GCW: Episode III Combat System

[SWSF Hale]

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.

[SWSF Hoppus]

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.

[Ramano]

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.

[SWSF Hale]

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. Lambda Shuttles are getting nerfed (12 damage, UCR 4).

3. People will be able to exit hyperspace and then move right away.

[Ramano]

Why are we nerf'ing the lambda shuttle?

[SWSF Hale]

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.

[SWSF Eidolon]

   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.

[SWSF Hale]

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.

[SWSF Hale]

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.

[SWSF Eidolon]

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.

[Dementat]

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.

[Ramano]

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.

[SWSF Hale]

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.

[SWSF Hale]

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.

[SWSF Hoppus]

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.