Star Wars Sim Forum: Roleplay, Simming and Fan Fiction
COMMUNITY => OOC Cantina => Topic started by: SWSF Hoppus on March 27, 2020, 02:49:11 PM
Title: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on March 27, 2020, 02:49:11 PM
I am hankering for a game. Something that doesn't require as much mental creativity as writing a full blown RP story. Traditional star wars sim. Something lifted right out of AOL era, with almost no modification.
What say y'all?
I know I know.
But these are desperate times, and I need a fucking distraction.
My desire would be to do AE, split ourselves up into two or three factions, no more than 3 ships per player, cant have more than 2000m & 96 SFs under your command. We can exclude regions of the galaxy from the old map, to reduce scope a bit.
Otherwise try to leave it all intact as it is.
AE is my choice here. Could we get 3 vs 3 going at least?
I really mean leaving specs and etc just as they are here, Get it up and running quickly.
Any takers?
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: EmperorSeverus on March 27, 2020, 08:50:10 PM
I'm in.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hale on March 27, 2020, 10:07:20 PM
I'd be down for a mock battle in Flashpoint if you just want to blow shit up.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on March 29, 2020, 03:49:22 PM
Fishing for Hoppuses.
(https://i.imgur.com/ekbasum.png)
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 02, 2020, 11:46:06 AM
Probably not surprisingly I haven't felt motivated to do this. As soon as I start to look at the files again the nostalgia hits strong, then the realization that we have so few players, etc and the excitement fades quickly.
I've been trying to brainstorm a system that would work well for a text based forum. Things like grids and dice are out. It has to be a game set up to pleasant to play asynchronously, while being easy to understand/communicate a turn in text-only, that still allows for variability and strategy.
I think Magic the Gathering style of game hints more towards the direction that would work best for a simming forum, but using cards isn't ideal either... its a really tough problem to solve! I don't know that there is even a good solution for it, but I am tempted to try. Everything we've done until now hasn't quite hit the mark.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hale on April 03, 2020, 01:15:27 PM
Are these the droids you're looking for? (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=674546583&searchtext=)
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on April 03, 2020, 01:38:07 PM
Holy shit,
Donovan from Indiana Jones and Last Crusade is General Veers and if you turn the volume up blaring when he's talking to Indy at his house party and his wife comes in you can hear the pianist in the distant background playing Imperial March.
Ya Rebellion is pretty sweet. FFG is awesome. Would make a cool port for our purposes.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 03, 2020, 01:44:28 PM
That looks interesting. Going to bookmark it to look into later.
That isn't what I'm looking for, though, no.
I want a game that is tailored to be optimal for:
- 100% text based; eg, a written post on a forum with minimal formatting. - Asynchronous; turns/rounds are handled in a way that doesn't require being online at the same time. - Long-running, empire building.
I want something of our old game, in terms of conquering systems, story-lining, manufacturing units, and what not. But the traditional simming format doesn't seem to hold up very well with 1 player representing an entire faction.
I would love to have a game that we built, that is our own rule set, that is tailored to forum plain text posts, and that can go on indefinitely in the way old sims did. Ideally with multiple players representing their own little empires and republics with whatever ambitions they want to imbue them with.
Things I am relatively certain of for a game like this to work:
- I don't think grids are conducive to the game. - I don't think micromanaging combat is conducive to the game (i.e. firing 20 turbolasers at X) - Our old game lacked any real strategy, the new one should choose strategy over 'simulator' like combat (arcs/individual weapons). - A 'Turn' should be higher level and include combat (i.e. i post movement of units, contstructions, deployments, and so forth as part of a turn, a turn will also include an "attack" or "defense" round). Each player taking a turn should be a "simultaneous in time" thing. When we all complete our turn, the galaxy's clock ticks forward. - The above means that a battle for a planet might only last 2-3 rounds, or maybe less for more minor engagements.
I have no idea how that looks, really, in the end, besides I would hope that in a "combat"
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 26, 2020, 08:38:45 PM
I was kicking around some ideas again today but keep running into a wall. I know what I really want is the massively multiplayer game from AOL hey-days with a dozen people in my fleet coordinating to attack the enemy. And that is what we will never get back unfortunately, it seems. Sad feels.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 27, 2020, 03:51:02 PM
I want my old AOL sim universes back. What's wrong with kids these days!
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 28, 2020, 11:55:38 AM
I am still feeling whiny about this. My brain wants so bad to figure out a way to recapture that and start up a game again.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 28, 2020, 05:13:51 PM
It seems I am the only one that exists that still pines for this and wants to play an old game? Fine, you're twisting my arm. I am going to dig into the old warbooks again.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hale on April 29, 2020, 09:10:55 AM
The solution, if we want to get a large-scale game going again, is to go Turn-Based Strategy.
The hex map above would make for a great Civ-style getup, no?
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 29, 2020, 09:34:08 AM
The map is great. Can you be more specific about what you mean by Turn-Based Strategy? If you mean what I think you mean, I agree. Rather than having intricate "simulated' battles firing 23 turbolasers here, etc, you have a higher-level game?
I once built an almost functioning Civ3 engine for star wars units in PHP. I could definitely write one today. Basically you put together the list of units, the order you want them in, and any flags/settings for those units, and the defender puts in their list, and the battle is automated in the same way civ battles are.
Faster units can retreat (unless you set them not to), you can choose to only bombard with something like an ISD, which means it can fire once without consequence versus its full attack which is a series of dice rolls based on Attack/Defense/Modifiers, each loss reducing a hit point, until one unit reaches zero. There are more things.
Then the strategy goes into which units you choose to build your fleet with and what way to set them up, etc. Like in Civ 3, you would use a strong defense unit to protect your shit, bombard units to soften up the enemy, and cavalry or fast units to attack and be able to retreat before dying. How you designed your stacks had some strategy in it.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on April 29, 2020, 01:40:00 PM
Hex Gal Map?? Heeeyoooo, now we're talkin.
With turn based strategy you can easily make the 'combat' portion of the game more about positioning/dispersal of your Starships.
Give each starship a Hyperdrive Rating that determines how far it can move in one turn on the hex gal map.
Give each starship a Strength value. i.e. ISD = 10, VSD = 6 FRG = 3, CRK = 2, CRV = 1
Give players a static point value of Strength they can move in a given turn. i.e. 20.
So then if you have 4 ISDs, 3 VSDs, 7 CRKs and it's your turn to move, you're deciding what combination of those ships that adds up to 20 that you want to move and where to move them to. THose ships add up to 72 (? i think). So obviously yo ucan't move all your ships in one Turn. And come your next turn, you're not confined to moving ships that you didn't move the last time, it's just a limit so that each player can project the same amount of might in a given turn. Where having more starships than your 20 comes in to play is sort of like "Blockers/Occupiers". Where you send your ships in your turn, an opposing player may have ships of their own there, the idea is to move ships to where other players have ships to force the 'simulated battle', and also move your ships around to your own planets so that they are 'guarded' so to speak.
Resolution. So how do you get a determination of a 'Battle' in this gimmick?
Say something like to take control of a planet, you have to have 10 Strength value in ships there at the end of your turn, and they have to be there until the start of your next turn. Once this happens, you Control that planet and gain that planets values (whatever they may be, economy is a separate idea/topic)
In terms of 'Combat Simulation'. It's merely a matter of comparing strengths. So say its your turn, you have 20 strength points you can move now. Say you move 2 ISDs to Kashyyyk. The opposing player has 3 FRGs there (strength 9). The difference in strength is 11.
So make a chart that says what the results of the battle a
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 29, 2020, 02:01:45 PM
Meh, a simple power rating isn't nuanced enough. I would be happy to break things out into several ratings, and making a one off series of rolls to resolve a battle though, if it takes into account the various dynamics.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on April 29, 2020, 02:33:11 PM
you can't have it all ;p I'm not against rolling at all but it would seem to just add too much more time to back and forth posting vs one players turn and it all gets done in that single post. But is just a rough idea anyways shrug
A 20 vs 11 Power Rating Battle.
Make it a percentage. 11 Difference/20 Winners Rating = 55%. So 55% of the 9pts the Loser had are Lost.
9x0.55 = 4.95 round up to 5. Loser loses 5pts worth of ships. An FRG is 3pts, so 1 FRG is destroyed, 1 is heavily damaged. 1 survives and is sent to the nearest friendly world.
The heavily damaged ship is sidelined for that players next full turn or whatever.
The nuance of the game is about positioning. Where are your ships, are you moving ships to attack a small target and moving some ships to reinforce defense of other worlds of yours, are you moving ships for one large attack in your turn etc.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hale on April 30, 2020, 08:37:31 AM
Yes I believe we sketched out a system like this before...
Hyperdrive = number of grids you could move. Hyperspace lanes function as "shoots and ladders" giving you the option to "slide" from one system to the next. We treat units as "cards" so to speak, not dissimilar from CCG/TCG formats. I think for the defunct TRATE game we also had a tech tree, not dissimilar from Civ or other Strat games.
Personally I think whatever game we do next, it needs to be single-ended rather than open-ended. Like a board game, it can be set up, played, then put away.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 30, 2020, 08:55:53 AM
I think that makes sense; however, I won't lie that part of the appeal is the idea the game can go on and on and on. I know it is a bit irrational to be drawn to that aspect of it, since no game ever really even manages to get going beyond the first 30-60 days with any enthusiasm :shrug:
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on April 30, 2020, 12:58:00 PM
Re: Open/Single Ended. I see a game on the Hex Gal Board as kind of both. I mean, yeah it could go on forever but it could also get to a point of "Checkmate" so to speak if played just right and gone on long enough. In which case, it be designed simple enough that its easy to just set it up again and go. Basically a long distance chess match.
Re: Ships as "Cards". Im not sure I digest the difference in treatment. Make them simple and base with a strength value, maybe an ability or two that can be pitted against opposing 'Cards' so they can counter each other or something.
Re: Tech tree. Thats def cool. As an access type thing - Like certain worlds (or the facilities/traits they have) give you access to certain units or benefits to your ships/cards. This creates a driven purpose to go after particular worlds to achieve something other than just territorial holdings with a name.
Throwing Out General Ideas..
Maybe the Set Up is a critical part of the actual LIVE game itself.
At start every player gets someting like 20 Cards/Ships of equal strength or whatever the gauge is.
On your 1st turn, you pick 1 planet. All your Cards/Ships are considered to begin the game here.
In a turn, every player can only move the same # of/Strength Value or whatever worth of cards, so hypothetically if we start with 20, say its 10.
Say in the 1st Round of turns, there's no attacking.
Im a Rebel player, I draw 1st Turn. I choose Dac. All my cards/ships are here. I can move 10 of them now. I send 5 to Roche which is say well within HD range, and I send 5 to Kashyyyk which is say at the extended limit of my HD range.
Say Hop is an Imp player then and he's next. in Round 1 of the game. He chooses Corulag as his start world. His 20 Cards are there. He decides to send 4 to Kuat, and 6 to Carida.
Now I have 3 worlds under my contorl and Hop has 3 worlds under his control.
To expand a little further, maybe each planet has some imbued traits. i.e. Maybe to contorl a world you need a certain amount of Strength/Cards there. For canon Imperial loyal worlds, its easier. An imp player would only need 1 Card there to control it. For neutral or rebel canon loyal worlds, it would be harder, maybe they need 2 or 3 Cards there to control it. At same time, each world maybe has some traits/access. Maybe they give certain Cards/Ships new abilities, or maybe they allow access to diff Units/Cards etc.
So a planet has a Loyalty which determines how many cards/strength of cards or untis they need to be able to exert control of it. Controling it gives them the benefits of that planet, be in in tech/access or bonuses to their cards/units/more cards etc. This is the gist of the "economy"/reason for wanting to control worlds then.
To easily make the game Single Ended, you could say something as simple as Victory Conditions = A player controls 20 planets. So you could all be turtling and gaining worlds, but as soon as another player is at like 12-15 worlds, you start to worry and have to start knocking some of them off.
The idea of starting all at 1 place and getting 1 planet at start is, with the HD travel range and such, it creates zones of territory. Eventually (probably rather quickly) we are pushing up against other players zones and coming in to conflict by virtue of A) being close B) the story of the reb vs empire and C) trying to keep other players from occupying 20 worlds and winning the game.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 30, 2020, 05:08:49 PM
The broad strokes of that idea sounds very appealing. Boardgame + unit cards + bonuses from territory and individual worlds.
I like the Card aspect because it makes me think of Magic The Gathering... I was playing around with some sort of bastardized version where large capital ships were like lands, but netted you tactical points to use in a turn rather than Mana ot cast spells. That's all too much for this level of game.
I think you can do something similar in spirit though.
Controlling a planet nets some bonus Controlling X planets allows some sort of bonus/enables something/etc
Individual cards could have attack power, special capabilities, etc.
Imagine if a TIE Fighter card had a special capability like "nullifies an enemy bomber squadron"
Imagine an X-Wing Fighter card had a special capability like "Escort, prevents a bomber from being nullified"
We could reduce the number of squadrons reprsented in the game so you don't have dozens of SF cards always out.
Imagine an ISD with a capability that is "conquest: allows taking over a planet in some fashion" and "Battle Platform: takes a damage penalty to withdraw from a battle since it is slow and shit"
We would need to draft a long list of capability types/functions and prune them down and make something, but now how you craft your fleet means it fights in different ways against different enemies, but an "attack" is pretty straightforward in your turn, knowing what enemy units are present. But its nuanced!
Like, a pair four Assault Frigates loaded with X-Wings might be kryptonite to a single ISD, but would be in trouble against VSDIIs, ESCs, and an INT that doesn't let anyone escape the battle!
This could be fucking cool.
And someone could make us neat cards to put in our posts.
I like this.
You could even have cards you buy and cards you win (maybe large victories or something earn special points you can use to redeem "Leaders" that can be added to fleets and give them more special capabilities or options").
To summarize my combat vision with the XW/TF examples..
I have: 1 YW (Bomber, great attack against Capital class craft) 1 AW (Interceptor, great attack against SF) 1 CORV (Capital, great attack against SF and has a speedy retreat)
I exit at a Imp world with 2 TF 1 Carrack (Capital, great attack against Capital)
My attack would be a matter of choosing how to use each card.
- YW I set it to SF combat, with its poor rating, since a TF will nullify it. - AW I set to anti SF as well - CORV I set to anti SF because why not..
That gives me 12 Anti SF Points, 0 Anti Cap points or something for that round.
When the Imp player plays out his round, he can choose how to respond to that attack. - First he can play all his cards. - 2 TF anti SF mode - Carrack anti Cap mode
That gives him i dont fucking know 4 Anti SF Points and 0 anti cap points.
He also takes dmg: 12 SF points kills both his TIEs.
Next round...
Even that may be too detailed. Maybe it is just a one time comparison of damage: Who ever manages to kill off more of their enemy wins and the other has to retreat.
Some cool options here that allow us to avoid dice, damage charts and just look at indibidual units and treat them as a collective in combat.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on April 30, 2020, 05:17:30 PM
Alternatively each card can either be used to make ONE attack type (contribute SF or CAP damage points) or use ONE special capability (like nullify bomber cap attacks).
Maybe the Reb player doesn't know how it will play out -- if they use YW to attack Cap, they wont know if the other player is gong to nullify their Bombers, or use them to attack their SFs and do damage.
I dont know, lots of things to chew on in all of that and it would be good to know what an ideal battle flow "felt" like.
In CIVIII, you had turn based shit going on, you might have 2-3-4 turns of trying to sack a city (rarely more), meanwhile shields and gold were harvested each time, and time lept forward each round, etc. Do we ant something like that? The most you'd get is a 2-3-4 turns invested in a battle, and each turn is also you taking care of administrating your empire -- moving units, including bringing more in for support in a battle, starting new constructions, etc. Do you want to "construct" things or have some other way to repair/acquire new units? I think the Civ3 style would work well, especially if the card-based combat was interesting and not too overwhelming.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on May 01, 2020, 10:47:14 AM
unless im midunderstanding- Im not necessarily opposed to something like that but at moment I was thinking battle should be kind of automatic/1 post each. Like, you move your cards to a planet with opposing forces (cards) in your turn, and it's all determined right there.
It all boils down to positioning of your cards then on the hex gal map and their abilities/strengths as compared to the opposing cards they are facing if you send them to an 'in range' opposing controlled/carded planet. With everyones cards beginning at 1 hex location, the first few turns are probably our cards filtering out through the galaxy to control new worlds and gain those bonuses/traits/values. After a couple rounds of the game seeming more like a land grab, inevitably it quickly becomes showdowns of the cards. It is there VERY strategic in terms of where you are moving your cards as it relates to where other players are moving their cards.
If we create a system that requires back and forth to resolve 1 single battle, then it disrupts the regular flow of the other turn cycles where a single player is deploying/moving cards around on the hex gal map.
Like in your example...
you move 1 CRV card, 1 YW card and AW card to a hex location where opposing player has 2 TF cards and 1 CRK card..
You move your cards there via post and declare what other cards they are facing then.
so then looking at the traits of the cards themselves, the AW card automatically nullifies and destroys 1 of the TF cards.
The 1YW and 1CRV have traits/strength enough to destroy the 1CRK.
There remains 1TF then that wasnt faced/engaged.
so the opposing player can use the CRK and the 1 unegaged TF (armada rules, engaged fighters are bound?)
opposing player posts that 1 CRK facing the 1 CRV. It has the strength to kill the CRV.
Opposing player posts the 1TF engaging the 1YW that had attacked the CRK.
So the battle took 1 round, 1 post for each player the end result..
The attacker achieved his means. He killed the 1TF card and the 1CRK card.
He lost his CRV though from the counter attack by the CRK before it is considered dead.
His AWs had engaged TF1 and killed them, but they engaged so are considered to have had some damage, this means that come this players next turn, these AWs are 'frozen/repairing/replenishing'.
The same is true with his YWs then because TF2 engaged them but dont have the strength to kill them alone.
As the TF2 was not destroyed outright here, they are still lost, only because they have no HD rating to be able to escape though, so they are more or less 'forfeited' kind of. If they were say TIE Avengers, they could counter and then escape as well to the nearest friendly controlled planet.
The attacker has his 1AW and 1YW card left at this planet. But as stated above, they are both in a 'frozen/used/recovering' state because they were used/engaged.
The battle only took 1 round, there was some tactical nuance.
As a highlight of other possiblities, suppose TF2 was actually , TI1 card. TI cards have Interceptor capability, so maybe they were used to Intecept the YWs before they could attack the CRK. This would be kind of HUGE, because this would nullify the YWs attack on the CRK, and the CRV wouldn't have the 'POWER RATING" alone to kill the CRK. So now in his counter post, the Imp player cna use the CRK to attack the CRV, and kill it because it has the power to kill the CRV alone.
In contrast then though, if this were the case and TIs were present, the Rebel player would have likely use the AWs to engage the TIs, so that the TIs wouldn't be available to intercept the YWs, thus enabling the CRK to be killed.
In another contrast, if neither of the TF cards was a TF and both were TIs, then you see how a huge difference can be made just by replacing 2 TF cards with 2 TI cards. The 1AW could of course engage 1 of the TIs, but the other TI is then free to Intercept the YW and stop its attack on the CRK. The tide of battle turns simply because one of the TIs is able to stop the 1YW. The rebel player needs to go back and reconsider his strategy. Essentially ANY additional card would allow him to have killed the CRK and won the battle- a CRV card, because 2CRVs would have the POWER RATING to be able to kill the CRK, another YW, because the 2nd free TI card can only intercept 1 of the 2 YWs, or an additional AW card, because 2 AW cards can be used to engage/occupy 2 TI cards.
As an additional note, there is inherent pros and cons to the the TF, TI and TB cards. On one hand, they would be less 'costly' in terms of however we interpret the cost. Be it accumulated credit of some kind to 'buy' cards, or be it an expanding limit to the value of cards a player can have. On the other hand- they dont have HD, so they can't escape losing battles, and are forefeited at the end then because of this. ?
Just concepts all in all.
Again, all battle is done in 1 round. Not much disruption to the Hex Gal Map/Campaign movements/turns. Very quick. Strategic and Tactics in one?
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 01, 2020, 01:29:36 PM
I wasn't saying it was YW vs Target A, I was saying, "Use the YW Bomber Attack to +5 points to Capital Ship Attack Damage for my hand"
SO cards can: - Contrib to SF Attack Rating - Contrib to Cap Attack Rating - Execute special ability (like a TF nullifying a YW bomber attack, and so those +5 pts are lost)
Then I'd end the turn with:
+5 SF Attack +2 CAP Attack +1 "CSP Special Ability"
That damage gets taken when the nect player goes, and if they want to do a sF bomb attack, they'd have to do 2 to have 1 make an impact, etc.
The idea is to avoid specifying what you are attacking with what, just putting cards into a certain mode and contributing to a total attack. Then the enemy takes damage as it would like or whatever.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 01, 2020, 01:33:48 PM
Just read over your post again, and I could see the argument for that approach (it feels exciting).
I just wonder what it looks like when my fleet is 2 ISDs, 1 VSD, an ESC, and an INT with support craft. Would that be too much? Maybe not especially as we are sort of set and go without too much other distraction?
I think this vein of thinking has something to it.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on May 01, 2020, 03:07:09 PM
I got ya on the YW adding to capship attack
That is a big hand of cards but I would htink it still works kind of in a larger form. I would also though think/hope that the idea of a rush to controlling 20 planets each that you wouldn't end up with a concentration of cards like that to be sending all one place, but not to say it couldn't happen. As another concept though, we could also write in a basic max limit to a "Hand" of cards. i.e. any hand of cards you play can only be a maximum of 10 cards, regardless of the strength/value of those cards. So considering that each support unit is it's own card as well, it basically negates any value to having 2 ISD cards in one hand/place because if they're both carrying max support unit cards, it's already over the 10 you can play in 1 battle. ?
With respects to mentioning 'with support craft', Id think we are thinking of them all as repreented in a more compact form, like a card as we did in previous talk about 1 CRK and 2 TF cards. 1 TF card is about a squadron Im assuming we are thinking we are just representing it as easy as possible as a game token as possible.
So 2 ISDs, 1 VSD, 1 ESC, 1 INT. This is 5 cards in itself. We could say something like in the rules/guides of how cards work, for instance obviously TF/TI/TB cards (any unit without its own hyperdrive) needs to have another card that can 'carry' it, i.e. all of those capital ship cards you mentioned.
So maybe for example in an ISDs card we are stating how many Cards it can carry.
ISD I Card Class Heavy Capital Ship Hyperdrive 6 (means it can move 6 hexes in 1 turn) Power 10 (attack) Strength 20 (damage tolerance) Support 6 (it can carry 6 support class cards) Abils ?
TF Card Class Support HD 0 PWR 1 STR 2 Abils ?
TI Card Class Support HD 0 PWR 2 STR 3 Abils Intercept (can counter any support units attack move to negate it?)
YW Card Class Support HD 4 PWR 2/4 (1st is PWR v Support Type) STR 5 Abils Bomber (can attack capital ships)
XW Card Class Support HD 4 PWR 3/4 STR 5 Abils Bomber (can attack capital ships)
AW Card Class Support HD 4 PWR 4 STR 3 Abils Inteceptor
We then ahve to get in to relationship rules such as how cards interact and shit. i.e. what the Interceptor and Bomber designations mean. The idea that not every Card/Unit type can freely be used against any other card/unit type. i.e. a 1 ISD card is useless against 1XW Card. In terms of Abils, you take a unit like the Lancer Frigate, an give it's card the "Starfighter Screening" or "ANTI SF" trait/abil, meaning this type of Capship can be used against Support Unit cards. Or maybe even something like you can attach this card to the ISD card to make it immune to Support/SF attacks?
Also even though we give Capital Cards the ability to carry Support cards, maybe they can't use them all. So yeah ok, an ISD can carry 6 support cards - be it TFs/TBs/TIs/Aux types etc. But maybe it can only 'deal/deploy' so many of them. i.e. does an aircraft carrier ever launch all of its planes at one time and have them all deployed at once? doubtful outside of WWII era? (hale?)
So the idea of an ISD carrying 6 support cards and not being able to really use them all in 1 battle is sort of more an attrition/longevity type thing. Yeah it carries 6 on the plus side, and yeah it could say maybe only 'deploy/deal' 3 of them in a battle, and yeah it might lose them, but at the same time, it doesn't have to return to wherever you're keeping the replacements for those support cards to get new ones to keep patrolling the hex gal map. It might lose them in a battle, but it has others that it couldn't use all at once/all in one battle.
I dunno all together though. All a very fresh concept still. But overall I dig it and the potential.
On the surface of it all roughly though at this point to highlight maybe how the game might work I would be comfortable saying something like..
- Use the Hex Gal Map. Give each world a Loyalty Leaning (Rebel, Neutral, Imperial). Give each world a unique bonus or trait of some kind that gives each world its own distinct value. This value may make certain types of cards better, or may add to the total number/pwr of cards you can have or some shit.
- Each Player chooses 1 World at start as their Base/Capitol.
- A player builds a Deck of 20 cards initially. ( or also rated/limited by the total PWR of the cards or something maybe?) This whole deck starts at their 1 world.
- A player can play/deploy/move 10 cards (or an equatable/equal value PWR of cards) per turn on a measureable 'Hyperdrive' movement distance.
- A Battle is resolved with 1 back and forth round of the cards played.
- The game is played as a quest to control 20-25 planets. So the idea is obviously as always to get worlds for yourself and deny them of your opponent using the placement strategy of your cards and battle tactics of playing them.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on May 01, 2020, 03:15:11 PM
also as a note, I know Hale is very good with images as well, but I am willing to work on cards when we get to that point for us to use in posts to make it a nice picture vs not only text based game. We can come up with some templates basically for the cards and then all we have to do is fill in the values and pictures and anyone can work on them basically.
This enables another interesting idea.. the ability to incorporate UNIQUE cards- that is say something like any Capital Ship card that survives 5 "Battle Hands" can be given a UNIQUE designation, that is it's card transforms into a special card, where its value ratings are slightly better than the generic version of that ship type. i.e. conceptually a veteran experienced crew or osme shit
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 01, 2020, 03:30:59 PM
To reduce card bloat I was thinking of reducing the # that things cary and fudging the numbers a bit, or just untethering them entirely.
Instead, you have some limit total cards you can play/carry into battle.
A non-HS craft might require a capital ship with 'TIE SUPPORT' capability in the system, and to retreat one of those tie carrier ships must also be retreating.
If we are capping hands to 10-15 cards max, no need to be specific about how many.
Another thing to think about is limiting not just total deck size, but limiting how many cards can be played per round.
I know you want a one and done resolution, but I would be fine for it taking up to 3 posting rounds (CIV3 battles could take 1-3 depending).
Maybe we player 3-3-4 cards in a round, or even the cards you have determine when you play them (like SUPPORT ONLY-CAP ONLY-ALL CARDS DOWN-Loser retreats with surviving cards, winner stays).
EDIT:
I mean playing 3 cards, then 3 cards in next round, then the last 4. So the order you drop shit makes a difference. Attacker is essentially put on defensive first by deploying but not attacking. Maybe first player gets to lay out an extra card or something as a balance.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: Syren on May 01, 2020, 03:59:42 PM
Oh my God, I love you guys but a part of me thinks you love talking about it more than putting into practice. GreyJedi set you guys up for the massive saga you hashed out before the pandemic went down.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 01, 2020, 04:08:36 PM
OBVIOUSLY.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hale on May 01, 2020, 05:24:41 PM
Every post written for game development is a post that could've been written for an actual game.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 01, 2020, 07:28:38 PM
Yeah, but I haven't been in the headspace to write story, and building games and logic is a lot of fun and a welcome distraction.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: Syren on May 02, 2020, 07:12:02 PM
Of course, you do you. We are in the midst of collective trauma and I am not trying to diminish that. More of a snarky observation than a dis since I have watched you guys do it for years.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: EmperorSeverus on May 04, 2020, 09:27:01 AM
"I want my old AOL sim universes back."
Me too.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: Medivh on May 04, 2020, 11:08:04 AM
There is something ever so comforting in creating. Sometimes, making up games and rules can be more fun than playing them, it's true. It's the same reason why adults build with legos. They don't play with legos, they create with them, and then when they finish .. they build something new.
Anyways, I came on to wish everyone a Happy Star Wars Day. May the Fourth ... be with you.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 04, 2020, 12:27:08 PM
Indeed, Happy Fourth! And agree about the Legos. I feel part of the disease of constantly rebuilding is that phase is always fun, while the launch of our creations has always been problematic, too low participation, or plagued with other issues so that creating WITH the new game rules has failed to satiate that urge. Ergo, toss and rebuild again.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: EmperorSeverus on May 10, 2020, 07:37:18 PM
I thought the one with the four of us went well and the only real flaw was that none of us have time to do expense reports on a weekly basis. If we made expense reports a once a month thing, we could make it work again. And of course I prefer classic ship specs.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 11, 2020, 11:08:38 AM
Yeah, there is definitely a lot to say about the overhead of running a faction in the conventional way in a conventional set of simming spec rules. Setting up your faction was time suck, though also fun. I think the card concept that we chatted on recently was borne partially from that frustration. The idea of not having to build every detail and manage bank accounts, but having some other way to go about it that removes that part of the game. At the same time, some of us enjoy that part of things almost as much as we enjoy the battling!
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on May 13, 2020, 03:54:30 PM
Am working on this list a little bit again. It is the list from the hex gal map. Gave all planets a loyalty leaning and some resources, all info garnered from Wookieeped references. Obv is open to alteration/dispute if I haven't thought of or overlooked something or a compelling stance otherwise is presented.
The idea is to use it at some point to function for a game, whether it be cards, traditional specs (ew) or whatever. But itll be a comprehensive Gal Map + Planet List + Resources/World Value gimmick that can easily be translated to any sort of game ideally.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on May 13, 2020, 05:16:35 PM
Funny, I was looking at this and other elements from the Legacy of Endor/Return of Endor rulesets we had collaborated on. I had the thought that if we could nail down a system where each world had some unique benefit to give a sim that made them worthwhile, and we could replace the "earn X credits a month" aspect of running a faction, it would be a big step towards getting something going again.
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Hoppus on July 31, 2020, 09:06:45 AM
Been thinking about those old AOL sims a lot these days :*(
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: SWSF Eidolon on August 01, 2020, 10:52:42 AM
I miss the days we never had
Title: Re: Not to bring it up again but...
Post by: Ramano on September 08, 2020, 10:56:48 PM
<sighs> back when there were 20 active players in each faction and a full blown battle could crash the forum servers. Lol
Have any of you ever heard of Dungeons & Dragons Birthright? Its based off 2nd edition AD&D but i think could work, highly adapted of course, for this. It was my idea for a tabletop pen and paper game. Would be even easier here as we wouldnt need dice.