Suicide Shuttles

[Hod K'el]

Tony, better to be a chimp than a chump.

Okay Mike...I see the rule and understand the meaning and function of the rule. So by your rules, when two shuttles collide in space, everybody walks away unhurt, but by my thinking, I have a six point shuttle that can take six points of damage, so that when another shuttle runs into it, it takes the six points of damage from the other shuttle while giving six points of damage also, thus both shuttles are gone, destroyed in a firey crash as the engine comes ripping through the seat where your were sitting just before you ate the forward windshield. (Just making dramatic since no one is actually in either of the shuttles.)

It is still cost effective since you spend two to destroy, at a minimum setting, a three banger, leaving your PH-3's for incoming drones or plasma torps. From the attackers side, it is still worth it since you force the defender to use more energy (if you loaded your SS with one point of power) than you did.

[mjwest]

So by your rules, when two shuttles collide in space, everybody walks away unhurt, but by my thinking, I have a six point shuttle that can take six points of damage, so that when another shuttle runs into it, it takes the six points of damage from the other shuttle while giving six points of damage also, thus both shuttles are gone, destroyed in a firey crash as the engine comes ripping through the seat where your were sitting just before you ate the forward windshield. (Just making dramatic since no one is actually in either of the shuttles.)

Well, first, it is not "my rules", but rather just the rules as written. No divergent interpretation involved in this one.

Second, two shuttles cannot "collide in space" unless at least one of them is a seeking weapon (i.e. a suicide shuttle). Non-seeking weapons cannot "collide" with anything smaller than a moon or planet; they just move right past each other. So, if you have two manned shuttles trying to play chicken, they will never actually collide. Just like two ships cannot collide.

[DirkSJ]

I forget where I read this but my understanding is that drones and suicide shuttles actually explode a ways away from the target and the blast from the explosion damages the target. A drone never actually hits the ship nor another drone. The two never actually touch each other. Same with SS.

[Scoutdad]

I forget where I read this but my understanding is that drones and suicide shuttles actually explode a ways away from the target and the blast from the explosion damages the target. A drone never actually hits the ship nor another drone. The two never actually touch each other. Same with SS.

Hence my post several posts back...

[Hod K'el]

So now we are talking area-of-effect weapons...but wait, that is what a mine is...and a ship explosion...both of which we cannot use...because of the rules. Possible concept of a drone hitting a ship in hex 2545 only doing damage against one ship, but two ships are in that hex, but now we have an area-of-effect weapon. So now we have to say that are-of-effect weapon only affects that one ship because of proximity. And here I thought that only applied to horseshoes and hand grenades.

But, oh, my! Inaccuracies upon inaccuracies, or assumptions upon assumptions, or maybe it is simply ignoring the details and sweeping on to grand fallacies?

Again, I find my self taking a certain attitude. Whatever.

[ericphillips]

According to the rule book (Ramming, 2A3g), "... seeking weapons work because the warhead is triggered when the warp fields touch." So, it is not really proximity like a mine (which in SFB can trigger up to 20,000km away); the drone gets close enough for the warp fields to connect. Probably just beyond the edge of the shields, IMHO.

Ramming does not work because the warp fields slide past each other, so they cannot ram, and a ship will not trigger an explosion like a drone.

[ericphillips]

But, oh, my! Inaccuracies upon inaccuracies, or assumptions upon assumptions, or maybe it is simply ignoring the details and sweeping on to grand fallacies? Again, I find my self taking a certain attitude. Whatever.

Have you ever thought of writing your own game, so it is as you think it should be?

[DirkSJ]

So now we are talking area-of-effect weapons...but wait, that is what a mine is...and a ship explosion...both of which we cannot use...because of the rules. Possible concept of a drone hitting a ship in hex 2545 only doing damage against one ship, but two ships are in that hex, but now we have an area-of-effect weapon. So now we have to say that are-of-effect weapon only affects that one ship because of proximity. And here I thought that only applied to horseshoes and hand grenades.

But, oh, my! Inaccuracies upon inaccuracies, or assumptions upon assumptions, or maybe it is simply ignoring the details and sweeping on to grand fallacies?

Again, I find my self taking a certain attitude. Whatever.

I think you are misunderstanding the scale; there is no inaccuracy or mismatched assumptions.

Lets take our miniatures that ADB creates. Now lets put them in a scale hex. Each hex is 1.5 miles across. That's how big hexes are and how small ships are. That's why you can have any number of ships in a hex.

Drones do a tiny little explosion, yes it's area of effect, but it's pinpoint tiny compared to a hex and no other ship ever flies close enough to be in that same area of effect. Maybe it's a few inches diameter explosion in scale. Teeny compared to a 1.5 mile wide hex.

T-Bombs from SFB are...unbelievably massive in explosion size. For our tiny little ship miniature, the scale explosion is 4.5 miles in diameter.

Your drone is a firecracker. Your T-Bomb is a nuke. Sure they are both area of effect. But hitting two people with a thrown firecracker isn't nearly as easy as with a nuke.

[terryoc]

Mines are a "subspace" explosion, drones are nuclear. (That's from comments by SVC on the legacy board). That's why there's a difference. There may also be force fields involved, resulting in a sort of "shaped charge" effect, concentrating the energy on the target, in the case of drones.

[storeylf]

So now we are talking area-of-effect weapons...but wait, that is what a mine is...and a ship explosion...both of which we cannot use...because of the rules. Possible concept of a drone hitting a ship in hex 2545 only doing damage against one ship, but two ships are in that hex, but now we have an area-of-effect weapon. So now we have to say that are-of-effect weapon only affects that one ship because of proximity. And here I thought that only applied to horseshoes and hand grenades.

But, oh, my! Inaccuracies upon inaccuracies, or assumptions upon assumptions, or maybe it is simply ignoring the details and sweeping on to grand fallacies?

Again, I find my self taking a certain attitude. Whatever.

Have you ever considered SFB, I believe it goes down to the level of detail that you may find more up your street.

[DirkSJ]

Have you ever considered SFB, I believe it goes down to the level of detail that you may find more up your street.

I personally believe realism is about the most overrated thing in gaming. Games should be fun and have interesting mechanics that lead you to think at every decision point. How close it is to some arbitrary reality is irrelevant to me.

I own an awful lot of what the BGG community refers to as "german style games". They are full of great mechanics and really interesting strategy. They also tend to have small wooden cubes all over the place representing all manner of strange concepts and don't necessarily represent any given reality very accurately.

[marcus_aurelius]

I have never been overly concerned about thinking (or overthinking) the "realism" of the technology or mechanics. As long as it provides interesting trade-offs in strategy then it is fine with me. Since it is science fiction there is automatically the need for the willful suspension of disbelief.

Also, if I remember a designer's note from my old SFB Designer's Edition correctly, each turn would only represent 1/30 of a second based upon the exact mathematics. This would be based upon 1 hex per turn = speed of light = 299792.458 km / s and 1 hex = 10,000 km. So with even long battles taking less than 1 second in FC and SFB, this would seem to override any other concerns about technical "realism."

The strategy is fun, so that is enough for me.

[MisterBlamBlam]

Okay, here is a hypothetical question. Could one expend extra energy into a suicide shuttle and hold that shuttle in one's bay to be launched in a turn following it's arming? As a follow on, could one add energy to said shuttle on the following turn and then launch it? Just curious...

Mister Blam Blam

[terryoc]

MisterBlamBlam, not under Federation Commander rules. In FC, you pay for it at the moment of launch. In SFB, it takes 3 turns (IIRC) to charge up a suicide shuttle.

[Capt Jack]

SS are very good in Asteriod fields as the enemy isn't going fast due to damage caused by entering asteriod hexs. Because SS go slow they rarely take damage in asteriod hexs. Also shoot in packs if possible. What about Black holes? Will SS be destroyed going 16+ is it?