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

[gallpizi]

And in a dark corner of the earth a rumble occurs. We are getting a decent amount of the old gang together.

[SWSF Hale]

Testing some specs/ideas.

TIE Fighter
Type: TIE SF
Length: 6 meters
Hyperdrive: None
UCR: 8
Durability: 6
Attack Rating: 4
Capabilities:
TIE SWARM -- Groups of this unit, when forming up with other TIE SFs, get +3 AR for every 6 TIEs in the group.

X-Wing
Type: Heavy SF
Length: 13 meters
Hyperdrive: x1
UCR: 6
Durability: 20
Attack Rating: 10

Test Battle: 1 TIE Fighter Squad vs 1 X-Wing Squad

TIE Fighters (12/12)
UCR: 8
Durability: 72/6
Attack Rating: 54 (48+6)

X-Wings (12/12)
UCR: 6
Durability: 240/20
Attack Rating: 120

12 TIE Fighters attack 12 X-Wings for 54 DMG.
(54/20) = 2 X-Wings destroyed, 1 damaged.

12 X-Wings return fire for (120x6/8) 90 DMG.
(90/6) = 12 TIEs destroyed. 2 X-Wings blow up.

12 TIE Fighters make final attack for 54 DMG. 3 X-Wings destroyed.

FINAL RESULTS: 7/12 X-Wings remain.

[gallpizi]

I like the way that looks. Would be simple to make a Spread Sheet to do all these(Something I can do).

[SWSF Hale]

Yeah, the idea is that we go back to individual SF/AUX units. There are some benefits to this:

1. It will help combat math in small scale battles (VSD vs NEB + CORV, for instance).
2. It makes SF/AUX less disposable -- since damage isn't spread amongst a squadron, casualties are noticed immediately.
3. We could, in theory, allow for modifications and upgrades to be performed on individual fighters/AUX so that something like Red 5 (Luke's X-Wing) would have a tangible in-game effect, for example:

Normal X-Wing, UCR: 6 / DUR: 20 / AR: 10
Enhanced X-Wing, UCR: 7 / DUR: 24 / AR: 12
Elite (Rogue Squadron) X-Wing, UCR: 8 / DUR: 30 / AR: 16
Red-5 would be an Elite X-Wing + R2-D2 + Luke's piloting skills, so for game purposes, let's say R2-D2 adds some crazy bonuses like UCR+1, +10 DUR and +4 AR, and Luke's Force-enhanced Piloting skills add more craziness like +6 UCR and +6 AR

In the end, Luke + R2-D2 + Elite X-Wing = UCR: 15 / DUR: 40 / AR: 26 ... basically one helluva starfighter. Not invincible, but definitely could take a licking and retreat if necessary. So let's put that theory to the test,

(12/12) TIE Fighters attack Red 5 for (54x8/15) = 29 DMG
Red-5 returns fire, dealing 26 DMG and destroys 4 TIEs, then makes a hyper-escape.

Obviously we'll need some amplifying rules for SF vs SF, because 12 vs 1 isn't realistic. I believe TIEs grouped together in packs of 4, as to maximize attack vectors whilst leaving room for maneuvering.

[gallpizi]

I think that makes a lot of sense if you ask me.

[SWSF Hale]

More thoughts about specs: we keep it really simple.

EMPIRE
Capital Ships: ISD, VSD, STRK, CRAK, LANCER
Starfighters: TIE/F, TIE/B, TIE/INT, TIE/A, XG-1
Auxiliary: L/SHU, S/TRAN, SKIP
Vehicles: AT-AT, AT-ST, Speeder Bike
Infantry: Fleet Trooper, Stormtrooper, ARC Trooper

REBEL
Capital Ships: MC-80, RAF, NEB, CORV, GR-75
Starfighters: A-Wing, B-Wing, X-Wing, Y-Wing, Z-95
Auxiliary: L/SHU, A/TRAN, RAT
Vehicles: T-47, Hover Tank, Speeder Bike
Infantry: Rebel Trooper, Rebel Commando, Rebel Ranger

SF/AUX/GAV Upgrades: Enhanced, Elite
Infantry Upgrades: Veteran, Elite

Now, keep in mind, this is just the spec list for all basic units. The intention is to have a Hero Unit (the Player Character) + Companion Units (less capable but still awesome) + Special Units (really beefy special purpose units, most likely for combat).

If we keep the spec list relatively small, and focus more on modifiers rather than creating new units altogether, this could make the game a bit more interesting.

As for the SF specs, here's what I have so far:

A-Wing
Type: Light SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 10 meters
Hyperdrive: x1
UCR: 10
Durability: 15
Attack Rating: 4
Warheads: 6 CMs (+2 AR)
Capabilities:
Slash Maneuver --- This unit may launch all warheads in a single attack against capital ships.

B-Wing
Type: Heavy SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 17 meters
Hyperdrive: x1
UCR: 3
Durability: 34
Attack Rating: 8
Warheads: 10 APTs (+4 AR)
Capabilities:
Gunship --- +2 UCR against capital ships and auxiliary craft.

X-Wing
Type: Heavy SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 13 meters
Hyperdrive: x1
UCR: 6
Durability: 26
Attack Rating: 4
Warheads: 6 PTs (+3 AR)
Capabilities:
Hit and Fade -- After making any attack, this unit can make an immediate hyperescape to avoid return fire.

Y-Wing
Type: Heavy SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 16 meters
Hyperdrive: x1
UCR: 4
Durability: 32
Attack Rating: 6
Warheads: 6 PTs (+3 AR) OR 4 PBs (+6 AR vs Caps)
Capabilities:
Bombing Run --- This unit may launch all warheads in a single attack against capital ships.

Z-95 Headhunter
Type: Light SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 12 meters
Hyperdrive: x1
UCR: 6
Durability: 18
Attack Rating: 4
Warheads: 6 CMs (+2 AR)
Capabilities:
Escort Fighter --- While on Combat Space Patrol or in the Atmosphere, this unit gets +2 UCR.

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

TIE Fighter
Type: TIE SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 6 meters
Hyperdrive: None
UCR: 8
Durability: 8
Attack Rating: 4
Warheads: None
Capabilities:
Short Range Fighter --- While on Combat Space Patrol, this unit gets +2 UCR.

TIE Interceptor
Type: TIE SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 10 meters
Hyperdrive: None
UCR: 10
Durability: 12
Attack Rating: 8
Warheads: None
Capabilities:
Tactical Fighter --- This unit gets +1 AR for each point of UCR above its target (example: vs. X-Wing would be +4 AR).

TIE Bomber
Type: TIE SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 8 meters
Hyperdrive: None
UCR: 6
Durability: 10
Attack Rating: 4
Warheads: 6 PTs (+3 AR) OR 4 PBs (+6 AR vs Caps)
Capabilities:
Bombing Run --- This unit may launch all warheads in a single attack against capital ships.

TIE Avenger
Type: Advanced TIE SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 10 meters
Hyperdrive: None
UCR: 8
Durability: 20
Attack Rating: 8
Warheads: 6 CMs (+2 AR)
Capabilities:
Tactical Fighter --- This unit gets +1 AR for each point of UCR above its target (example: vs. X-Wing would be +2 AR).

XG-1 Assault Gunboat
Type: Heavy SF
Cost:
Production:
Length: 15 meters
Hyperdrive: None
UCR: 5
Durability: 30
Attack Rating: 6
Warheads: 10 CMs (+2 AR)
Capabilities:
Strike Fighter --- This unit can launch all warheads in a single attack.

[Medivh]

I think something to consider is trying to avoid both a "chess match" and on the opposite extreme, a situation where the outcome is known from the outset, because one side is stronger than the other.  Each side needs to have different strengths and weaknesses that CAN be exploited, but may not be.

My best analogy is comparing Warcraft (I and II) and Starcraft.

Warcraft literally had both sides with matching units.  Scenarios were made harder only by reducing your resources/units as compared to the enemy.

Starcraft however, had those different strengths and weaknesses.  The zerg had weaker units that were cheaper, and could heal; the protoss units were more expensive, but stronger, and had shielding; humans soldiers were weak, but machines were strong. The particular units also did not parallel each other - some has strong A to A, some had strong S to A, and some had strong A to S.  There were ways to deal with weaknesses, but they had to be dealt with, or you were left vulnerable.

That's something that can be programmed into a computer game.  How can varying weaknesses/strengths really be played out in text based action?

Rebels have advantage of speed (in cap ships) over the Empire
Empire usually has advantage of strength and/or numbers over rebels

Rebel fighters have shields/ TIES don't - but when we've ever played it out in battle, it just makes the fighters stronger.  The shields don't regenerate. It might as well be stronger hulls, UNLESS the shielding actually protects fighters - maybe shields regenerate between posts?  That makes rebel fighters much more valuable against imperial attack - they don't keep damage to shielding.  But they are more expensive, limiting their effectiveness against an Empire that can churn out TIES that admittedly can be killed very quickly.

Fighters also have limited capacity to carry warheads - they may have 2 launchers, and carry only 1-2 torpedoes per launcher.  In SW Episode IV, Red Leader had two proton torpedoes in his arsenal - that's why he couldn't make a second run on the death star.

Just thoughts running through my head.  Trying to think of more ways to make it less of "my numbers vs your numbers"

[Ramano]

Well, honestly it comes down to what are you looking for in its design. Are you guys looking for a game, and it to be just that? In that situation, in order to maintain the balance that Med is talking about you simply limit the Empire to T/F, T/B, and T/Is for fighters. The issue comes in because the imperial players get tired of having to replace their entire fighter compliments after every battle and eventually every imperial sim ive ever seen, no matter how limited always works to end the rebel fighter superiority, which in turn unbalances the game. Canon specs or not, if at any point the imps can compete with the rebs with fighters, your game is broken. Remember, while yes rebel fighters are utterly dominant, what no one takes into account is once the fighters are gone, even an entire rebel fleet is worthless. If the imps loose their fighters, they can just move the capships in to make up the difference.

Now if you are looking to be more realism orientated, well then someone is going to take the shaft. The Empire simply out classed the rebels in every way. In reality the rebels should have been utterly exterminated by the Empire and it shouldnt even have been a resistance. We far too often dont take into account with these games that these are fictional movies and not really based on any sort of reality. Therefore rebels, in hopeless situations somehow just continue to win. In these games, that is just simply not the case, they dont operate by a script and when one side completely out-powers the other side, you are going to lose every time, every battle. So basically the person that plays the rebels can never engage in a front on battle, and any time the imperial side does, the rebels will be forced to retreat. After 6 months, depending on how fast you guys play, the rebels will be left with nothing but the poorest of planets, no economy, and no hope of even a minor victory... as it was in the movies. Basically in order to have realism, someone has to be ok with playing the losing side from the start. This style would be more if you want to focus on storylining over combat. That way battles are less important then whats going on with everyones story and as such, its not so important for the rebels to win major battles.

Just a few things to keep in mind when you guys are going through your design process.

[gallpizi]

So where are we at/ what can I do?

[Ramano]

So I was sitting here and had a thought. Yes I know, scary! But what would people think about a combat sim based around ship templates instead of just set stat lists? Like turbolasers take up X space, shield generators take up X space and each ship gets X total space to play with. Obviously there would be more too it then that but thats the basics of the idea. Sure its the same old numbers run we've all done a hundred times before but this time it has personality to it. It would still look like star wars, and everything would operate off the same basic scale but we could really let our creative juices fly. I dont know, like I said it was just a thought, wondering what you guys think about it?

[SWSF Hale]

I'm skeptical of a "custom starship" combat model because if we get to the point of your ship versus mine, the ship with the most guns wins.

[Ramano]

Until your tank comes up against my ship that has twice your shields and 3x your speed, in which case I simply out maneuver you until I wear you down. Im mean, obviously at some level yes, its going to come to what you are talking about, but really is reality any different? In war, the army with the most and biggest guns wins. Sure tactics come into play a little, but do tactics really matter when you are running from "effect fire" coming from 5 or 6 different artillery divisions? Just saying, there is no way to really get around the fact that war has always been a numbers game. This emphasizes the effect a bit more then desired sure, but there really is no way around that in any combat sim. You also have to keep in mind that any system we design to try to balance that out ends up adding extra layers of complexity to the system, which the idea behind this is all the complexity is in the design model, the game it self I was planning on an ultra-simplified sim model. Basically weapons do X damage, you have this much shields, go. Yes im sure there would be small imbalances in it, but I figure you treat it like Empire at War, you just play into them and deal with it. Obviously if something was completely game breaking we would address it, but for the most part, if you figure out how to pack 25 HTLBs onto a corellian corevette (which would never happen, its a hypothetical for effect) then that would be our problem to figure out how to deal with, as would happen in real life, such as Russia trying to figure out how to deal with the fact our military is now starting to use laser based weaponry.

It was just an idea honestly. I havnt even worked anything up for it as I wanted to see what the enthusiasm for such a project would be, which after 40 something days you are the first person to respond so... lol

Edit: Also an easy idea to deal with what you are talking about is to just use the economy to limit how powerful you can make stuff. If your weapons platform costs a million credits cause of all the guns, and you only make 150,000 credits per pay period, then you probably arnt going to have many of them, and the loss of even 1 would be catastrophic.

[SWSF Hale]

Okay, so the idea is to build a bridge RPG-style gameplay with GCW-style mechanics.

The only way to accomplish this is be both turn-based and scenario-driven. One example scenario I think can highlight something we need is the Millennium Falcon escaping Mos Eisley. This entailed a (short) ground combat sequence (Han vs Troopers), followed by a space combat sequence (ISD vs Falcon). All of this happened in the span of a few minutes on screen!

We need grids, grids, and more grids, in order to accomplish this sort of gameplay.

[SWSF Eidolon]

I'm skeptical of a "custom starship" combat model because if we get to the point of your ship versus mine, the ship with the most guns wins.

not with dice 

[SWSF Eidolon]

The only way to accomplish this is be both turn-based and scenario-driven. One example scenario I think can highlight something we need is the Millennium Falcon escaping Mos Eisley. This entailed a (short) ground combat sequence (Han vs Troopers), followed by a space combat sequence (ISD vs Falcon). All of this happened in the span of a few minutes on screen!

We need grids, grids, and more grids, in order to accomplish this sort of gameplay.

I'm a fan of scenario driven.  A thought on turn based, if we are talking combat instances here straddling rpg/rpg tactics where multiple units may come in to play, perhaps a system where one "teams" particular constituents don't all act at once.  So it's a cycle of back and forth between two opposing forces, even if it's only two players, until all "units/characters" exhaust ability for a round?

I cannot stress the how much this flourishes in X-Wing minis and any similar tabletop game, bringing all sorts of possible modifiers (and simple ones to!) in to play.


As for grid demand, then I'd think we need to look at possibility of some form of uniform grid easily applied across all scales/scenes so as we move from one to another it's not as much of a jump.  Hexagons are a personal fav.