Star Wars Sim Forum: Roleplay, Simming and Fan Fiction
THE GALACTIC ARCHIVES => Retired Game Archives => [Closed] GCW Archives => Topic started by: SWSF Hale on October 31, 2012, 05:02:31 PM
-
Okay guys, as you know, Greg and I are developing the rules and systems for GCW: Episode III, and Combat has come up. Regardless of what happens, the current rules are going to change... to what, we don't know yet. That's why we need your help.
I am of the school of thought that combat mechanics and calculations need to be like Galactic Relms: simple and straightforward, with minimal tactics. The argument against this style of combat is that the only real tactic of GCW is to play "cat and mouse" games with the enemy. My response to that argument is that "cat and mouse" will exist in every system since it's the defining tactic of warfare, so if that's the case then we need to simplify combat calculations and mechanics to allow players to focus on writing storylines and making simpler tactical choices (like where to exit hyperspace, which target to attack, etc.).
Hoppus is of the school of thought that combat mechanics ought to be more like After Endor: more nuanced with ship specification dynamics, more tactics, choices, etc. In this regard combat would become both increasingly and more interestingly complicated because simple choices like which target to attack require follow up tactics.
-
I've been toying with the old AE rule set. When we started in on GCW, I thought going the Galactic Realms route, and even simplifying it further, would be ideal and could lure back inactive players (since it should take less time). My experience is that while it may take a little bit less time (not much), the game has too little variance in combat. Its very simplistic and at most you can try to avoid and stay out of range.
The elements of AE I think added are as follows:
1. Launch limits (which are probably coming no matter what), and that keep every post being ALL vs ALL, and make for choice in what to put into the field first and last.
2. Dogfighting - The current system just doesn't seem to balance out. Using the traditional chart, and the traditional simple bonuses (if pre-engaged), results in TIEs being vicious on the attack but weak defending, and an overall balance that felt more natural - units could die quickly, but that increased the stakes in each turn and in your tactical choices.
3. Warheads & Weapon Ranges - they need to be potential damage. This makes SF units much different in combat - they can pack a wallop if they overwhelm their target. At the least they force units to choose between taking damage or firing on their enemies. Combined with the other aspects of the game it has a major impact in the course of battles.
4. Fire arcs - not much additional work. I find i'm always looking up specs to post anyway. As battles progress position of units can really become important. Trying to get behind an ISD takes some planning and baiting, for example.
All together, these things add many decisions to each turn set, and the ultimate outcome can vary quite a bit in terms of losses and victors.
Personally I've felt the desire to have more of the 'simulation' aspect of the game come back, because the extra time we gain in making a post is minimal, and the nuance of combat is sacrificed for it. Since we are just 4-5 players now, we ought to do what we feel is the most fun for us, whatever we decide that is.
As for our system, I do think it could be enjoyable by adding warheads & interception, launch rates, and POSSIBLY by giving dogfighting combat the 'killed units return fire instantly' rule, but still favor the chart approach.
Does it add a bit of rule reading? Yes. Is most of the info you need transferrable in a chart? Yes. :)
-
Personally I like the current system we have in place. It has a more flashpoint type feel to it. That was always my favorite while I still maintain an utter disdain for the AEU Rule Set. Too much to have to keep track of, too much to confuse, so many options for loopholes that battles are basically a 2 week debate between a GM and then one entire side is just ruled dead. I currently like the more simplistic feel to it all, its more like it was designed to be in the beginning before people started adding charts. Charts just make my head fuzzy and I dont like that. And not a good fuzzy like drunk fuzzy. More like a jackhammer and a welders helmet.
-
Here are the combat changes that are coming no matter what:
1. Starfighter Squadrons will be broken up. SFs will now operate as individual units. I'm sure nobody will mind this change because personally writing "72 TIE Interceptors attack 43 Flame-Wings in C-1" has mass-attack feel and is easier to manage for post/unit summaries imho.
2. Capital Ships are getting tougher with x2 Shields (Mon Cals x3). Starfighters are going to become x2/x2 Length.
3. People will be able to exit hyperspace and then move right away.
-
Why are we nerf'ing the lambda shuttle?
-
Free stock units are going away... which means people will have to pay for everything. Don't worry about covering expenses though, the Industrial Output System we've developed will be able to cover all economic expenses for your entire faction and then some. Since free units are going away, I nerfed the Lambda Shuttle so it could be really affordable to replace as a "stock auxiliary". Prices for auxiliaries are dropping anyway, so for less money you'll be able to field all those high damage AUX easily.
-
Myself, I'd like to see more variation and depth added. As Ramano said, it's close to Flashpoint as is now, which depending on your preference could be a positive, but for me, it's a negative. Flashpoint was show up, most guns wins. Little choice to be made other than where to go and when, and number resolutions painfully predictable.
Overall I much prefer the AE style mentioned by Hop, however that's not without it's weirdness and weakness as well. I do think depth and variation can be added without complexity. Part of the current lack of variation is that there isn't much room for tactics when things are set up for cap ship combat to be a melee. For starters, I think enlarging the battle grid, moving away from the strictly orbital/circular layout, add firing arcs for capital ships, limiting deployment of fighter/aux units, increasing ranges of weapons to allow for space between units and different tactical worth, and increasing unit movement to go along with that are good moves.
Regarding Hale's mention of moving to a system of grouping fighters one at a time, I really dislike that application and from experience it just creates weird dynamics. What you end up with is people massing a group of fighters with the specific number/values required to overpower an opposing group, which doesn't sound so bad in your head because essentially when grouping squads together you're doing the same thing, overpowering force to decimate, but when you can do it on a per fighter basis, it just makes the whole dynamic a little too weird imo.
Ideally though, I'd like to see a system that almost forces application of "Lines of Battle" that are depicted in WEG Sourcebooks and with larger fleets. Doing so I don't think would be incredibly difficult or hard to manage and would necessitate and go along well with enlarging fleet sizes, to the point where a player's fleet might look like 3 ISDs, 4 SRKs, 6 CRKs. etc. To do so, the 'presentation' of cap ships has to be reigned in a bit, almost treating resolution of combat between them similar to a system of Rating Comparisons and Potential Modifiers amidst starfigthers. Albeit with arcs obviously as a requisite to "lines of battle" styles of engagement. It'd take a bit of mocking to hammer out the kinks and identify holes though. For starters to instigate forming lines and such, you have to limit 1 Heavy Cruiser per Grid Space (otherwise they're colliding) The value system would have to be heavily worked towards smaller numbers, for instance. . .
ISD
SPD 5 (moving foward)
MAN 3 (change heading 90 degrees)
ARM 50
SHD 30
ATK
Front 12
Left 10
Right 10
Back 2
MC80
SPD 3
MAN 4
ARM 30
SHD 60
ATK
Front 7
Left 8
Right 8
Back 4
So imagine 4 MC80s going against 4 ISDs. Obviously, initially the ISDs are going to want to approach and maneuver to face MC80s head on one for one to get most of their front arc, however MC80s are going to want to line up and go broad side for broad side. The speed of the ISDs allows them to close quickly, but the better maneuverability of the MC80s allows them to adapt and have more changes of heading in order to maintain their lines, the ISD commander with more speed but less maneuverability has to decide to charge in disorganized, or form up in a line. Once they get in to exchanging blows, the low Man of the ISDs is going to make it difficult to get in order if they are already not.
Now, say with a range of 2 for their TL weapons (ratings), these two groups are formed up in the lines and passing each other exchanging blows. As the lead ship of either line passes the last ship of the opposing line, it can turn away from or towards the opposing line, potentially being able to get across the stern of the last ship in the opponents line for a clear rear shot.
It can be made to work with enough trial and error and finding the holes and plugging them. Just airing out ideas. The other nice perk with larger fleets of scaled down cap ships and more heavy ships means in a battle you could actually lose a couple heavy cruisers and the battle still wages on, rather than the usual dynamic of a heavy cruiser going down and the fight being pretty much decided.
-
Wonderful suggestions but we are trying to stick as closely as possible to the current specs while allowing deviations in the rules for things such as arcs, maneuvers, warhead interceptions, etc. I also don't want to give too much away (since we're still hashing out ideas), but the Command Point System that will be featured in Episode III is going to take into account ALL UNITS in your entire faction. In this regard "most guns wins" might prevail, but it will leave you incredibly outgunned everywhere else. How we have it developed now is that at the beginning, players will begin with 4 Systems, which will all factor into your total Industrial Output and Command Points. While the numbers aren't final as of yet, a single Imperial Star Destroyer will likely occupy 50% of your CP Limit, leaving you the other 50% for Space PDF. This adds a strategic element to the game which we all feel is perhaps lacking, so the emphasis right now is determining how tactical we want the game to play out. What units you decide to allocate to offense and defense will definitely play into the kinds of battles we'll wind up having, so for me making those more strategic decisions has a greater impact on the gameplay over the highly tactical AE-combat.
It was easy to have high-tactical battles when traditionally on the SWSF we each had one ship to command. Cross-referencing specs, checking speed/maneuver, fire and movement was easy... but now we're managing fleets, hell - entire factions. Things get complicated, and there is a reason why the After Endor c.2010 on this Forum was so frustrating to many of us, and I think it was mainly because of the combat rules...because we certainly had the player base.
In regards to starfighters being Squadrons or Individuals, your opinion has been noted. We are mocking things out right now to see which application is better. I'm leaning towards Squadrons for ease of battle and command point calculations, but at the same time for economic reasons we want to make it so that real damage can be accounted for in credits, rather than hit points (i.e. in the current rules, you can blast an X-Wing Squadron several times and it'll still be kicking at 100%, whereas by disbanding squads we can realistically take into account minor and major losses). Chances are we may remain with Squadrons because everyone is familiar with how they work by this point, and changing things up can always present new frustrations, but we will keep everyone posted whenever we "pre-release" the rules set for community view.
-
One final note: the current "feel" to GCW in terms of Combat and Gameplay will most likely remain the same. Things are going to change, but not a whole lot, because the emphasis is more on the characters and broader story than it is about ship-to-ship combat. We're going to add some elements to "spice up" combat by forcing players to make some familiar tactical decisions, but it will be nothing "new" in terms of how both Episodes I and II function(ed).
Also, this poll will be closed (and this thread deleted) in approximately 24 hours. If you want to make any final comments regarding your vote, please do so now.
-
Also, this poll will be closed (and this thread deleted) in approximately 24 hours. If you want to make any final comments regarding your vote, please do so now.
One last simple suggestion that could probably be added easily in to current system/specs to add to choices people can make and wouldn't add any further element of referencing or management or difficulty, Evasive Maneuvering for units in battle to allow for reducing BASE INCOMING DAMAGE. Maybe make it an ability that can be applied once per turn, to one specific attack from one specific target. The trade off being any Attack you launch during same turn is less effective.
I realize UCRs play heavily in to this, but it's passive and has no negative effect. Evasive Maneuvering could exist alongside the UCR modifiers as simply another element to add some degree of unpredictability.
Maybe base it off of Maneuverability. 1pt of Maneuverability expended on Evasive Maneuvering = -10% base incoming dmg from single specific attack/source. Maneuverability then becomes expendable either as adjusting headings (necessary if we move to use of arcs) or for use defensively in Evasion.
-
I'd like to keep it simple, as I'm trying to enjoy a life outside of the internet.
Firing Arcs: Apposed. I just don't want to deal with it anymore. These ships are maneuverable, so this is unnecessary.
Warhead Interception: Apposed. See above. It balances out.
Launch Limits: On the fence. I like the idea, as it requires just a tad more planning when entering the field. It doesn't add complication.
Dogfighting: Apposed to change. I think it has worked out fairly evenly.
-
I tend to lean in agreement with Dem on this, im enjoying the simplicity of it all with the current iteration. Warhead interception and Fire Arcs only add multiple levels of possible confusion and a whole lot of unnecessary math. Launch limits, eh, again, I just dont see a necessary point to it. If the fighters are too powerful, scale them all back a bit. New stats are always easier to make then new rules.
And as always, dogfighting charts can lick my balls. Dogfighting charts make the Tie Fighter on par with an A-Wing, which should never EVER be the case. Tie Fighters should be the easiest thing in the game to kill, and should be basically worthless. Many sims simply just give imperial players as many Tie Fighters as needed. (IE: If you were planning on using T/F's you dont need to purchase or build them, you just have what you need.) I mean lets face it, 4 VSDs loaded with T/Fs couldnt handle 1 light cruiser and 2 frigates. They are worthless and people shouldnt be charged for them. However, I am opposed to anything that adds power to them, as it doesnt fit in the spirit of StarWars.
Although, I will say that the Rebel fighters could probably do with a downgrade on the shield/armor power. An X-Wing squad should not be equal in staying power to a heavy frigate.
-
Thank you everyone for voting and commenting. It feels somewhat surreal with Presidential Elections around the corner, but just the same, your vote here certainly does matter for your future experience. I will keep the poll and thread open for another 24 hours so everyone can review comments.
Greg and I will hopefully be wrapping up the Episode III Combat Rules in the near future, and from what we have on the table so far it looks like everybody is going to get a little bit of what they want without forcing any strenuous effort for combat posts (the goal as always is to keep battle post writing between 15-30 minutes if you want to do it quick and dirty).
Thanks again.
-
NEW QUESTIONS
Does everyone think the current Universal Combat Rating (UCR) System is fair? (Currently, if an ISD shoots at an RAF, 75% of its weapons will hit it (UCR 3/4). Do you think the ISD should be able to hit more or less of the RAF? What about other unit-to-unit interactions?)
If not, do you think introducing size modifiers, weapon arcs, or offensive/defensive maneuvering variables into UCR would make unit combat "more fair"?
If not, would an AE-style Vulnerability Chart for all units starfighters and capital ships under 250m be more favorable instead of the UCR System?
Do you think UCR isn't broke so there's no need to fix it?
KEEP IN MIND THAT HIT POINTS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE, SO PLEASE DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TOWARDS UCR ITSELF OR A POTENTIAL REPLACEMENT METHOD RATHER THAN TRYING TO "FIX" OTHER THINGS REGARDING COMBAT.
-
Objection to "ae style vulnerability chart" non-sense. And my idea isn't for all units but for starfighters. and Capital ships < 250m + Aux are 1/2 vuln.
:P
-
My only overall complaint with UCR would be some of the carry over into spec interpretation. Many lower classed or bulky Starfighters have UCRs of 5 or 6 when an ISD or most heavy capship UCRs are 3. A 3/5, 3/6 hit seems to me undesireable in gameplay mechanics. UCR works in many applications but in others falls slightly short of getting a good mitigation of damage from large vessels to tiny vessels (fighters/aux).
I think this falls under "Size Modifiers" as you stated.
Maybe potentially CLASS distinctions based on general size of vessels. And also somewhat relating to Weapons themselves. Weapon emplacements on a Lancer (QLCs) obviously meant to engage SFs, shouldn't have same penalties as general Turbolasers on most cruisers might. Also for instance, should a Starfighters general laser weaponry be able to even damage capital ship shields? (armor/hull in Bombing Run/Penetrating Beneath Shielding, yes) Obviously ships like a B-Wing are purpose built for Capship engagement, their Ion Cannons are generally stated as being capital ship grade in most descriptions I believe. Also comparatively, the A9 Vigilance Interceptor's cannon. Etc. Overall this emphasizes more purpose use for all units. With regards to Aux Craft, especially, Gamma, Skiprays and the like more tuned for attacking heavy ships, lambdas stripped of some combat relevance (a good move imo) etc.
I also think overall Aux should be classed as Starfighters in any basic "Size Modifier" distinction unless Size Modifier's themselves were to be more incorporated into overall UCR Values and Comparisons in which case it'd remain a spec by spec basis which is even better.
RE: Movie Moment Recreation, Death Star TLs never touch Rebel Starfighters, which are less maneuverable and larger than TIE counterparts even.
this handles the same concern i believe, if that's the way you want to go about capturing the dynamic, but i think it's relevant to all vessels in comparison to any other, i mean a Strike Cruiser get's benefit of Speed and Maneuverability, but should get Size benefit to? Maybe Size Modifiers are canceled out for any "CapShip" classed unit to anotherwhen in same grid space, Adjacent only to simulate distance to size accuracy factor? ;p more purpose use for Medium/Light Cruisers
isn't for all units but for starfighters. and Capital ships < 250m + Aux are 1/2 vuln.
-
Would some kind of size/class chart that modifies UCR be a worthy pursuit? Or something simpler:
We can go by a strict/blanket size-class dynamic, i.e. "Capital Ships get -1 UCR when attacking Starfighters and Auxiliaries."
OR
As you pointed out, a weapon-class dynamic, e.g. "Turbolasers get -1 UCR when targeting Starfighters, Ions get no modifier, Lasers get +1 UCR".
OR
"Large Capital Ships get -1 UCR when attack Small Units (anything under 250m, to include SF/AUX)."
Those are just some brainstorming ideas, but MY goal is to make combat a little more tactically nuanced while maintaining the current rules set (UCR, etc.). However, Greg is developing a system that works in its own right that leaves UCR alone that could essentially tweak out all the imbalances.. so it all comes down to what the community wants to do: work with what we got or build from scratch.
-
I like the large ships get -1 UCR vs 250m and smaller. Easy to write into the rules, and reflects better the speed and manuverability of smaller ships over the big front line warships without having to redo a bunch of stats or remember which ships are which size.
-
I like the UCR system we have and the idea of adding that tweak of +/- based on class.
An easy way to see where discrepancies are... look at what ships we did and did not field in battle in EII.
-
Well ships fielded had to do with how we did the CP cost as well and that fighters didnt contribute to CP based on class (a hold full of E-Wings cost the same in CP to field as Z95s for example). So you certain vessels just didnt make sense. Also with the new way we do CP there's just more room for more variety and ship cost and compliments get reflected pretty fairly I think. This is still being tweaked.
My problem with the UCR is that it just doesn't quite work out and mostly when it comes to TIE Fighters. These units should be able to be destroyed easily but can still pack an offensive punch. The AR/DR systems can capture this pretty well. Just using a UCR it seems to fail, as the damage output = laser cannons. An AR takes more into account than just what lasers it has. In the chart im working on there are AR/DRs as well for aux which are considered fighters for all purposes. They have decent ARs but poor DRs compared to other fighters. Fighters are also weaker - an X-Wing takes 12 damage, a TIE 4 I think..
More on that as I work things out with it.
-
And the UCR modifier by ship class is interesting. My thoughts with UCR is that we need to go beyond 1-10 scale to capture it. A TIE Interceptor should have a 1/7 or 1/8 "vuln" from ISD/MC80 Turbos in my opinion as it is a very fast interceptor and the only thing good for fighting them is fighters. Right now its 3/10 which means an ISD does twice as much damage to a TIE Int as it ought to really. If we can fix this scale issue with a UCR modifier for scale between targets. I just felt the only area that it really ought to matter is with SF and Aux, and it would also make combat between fighters better in the process by switching to the AR/DR system as TIEs and Ints can really tear it up, but they are weak for any damage that gets through, etc.
-
The problem with the AR/DR system is im not using it, lol. If I have to go refer to a chart every time a fighter enters the battlefield, thats a no go for me. Feels too AE to me, and that is a ruleset that sorrily didnt work right. Tie Fighters became as powerful as an A-Wing and the Tie Intercepter becomes the strongest fighter in the galaxy. That ruleset also allowed an MC-90 to survive 5000 turbolaser, and another 3000 proton torpedo hits in a single round of posting. After that, I basically flee from anything modeled after AE.
I also disagree with the statement Tie Fighters should pack a punch. This is contrary to the movies as an entire squadron of Tie Fighters engaged a YT-1300 and were bearely able to drop its shields. The simple fact of the matter is Tie Fighters suck, its why they are free.
-
Wow every one of the comments you made about AE was totally incorrect and hugely exaggerated!
TIE Fighters arent the best but TIE Interceptors were quality fighters. The problem with the way things work now is their high UCR gives them some level of survivability but they do no damage to the fighters when they counter, which means you just stick TIEs on CSP and never take them off and its just a boring way to do things.
The idea is find a way that TIE Ints pack a punch IN DOGFIGHTING but are still relatively weak and die quickly, among some other items.
-
Greg's points are valid. I like UCR, it's nice to be able to streamline it across all classes like that with one simple calculation, but the calculation doesn't take some valuable considerations into account. If we can tweak UCR with modifiers to work out a little better, I can see the desire/argument to stick with predominantly familiar system.
but the more I consider it, AR/DRs are niiiice. It really is the best way to get fighter combat to come out the way it should imo.
My thoughts for now. . .
You make two classes of units, Starfighters (includes most Aux) and Capital Ship.
CapShips engage Capships traditionally, UCR comparisons (possible arc incorporation?)
SFs engage SFs with comparison of AR vs DR. For simplicity all SF class units, these ratings are listed in a chart. The listed value can be per Squad (12) and per single fighter. We say damage is compiled on a single ship for any squad over 51% strength, 50% and under damage may be spread, we say fighter class units can only be grouped in max of a squad (12) then tie in TIE SWARM ability and switch it up to maybe say that only a max of 2 TIE squads can combine to form SWARM, a SWARM then get's it's own AR and DR, a beefy AR, a measley DR. TIE SWARMing then polices itself to an extent, it becomes valuable to lesser valued TIEs and detrimental to good stand alone TIEs
Then you come to CapShips vs SFs which you have to get a little spicy on. I think we should really expand the Bombing Run. Make it more damaging, more useful, open to more units. Say a fighter Squad on a Bombing Run suffers a DR penalty if engaged by other fighters. But you could have CSP for fighters running a Bombing Run. Also say, the only opposing fighters eligible to engage units on a Bombing Run of a vessel are those on CSP for it prior to the Run. Say SF laser weapons do no damage to CapShip shielding unless stated otherwise in specs (i.e. B-Wing Ions, Skipray Ions, etc)
-
Well, as to my statements being incorrect, I have the AEII rulebook in my possession. The Tie Fighter when calculating in AR/DR had an attack of 16pts and 48 hit points. The A-Wing had an attack of 18pts and 58 hit points. Again, this is adding in their DRs to the hit points. The intercepter was nearly twice the tie fighter... no way am I ok with those fighters carrying that kind of power, under no circumstance. I simply wont play, if you ok with that, thats cool, disappointing but ultimately its your game, and playing is a privilege not a right. But with an AR/DR starfighter chart system, I choose not to play.
As to the second part, at no point were those number exaggerated. Rounded off but not exaggerated. I had a whole team of people hit Lee's MC-90 and due to whatever loopholes exist in the fighter chart rules, it was ruled that MC-90 survived a slavo of nearly 5000 turbolasers and over 3000 proton torpedos, simply because a majority of them came from fighters and aux and AR/DRs get wacky in mass scale fighter vs capital ship combat. There was also some shit about shield rules in that ruling too but either way, the AR/DR rules blow ass and no, I do not exaggerate that battle. I had 22 people hit him with a combined assault, we crashed the damn boards for 2hrs with all the posts hitting at the same time. (Which was done on purpose to prevent counter assault, lol. 2hrs to move other people into position.)
And Tie Fighters did not pack a punch, thats the point im trying to make. In all ways, shapes, and forms, that fighter is not even worth producing. Like I said, go check the movies, 12 tie fighters could not even drop the shields fully on a YT-1300. Hell, the complete tie compliments of 3 ISDs couldnt bring down 1 measly light freightor, where is this punch you speak of? Imperial fighters are supposed to suck ass, its why your your ships carry so many of them, and still get so much firepower on top of it. You cant have your cake and eat it too in this situation.
However, I do agree the rebel fighters are either too cheap, or too powerful. Their cost / effectiveness ratio vs every other fighter in the game is completely off. I understand that is where all the rebel firepower is supposed to come from, but I think after watching what im doing with 8 squads of A-Wings, we can all agree this is imbalancing. Perhaps not so much a downgrade on them but a 50% increase in cost. That way, yes, the rebel fighters are still equally as powerful, but now they cost so much replacing a carrier compliment is like building a large cruiser, which is as it should be considering that fighter compliment is as powerful as a large cruiser.
In my personal opinion, which I feel should be instituted for Ep II now as well. The GR/NR should not get a free fighter craft, and the imps should get a larger free ship. Perhaps bump the imps up to carracks for free. This would better reflect the imperial power coming from their ships, and make it a bit easier to field a well rounded fleet, and removing the free cost of the Z-95s makes sure the rebel starfighter power is kept in check and you can actually hurt one of us. Its easy, doesnt involve any rule change, and involves maybe 12 spots modified on current stats.
-
Im referring to later generations of ae. No dr just ar. Ar is not used va capships.
-
That was my point Hop. Because of stupid AR/DR rules and the way the fighters were set up into them, all that damage didnt matter because it came from craft that didnt receive any bonus vs capital ships, but their stats were dependent upon said bonus's. Because in an AR/DR system, a proton torpedo fired from a fighter does less damage then one from a capital ship, even though its the same weapon, same size, same power load out. Im sorry, but a torp is a torp is a torp. It doesnt matter what its fired from. Same with a turbolaser. If it did less damage because it was on a fighter/aux, then why would they call it a turbolaser and not something else like an auxillary laser or light turbolaser?
-
Its a fact that turbolasers/lasers/etc didnt all do exactly the same amount of damage. There are other variables the AR/DR takes into account such as maneuvering and speed. Do you believe also that the ISD commanders fired each fo their turbos exactly one time, then waited for the enemy to fire all of their turbos exactly one time, then fired all their turbos again just one time each? Well then I guess to simulate how it really ought to be everyone can fire turbos as many times as they want now every turn!
The AR system used in AE in version 8 or so is what I am looking at for inspiration. It gives a point rating based on weaponry, speed, and maneuverability. A TIE Fighter is an 87. An A-Wing is 120. A TIE Interceptor is 117. A TIE Fighter takes 2 damage and a TIE Int not much more. They die fast in combat but can do some damage before they die.
The AE system is not without its flaws. They use complicated pre-engaged bonuses, etc but there are elements that work and can be used as inspiration for a better solution.
But just using UCR as a defensive calc for dodging damage and firing weapons onboard is not an accurate representation of how dogfighting works. A more maneuverable craft would get into better positions more frequently and get more accurate shots off, etc. Including more PT and CM shots that strike. They don't always hit.
There will be no charts in GCW3. But please stop skewing the conversation by making shit up and exaggerating issues of old sims. You just manage to derail a good conversation and kill the point of the thread.
-
And you need to quit telling me im lying. I was there dude. I watched this shit happen. And im getting a bit fucking offended with you talking to me like im some 12yr old kid that is speaking hear-say. You liked that crap shit system, thats fine, you go use it. Just dont plan on including me. I will not, WILL NOT play in any universe modeled after AE. No more point in even debating about it. Make your rules how you want, after all its your game, your the GMs and its creators. I however, did not like that universe, did not like their rules, and I make the choice not to play with said rules, or some slightly skewed modified version of them.
And whether you want to listen to me or not (like usual) the AR/DR system AE had makes imperials overwhelmingly overpowered by making the imp fighters actually able to compete with rebel fighters. In said system, imps rule the game and the rest of us are just left to suffer through 20+ fighter squadron fleets that are every bit as powerful as any rebel fighter. So they get capship firepower and fighter superiority, when everyone else in the game has to choose one or the other. The point is, imperial fighters, ALL variants of them, are supposed to suck, thats why you get ISDs.
-
Ram, no matter how you look at it UCR does not adequately resolve all combat outcomes effectively. Something has to be done, be it modding UCR or trying new system. You stated your main problem with AR/DRs is that TIEs are too powerful, but TIEs are too powerful as is now with base UCRs.
Adjusting UCRs themselves with Modifiers or unit survivability via dmg points is a potential option, but you should wait to see what AR/DR system presents itself/themselves before discounting all potential versions of them based on an old one or simply not liking AE and it had one. I think FP is the biggest piece of shit Uni there ever was but I'm willing to consider that something in it may have had some merit.
here is my base suggestion for SF class unit combat (some specs/AR&DR&DMGs provided to run through comparisons later after work). .
-Starfighters are a class of unit that mostly include obviously Starfighters, but also most auxiliary craft as well.
-Starfighter class units may be grouped together in maximum of 12 units (1 Squadron), with exception of the TIE Swarm ability of some fighters, which may form in to groups of 24 (2 squadrons) and becomes something of a different Unit Type entirely. (*see TIE SWARM notes)
-Starfighters grouped together fight as a single unit. Therefore, their AR and DRs are combined for a single value. Opposing fighters will tend to do the same, and most engagements will happen along the lines of initially full strength Squadrons that dwindle in size and power over a few exchanges. For simplicity and aid in calculation, the AR/DR of fighter units are listed in chart both per full strength squadron and per single unit.
-Starfighter class units do battle via comparison of an AR and a DR. The difference between them is the base damage the defender will take.
-The attacker will assume 1/2 of the inflicted damage as collateral which must be assessed at the end of the aggressors given turn. In the event that an AR is less than a DR, the initial difference between values is the amount of damage the Attacker will incur, while the defender assumes the Collateral role and takes half of that.
-A single Group/Squadron of Starfighters may be engaged by as many separate groups of Starfighters as you choose to commit. AR/DR will be compared the same as the first time they were engaged. The 2nd engaging Group comes with no penalty, however, any 3rd or higher engaging group will be penalized with a 100% collateral damage factor, as opposed to the usual 1/2, much like attacking with a lower AR will yield.
-TIE Swarms are a special type of Unit Group. Composed of a maximum of 24 units, does not have to be same fighter type. TIE Fighters, TIE Interceptors, and TIE Bombers may form in to or out of a TIE Swarm only once per turn. When in a TIE Swarm, the units themselves gain entirely new AR/DR values both individually and for the group. They become much more effective in attacks themselves while being more vulnerable to being attacked. Damage to a TIE Swarm is always compounded on a single ship until it is destroyed and on to the next. Once a Swarm falls to 12 or fewer units, it ceases to be a SWARM and gains none of the benefits or detractions.
-Taking Damage to Squadrons. After the AR and DR of respective clashing groups of fighters is resolved in to a value of Damage to be taken, if the Group of fighters is 6 or less, damage may be distributed throughout them all. If a group of fighters is 6 or more, damage is compiled on a single unit until it is destroyed and then on to the next until there are 6 or fewer ships.
...obviously this doesn't cover CSP and Bombing Runs because that involves capital ships and I'd like to tackle this one at a time. If we get a fighter system we all like and agree on, then I think most of us are happy with the basic Cap Ship application of the UCR system as is, then all we have to figure for is CapShip w/ SF interaction.
-
Here's what we're going to do with Combat:
Whenever ANY ship exists hyperspace, I will GM Gravity Shadow its ass and end the game.
j/k
-
I dont see how ties are too powerful with current UCR values. 19 squads of T/Fs could only kill 3 squads of my Z-95s every post, lol. And with 13 squads of Z-95s I was killing 7 of his, how is that too powerful?
-
meant to say underpowered here imo, overpowered there in yours.
UCR doesn't work across the board. Works great for CapShip v Capship. But FvF and CapvF scenarios seem to be lacking and not resolve out the way they really ought to.
-
I didn't get to weigh in. I'm apposed to this proposal. Reason: Overcomplicated.
1) Keep UCR the same. Double it when attacked by capital ships.
2) Increase amount of damage the SFS Laser Cannon does for TIEs.
3) Change formula for fighter HP to bring down those with shields.
Solved.
-
Okay thanks guys, that's enough opinion for Greg and I to use.
DISCUSSION CLOSED
-
You need to actually CLOSE the thread ;)
-
Well by rights, Dem was away for thanksgiving holiday, which he did tell us about so he didnt have a chance to get his input to the conversation, which I think everyone would agree that he is rightfully entitled too. Being one of the major players in just about every uni from GR to GCW his opinion probably holds some worth.