Star Wars Sim Forum: Roleplay, Simming and Fan Fiction
SIMMING UNIVERSES => SWA | Flashpoint (PAUSED) => Topic started by: SWSF Eidolon on January 14, 2021, 04:20:59 PM
-
For discussions/questions related to the mock to try and keep mock thread itself clean and battle activity containing posts only now that we are about started..
Note: I will post my H grid locations and status either tonite or tomorrow as now that Hop has posted his exit/location/actions I believe I am up?
-
So it isn't clear to me if I have all my AP when I exit hyperspace or not. Do I?
-
Can I exit hyperspace and immediately move into the battle grid? It doesn't say I can't, and since the mock has no history, I think I have all of my AP available to me?
-
Here's the relevant blurb (in red) from the rules:
HYPERSPACE MOVEMENT
There is no travel time between systems, but entering hyperspace requires 1 AP. Note that you do not get to replenish your Action Points until a new round begins, and so an attacking force should always start their turn with -1 AP for Light CAP and SF/AUX and -3 AP for Heavy CAPs (as to reflect the AP it took to move to that system via hyperspace). If a capital ship performs an attack that depletes most of their AP, and they use their last AP to enter hyperspace, that capital ship's total AP would be 0 when they exit hyperspace elsewhere. If they exit hyperspace in a contested system, that capital ship must wait until the current round is done before it can replenish its AP. If that capital ship exists hyperspace in a non-contested system, then it must wait 24 hours to "cool down" before its full AP is restored.
-
Great thanks. I read that many times but interrupted with work stuff each time and my brain never digested it.
-
Whos up, Ram?
-
Yes, I think Ramano can now exit HS and move into the main battlespace if he so chooses; either way I'm on deck.
-
Ok i dont understand the AP. How many do we have? I have 2 pbc so do i have 13 or 26 per turn and do ALL of them replenish every post?
-
well each ship only has its own, so its 13 each individually. and each subunit (aux/sf) as its own individual
so 1 PBC has 13 AP (your Starvipers and Droids have their own to operate once you've deployed them)
it could move forward 2 spaces at the cost of 3AP each, 13-6 = 7. So now it spends those remainint 7AP to fire 7 weapon emplacements, 2 of its 2 Quad TUrbolasers and 5 of its 8 Lasers canons is 7 emplacements.
So using your 13AP in this hypothetical turn that one PBC moved forward 2 spaces and fired 7 weapons at whatever targets
AP is the 'activity fuel' controlling the volume of what a unit can do in a single turn.
Note for your PBC to fire all of its weapons, (10 total emplacements) in one turn, it has to spend 10AP, leaving only 3AP remaining.
Because the PBC is a Heavy class ship, to move 1 space costs it 3AP. While a smaller ship moves at less AP cost.
So adds tactical depth more or less instead of just saying "everything can be done once in a turn always" I guess. In the previous model, the PBC would be much more limited actually in terms of movement, because with 13 AP, it can move 4 Grid Spaces forward (costs 12AP) in a single turn. In traditional methods of regulating what and how much of it can be done, a PBC would never be able to move that far in a single turn, it's speed would be a 1 or a 2 max.
I think it's positive across the board and simplifies everything once you adapt your thinking to it
So in your turn you move all your individual units and take other actions with them according to their AP and try to use up as much of your AP as you can because it doesn't carry over, it just starts full again for each unit come your next turn. So if you have 1AP left at the end of the turn for a capship after doing everything else you wanted to do with it, you probably want to just use it to do Damage Control action as in the Action List.
-
Take note of particulars, such as Shield Banks on a ship. Once your shields are at 0, you have to spend the 1AP to Raise Shields again. Doing so each time your shields hit 0 up to the # of Shield Banks you have on a ship in a given battle.
If the damage your ship is taking in an attack that overwhelms your shields to hit 0, that overage is of course being done to the ships Armor. So it a ships shields are 80 and it takes 100 damage, 20 is going to Armor. Even though come your next turn you can use another bank of shields to Raise them to full again with the 1AP. The Armor wound has been inflicted.
Kind of a cool new dynamic
-
No no, i do like the concept. Such as a captain transfers all power to engines. Sure a PBC cant normally move that far but this allows a bit more freedom to do out of the box tactics. I am interested in the opportunities it affords. I just wasnt sure how they spend and recharge. I will post here shortly. Thank you.
-
Yep, so your job is to spend as much AP as you can each post, because whatever you don't spend cannot be "banked."
AP is restored to full every round.
Very much of a tabletop kind of dynamic, which is what the game is going for.
-
Round 1 in the books.
-
This is a crazy week suddenly for me, I'll try to keep posting, may not have as much time as I'd like to do a good job of it.
-
No excuses fuckers!
Battle post doesn't have to be done all at once, just start the draft and start going through your units 1 at a time.
Im pretty excited for our current little bottle of steam building up. Diligence doesn't have to be swift!
-
Damn I missed this shit!
FYIs will be out on the ice trying to pull fish through til Sunday evening.
-
Alright guys you gotta give me a minute with this one. I dont have a pc to make all my fancy maps to keep track of everyone and distances and stuff so its just numbers chaos right now. Lol
-
In case it helps, even though its probably not discernable to anyone besides myself ;p It's extremely rough, but it helps in a pinch. If you cut and paste the keyoard grid hale made and change the gray background then to white you can resize font and get 2 per page.
The tiny turds are your guys PBCs (P), the little (- things are Hops Marauder Corvs (MC), the Triangles are Hales VSDs (V), the Sperms are my RAFs (R). SFs are just their Letter Designation (A, SV, VCX, BB, V).
(https://i.imgur.com/QrV2czx.jpg)
-
Nice!
I made myself a scratch grid as well. Having fun yet?
-
actually that helped greatly. Most appreciated!
-
No sweat! I'll try to write a little more legible and keep updating as we go. It'd be sweet if we get a uni going out of this eventually and to have a binder full of all the battles eventually.
BUT Awwww shit, 2 Rounds complete, everyone just about in attack position!
THE SUSPENSE
-
Oh im already well passed attack position, im just trying to figure out this AP vs need to do damage thing. Just not used to it is all. New rules, no computer, rusty as hell, i feel like a noob lmao!
-
now help me out on a few things please. With fighters, when launching them which craft has to pay the cost, the capship or the fighter? When fighters attack, how does that work, Do i pay 2ap to attack + 1ap for each weapon i fire? Can i fire lasers and warheads in the same post from a fighter? Can fighters launch and attack in the same post? Or if in range, recall? (Basically i launch fighters, attack with them close enough that i can still get them back to the ship, then recall them. All in the same post)
-
Deployment of SF/Aux AP is charged to Mothership
Attacking with SFs..I *THINK* 'Attack Run' @ 2AP cost is for ground facilities only maybe... or perhaps kinda like a bombing run that gets bonus UCR or something? I forget..
*PUSHES the "HAIL HALE" BUTTON*
is always 1AP fires 1 Weapon for all units though I know, Cap, SF, AUX, Inf, GAV. The number of weapons you can fire per round/turn is once per emplacement @ cost of 1AP per emplacement tho.
So if you have 10 weapons of whatever kind, and 12 AP, then you can fire them all once and have 2AP left to do something else
-
Alos cant fire same weapon twice
-
So if you notice in the specs, SF/AUX actually have AP as well. The following actions cost AP for SF/AUX:
AUX Movement/Maneuver (1 AP)
SF/AUX Combat Space Patrol (1 AP)
SF Movement/Maneuver (1 AP)
SF Attack Run (2 AP)
Fire 1 Weapon (1 AP)
SF Attack Runs allow a starfighter to fire any or all of their warheads.
Firing 1 non-warhead weapon costs 1 AP.
Let's look at an example:
Suppose an X-Wing Squadron is in a grid space on CSP, and it decides to break CSP and moves across two grid space. Here breaking CSP costs nothing, but moving does (2 grids, -2 AP). The X-Wing squadron now has 4 out of 6 AP remaining. It could go on an attack run (-2 AP) and fire its proton torpedoes, which would bring it down to 2 out of 6 AP. With these last 2 AP, the X-Wing Squadron could fire 2 Laser Cannons for more damage or effectively do a "hit and run" by moving AWAY 2 more grid spaces (presumably back to a safe grid). Any combination of these actions are permissible, so long as you have the AP to spend.
There is no "fire-then move" or "move-then fire" rule. AP is absolute. It can be spent in whatever manner and in whatever order you want.
-
Sf attack run rules should be written up more specific
-
Done!
-
Thank you much!
-
So it was brought to my attention that CSP needs to be beefed up. I am going to do a 2.0 update on the rules AFTER the mock that will expand SF/AUX functionality, but for now we will implement this new rule regarding CSP:
ENGAGING CSP
When starfighter/auxiliary unit A engages starfighter/auxiliary unit B (that is on CSP), starfighter/auxiliary unit A cannot break away from the dogfight until starfighter/auxiliary unit B cancels its CSP or is destroyed.
(This rule is meant to prevent "hit and run" attacks on CSP.)
Note: it is still possible to attack CSP from a distance using warheads, but this does not count as "engaging the CSP." Starfighter/auxiliary unit A has to enter the same grid as starfighter/auxiliary unit B (that is on CSP) in order to engage it.
-
I think the concept of CSP can be replaced with the concept of Engagement (same idea, SF force engagement, its preventing fighters from attacking other targets). But you know that ;)
-
Shots fired!
(https://i.imgur.com/V6mLLP2.gif)
-
That being said I don't think this set up is bad. It's an interesting twist that you have to dedicate some of your AP to keeping your enemy engaged with you.
-
Not to mention, limits on AP leads to 'tactical creativity' because the ole' dogpile is not an option as it has been in previous games. All in good fun.
-
If a CSP squad is dealt enough damage to destroy it, is it considered engaged/destroyed -- e.g. can I bomb a capital ship the same turn I deal enough damage to totally destroy a squadron on CSP?
Post is half way done will finish in morning.
-
Annnnnnnnd we're simming =)
-
Per the new rule, you actually have to send a SF/AUX into the same grid as the CSP in order to engage it.
Capital Ships cannot engage CSP by shooting at them, like I did in my last post.
Other SF/AUX cannot engage CSP by shooting from a distance. They actually have to enter the grid. Although, if you simply wait one round, those SF on CSP will blow up, so it's more of a timing thing.
If you're not in a hurry, you can wittle down CSP from a distance. If you are in a hurry, then you need to send in the dogs if you want to do a massive bombing run.
-
Ok, so to clarify:
- Dealing sufficient damage to destroy a unit does not remove it from the gameboard; a squadron on CSP that is shot down by Cap Ship guns, is still "On CSP" even though it has enough damage dealt in that turn to destroy it.
-
Also - if a squadron engages the CSP, can it fire some of its weapons at targets that are not that CSP? Example, Vulture Droids fire lasers at TIE Int, fire Buzz Droids at VSD?
-
We may need to tweak this a little bit, but per the "How to Blow Stuff Up" section of the rules: 4. If enough damage is done to a ship to make it explode, then it CANNOT RETURN FIRE, EVEN IF it has enough Action Points to do Damage Control.
This applies to every unit, but maybe we can make an exception for SF/AUX and allow them to resolve all damage at the end of their turn rather than at the beginning.
As for engaging a squadron on CSP, per the new rule you cannot "break away" from the dogfight to attack another target. So for example, an X-Wing cannot engage a TIE Fighter with lasers whilst also firing its proton torpedoes at the ISD.
-
Ok that makes sense, something about how Buzz Droids work made my mind loopy (since they aren't like warheads, they are their own little things...). Speaking of which, the wording in the Vulture Droid description - I first took to mean they could deploy Buzz Droids at no AP cost. But then I re-read (last night) and its actually just that Vulture Droids themselves are deployed at no AP cost, correct? Firing buzz droids still costs AP (that the Vulture Droid pays)?
-
Right so normally a capital ship would have to burn 1 AP to launch a starfighter, but that does not apply to Vultures. They can be launched for free. Afterwards, they are on their own AP budget like every other fighter.
Just think of the Buzz droids like warheads with 0 RNG and 1 DMG. Although they are not warheads for the purposes of an attack run. Treat them like firing a weapon (1 AP).
-
Fighters have no systems? How do Ions work against Fighters?
-
Ion cannons do regular damage vs fighters.
-
For the Rules update, it's clear we need to expand SF functionality, so we'll just put that on the top of the development list.
-
Sorry, I am taking awhile to do my post. Figuring out tactics, rules, etc. I will try to post first thing in the AM!
-
Capturing some thoughts impressions: I almost wish each unit had only 1 attack choice in a turn, rather than multiple weapons to spend individualized AP to fire? I feel like that would have simplified things in my previous post? Like - VultureDroids have a Dogfight Attack and Bombing Attack rating. Capital ships have primary arc, secondary arc, anti sf. Caps could use 2 of 3 in a turn but not against the same target? I dunno.
That being said I can see the joy in the AP system. It was time consuming just because math and matching attacks to tolerances... It would be a little more interesting if there were a way to move the game away from that tight number crunching to something higher level - I am not sure how to put into words exactly what I mean.. but make it less about finding exactly how many lasers you need to kill unit X and more about how you engage and tie up units... i dont know.
Anyway, fun! Just took my awhile and my time is really limited this week.
-
Oh and the other thing is that this system still encourages dog piling, I think the shield banks have that unfortunate consequence. The only thing that prevents it would be limiting each grid space to one capital ship. Then ranges, deployment, etc becomes more of an element, too.
-
Good point. I think dogpiling is inevitable.
I think if we adopted some sort of "unit packing limit" per each grid space, then we could expand the whole space grid to give tactical movement more room.
Maybe a good rule of thumb would be 2 Heavy Capitals per grid, which can reduce to 4 Light Capitals per grid; or a combination of 1 Heavy and 2 Light.
-
I dislike rules that get that specific and have to be held in the head. I think keeping it simple and streamline would be worth trying out first - 1 Capital Ship or platform per grid space. SF/AUX unlimited.
I think how CSP is set up is also more complicated than a straightforward engagement rule - you end the turn in an grid space with enemy fights, you are engaged. If you are engaged, you cannot move or attack another target than those you are engaged with. Caveats: Bombers don't prevent enemies from moving away; Interceptors must be outnumbered to be prevented from moving away; Escort fighters must be attacked before other fighters in the grid space can be attacked. So, 1 squad engages ALL enemy fighters that enter a grid space. Even if I send 6 X/W against 1 T/F those X/W are engaged. They will destroy the T/F, but still stuck for that turn. If X/W and Y/W in a grid space, T/F that enters has to attack X/W. Y/W cant go anywhere (its engaged with T/F), but X/W is shielding it from being destroyed so it can get to its eventual bombing run. This will also make deployment and positioning important.
The combination of those two changes would mean no more eveything dies in a turn, and more strategy. But remains to be seen. I would be up to test it out after this mock for the sake of seeing if it actually helps, hinders, or makes no real difference.
-
FP Warbook rule inconsistency?
COMBAT SPACE PATROL
1. This is a special task that only SF/AUX can do. After being deployed, SF/AUX can be assigned a single grid space to protect. Their job is to intercept all incoming enemy SF/AUX that enter that grid. Doing so prevents enemy SF/AUX from being able to attack friendly capital ships in the same grid space.
2. So in order for the enemy to attack a friendly capital ship, they must engage your SF/AUX first on a 1-for-1 basis (1 SF/AUX for 1 SF/AUX). Note that SF/AUX cannot attack and then go on CSP in the same turn. It's one or the other.
3. When starfighter/auxiliary unit A engages starfighter/auxiliary unit B (that is on CSP), starfighter/auxiliary unit A cannot break away from the dogfight until starfighter/auxiliary unit B cancels its CSP or is destroyed. Note: it is still possible to attack CSP from a distance using warheads, but this does not count as "engaging the CSP." Starfighter/auxiliary unit A has to enter the same grid as starfighter/auxiliary unit B (that is on CSP) in order to engage it.
ATTACK RUNS
Starfighters and Auxiliaries can perform Attack Runs on enemy units during battle for 2 AP. During an Attack Run, any or all warheads can be fired at a target. Because some warheads have non-zero range, it is possible for one SF/AUX unit to engage another SF/AUX that is on CSP without ever entering their grid space!
what am I not getting that this sounds contradictory to me? Should the verbage in Attack Runs not use the term 'Engage' but instead 'Attack' orrrrr ?
Based solely on what Mocha II shows us to this point..
1) Hops SVs smoked = Consider giving SF/AUX units only a dying shot. Maybe like half of their AP available at start of the next turn they'll be dying that can be used for Attacks only. ? Just a thought. Always seems lame to me any time any unit is dead without firing a shot.
Lastly, are there any rules changes discussed here and implemented for Mocha II that are not updated in the FP Warbook rules that I should be considering in my currently formulating post?
-
Regarding unit massing/dogpiling, I'm not at all against it but I also think in some context we have to consider a potential larger picture scheme..
If we were to move foward FP to an Ongoing Sandbox game with hypothetically say 25 planets even, are our units spread out across the Galaxy more and thus not able to particpate in the same battle en masse?, so is a battle with..
4VSDs & 4 RAFs & 24 SF/AUX vs 4 PBCs, 2 MCRVs and 40 SF/AUX something we are going to see in that arena? or is this more like the Battle of Jakku scenario in the FP Universe? Personally, I think there's more strategical benefit to placing your ships apart anyways. At the very least, you need to cover 2 different headings even from the same grid space to make sure your field of fire is a little wider.. at least that's my modus.. i'd rather be shooting at you with multiple units from multiple directions vs multiple from one even if it's only for the sake of meaningless narrative in my head ;p
Also, you run in to the problem of grid size. If its' 2 Heavy per grid space, well you're already spilling over in to the G Column because you cannot deploy 8 Heavys (4VSDs, 4RAFs) in the 3 H grid spaces.
Consider perhaps phasing it in but in a lighter fashion at first. Phase 1 if this grid space occupancy limitations route would be like..
1 Grid Space per Players Capships.
That is, Opposing Capships CANNOT end their turns in the same grid space. If an Enemy ship moves in to and ends it's turn in your grid space, it is considered to have Rammed you, taking 50% of it's current hull strength in damage itself and dealing 33.3% of it's hull strength to one opposing ship in that location.
So then in the game it plays out also more organic kind of as a deliberate move thats bad for everyone as opposed to just an overhead limitation.
Not you would have to END your move in the same grid space as opponents capships, moving through in the course of a full move has no effect.
-
RE: warbook
Yeah I think I just slipped up with my verbiage there regarding attack runs. It should simply read "...it is possible to ATTACK another SF/AUX on CSP..."
Good catch.
RE: scaling
Remember the original intent of this game was to have fewer worlds, and a limited number of resources to use for both offensive and defensive purposes.
My opening fleet at launch time (12 OCT 19) consisted of 2 PBCs, 3 DREADs, and 2 HHFs.
With that sort of scale, a massive battle like Mocha II really would be decisive, given how the fleets we're using would effectively be 80-90% of what we'd have at a start up. I would wager that we'd only bring 50-60% of our total force to a battle, which means the scales we're seeing at Mocha II probably won't actually happen in practice.
-
Umm i think its important to point out these grid spaces in reality are 3D ie: x, y, and z axis and would be 10s of thousands of km square. Why are we limiting ships per grid? Realistically each grid could "hold" dozens of SSDs. Seems a mechanic just to have a mechanic. Unnecessary if you ask me.
-
That's another good point too. I think we should err on the side of minimal rules, and just accept dogpiling as a brute fact.
-
I will vote in favor of looking at the grid as a gameboard, and not thinking to hard. If one ship per grid leads to a more fun game that is reason enough to do it!
-
i like spacing, is not about representing any sort of 'reality' as it pertains to a fantasy but a well structured game
I think it could be beneficial to adopt some minimal form of it. Even something like only 1 players capships can be in a grid space. This naturally allows you to either group in one or space/angle out for more field of fire or build a blocking wall (useful to prevent troop landing ships from rushing to a planet).
Just a thought.
Re: Scaling
That doesn't mean would couldn't use a minimal set sandbox for the freaks who are stuck on that sorta thing ;p (me)
-
Yes, limiting to one faction per grid space reaps some benefit. But I remain bullish on 1 ship per grid space! Even if that means expanding the grid slightly to accommodate it. It would radically change how ships engage each other. Allowing unlimited same-faction ships in 1 grid space doesnt stop a world where all ships fire at all ships, we occupy 2 grid spaces the whole battle, etc.
Imagine a world where smaller cap ships can be used to delay, block, corral the enemy ships, or to screen your high value targets (maybe troop transports, for example, for rebs who don't have ISDs to haul things around). Also only so many enemy ships will be in range in this new world, which means a more diverse set of engagements (and choices to make). It's not all my cap ships fire on your 1 ship and kill it. Its I can only maneuver 2 of my ships to even get in range and fire on my primary target, etc. I mean so many cool possibilities here!
-
What about a maximum meterage per space? I understand Ramano is technically correct- space is vast, but for gameplay purposes, a meterage limit could be helpful. It could also create some interesting tactical maneuvers. For example, if you want to shut another player's capital ships out of a grid, you could fill it up (though of course, that leaves your ships possibly more vulnerable to being surrounded/less flexible), or if you want to make an attack on an opponent, it might need to come from multiple directions/grid spaces.
Also, cap ships not only take up space but need space to maneuver (otherwise you end up with a scenario like in ESB, where the star destroyers got too close and hit each other)
That might be more complicated than "1 cap ship per side per grid", though of course, a cap ship could be 300 meters or 8000 meters.
It's been a while since I've looked into rules, but the issue of grouping/dogpiling has been one of the hardest parts of creating a set of rules.
-
Re: 1 ship per grid space + bigger grid to accomodate, Im not saying its not a cool prospect, just that it's the most mental jogging of the options to adjust grid occupancy/positional relationships for a little more optimal process of battle.
There is nothing keeping a person from placing their ships spaced out now and there isn't necessarily a tactical advantage to just lumping all your stuff in one spot. Hale and I both deployed spread out, the nature of the moves to keep our 'line of battle' and the least use of AP to keep headings optimal for field of fire dictated that my 2 pairs of RAFs ended 2nd Round in same grid space as each other albeit with different headings*. Hale is now even more spaced out, almost trying an enveloping maneuver.
With all your ships in 1 location and 1 heading, you can dogpile yeah, doing the exact thing in gameplay you express disdain for ;p but that was your choice. I don't think there's necessarily an ignrained tacticla benefit one way or the other, just that whatever your opponent does and based on strength of forces, it may be more beneficial to duplicate that.
I'd rather see spaced out battles to, so deploy and move your shit spaced out ;p shrug, just my view of it tho
Ok, Ima be focusing on my battle post before engaging in any other discussions! I may need to adjust some stuff after I post if I am not following adjusted CSP/SF rules in play appropriately, just lemme know if so
-
THOUGHT: You could allow for spacing out of ships to be also more digestible on the tactical level by reducing Heavy Cap Movement to 2AP and Maneuver to 1AP. If it's not as costly to move them around, it may allow for more flexible deployment and forgiving movements
-
DONE.
Felt good to pull that trigger!
-
Do you get a multiplier with a higher UCR ratio? I think 6 v 3 UCR = Modifier of 1.0 not 2.0
-
I get where you guys are going with that. I do however feel 1 ship per grid is way too limiting. Like for carrier fleets that have 1 carrier ship and smaller support craft. How are the support ships supposed to gain CSP protection. I think 1 player per grid works better.
Also Hale. Im not trying to be a dick but could we please get a proper status on your posts going forward. Shields, hull, location. Trying to pull it together from your actions is difficult. I would greatly appreciate, thanks.
-
Do you get a multiplier with a higher UCR ratio? I think 6 v 3 UCR = Modifier of 1.0 not 2.0
oh ya, wishful thinking, will fix
FIXED.
Instead of 4 Vultures potentially dead it is now possible 2 dead and 1 heavily damaged. I opted not to additionally use a VCX to finish off the wounded Vulture as it didn't seem fair adjustment in light of the fix being my fuck up.
-
I get where you guys are going with that. I do however feel 1 ship per grid is way too limiting. Like for carrier fleets that have 1 carrier ship and smaller support craft. How are the support ships supposed to gain CSP protection. I think 1 player per grid works better.
that is an interesting point raised to keep in mind, with 1 ship per grid space, CSP becomes a much more valuable commodity and shifts the weight of using it for better or worse
-
Go ahead and adjust it, I don't mind.
-
Ramano, click on the "Unit Status" tab on my post. It has everything there.
-
I still think the scaling won't be that big of an issue once we actually get this game rolling.
If a typical PDF is going to be 1 CORV, maybe 2, and a typical assault fleet is going to be 1 VSD + some support ships (mostly AUX to ferry troops) the whole problem of unit packing and dogpiling becomes irrelevant because there are not enough dogs in the fight to pile.
-
starfighter lasers do too much damage. A light laser should not do as much damage as a torpedo. Could probably lower those values by half or you render warheads pointless. A tie interceptor can do as much damage as a ywing on a bombing run, lol.
-
Ramano,
Under the Support Units and Reloading Warheads section of the rules, it reads: "Once a starfighter/auxiliary is recalled, it must remain onboard its mothership until the next turn."
So you need to edit your post regarding the Vulture droids. Thanks!
-
sorry about that. Thought that tactic seemed a bit too good to be true, lol. All fixed.
-
Yeah the way I conceived the PBC tactics working was that if you wanted to make one a dedicated carrier (with 14 Vultures onboard) you could rotate 7 squadrons in and 7 squadrons out every post to take most advantage of the free launch.
-
Three full rounds. :o
Huzzah to us all!
-
So what if i wanted to play as like a renegade trade fed pirate? Like as i envision the idea, instead of planetary systems i could base out of a mostly derelict droid control ship. Say something left over from the jedi civil war, derelict and floating to be found in the recesses. Obviously we'd have to discuss some stuff as i couldnt be rolling around in a usable supership, like the weapons are broken and an agreement i wont use it to attack with, but let me know what you think?
-
@Ramano
I don't think this game is built for players who want to do solo ops. It's meant to cycle quickly via the campaign system.
Maybe we could set up some sort of campaign where you play an independent faction that we're all working against, or you could play some special solo role as a rogue TF commandant or something.
If we expand the universe to include neutral systems, then I'd open up a Common tech tree. It's conceivable if you wanted to play some pirate, you could utilize common units and have your own system compared to the main factions with more bank.
-
If we expand the universe to include neutral systems, then I'd open up a Common tech tree. It's conceivable if you wanted to play some pirate, you could utilize common units and have your own system compared to the main factions with more bank.
Yes.
We can keep it small still though! 50 or less worlds on a whole galactic representating map using either squares or hexes to measure HS movement =D (thus helping the potential issue of many ships in 1 grid space because they can't all be everywhere at once or quickly!)
Worlds value besides any potential $GC could be simple basic shit that plays in to unit specs, battle performance. i.e. control Thyferra, Infantry Unit types get + some Durability from Bacta. Control Bespin, Capship Turbolasers deal + some amount of damage. Control Eriadu (massive industry) get some free support units you can use that auto replace at that location when dead, i.e. 6 TIE types squads or 4 Other type or some shit. I dunno, get creative tho.
-
Add to my list of asks: no shield banks. I would prefer being able to convert AP into +2 shields or +1 hull/armor (so recharging shields is less expensive damage control).
This is fun! I thought I didn't like the AP system but that hasn't been the case.
I would also agree SFs and AUX need some adjustment in damage output. I think a lot of that could be fixed with simplifying attacks (Dogfight Attack, Bombing Attack vs individual weapons). Also Vulture Droids kinda suck because with 4 AP the buzz drones are 100% useless if not free to deploy, since 2 AP to bomb, 2 AP to fire 2 Buzz Drones, which do same damage as the lasers (or less? need to check).
I will try to post tomorrow! Wooooo
-
I like the shield banks thing as is. It does cost 1AP to raise them so. Also 1AP to be 2Armor or Shield? So then a ship has how many AP? Because 1 Armor or 1 Shield with AP values where they are does not change much given that most ships have less than 10 AP.
So first you'd have to raise AP to do that and then it throws off AP to attack with weapon counts on a ship. If a ship has like 20AP at least so it can do something meaningful with a 1AP = 1-2Shield Point scheme but it has 6 weapon emplacements and how many AP to move, then the whole thing is thrown off. If I have 20 AP I'm always able to move and turn a shitload and fire all my 8 weapons n shit. And then for 1AP to charge something like 5-10 shields, well you're half way to a Bank for a lot of small ships n shit already..
I would almost consider this tweak though involving both shield banks and movement..
Heavy Cap Raise Shield Bank costs 2AP
Heavy Cap Movement Costs 2AP
Heavy Cap Maneuver Costs 1AP
Light Cap Raise Shield Bank costs 1AP
Light Cap Movement costs 1AP
Light Cap Maneuver Costs 1AP
this makes light caps extremely tactical and mor evaluable. while it costs the Heavy Cap 1 more AP to raise a bank now then before, it costs it 1 less AP to move forward, so it is able to get around the game board a little bit more (assiting in lessening the tendency to lump together)
-
Well you could potentially fix that by simply removing the end game mechanics to make it a persistent game, small uni size. Perhaps 20 planets or so. But yeah definately some neutral units.
As far as the ap system, im cool with whatever you guys want to do. I like the system, though it will take some getting used to, so either way im good.
Starfighter weapons though definitely.
-
Make shield rating higher ditch banks. Banks encourage dogpile
-
OK, these are some good points. I will take them into consideration.
-
QUESTION:
How do we handle weapons fired at SFs? For examplee, Eid fired 8 CMs and 3 droid squadrons. Should I assign 3, 3, 2 CMs hitting each? Am I obligated to spread that damage?
My choice would be that "1 weapon cant hit two targets" but wanted to get clarity here.
-
QUESTION:
How do we handle weapons fired at SFs? For examplee, Eid fired 8 CMs and 3 droid squadrons. Should I assign 3, 3, 2 CMs hitting each? Am I obligated to spread that damage?
My choice would be that "1 weapon cant hit two targets" but wanted to get clarity here.
Sorry for any lack of clarity on my part but I specified it was 3 at 2 of them and 2 at 1 of them, unless that is understood and I misunderstand the question.. but I don't think I have 1 weapon hitting two targets either, though 1 Awing is firing 1 CM at 1 target and 1 CM at another, but is within their AP fuel and I hadn't noticed a 1 unit 1 target per turn clause anywheres
"They spend 2AP ea to fire 8 total CMs, 3 @ VultureII V & VI and 2 @ VII who are attacking friendlies in E2. UCRs 8vs5 = 1.0 multipler. 3CMs (9pts) @ ea target V & VI, 2CMs (6pts) @ VII"
-
Oopsy, just quick reading and I didn't pay close enough attention. I will try my hardest to get a post out at some point today, but we are packing to drive back to Boston, two kids, etc. I might be later tonight.
-
Make shield rating higher ditch banks. Banks encourage dogpile
Not trying to argue simply offering a 2nd opinion, i kind of like the shield bank idea. It gives more the impression of deflector screens like SW uses and not global shielding arrays like they use in star trek. Remember, when the SSD was taken out in RotJ it still had near full shields except for that 1 failed deflector screen. However, i would suggest a moderate hull increase on the ships so that we can actually utilize it. Currently its so easy to kill a ship you never even get a chance to use more than 1 bank.
Or another option could be the utilization of more than 1 bank at a time.
-
QUESTION:
How do we handle weapons fired at SFs? For examplee, Eid fired 8 CMs and 3 droid squadrons. Should I assign 3, 3, 2 CMs hitting each? Am I obligated to spread that damage?
My choice would be that "1 weapon cant hit two targets" but wanted to get clarity here.
I would suggest not worrying about it at all. We are literally talking 3 damage on a group attack. I guess a piece of debris from the first squad exploding hit a fighter from the next. Lol Its splitting hairs for the sake of another rule. This should be more a common sense thing. Provided you arent trying to combine damage on fighters in different grids, and they were all attacked as a group, a little carry-over is to be expected.
-
If we do a uni again here just fyis I would not be doing NR. Either Impwarlord or 3rd party like Hutts.
Overall, I'm really liking the gameplay and execution. Aside from the universally backed SF tweaks, it's all pretty tight
-
Ok posted if there are errors please someone fix them with my best interests in mind :P I will be on the road pretty much all day.
-
Ahh, something we havnt addressed yet, fighters without a mothership? For example, i havnt done the math but im pretty sure at least 1 of my pbc just went poof. My other ship has no room to hold them, so... ?
Also, just something for discussion, should ships get a partial action on their death post? No movement or damage control obviously, but going out in a blaze of glory so to speak.
-
also, pertaining the mock, im willing to submit defeat. We are toast and i screwed my last post up anyway. I never paid for the attack run ap cost.
I might add though, the attack run in and of itself seems unnecessary and redundant. You are already paying 1 ap to move into the ships grid to attack it with only 1 player fleet per grid. And the weapon cost added in seems plenty limiting already.
-
I agree that the attack run cost should maybe only be paid by NON "Bomber" SFs, and Bombeers should pay an AP penalty to dogfight.
Also lets fight to the finish Ramano vamos!
-
also regarding factions, I would like to be hapan.
-
I like the idea of raising multiple banks, as we could associate an added upfront cost with that, i.e. 1 AP for the first bank, 2 AP for subsequent banks. This makes raising full shields somewhat costly if you want to bring 3 or 4 banks online.
-
I like that! If you want to be a tank and not fire weapons etc.. the idea is you pay the extra ap every turn?
My one other thing is repair damage seems under powered.. spending an AP on 1 armor point is rarely a good investment
-
I am so excited!
-
I will revisit Damage Control.
-
I like the multiple banks concept, and an associated AP upkeep cost any time more than 1 bank is kept raised for a following turn. It would maybe have to be the same cost to keep it raised as it does to raise it, because otherwise being cheaper to maintain than to bring up makes it almost standard practice to raise a 2nd bank right away seeing as how no one is attacking in the 1st and maybe 2nd round yet.
So like
1st Turn- 1AP raises 1st bank, 2AP raises 2nd bank
2nd Turn- 1st bank always stays up for free, second/additional banks always costs same to keep up again, 2AP.
a 3rd Bank to raise/keep up would be 3AP obvi
will get my post up between tonite and tomorrow nite!
I like that move through Hop, forcing a reposition! Very cool =)
-
Well we already have some sense of what that might look like in virtue of the Interdictor, which has to spend AP every round to keep the gravity wells online.
I wouldn't want to make shields banks too costly, but just enough so that the big cruisers can really benefit by going into "tank mode" if they need to.
-
Forgot to add...
If a capital ship blows up, but has SF/AUX onboard, they cannot be launched as the ship is blowing up.
Try to think of the sequence of events in our battles as happening very quickly. Perhaps, every round = 1 minute "real time." And something like launching large amounts of starfighters takes time, even if in the case of droid fighters its "free" from an AP standpoint.
When you rewatch the space battle of Scarif (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk-2Q9v2eI4) you can get a sense for the rapid pace of it. Within a few minutes the MC75's shields are down to 50% for crying out loud!
-
Yeah, in in that same vein, it is why I prefer no return fire. With return fire, I feel like it makes attacks almost pointless, since everyone gets an exchange no matter what...
-
Oh, you "forgot" to add... convienient now i got a ship going down with 7 squads of fighters on it. Lmao!
Nah im just kidding, its cool i figured that already, just thought id throw it out there.
But as for the 3 starvipers from that ship i DID have launched? Can i interchange them with the other PBC? Are they still useable even? Its not really covered in the rules but i see it happenning a lot so figure now is as best a time to cover it as any.
-
They are free-floaters. Assume they are Fleet Escort.
-
Ok, posted, pending completion of answering this question and the handful of support units I gotta finish AP use for..
BUT..
Hop had engaged my 4 As and 1 VCX in E3 with 5 Vulture Droids. All of those Vulture Droids are destroyed now in my post I believe, but are my Engaged units that are still alive (AW Purple & Violet) considered freed up or no? I was somewhat confused by a couple statements when that was addressed earlier
-
I think cost of units needs some adjustment. Hale are you using a formula to arrive at a credit cost?
Equal cost fleets and the TF tech got housed... i mean we are essentially toasted and yall are at greater than half strength. It feels like whoever has to move and strike first gets boned?
-
I think cost of units needs some adjustment. Hale are you using a formula to arrive at a credit cost?
Equal cost fleets and the TF tech got housed... i mean we are essentially toasted and yall are at greater than half strength. It feels like whoever has to move and strike first gets boned?
Well... thats not entirely... accurate. We got hosed because i screwed up bad with the AP stuff. So fighters i planned to attack with ended up stuck in my hangers, and i had to move too far to make an effective attack because i didnt move far enough in my first post.
Id say give it a more fair chance. Lol. perhaps input any rule revisions that are needed or wanted and test again?
-
We still lost almost all
Our cap ships in two exchanges and they lost not even half. In AE cost was eye balled, poorly, and that led to inbalance. If we arent using a formula to assess real value we should, is all im sayin!
-
Well, on paper yeah i would agree with you. However, unless you are volunteering to create such a system, taking into account all the variables of the ships, thats a tall ask man. Lol.
Then we are asking for even more ships on top of it...?
-
There was a master formula that was used. Cost has been fine-tuned based on everything UCR, DUR, DMG output, support units, etc.
You guys got hosed because you concentrated your forces in the same area, and because admittedly we spammed big guns.
One of you should have spammed DREADs. Just saying.
Battle would've been VERY different had one of you used 6 DREADs packed with 3 Droid SFs each. You could've spread out more too.
And remember, I made this game, and I chose to flag the TF! If that's not a vote of confidence for TF units, I don't know what is. lol
-
We could each move 1 ship (and associated support units) at a time. In some ways it will take longer in other ways it will move quicker.
Are we truncating II orrrr? Hale, I had inquired as to engagement rules, my AWs Purple and Violet survived but were Engaged by Vultures 26 and 27. Those Vultures were destroyed in my latest post by attacks from RAFs. Are my As still Engaged this turn or are they free?
-
One ship at a time would make this game very chessy!
-
There was a master formula that was used. Cost has been fine-tuned based on everything UCR, DUR, DMG output, support units, etc.
You guys got hosed because you concentrated your forces in the same area, and because admittedly we spammed big guns.
One of you should have spammed DREADs. Just saying.
Battle would've been VERY different had one of you used 6 DREADs packed with 3 Droid SFs each. You could've spread out more too.
I believe i tried to admit fault for the loss, lol.
But this brings up a good point for exploitation. Perhaps a max per fleet limit on ships, like no more than 4 of any specific ship type, lest you run the risk of me showing up in 20 neb-bs, giggling. Which i did consider for a minute with the mock, lol.
-
Maybe thats so regarding big guns, but if i have to spam a unit to compete thats... not optimal?
-
Another factor is that this was exclusively a space-only battle, and we were not factoring in an arbitrary amount of ground unit transports and such that would have accompanied the TF invasion force. This allowed us to spam space units.
Again, my TF fleet at Beta-launch was 2 PBC, 3 DREAD, 2 HHF. So if Mocha II was a real in-game battle, I probably would've sent 1 PBC + 3 DREAD. Even if I committed 2 PBC, I sincerely doubt the IR and NR would've had their 4-packs just chilling there.
But as ridiculous as the numbers and scale of Mocha II was, it has yielded us some valuable insights. I'm happy to bring it to a close and move to Mocha III, if you all would prefer?
-
But as ridiculous as the numbers and scale of Mocha II was, it has yielded us some valuable insights. I'm happy to bring it to a close and move to Mocha III, if you all would prefer?
I think the value of Mocha II has been drawn and finishing it is just ceremony at this point. I had a bunch of fun though battling again already and am pretty optimistic about the bit of fine tuning it seems we have going on here and what comes after that.
Entirely agree with your points though Hale about the lack of ground invasion intent skewing the space battle experience. I would even be down with considering a clause regarding Ground Battle/Invasion that trumps space battle- as in, if you win the Ground Battle and the Space Battle is still going on, the Battle is Over. Its like Capture the Flag, no matter who survies, once the flag is captured, battle over. This would potentially reap the benefit of added structure to both the process of Battle and the process of the Campaign.
- 1 Players ships per grid space
- Ground Invasion clause that ground victory ends Space Battle
- something for Fighters
These small changes I think could possible clean up a ton of what we saw at Mocha II and what we worry about seeing in future.
The space battle grid becomes a chess board for sure then, with the planet being the immobile King.
-
Yes, lets carry on to III.
I also think we should queue up a "realistic" setup. I think folks will design their factions differently than what seems obvious or optimal, and don't want that to tank the game.
I am happy to take part in III or in a IV that will be focused on a "realistic" engagement. I also am curious if you are open to adjusting universe/economics etc Hale (Eid and I hashed out some interesting ideas in this regard I am happy to pitch you), which might also adjust what a "realistic battle" looks like...
Woo! We are simming 😎
-
if i may be so bold, perhaps a "matrix" training session. Blank map, 4 starting points, each of us design a fleet with set GC with the agreement no space fighting. We land troops and duke it out to hard test the rules.
And so im clear on this, capships can not target troops/vehicles. But can starfighters? And can troops/vehicles target flying units?