OOC Chat

[SWSF Hoppus]

IR was run by a bunch of moffs... so being each of you on separate planets would make fine sense.

[Erasmar]

(Tatooine is listed, but it's an "intergalactic amnesty" kind of state that anyone can visit and do shit on).

If I can stay active, I'm going to create a second, independent character and just keep at Tatooine and storyline him literally doing shit all the time. Like just a holomarketer with irritable bowel syndrome going from cube to bathroom, cube to bathroom, cube to bathroom.

[SWSF Hale]

(Tatooine is listed, but it's an "intergalactic amnesty" kind of state that anyone can visit and do shit on).

If I can stay active, I'm going to create a second, independent character and just keep at Tatooine and storyline him literally doing shit all the time. Like just a holomarketer with irritable bowel syndrome going from cube to bathroom, cube to bathroom, cube to bathroom.

LOL that was supposed to be "do shit" not "shit on".

[shermy530]

This looks tempting... also it is borderline impossible to register here.  The stupid letters don't show up that you have to type to prove you're human.

[SWSF Eidolon]

Could also double-up with me for the Hapans. I'm treating the Queen Mother as an NPC and just controlling the fleet of Gallinore, in a sense. You could be the leader from another world in the Cluster and we could either be rivals or working toward the same thing. Either double-up the defenses/facilities of Hapes, or create to different planets, not sure how that would work.

Just thinking outside the box. A Galactic Hapan Empire!

If I could have another Hapan planet that'd be sweet. . .if your cool with it and the rest of the crew is willing to go for that.  Story would dictate that we always align against outsiders, but a little stripper rivalry is always a fun dynamic  

If the group consensus is against the Hapans having that advantage I can understand and will likely try and do the Hutts some sort of justice.

[Ramano]

Im cool with have 3 seperate Hapan factions so long as I get to watch a hapan civil war hahaha!

[SWSF Eidolon]

Like just a holomarketer with irritable bowel syndrome going from cube to bathroom, cube to bathroom, cube to bathroom.

  Simming has been needing an IBS homage!

  Let me get some doxycycline and loperamide!

[Ramano]

Now dont get me wrong guys, im not trying to be an asshole here. I know I come off a bit crass for all of your rice paper skins, but im not trying to go after anyone, im not out to get anyone. Im just trying to play. My concerns with the rule discussion issues have to do with we had a launch date set, and if we go back into building mode, we will not meet said date, meaning we are pushed back another 2 weeks, if not a month into august for a start. I worry in said amount of time people losing interest in it and when we do finally start, well now people will post when they get around to it, maybe once a week. I mean, look at the activity here right now, we need to use this for a good launch, have a game with enough activity to really garner attention.

I understand everyone has ideas for how to improve things, good ideas, and I dont want to take anything away from your creativity, but we cant afford to be back in building mode right now. I implore you, please, lets just use the rules we have. (Yes I know we need to get them all down on the thread too.)

[SWSF Hoppus]

I agree with you Ramano. I don't want to go all crazy about rules. As long as it is understood how things work by current rules, I'm fine with it. However, current rules also allow bombardment at 100% accuracy of anythign on ground grid.

[SWSF Hoppus]

And in other news the beta of calculator should be ready tomorrow!

[Ramano]

Yes, bombardment is 100% accuracy, as all weapons are in this game. But its also why there is no damage modifier for it, to signify that not every shot is gunna hit where you want it too. A single heavy turbolaser is enough to take out the entire downtown area of a major city. So in actuality a bombardment should be doing 100s of thousands of points of damage, but the easy way to add in the errant way a bombardment is fired, we just leave the weapons at base damage. Well, with the exception of this x10 damage for space units, but for the record this is the first ive heard of that. Last I recall hale you said specifically no modifiers for ground damage.

[Ramano]

Now that I think about it, seeing as we are discussing the topic anyway, im seeing a broken mechanic in the bombardment rules... namely the mechanic itself. With allowing bombardments, especially on the scale we are discussing right now, why even bother with ground combat rules? If I can just sit in the A-Ring and bomb a planet off the game, why would I even bother sending troops to the ground? I see Dem moving in to do that right now, the "I dont have to fight you, i'll just sit in orbit and blow you away" tactic.

In light of this I think we have a decision to make, do we render ground combat irrelevant by allowing orbital bombardment, or do we just do away with bombardment all together and force ground combat? You have to admit, with allowing bombardment, any move into the atmosphere of a planet basically just made you a fish in a barrel. I know doing away with bombardment is a bit unconventional, but this is simply unfair and game imbalancing.

[SWSF Hoppus]

Right now, bombardment works like this.

ISD fires 900 damage at GAVs on surface.
A T47 can take 200 damage.
So in a turn, an ISD kills a mere 4 T-47s with all its firepower because it is 100% accurate.

Thats why this should happen (imo):
* First, I am adjusting all ground specs by a degree of 10 (200 becomes 20) in Attack Rating and DT - so now no need to x10 space units coming in to ground combat, everything is at same level (no real change to gameplay here besides for bombardment).
* Bombardment shouldn't be 100% accurate any longer, instead, bombarding ship has UCR 1 for any turn it is bombarding, and if bombarding cannot fire weapons at any other targets in space.
  (ex) So it is 100% accurate vs static targets like a building with UCR of 1, and quite inaccurate vs those T47s: ISD fires 900 damage * 0.125 (1/8 UCRs) = 113 damage, 5 T47s destroyed, 1 damaged.

There is a risk, of course. Fielding VSDs and ISDs leaves you weak in space to fighters, which with no support craft can make quick work of you. It would take many turns to destroy by space. You cant defend yourself against attackers while bombarding. Imagine if several fighters punch through the CSP - the ISD has to break off the bombardment or engage. For a VSD, its UCR of 3 or 4 goes to 1, so other ships can raise hell on it, etc.

I would not be against just removing bombardment all together though. I like that idea best

[Ramano]

But wait, if you redo the specs of the ground units, but DONT put the x10 multiplier in it. So now that 900 damage kills 45 tanks, which is way more in line, because the tanks are gunna move around and dodge some of it, the turbolasers are raining down over a 400 square mile area, and its not so over powerful that fear of a bombardment makes ground combat irrelevant, but still does enough damage to signify it was a bombardment. 45 tanks is an entire bases compliment of GAVs.

But more-over I am with Hop that just removing bombardment rules all together is for the best, that way we will actually see ground combat at some point, outside of capturing someones ship.

[SWSF Hale]

"If a rule has to have an exception for the mechanic to work, I would question that mechanic."

This is sound logic. Perhaps we can change Orbital Bombardment to this only...

Destroying Planetary Regions or "Base Delta Zero"
This is a special Orbital Bombardment attack that can wipe out all the units, facilities, and terrain features of a planet which can be accomplished by inflicting 10,000 Damage onto a single G-grid space. Once the damage has been done, refer to assessment below for planetary affects:
G-Space #1 Destroyed: Grid space is converted into a "Wasteland" (-1 UCR for infantry and vehicles).
G-Space #2 Destroyed: Grid space is converted into a "Wasteland"; the planet experiences a cataclysmic climate disaster that affects the remaining G-Grid spaces (one of them becomes a Snowy Tundra, the other Mountainous).
G-Space #3 Destroyed: Grid space is converted into a "Wasteland".
G-Space #4 Destroyed: Grid space is converted into a "Wasteland". All previous planetary features and capabilities are removed from the game.

With this setup, in an ISD-II, it would take me almost two weeks to BDZ one Grid. This makes Orbital Bombardment a last resort siege-mechanic rather than a full frontal assault due to the prohibitive time requirement. According to cannon, this is exactly why the Empire needed a bunch of Star Destroyers to BDZ an entire planet quickly.

By removing the specific unit targeting mechanic of bombardment, we arrive at a more realistic destination. Even with Bombard UCR 1, I'm not going to waste my time knocking out half a dozen T-47s each round. That's what I have Dropships and AT-ATs for.

To simplify the above rule, it could be written as this:

Orbital Bombardment or "Base Delta Zero"
Orbital Bombardment is a special attack that Star Destroyers, Mon Calamari Cruisers, and Dauntless Heavy Cruisers can perform that is capable of destroying all units, facilities, and terrain features of a G-grid space by inflicting 10,000 damage on it. Orbital Bombardment must be conducted in the A-Ring and only Turbolaser-type weapons can be used. (When attacking a Planetary Shield, all weapons can be used). As a special feature to the Victory-I Star Destroyer, it may fire its concussion missiles, but no other capital ship may fire any other warheads during Orbital Bombardment. Once the 10,000 damage is done to a G-grid space, it becomes a "Wasteland" (UCR -1 to all infantry and vehicles). Once all G-grid spaces have been bombarded into Wastelands, the planet looses its special features and characteristics.