possess in such a scale...)


Of course, battles in open space would still be an option. But the dynamics of the era may encourage a much more intricate approach to planetary operations.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 11:01 pm: Edit

You guys need to start with the timeline. What years do you cover? And what's going on in those years?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 11:13 pm: Edit

I would think the time period where tactical warp was not available, but non-tactical warp was would be suitable.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 11:15 pm: Edit

From the perspective of the Federation, the First Fed-Romulan War runs from Y40 to Y46. (The Orions jump in on the Fed side in Y45.) The border goes quiet thereafter, and will not be disturbed for many decades. No new empires are contacted by the Feds until after the onset of tactical warp drive.

The Romulans fight the First Gorn-Romulan War (the only war between the two fought entirely at sublight) from Y36 to Y39. Cross-border raids and skirmishes remain a factor long after the war's end.

The Gorns start clashing with the sublight Paravians in Y30, sparking a long-simmering conflict that runs right through the onset of tactical warp and beyond.


Over to the west, the Klingon Empire puts down the Vergarian rebellion in Y12, starts building the first "manta-ray" armorclads in Y17, and fights the First Klingo-Lyran War from Y38 to Y42.

In their attempts to outflank the other to coreward, each runs into the Kzintis, sparking off the First Lyran-Kzinti War in Y48 and the First Klingo-Kzinti War in Y50. The Klingon front continues to be waged well into the era of tactical warp drive, while the Lyran front is broken off by the expansion of the Carnivons in Y56. (By Y65, the Carnivons push as far as the WYN Cluster, severing contact between the Lyrans and Kzintis until Y106.)

To rimward, the Lyrans fight the First Lyran-Hydran War from Y40 to Y43. The Klingo-Hydran border remains fairly stable, give or take, until a few "incidents" break out in Y66 (by which time the first warp-refitted ships are entering service).

The Vudar won't be contacted by the Klingons until Y76, the Peladine would still be in isolation, and I'm not aware of when the Borak and Hydrans first encountered one another.


While over in the east, the five pre-ISC planets start meeting each other from approximately -Y175 onwards. The Resource World Wars spark on and off soon after; the first step towards breaking the deadlock happens when the Veltressai develop tactical warp drive in Y10. (The five planets go through a couple of decades with warp-powered ships armed with sublight weapons, before the "warp-driven" vessels we see in Module Y2 emerge in and around the Y30s.)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 12:39 am: Edit

You might not be aware of this Gary, but players DO desire to do non-historical battles at times.

I suspect that they will want to do so in the case of the Klingons and Federation.

Anywho, my mind is made up. *If* I write such a thing, I will definitely have Feds, Klingons, Romulans, Gorns and Kzinti. Probably nothing else for starters.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 05:11 am: Edit

I would like to see this included in Module Y4 since it can't make it on its own and round off the "early" time frame. Then move onto X2 era.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 10:39 am: Edit

At the risk of reminding you all of what you already know, during the Romulan War the ships gave no quarter, allowing no capture or salvage.

The situation with shuttles and transporters (withOUT transporters, that is) would seem to limit boarding actions, do we need other rules to make sure there are none? Plus, I see two other things to make sure of: nothing and no-one left after the battle.

Should the ships be more likely to explode? Might this move up in the damage allocation, so it could happen while the captain is still making a fight of it? He should still have a feeling about when he's likely to pop, of course, but make sure a ship won't be sitting with no propulsion and no weapons.

Then there's ground bases. Anywhere an individual might be away from when it blows up. The War is being fought far from the Home Worlds, but is it also far from settlements, mining camps, and military outposts? I can see rationalizations to keep from approaching too close to terrain in Non-Tactical Warp, but that makes this exclusively a naval battle, and a deep space naval battle.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 12:27 pm: Edit

isn't the bottom line to make the game fun?

Having your ship or ships explode too easily might be a step too far... and as I recall sublight battles uses nuclear armed missiles and lasers... if you rule out boarding actions, then there isn't much interaction beyond combat and (very slow) movement.

the other issue is the ships, beyond armor weapons and smaller (lower power generation) engines (impulse) wont have tractors, transporters, special sensors. That means they will be "lean" compared to normal General War designs in as much as any damage will leave then weaponless and powerless.

Instead of sub light wars, maybe we should call them "brittle wars" because the ships will be too fragile to withstand the kind of battering more modern designs can dish out.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 01:05 pm: Edit

I disagree. I think they will have thier own "low tech" systems that allow them to approximately perform the same tasks. Just look at other sci fi for inspiration:

Monocrystal grapples to aid in docking hostile targets. They don't always hit and they can be broken (by astronomical stresses), but they tether two ships and provide a guide-wire for boarding parties to slide across in zero-G.

Everybody has a jumped-up sensor system compared to the normal sensors. It's just that not every ship has them for the same reason that not every ship has "special" (G24.0) sensors. But there is always some sort of improved sensor/scanner.

With food storage and other crew comforts more of a problem in the older tech, I could see more of the ships internal volume being Hull and Cargo boxes.

Steering thrusters might show up on the SSD at this stage; allowing the system to represent a degrading turn mode because of damage. It also allows the maneuverability to be represented directly, rather than by some trait that feels arbitrary.

True that the ships prolly won't be as massive or configurable. But you'll still see tugs (with semi-hard-welded pods attached) and you'll still see Harbor tugs with mech-link-like attachments (in fact, every ship probably has a mech-link-like attachment to facilitate docking, since they can't throw power at a tractor beam and expect it to work).

Add in Mines, shuttlecraft (sorta small starships), a couple flavors of power generation systems, missiles, cargo boxes for consumables (because there are alot of those in this tech area, and not just consumable weaponry), missiles, lifeboats, and fuel tanks. Pretty soon you'll have a ship with as many distinct boxes as you get with the GW counterparts.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Damage inflicted will also be lower so they won't be that brittle and with the easier record keeping sizable squadrons can be played with reasonable rapidity.

I liked the old sublight rules as they allowed for quick play while waiting for someone running late without having to carry around a second game.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 01:45 pm: Edit

I'm not sure what the problem was with the original Q rules in the first place.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 03:20 pm: Edit

I listed the historical conflicts of this era in response to SVC's last comment above. I didn't say anything about players being prevented from playing ahistorical games, but I do think it may be worth ensuring that the historical matchups work first before taking that next step.


As for grapple guns being used to facilitate boarding actions, that concept was a major part of the recently-deceased A Call to Arms: Noble Armada, and will most likely be a factor when the next incarnation of NA is developed.

The only potential issue there is that games like ACtA:NA seem to be set at relatively low sublight speeds. Non-tactical warp still seems to involve a relatively minor degree of space-warping in battle (allowing movement at relativistic speeds while avoiding time-dilation effects) so it may be harder to make such a concept work in that environment.


As for ships' internal systems, there is scope for a degree of diversity in terms of what we already know from the SFB Y-modules. (For example, it seems that the Paravians never used armour and always had shields.)

The precedent of the S-series Romulans (which mainly add warp-targeting sensors and the ability to fire their lasers at ships moving at tactical warp speeds) might help in reverse-engineering what made the Q-series hulls different from their warp-refitted editions.


When it comes to where such battles take place, it may be worth noting that the Romulans themselves seem to have made a point of disguising their "ethnic" identity from the Federation, for whatever reasons. In contrast, when they made first contact with the Gorns, both sides learned right away who (or what) the other species was, which made combat in the First Gorn-Romulan War quite different.

It is noted in Prime Directive Romulans that the colony of Gorn-Shima has a large monument commemmorating the Romulan victory at that world. Which might imply that some ground action was involved, or at least that the two fleets fought at or near the planet itself. (Which may open the door for Star Fleet Marines scenarios set in this time period, perhaps.)

The Gorns had problems on the Paravian front, too, as they in turn were keen to get up close an personal with any Gorn colonies they could find (so they could exterminate the locals and loot whatever was worth stealing).

Plus, over in the Resource Worlds, it's noted that a large proportion of the battles involved attempts to dislodge one faction's forces from a given colony planet. In that environment, deep-range battles may be relatively rare, not least given the distinct problems the five pre-ISC fleets had with their non-tactical warp drives.

So the issue of how the Romulans prosecuted their war with the Federation may be more of an exception rather than the rule.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 04:25 pm: Edit

Discussions of specific rule minutiae seems premature.

Like Steve said we first need to define what time period Module Q covers and them collate what is already known about that period (history, ships, technology) since Steve isn’t going to accept anything that contradicts existing background. Then we can talk about whether the old Commander’s Edition Q Rules are still a good fit for that background.

Gary is off to a good start but we need to be systematic. Which products have information on the period we’re looking at? What do they tell us?


A brief outline to build upon:

Timeframe: Y33?-Y63?

Background: need to look at the Universe Timeline, Prime Directive Modules for Klingons, Romulans and Federation (and Prime Alpha for the Hydrans), the Y-modules, what else?

Rules: Last updated in the Commander’s edition but may no longer be official. Rules for warp targeted lasers and atomic missiles (in Y1) may have implications for the sub-light rules for these systems.

Ships: The only SSD ever published for this era (that I know of) was the Gorn BB (the other ships used modified Middle Years SSDs - note that the SSDs on the sub-light game webpage were player created and introduce concepts that were never, to my knowledge, in the published rules). However there are tons of warp-refitted ships in the 3 Y-Modules which would (presumeably) be the starting point for reverse engineering the sub-light designs.

Scenarios: “Time Warp” (Nexus #1, updated in Update #2) & Gorn Shima (Expansion #1)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Yeah, given a timeframe (30-65) I'd track down and list all of your source data (or stuff in Y you can reverse-engineer backwards in time) and

ONLY THEN

decide if you're going to do it under SFB and/or the other tactical systems or try to make a deal for full thrust or just go invent something new.

And if Gary Carney mentions non-alpha, you have my permission to empty the gatorade cooler on his head. We'll worry about that much later, after this thing sells.

Ask jean for a title with sizzle, maybe FED-ROMULAN WAR or WHEN SPOCK WAS IN DIAPERS.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 04:52 pm: Edit

Does the Gatorade cooler have to have Gatorade in it?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Nothing worse than Gatorade, Richard. Put the wet cement back where you got it.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Fine, then. I'll stick to annoying people about the pre-ISC planets. (They are still in Alpha, after all...)


But in all seriousness, one source file that might be worth looking over is Module YG3 over on Warehouse 23.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 05:24 pm: Edit

What about OMEGAN Gatorade? *HIDES THE WET CEMENT*

...

I would think pre-ISC ships would appear in the 3rd Sub-Light Battles Expansion or so, and don't need to be addressed before that time.

I don't know if they have ANY fans out there, (other than Gary of course). In the sense that someone likes to play them over other Y-ships.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 07:31 pm: Edit

I didn't read this but I just want to put this out there.

I think Sub-light battles should be very similar to SFB game mechanics; even like a primer for playing SFB. Basically you just adjust the scale. Maybe one hex equal 100Km. The map is about one SFB mega-hex. (so yeah, a class M planet is big like a SFB gas giant.
You use the old 8 impulse chart from way back in SFB history. (or maybe make a 10 impulse chart?)

Movement works like this: One impulse gets you any speed up to eight. You get one facing change per turn. Additional impulse energy can buy more turn facings.

Lasers equal SFB ranges times eight (for the new scale).

Only for pure sub-light battles. No tactical warp for this game.

Disengagement is done by distance or by NTW (instant leave map).

Maybe finally create a coasting rule. Ships can coast at one hex per turn. No free turn but can use impulse to turn. (obviously with contingent energy).

Otherwise ships would be modeled on the Gorn BB. I think there would be little else to add to existing rules.

Use existing base class counters from SFB basic set. (uses old basic set counters so SFB can get the new design? Or did that already happen?)

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 07:33 pm: Edit

The point is to make it SFB-Easy-Quick.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Loren:

You should have a look at the old Commander's Edition sub-light rules which can be found on ADB's website at http://www.starfleetgames.com/sublight.shtml (either the "SFB Sub-Light Game PDF" or "Module Q rules PDF"). Note that the SSDs on the website use some charts and terminology that were never part of the published rules (to my knowledge)which I assume were player proposed additions or modifications to the rules (and should probably be ignored for the time being).

EDIT: the point being that "SFB Quick-and-Easy" was part of the original concept.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 08:55 pm: Edit

I'm not convinced that even a streamlined SFB - or FC, for that matter - would serve as the optimal venue for non-tactical-warp-based combat.


On the one hand, it would be relatively easier to try and reverse-engineer the W- and S-era SSDs from the three Early Years modules, but part of the problem in terms of generating interest in this setting seems to be that trying to re-work a game engine built to handle the ins and outs of tactical warp combat into one scaled to NTW play would be perceived as somehow offering less of an experience than the "regular" game. (The whole Ferrari-vs-bicycle dilemma that was once mentioned elsewhere on the BBS.)


On the other hand, the Star Fleet Universe landscape has changed significantly since the days of those old sublight rules - and not just because we now have three Y-modules to use as reference points. The emergence of Federation Commander, as well as the SFU adaptations of Starmada and A Call to Arms, has shown that there are other approaches that could be taken. Ones where it might not matter so much if the era has certain technological limitations relative to any of those in which tatical warp-powered combat is an option.

(Perhaps this scale of play might even make for a good venue in which to explore 3D tactical combat in the SFU.)

But then, there'd be the issue of how to go about creating the ships themselves. So far, the template has been to convert ships into FC (trimming out some of the details whih are extraneous to the newer game system in the process) and then using the resulting Squadron Scale Ship Card as the basis for conversions into third-party game systems. But the concept of having "new" ships enter the universe via a non-ADB-designed game engine first would push things into uncharted territory.

(There are a few units which have shown up in FC before being printed for SFB, but those still needed to be vetted for SFB compliance beforehand. And even then, it is easier to take a Ship Card and turn it into an SSD. Would the same be true for ships intended to be published first in a non-native game engine?)


It seems like there are two issues to address. It may seem that doing the setting in SFB or FC first might be the easiest to do from a technical perspective, but may not be the most suitable venue to actually play the era in. But if some other game system (or a brand new one purpose-built to serve the needs of this era) was a more attractive version for its potential audience, how difficult might it be to develop a ship creation system that remains compliant with how the universe is supposed to work?


Unless the solution might be to do the ships up in SFB or FC terms anyway, and then use the resulting SSDs or Ship Cards to adapt the setting into a new game engine. But if demand for sublight conflict in even one engine is a tough question to answer, how long would the odds of doubling down be?

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 09:02 pm: Edit

JEAN: do you have any ideas for a title with sizzle? (see SVC's comment above) Too soon?

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Gary, I'm not sure exactly what you meant by:

---

Quote:

I'm not convinced that even a streamlined SFB - or FC, for that matter - would serve as the optimal venue for non-tactical-warp-based combat.

---