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

[SWSF Eidolon]

, the Millennium Falcon, was a heavily modified TY-2400 freighter.

How dare you.

YT1300

[Ramano]

-hides in shame- Youre right... I got the 2 mixed up in my head, lol.

[SWSF Hale]

I think we need to return to GCW III: Rise of the Empire. Yes, it lost some steam. But we can set up that whole game as a contained campaign. For those of you who've played KOTOR (not SWTOR!), the idea that different systems could give the player different things is a great idea. The goal would be turning the Seswenna Sector into a sandbox. You want Item A, go to System B, etc.

Instead of just posting SLs for character development, SLs would be critical for quest-fulfillment. At the end of a quest, when SLs have run their course, we can use a combat system to decide major outcomes.

For example, lets say my character Gunnar is trying to break into an Imperial command center to steal some codes or whatever. I would SL a large portion of it, but lets say after Gunnar finishes the theft, some alarm gets tripped, and now he has to slice and dice his way out.

That kind of scenario is very table-top RPG-ish, so, the question is... do we want that kind of game? Or do we just want to write SLs? Or do we just want to turn GCW III into a small-scale traditional sim with fleet and resource management, SLs be damned, just so we can blow stuff up?

[Ramano]

Well, for obvious reason GCW would be a problem for me. And besides the obvious that im not allowed there anymore, (like seriously I cant even access that section of the boards) I just dont like the rules. They are far too open to interpretation, with them meaning 1 thing to this person, something else to another person and it comes down to whoever kisses ass to the guy in charge better gets his way. I can play as a team, but im not going to kiss ass just to get ahead... probably half the problem with my actual life, lol. Not trying to start an argument about it, those are just my personal feelings toward GCW. Take them as you will.

As far as the game is concerned, we gotta have some sort of combat system but im not totally opposed to a more SL focused outing. Some kind of character building. Not just a static thing that goes off and does interconnected stuff. As far as what you are talking about, im not sure I understand the concept. Do you mean like a scenario where we are all on the same team, and we are just playing towards a common story-goal ending?

I mean, you guys know me, im all for the resource management and blowing stuff up, but I am just looking for more this go around. Something more then just doing math for resource gain. Something more to do then just sitting around waiting for the other guy to make his post. I want my stuff to feel like MY stuff, not just generic models for a one size fits all system. And by god we need something that adds an element of chance to the scope. To combat against that "whoever has the biggest ship wins" scenario you were already talking about.

[SWSF Hale]

Personally, I'd like a combination of Armada and X-Wing for space combat, with RPG elements for ground SLs & combat.

1. Let's say the Galactic Empire is building a Planet Defender Turbolaser at some system.
2. Rebel Command catches wind of this, decides to organize a strike task force to sabotage/destroy the PDTL. Space: supplies and shipment convoy for the PDTL can be hit, Ground: the actual construction site can be hit too.
3. We, as the player community (PC), will "play the part" of either Rebel Forces or Galactic Empire, or find some way for our characters to be involved in either side (i.e. an independent bounty hunter could work as a "private contractor" for GE security, etc.).

That kind of scenario is combat-driven, but there are some elements that we as the PC need to fill in the RPG/Story gaps such as: what system is the PDTL at? Why are they building it? Who's behind it? How will the construction or destruction of the PDTL impact the larger campaign? Particularly, if we use an Influence-based point system to keep track of the balance of power, then this scenario will impact the end goal of winning over a sector for instance.

Sorry you can't view the GCWIII boards. We decided to go with a prequel based game for Chapter 3 that is a Sandbox Honor Sim. "Rise of the Empire" is set in 9 BBY. The Rebel Alliance hasn't formally been made, but inklings of a greater insurgency are beginning to take shape.

Alternatively, there is also talk of a GCW: Lost Campaigns: Seswenna Sector game...

The idea is that we go back to a Yavin-era GCW game with simple specs, smaller scale, more complex combat (if you read the back history of this thread, you'll see).

By limiting it to the Seswenna Sector, we don't have to worry about macro-management and other things associated with traditional big-game simming. At most, an entire Imperial Sector Fleet will be at the disposal of the GE, but a common scenario would be more like a VSD vs NEB+CORV, to take a page out of Armada.

We go hardcore on hexgrid, with firing arcs and everything (000, 045, 135, 180, 225, 315). (On that note, I would prefer that ships have designated firings arcs, and all weapons can be slewed to those arcs, rather than weapons having their own arcs, just to simplify things). ISD would for instance be 000, 045, and 315 (basically everything in front of it), whereas smaller ships would be more expansive. This is just like X-Wing, so the mechanics would be easy to translate into our game.

Because scale is small, we can customize ships for special purposes (for instance, a VSD without CMs but more TLs/ions, like a mini-ISD; or a VSD converted into a VEC, etc.).

Those are my ideas.

[SWSF Eidolon]

Personally, I'd like a combination of Armada and X-Wing for space combat, with RPG elements for ground SLs & combat.

1. Let's say the Galactic Empire is building a Planet Defender Turbolaser at some system.
2. Rebel Command catches wind of this, decides to organize a strike task force to sabotage/destroy the PDTL. Space: supplies and shipment convoy for the PDTL can be hit, Ground: the actual construction site can be hit too.
3. We, as the player community (PC), will "play the part" of either Rebel Forces or Galactic Empire, or find some way for our characters to be involved in either side (i.e. an independent bounty hunter could work as a "private contractor" for GE security, etc.).

  Generally speaking I like this rough concept.  More or less what I had in mind, an agreeable campaign scenario, and plug our individual characters in to it to play some role.  Once complete, we could simply pick a new Campaign to start.  Ideally, we would be using same character/character groups, and improving their attributes/abilities maybe inbetween Campaigns resulting from whatever they achieved in the campaign/battles/story itself.

  I'd like to see the campaigns more focused ideally, as in not encompassing a whole sector at once.  Again, micromanaging empires or even mini empires is not at all a sort of game I am interested in seeing personally.  So if we use the campaign concept, character improvement, we still have the lasting long term reward/improvement dynamic, and with limited campaigns that will change upon a climax, we will get to change venues and not be stuck in the same environment for eternity.

  As far as ships and such I like the small scale for abiltiy to customize ships as well.  This could partially replace the management system to give players something to be working toward besides character improvement, acquisition of a new ship/few ships and bettering them etc.

   A thought on the characters, story and influence point concepts.  Maybe we have Character Groups, I know I'd like to use groups that have numerical tactical usage rather than be restricted to one character.  So maybe we have groups.  We get so many points to start out to create a core character/support group.  Eventually earning more points could be used to expand or improve "entourage/team" or to improve ships, or standing, or maybe used to skew a story concept?

[Ramano]

Well, I definitely think we need a system in place for modifying ship templates so we dont end up in a scenario like Eid and I had before where he designs a ship that I do the math on there there is just no way it could carry enough power for all the systems, but we dont have any set rules for it so... it becomes, again, an ass kissing-fest to the person in charge to get our way. Which if I recall, it ended up just degenerating into a personal attack on each others character to decide who was more "deserving" of getting their way, lol. Anyway, the point im making is, without a system in place to check everything, both sides will always be able to come up with a logical argument why they are right. We need things to prevent against that. I mean, we can all sit here and agree to be civil all day long, but at the end of the day when everyone is down in the mud and its YOUR fleet on the line, there are always those lines in the sand we just arnt willing to compromise on.

And please dont misunderstand my intentions here, cause im sure by now everyone is going "Oh, here goes Ramano on his doomsday, nervous nelly shit." but lets face it, we've all done this long enough now to know where this is going. These are issues that are going to get brought up sooner or later. Best we get the irritating shit that we all roll our eyes at now out of the way so its not interrupting the game while we are playing. And also why I press upon the importance of having systems in place to deal with this kind of stuff when it comes up. I dont know about you guys, but I would rather have 6 complex guidebooks set up that we never need to use, then have an issue come up and not have a guide on how to deal with it and then we end up fighting and screaming at each other and everyone ends up quitting.

[Ramano]

We also need to set this up for only like 3 players. Make so more can play if they wish, but set up for us 3 cause again, lets face it, how many times have we seen a sim get set up, and there are 8 willing and eager souls at the start, but 3 months down the road we look and its back to just Me, Eid, and Hale are the only ones posting. So I say this one we set up for just us 3, then if more people play we can adjust accordingly and the more the marrier. Ive made D&D campaigns work with less but it has to be adjusted to do so.

But I like the idea we got going. Where no one is really the imperial or rebels, we all just run operatives for whoever trying to achieve objectives. This is a good concept, we should expand on this to more detail!

[SWSF Hale]

Sketching a grid. (Interpret the grid as column-biased. Read everything top to bottom).


I like the idea of Character Groups. Using a Warhammer style system, players could form teams using characters with certain levels/ratings. For example: a Han Solo + Chewbacca + Luke Skywalker + Rebel Commandos would cost beaucoup. So would the shuttle Tydirium. Utilizing a "Command Point" system, this could easily be accomplished. Players could have a decked out strike team, or focus on leader + numbers (i.e. Vader & endless stormtroopers).

In regards to sensibilities and people getting offended, that's a bridge we can cross when we get there. I'd rather have airtight rules that require no arbitration or GM judgment. When an X-Wing blows up a TIE Fighter, we don't bitch at each other, but when a prized NPC gets killed, how will we reconcile that?

In this game, we need to start humble. 1 Master Character + 1 personal vessel. What that looks like can be different for everybody, but suppose we also introduce a means to allow players to start with more resources. Do they configure their team to be a spec ops strike force? Or go heavy on space with additional starships and better weapons?

[Ramano]

In regards to sensibilities and people getting offended, that's a bridge we can cross when we get there. I'd rather have airtight rules that require no arbitration or GM judgment. When an X-Wing blows up a TIE Fighter, we don't bitch at each other, but when a prized NPC gets killed, how will we reconcile that?

My point exactly. Take the example between Syren and I. I put her character into a position where, there really is no realistic way you are getting out of that. So then a 2 week OOC fight ensues to which in order to save her character they just kick me out of the game. Which, perhaps I deserved it, I used Dem's girlfriend as a play to save my ship, which my character really could have never known about without OOC knowledge, but the point is, lets make it so that kind of issue is already prepared to be dealt with at the onset. Its combat, people are going to die. Best we make a time-out room for people can cool off after such an event, lmao!! Metaphorically speaking of course but you get my point. We take our RPing very seriously, and losing a character is tantamount to losing a limb. Youre damn right we are going to bitch and whine, haha!!

But as far as the influence system, I like that. Where the influence you control determines what you can use and how much. Like ships wont have a monetary cost per-say, but each class of vessel has an influence cost and build time, and you just build what you need at will, up to your influence maximum. That would also make it so we dont have to do record keeping on everyone for how much they are spending and people shaving credits. Look at what the person has, is it under their influence, then its good.

[SWSF Hale]

My preference is that a Master Character is immortal (unless the player agrees/decides for it to be killed). Everything else... is expendable. Everything and everyone. If we make the game campaign-based, then we could truly "play for keeps" by deliberately trying to destroy specific characters or ships. I mean, had the Falcon not slipped into a convenient asteroid belt, who's to say Death Squadron would've captured it for sure, and Leia would've been turned to the Dark Side? That being said, prior to the asteroid belt, the Falcon sure gave some Star Destroyers a run for their money (and had the hyperdrive been operational, would've escaped anyhow). Even if the Falcon had some escort vessels, Vader would've wanted to concentrate efforts to capture it regardless. The same thing would happen in our game. In chess you play for checkmate.

[Ramano]

See, im not so sure I get down on that. I mean, its one thing to have your character pull off a miraculous escape, its completely another to have a system set up where your character, sitting on board the bridge of an exploding ship, with a single line post makes it to an escape pod, the pod flies through an entire opposing fleet, untouched, lightly sets down on the planet and you remain completely undetected, knowing exactly where you are, until a friendly ship, that somehow enters the area completely undetected picks you up and we are back to do it tomorrow. I mean, stop me if that doesnt sound like complete nonsense to you...

I mean, imagine the difference in play style when you know your character could die in any engagement. Retreat starts becoming viable options again. People dont engage head long against impossible odds simply because their economy can afford the losses. People would actually have to think in combat for a change, look at whats happening and constantly be planning for that worst case scenario. Death is a part of life, and its one area in our gaming we put to the side far too often in my opinion.

[SWSF Eidolon]

My preference is that a Master Character is immortal (unless the player agrees/decides for it to be killed). Everything else... is expendable. Everything and everyone. If we make the game campaign-based, then we could truly "play for keeps" by deliberately trying to destroy specific characters or ships. I mean, had the Falcon not slipped into a convenient asteroid belt, who's to say Death Squadron would've captured it for sure, and Leia would've been turned to the Dark Side? That being said, prior to the asteroid belt, the Falcon sure gave some Star Destroyers a run for their money (and had the hyperdrive been operational, would've escaped anyhow). Even if the Falcon had some escort vessels, Vader would've wanted to concentrate efforts to capture it regardless. The same thing would happen in our game. In chess you play for checkmate.

   Good start we have going on settling on a premise.

   Agreed on a Master Character.  They should be designed in a unit aspect that leaves them a perpetual out.  An out that has some cost or loss, but an out for preservation none the less.  One thought. . .

   If characterse have groups, obviously a Master Char and his Compatriots/Confidants, then perhaps the in the "Escape" of a Master Char from a seeming ASSURED apprehension/killing, one of the lesser chars MUST be sacrificed.   Now if that's a Kill, or if it's a capture and they could maybe be recovered later as dif part of campaign/sub-mission etc, would be up to the Captor.

   Just a thought to help hard wire in story dynamic affecting actual combat/numeric systems.

[SWSF Eidolon]

See, im not so sure I get down on that. I mean, its one thing to have your character pull off a miraculous escape, its completely another to have a system set up where your character, sitting on board the bridge of an exploding ship, with a single line post makes it to an escape pod, the pod flies through an entire opposing fleet, untouched, lightly sets down on the planet and you remain completely undetected, knowing exactly where you are, until a friendly ship, that somehow enters the area completely undetected picks you up and we are back to do it tomorrow. I mean, stop me if that doesnt sound like complete nonsense to you...

  I think perhaps you're just looking at it all through the lense of a normal sim in a way.  My thought is each scenario result within a campaign plays in to the next scenario to an extent.  Perhaps off.  But that's what I'm interpreting/thinking at moment.

  The idea of "Destruction" I think is maybe something we ought to not get hung up on when it comes to anything not NPCish in nature.  Otherwise, I think it should be built more towards Capture, Apprehension, Disabling etc etc etc.  Like if in space combat a ships health is reduced to 0, is it necessarily space dust now?  Or is 0 hull just more abstract meaning it is disabled, crippled etc.

  (I hate to use real world imagery to relate to fantasy space opera, but example being naval ships, seldom ever do they just explode.  They suffer critical failures and sink, often slowly over hours.  More may die from drowning or exposure than from trauma from damage inflicted on ship itself, etc)

   Hypothetically, if a Master Character were captured somehow, rather than a simple "escape/god power" of sorts, you could use that as the next "scenario" in the larger campaign.  So now you're not in space making an escape anymore, you're in a brig or being transported somewhere, and you have to get away from there.  Injecting the RPG element.  Basically like going from scene to scene.  Resolving one to find out what the next will even be.

   If I'm explaining ideas in my head well enough.

[Ramano]

Playing on Eid's idea, I think that losing in general should come with consequences. Like if you engage in a goal and dont achieve it, you lose influence or something. Using the PDTL idea, say I have a rebel team going to try and destroy its construction. We fail and while I still make it out alive, I now suffer a permanent influence loss due to whatever. Perhaps that means the nice MC-60 you been rolling around in mutiny's or the rebellion decides im no longer a good investment and takes it back, thus I have to pick smaller ships for my fleet. Likewise achieving the objective would result in a gain to influence. Such a system would also allow us to engage in less engaged strikes against other players. Like instead of attacking each others fleets, we go after a building or a construction site to decrease their influence. Just an idea.