A Generic Star Ship Combat System

[Tibour]

They already have the basic rules with ACTA. They also have many models with the ACTA range.

They need to add a ship design system. While the ACTA rules could be used it dosn't have to be compatible with current fleets. If everyone could design a fleet using the same rules you could simulate any popular TV show. I would prefer a point based system. It wouldn't require much support. It could just be a single book or a whole universe. If you keep your weapon system names generic you don't have to worry about licenses.

IE (using ACTA basics)
2 hull boxes(damage track) allow one hard point, each hull box cost X
each weapon cost x, each weapon special x more
larger weapons need more hardpoints, hardpoint could be free as you have to pay for the weapon.
Each crew box cost x
For ship speed something like Hull(damage track) boxes/5xspeeddesired=point cost
Another formula would be needed for the actual hull number

Sorry for rambling but starship combat has always been my favorite genre. I would really like to see something like this using the Basic ACTA rules. Kind of like ACTA a la Full Thrust.

 

[Tibour]

Is it right to vote in your own poll? Well just for the record I voted YES

 

[deathlynx]

Although I like the idea (voted yes) I would say the ship design formula should be a close secret...for developers rather then just everybody since, as has been noted, a system tends to break down when munchkins get their hands on the formula and try designing uber-ships...

 

[LtLeonJonson]

the munchins would ruin it i am afraid, and so i vote no.

 

[MarkNorfolk]

After a bit of thought I voted no.

It's tempting, I really like Starship Combat but it would be in direct competition with ACtA and point builder systems do suffer from munchkinitis. There is also the factor of expected sales to weigh against the development. If another starship game was to be done it would be better to acquire a licence to provide that extra 'hook', I think.

Cheers
Mark

 

[bigtop305]

Hello all I am a new player to this board, the find was totally accidental...anyway I voted yes in the poll, the objections are all valid and hold a lot of common sense to them. But I know that such a system could very well be a "stepping stone" product to get current non players into other lines for a company like mongoose, and we all know that these guys are looking to get new blood, such as myself. I think there is a certain munchkinitis possible with EVERY system like this, and well in other games I am involved in, it has not ruined it for the whole bunch. Anyway great site and I look forward to combat soon! :shock:

 

[Gregster]

Has anyone tried the Full Thrust rules? It's been a few years since I played them but from what I remember, they were great fun and had a high level of Munchkin-proofness

 

[Darkghost]

I think it would work, but not as a purely point system. Basically you pick a Priority level, and it gives you a max points. You pick a hull type (some hull types cost points) and then each option for the hull costs points. A quad superlazer would be like 85 points to put on a carrier, but more like 55 to put on a destroy. Is any of this making sense?

 

[Halfbat]

Has anyone tried the Full Thrust rules? It's been a few years since I played them but from what I remember, they were great fun and had a high level of Munchkin-proofness

They are fun (and I've a pair of Kra'vak and NSL fleets to show for it) but they are liable to munchkinism, too for the points mentioned above. Just a need a bit of focus, that's all.

 

[Gentleman John]

You can either make a game munchkin-proof or rules-lawyer-proof. Not both. For example, SFB is munchkin-proof, but not rules-lawyer-proof. FT is rules-lawyer-proof, but can be munched.

I found it rather frustrating in ACtA that there was no way to put in non-canon vessels short of doing a complete analysis of the abilities of all the vessels in the rules to work out whether a new vessel was underpowered or overpowered. But a generic starship combat game needs a means of designing vessels and limiting those designs in some way (points cost, mass, volume, tech level, whatever), otherwise peole will come up with fighters that fire anti-matter blackholes at the speed of light at their targets.

Not even Lensman was that gross. But I know some gamers ho would do it because they could.

If nothing else, a decent points sytem ensures that the munchkin monstrosity can be met with a fleet of vessels that are equal in points and hence stand a chance of defeating it.

 

[DM]

Full Thrust is an excellent set of rules (the new edition is expeced next year) and in the UK is something of a standard for starship combat. There was an official B5 version and many, many unofficial variants on the internet for a wide variety of film and literatur based backgrounds. If a generic system like FT can sell extremely well worldwide I don't see why a generic set based on ACtA shouldn't have that potential.

 

[Gentleman John]

If a generic version of ACtA was made, I agree it woud sell well. However, it would not make as much money in terms of back-up sales from things like miniatures and supplements. Which would be a pity if it did stop a generic version coming out.

FT has a rabid following, but Jon Tuffley's main business is his figures, not his rules sets. So, while FT is generic, most players I know have at least one of the GZG fleets in their miniatures collection. In the meantime, the second edtion of FT is now available for free download from http://www.gtns.co.uk/store1/commerce.cgi?page=downloads.html&cart_id=2712780.29592.

 

[Gray Dagon]

I voted no on this because part of the fun in playing a game is in the background of the fleet list I'm playing.(for me at least) weather its ACTA, Star Wars, Silent Death etc... also nerfing ship designs always creeps in when a points formula is put out for it
example if anyone out there plays/played battletech. they put in a system for making your own I saw many playersmake barely mobile pillboxes. and yes to compete with them i did same -not so much fun after game or two

 

[Gentleman John]

I disagree. I usually found that the player-built battlemechs were not as good or as well thougt-out as the original 3025 battlemechs. Plus, under the original rules, a Locust or LAM could esily deal with any larger threat. All it had to do was move out of range if it lost initiative and strike the rear armour if it gained initiative. A simple, but effective tactic.

I also disagree on the nerfing of ships when you have a points formula. If you are playing one-off games or pre-written campaigns, then you don't need points as you can assume that any scenario should be balanced or nobody really cares. However, during a camapign you need to know whether you won or lost and points help. And, if you're going to have points, you need a construction system to show why a vessel is worth those points.

If somebody is nerfing thier ships in order to fit them in the points spread, then fine. They are showing good sportsmanship. Alternatively, you could just use more points and let fly.

AVtA does ahve a points sytem, but they call it a priority system. I have no idea why certain ships are the priority they are because there are some holes in the logic that I cannot fathom. And a consturction system would go a long way to sorting this out, as well as allowing me to create my own vessels to put up against the canon ships.

 

[WallyTWest]

Dude, Fullthrust or Starmada X

I enjoy the Starmada X rules and would recremend them to anyone who wanted to give them a try. However it does suffer from the problem of record sheets, in that unlike Battle Fleet Gothic you cant use a D8 to keep track of the cruisers health. Starmada X asks for a Hex-Map, but can be run without it. The game is simple and fun.

Starmada X is more or less "evil" proof, although learning to manipulate the point system takes a bit of time and skill. New players will have a hard time learning how to make powerfull fleets off the bat. Great game.

I would love to see a PDF for ship design released for B5. I think that it would allow players to enjoy the finer aspects of fleet design and have a great time with this simple and fun game. B5 is one of the better systems curently out there.

My vote is No, as the ground is so well covered. But as a player friendly PDF avaiable for download or a small booklet it might be worth a go. It would be intresting to have a game with the Priority Level System that mongoose games use so well.