GCWIII -- New Combat Model? Let's Mock!

[SWSF Hale]

Here were the specs I was using. The numbers are based from the GCW specs we've been using... just recalculated. In order to keep the scale manageable, the numbers are about as low as they can get. I'm sure everything could be divided by 10 if we really wanted to break it down even further, but I like keeping fleets in the four-digit value range just so they feel big.


SPECS:

ISD
Attack Rating: 432
Durability: 480
UCR: 3
Docking Bay: 150m
Tractor Beams: 1000m
Unit Capacity:
6 TIE Squadrons
6 AUX Groups
10 Landing Barges
1000 Infantry Squads
20 GAV Groups

VSD
Attack Rating: 384
Durability: 270
UCR: 3
Docking Bay: 100m
Tractor Beams: 500m
Unit Capacity:
2 TIE Squadrons
2 AUX Groups
2 Landing Barges
200 Infantry Squads
4 GAV Groups

CRAK
Attack Rating: 80
Durability: 105
UCR: 6
Docking Bay: 12 External Racks
Tractor Beams: 200m
Unit Capacity:
1 TIE Squadron

TIE Fighter Squadron
Combat Rating: 25

TIE Bomber Squadron
Combat Rating: 44

TIE Interceptor Squadron
Combat Rating: 41

TIE Avenger Squadron
Combat Rating: 62


MC-80
Attack Rating: 270
Durability: 455
UCR: 3
Docking Bay: 100m
Tractor Beams: 500m
Unit Capacity:
4 Heavy SF Squadrons
4 AUX Groups
3 Medium Transports
300 Infantry Squads
6 GAV Groups


RAF
Attack Rating: 240
Durability: 180
UCR: 4
Docking Bay: 6 Auxiliary Racks
Tractor Beams: None
Unit Capacity:
1 AUX Group

NEB
Attack Rating: 70
Durability: 90
UCR: 5
Docking Bay: 50m
Tractor Beams: 200m
Unit Capacity:
2 SF Squadrons
2 AUX Groups

CORV
Attack Rating: 24
Durability: 53
UCR: 7
Docking Bay: None
Tractor Beam: 100m
Unit Capacity:
10 Infantry Squads
Special Features:
Blockade Runner -- If this unit lost a battle and must retreat, it gets a bonus attack prior to leaving the system.

A-Wing Squadron
Combat Rating: 41

B-Wing Squadron
Combat Rating: 85

X-Wing Squadron
Combat Rating: 61

Y-Wing Squadron
Combat Rating: 71

-----------------

Lambda Shuttle Group
Combat Rating: 42

Stormtrooper Transport Group
Combat Rating: 60

Skipray Blastboat Group
Combat Rating: 66

Republic Assault Transport Group
Combat Rating: 139

[SWSF Hale]

Greg is working on a new game concept. Was anyone still interested in using these sorts of specs for units? Phase-driven combat (no with no timetable)? Event-driven campaigns? Objective-specific victory/defeat conditions?

[SWSF Hoppus]

We know that we have 2-4 players at any given time.

We know that players can't be sitting at the computer posting multiple times a day - we're not 13 years old anymore I guess!

We know the tactical combat part of the game seems to be limited by the online and text-based nature - no physical board, physical units to move around like with miniatures.

So, where do we go from here?

We can do something similar to older sims - fire arcs, SF combat charts, grids, players controlling larger fleets (maybe 2-3 active ISDs and 2-3 support craft for each of them, in terms of size), big galaxy map, and all of that. But what generally happens is - this is too big time-wise and in terms of the game (with 1 player per side, and 100s of systems, each battle seems... meaningless at some stage). Also, this tends to end up with Player 1 attacks Player 2 at X, so Player 2 takes his fleet to attack Player 1 at Y... which ends up being pretty lame.

We can do something smaller, reducing the scope of the game - by territory, by setting 'win conditions' for each player to work towards, by planning games to run about 4-6 months, then coming up with a new scenario (for example, a scenario where Empire, Rebels and CSA have some reason to be disputing in the same area of space, each with its own objectives). This sort of game would require some innovation, so that win conditions could exist - our old games are simply build and destroy.

It's tough to say where to go.

I long for just an old school AE experience but when I think on it long enough, I know the game will end up as described above - the tic-for-tac battles and all that.

The smaller scenario win-scenario games of 4-6 months are exciting concept but I've yet to think up how to structure a game so that it might work that way, and still involve tactical gaming (fire arcs, grids, etc). This seems to hold the most promise, with a GM pulling some strings to keep the game moving.

Those are some of my thoughts.

Also is Dementat around at all anymore?

[gallpizi]

I reached out to him and hopefully will hear back from him.

Also, I am for older sims!

[SWSF Hale]

I think the concept we might be getting at is a sort of GCW: The Lost Campaigns, because we will be focusing on short-term game runs with a limited scope in terms of the galaxy, sort of like The Outer Rim Sieges from the Clone Wars. Instead of dealing with 100s of systems, or even dozens of systems, we focus on literally a handful of systems at a time.

(This map kicks the most ass: http://wrvh.home.xs4all.nl/galaxymap/galaxymap.pdf)

Here is a section:


With a "Lost Campaigns" concept, one of our games could be "The Seswenna Conflicts" or something of that nature. 10 or less systems.

An idea I was pitching to Greg was that we set automatic timers for certain events to happen: on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th of each month, NPC things will happen at each system. Perhaps one of those events is "The infamous smuggling cartel G9 Crew arrives at System X with massive shipments of black market goods", and it can be up to the player to stop or accelerate these events as they unfold by tasking their units however the player decides.

Committing units to non-combat tasks could be just as equally important to combat duty such as raids or even invasions. In either case, the cost/benefit will have to be balanced by the player.

This sort of game mechanic is highly complex, but with enough planning and game development could be streamlined and automated such that players will know each weekly event at every system and will be able to plan accordingly.

[gallpizi]

I love this plan. Let me sleep on it and provide some thoughts in the mornin.  I have a few already but need to think a bit before commiting to them yet.

[SWSF Hoppus]

I think campaigns is the only direction to go in.

This would of course require a few things

1. A Game Master responsible for each campaign - designing the overall scenario and some of the NPC milestones. This is going to be a hard task, though, I think, if players are going to have fleets (of any size) and be from competing factions. It will require some real skill to craft scenarios that are fulfilling and open enough yet still guided enough that things come off.

2. Some sort of dice component, a la RPG. For things like "does the ISD detect the cargo type" on the ships above and the like, so it's not just a straight line from one event to the next, and so players, too, have to deal with things not coming off as they planned, or coming off even better.

3. Combat rules that work and are satisfying. I'm not sure our traditional combat rules would be in this scenario - they are pretty linear and outcomes are quite predictable. I've said this many times before, what made them 'work' (when they did) was the group dynamic of having 10+ players organizing and planning together and working as a team. My recommendation here? Dice, I think.

I think we have to look at the traditional RPG for some inspiration, and cherry pick mechanics and ideas that will work for us on here. I don't have a clear picture of how that might be at the moment - and my mind is open to something more traditional if something fun and satisfying can be designed, but I with dice and more RPG influence an ISD trying to capture a freighter of stolen cargo would be more interesting than if you just gave them the GCWII rule book ("ISD locks five tractors on freighter, captures it, the end!")


I also think that we need to talk a bit more specific about what campaigns would look like and how they would be designed, assuming you have 1 GM and at least 2 players. What's the scale? Do players have 1-character or a group of characters and ships that they can task as they like and improve as they like - and carry them into the next campaigns (assuming they survive)? I like this second option personally. You get a pool of resources including fighters, officers, soldiers, whatever and you customize them as you like. Each player's task force of units has some sort of orders from above that sends them into the campaign, and from there the GM has to pull strings and kick ass drawing players into the story...

Also there's the question of how far up the chain is the Player - is there an NPC Admiral on his Star Destroyer giving him orders, or at least keeping tabs on them (to keep them on course maybe). Or are they the Admiral with total control, other than the larger orders that sent them in?

Lots of game design questions here.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Rolled 1d6+2 : 4 + 2, total 6

We have dice rolling. it works as a BBC code - you see the small die in the menu below the Change Color option when posting. Inside of the ROLL bracket, you put what you want to roll - 1d6 (1 six-sided die) etc. More directions here: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=2032

If you modify your post, then it will flag that the post was modified and the dice roll might have been tampered. Useful. We could do dice rolls at the end of posts... an option.

[SWSF Hoppus]

This dice roll has been tampered with!
Rolled 2d6+2 : 1, 3 + 2, total 6

Tampered roll.

[gallpizi]

I too was thinking something along the lines of a standing fleet.

Something like: 1 ISD,1 VSD(or DRED), 2 Lancers and 2 Carracks.

That would be your standing fleet. Maybe based on the situation that we have setup then you gain or lose forces.

We def. need dice to make things easier. Hmmmm.

[SWSF Hale]

This dice roll has been tampered with!
Rolled 1d20 : 1, total 1

Hmmm. With the addition of a tamper-free dice mechanic, this opens the door to all sorts of possibilities.

In terms of scale, earlier in this thread we tossed around the idea of composite Fleet/Army units, which gives the players the option of utilizing multiple fleets simultaneously. If we have a 4-player game, then I think this is the way to go. Limiting ourselves to one fleet only makes the game too linear. If the Imperial player(s) were representing Oversector Outer for instance, they would have multiple ISDs and dozens of support vessels to work with. This makes the cat-and-mouse game in a 10-System playing field a lot more interesting, because you could flex your units for offense, defense, or other operations.

Rolled 10d10 : 10, 3, 2, 5, 10, 9, 1, 9, 1, 7, total 57

[SWSF Hoppus]

a 1!! You suck!! 

Rolled 1d20 : 4, total 4

[SWSF Hoppus]

a 4!!?


Rolled 1d20 : 6, total 6

[SWSF Hale]

Imperial Star Destroyer
Fires 60 Turbolasers at CORV Rebel.
Forward Arc:

Rolled 20d10 : 1, 4, 8, 6, 9, 1, 8, 10, 4, 6, 4, 5, 8, 2, 8, 9, 3, 9, 3, 8, total 116

Starboard Arc:

Rolled 20d10 : 10, 6, 2, 7, 1, 9, 2, 3, 1, 5, 1, 6, 5, 1, 2, 2, 6, 4, 4, 10, total 87

Port Arc:

Rolled 20d10 : 1, 1, 9, 7, 10, 7, 3, 2, 8, 3, 8, 10, 2, 2, 4, 5, 8, 1, 10, 6, total 107

[SWSF Hoppus]

Hm, theres a way around dice roll tampering. I can turn off the ability modify posts though, which would fix that.