Space Stations V1.2

[greenboy]

Yes. But we need to consider game balance.

Dilgar patrol level station:
Damage: 20/10/5
Troops 4
hull 4
AF2

Missile: 42" range 5AD, AP TD SL.
repairs crits automatically.

Jashakar Tae
Speed 12 2/45
Damage 14/2
Troops 2
hull 4
AF none

Missile: 24" range 2AD, AP DD SL
Bolters 10" 4AD AP DD
doesn't repair crits automatically.

The station is clearly superior to the ship in this case and will dominate a patrol level game.

I under stand that its a game balance issue just seems a shame that's all, half the problem is that the weapons are all or nothing why make you buy 5 ad of missiles at once why not 2 ad at half the cost then you could have some on small stations but the larger ones would get a boost as the bigger modules provide more bang for your buck at a cost of variety same could be done with fighters.

 

[Da Boss]

:idea:

How about a seperate Defence Satelite base - maybe patrol and skirmish only

They have higher hull, much less damage and can have one gun (period) and no other modules.

I'll have a think at lunchtime as to stats - must get on with some work!

the small / basic hangers idea (half a wing of fighters) is not without merit

 

[inq101]

This is going to be an unpopular view but I think that you're making the space stations too weak. They should be tough. they should be well armed. Facing a space station should be something that any fleet fears. This is because space stations should not be part of fleets!

Most of the comments are treating stations as something else people are going to put onto their fleet roster. They should only be encountered on rare occasions. Normally only in campaigns for planetary assaults. When they do turn up I want them to be a serious obstacle, something that only a well prepared fleet can overcome, and even then only with heavy casualties.

The original list was far too open to abuse, but the reworked stuff has gone too fat the other way.

Tom

 

[Da Boss]

This is going to be an unpopular view but I think that you're making the space stations too weak. They should be tough. they should be well armed. Facing a space station should be something that any fleet fears. This is because space stations should not be part of fleets!

Most of the comments are treating stations as something else people are going to put onto their fleet roster. They should only be encountered on rare occasions. Normally only in campaigns for planetary assaults. When they do turn up I want them to be a serious obstacle, something that only a well prepared fleet can overcome, and even then only with heavy casualties.

The original list was far too open to abuse, but the reworked stuff has gone too fat the other way.

Tom

The P+P rules as written presently make them part of you fleet list hence the balance issues.

If this is removed and they become campaign and / or scenario specific only, than I think you are right (for large stations).

I would suggest there are smaller weaker ones like remote sceince outposts / dockyards that can be reltively weak?

 

[Greg Smith]

Most of the comments are treating stations as something else people are going to put onto their fleet roster. ... When they do turn up I want them to be a serious obstacle, something that only a well prepared fleet can overcome, and even then only with heavy casualties.

With criticals much lass of a factor and weapons that can reach across the table they can be. A war level station played against a raid level fleet may well do just that.

Build the biggest, nastiest war level station you can and try it out against 4 points of raid. It is probably a game you can play by yourself, since the station doesn't do much.

But on the other hand a hospital station may well be a patrol level station with a med bay, interceptors and no weapons.

 

[inq101]

As I already said Stations should not be part of fleets. Apart from anything else it leads to fairly ridiculous situations like a Vorlon outpost and Shadow base being built within range of each other, a raider star fortress being built on a major trade route before anyone noticed or a fleet being able to sneak a space station into orbit of someone else's homeworld during a planetary assault. :roll:

It makes more sense that small stations (outposts, dockyards, etc) should be objectives that one side would be trying to capture or destroy. They are pretty much worthless from a tactical point of view but getting rid of them gives you a strategic advantage. Large, heavily armed stations have been put where they are for a specific purpose (trade, defense, diplomacy) that could be considered strategic targets in their own right or will be in orbit around one.

Since that doesn't seem likely here's my suggestion for the sort of things to add.

Centauri Blockade Mines Patrol (4 mines)
Hull: 4
Troops: -
Damage: 5/3/2
Special: Immobile, space station
Craft: :lol:
weapons Range AD Special Rules
Blockade Laser 18" 2 Mini beam, precise

 

[Da Boss]

I quite like that - maybe even dispense with the different damage scales?

 

[inq101]

I left the scale in because someone would say something if it was missing. I doubt it makes a lot of difference one way or another.

I originally thought about treating them as fighters without dodge, but I couldn't see it being practical.

 

[Triggy]

The latest new version up:

Triggy's Space Stations

The changes here are that missile batteries have increased marginally in cost (they are all at least 4HPs now) to reflect their first-strike ability and keep them off of patrol PL stations; wording in the introductory paragraphs has been updated; Planet-Killers now get the lumbering trait, have some of the wordings tightened up and have examples of each PK in the end text.

Any new changes are in blue.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

At the moment I think that the biggest problem for smaller bases is that you have to buy in bulk. Take missiles for example - why not charge 1HP for 1AD of missile? Sure, Patrol level bases can take them again, but that's hardly a problem in smaller numbers. It's hardly a problem that the base has such weapons at all (the Hermes has missiles with the same traits), and the extra range offsets the fact that the station can't move, let alone move 12".

If we were to compare...
Hermes:
Speed 12 2/45
Damage 10/3
Troops 1
Hull 4
Interceptors 1, Jump Engine
1 Starfury flight

Missile: 20", 2AD, SAP P SL
Pulse: 10", 6AD


Patrol Station:
Damage 20/10/5
Troops 4
Hull 4
Anti-Fighter 2, Immobile, Space Station

Missile: 45", 2AD, SAP P SL
Pulse: 15", 5AD, TL


Let's say that the station's range advantage is cancelled out by the fact that the Hermes can move 12" and has a jump engine. This means that the station has 5AD of TL vs the Hermes 6AD, and twice as much damage. Meanwhile, the Hermes has interceptors, and a fighter flight which works pretty well against fighters itself, but also has the option of pulling anti-ship duties if prefered.

 

[Silvereye]

Good work Triggy, at least your fighting to make Stations usable. While I love the idea, I do think that our earlier comments on 1.0 and 1.1 were pretty much glossed over for 1.2.

Some comments on your drafts.

I like the way that a lot of the standard damage adders have been reduced or removed. Should help keep the damages down. I would also consider making some of the modules reduce the Cores damage (e.g Space Dock and Stealth).
Station Cores: Seem OK at a glance and certainly a big step in the right direction, I'll need to build some bases to see what monsters might fall out
Ancients Base
Command Module: It is definitely not worth the four HPs the second time round. Also, what is the base CQ of the station for the Scout roll. As an idea how would allowing the station to make multiple Scout attempts (max of 1 per ship) sound. e.g. Buy 2 Command modules, get 2 Scout rolls.
Habitation Module: It might be worth upping the damage a little, as this is all the module is for.
Point Defence: Is it really worth adding the interceptors with this since they have been removed from the generic Station Cores.
Hangers: I like the idea of making them less affordable on the small stations. However, instead of increasing the HP costs of the regular hangers, why not reduce the Craft and Carrier complements, it would still means that small stations may have a fighter flight or two.
Weapons: Good work adding more weapons in some of the options lists were pretty light. You just need to make sure that Range/AD and traits balance with the cost (much like you did with the Drakh Neutron cannon and Minbari/ISA Neutron Lasers). In need of attention still, the Narn and EA heavy lasers and perhaps a few others.
Also, I'm in agreement with the others about making less powerful weapons available for less cost - reduce range to normal, reduce ADs etc.
Abbai Interceptors: I'd consider copying the EA for this one. The Abbai are big fans of the technology.
Abbai/Shadow Shields: I'd consider halving the effect and halving the costs to allow them to have an option of being placed on the smaller cores (currently takes up most of a Raid core, though adds a massive boost).
Brakiri: Make Gravatic Lances available?
Centauri Guardian Array: mentions additional interceptor modules, should this read Guardian arrays?
Minbari Stealth Module: Candidate for reducing the damage of a Core
pak'ma'ra: Make Heavy Plasma Modules available?
Vorlon Empire: Add the Advanced Point Defence module (from Minbari)
Planet Killer: Great idea, especially the adding Lumbering. Although when the Vorlons squished planets, they left behind asteroid fields in the show. Also, would a sliding AD scale be better for attacking Moon / Rocky World / Gas Giant?
B5 Battle Station: Your changes mean that a Star Fortress has 27 HP not 24 now. I'd reduce the Habitation modules to 2 (to match the diplomatic Station) and add in a second Interceptor module and a Traffic Control module instead. It feels more B5y.

Was it ever answered if a Shadow Station could be blocked telepathically, or pinned by beams?

 

[Triggy]

Good work Triggy, at least your fighting to make Stations usable. While I love the idea, I do think that our earlier comments on 1.0 and 1.1 were pretty much glossed over for 1.2.

Some comments on your drafts.

I like the way that a lot of the standard damage adders have been reduced or removed. Should help keep the damages down. I would also consider making some of the modules reduce the Cores damage (e.g Space Dock and Stealth).

Thanks for the thanks

Station Cores: Seem OK at a glance and certainly a big step in the right direction, I'll need to build some bases to see what monsters might fall out

Please try!

Ancients Base

I must admit I was happy that I thought of this and the planet-killers.

Command Module: It is definitely not worth the four HPs the second time round. Also, what is the base CQ of the station for the Scout roll. As an idea how would allowing the station to make multiple Scout attempts (max of 1 per ship) sound. e.g. Buy 2 Command modules, get 2 Scout rolls.

The CQ is 4 (it's stated in the initial section for the space station rules. Scout isn't a trait that can stack. As for the cost - you have to remember that it could be acting as fleet carrier for a fairly large fleet. This alone could make it worth a Raid FAP. Combine it with command and scout, on a very hard to destroy base and you get a bargain in larger games. I see this as a module only to be seen in games of Battle PL or larger.

Habitation Module: It might be worth upping the damage a little, as this is all the module is for.

I can see your point!

Point Defence: Is it really worth adding the interceptors with this since they have been removed from the generic Station Cores.

Sure, this one may need some balancing too...maybe a few more points of AF instead?

Hangers: I like the idea of making them less affordable on the small stations. However, instead of increasing the HP costs of the regular hangers, why not reduce the Craft and Carrier complements, it would still means that small stations may have a fighter flight or two.

There is a case for this certainly, the balancing of numbers gets a lot harder though. If enough people supported this I could easily have a go. Probably halve the number of fighters (rounding down) and halve the carrier trait to give a "Launch Bay" module in addition to the "Hangar" module and would cost 2HP.

Weapons: Good work adding more weapons in some of the options lists were pretty light. You just need to make sure that Range/AD and traits balance with the cost (much like you did with the Drakh Neutron cannon and Minbari/ISA Neutron Lasers). In need of attention still, the Narn and EA heavy lasers and perhaps a few others.
Also, I'm in agreement with the others about making less powerful weapons available for less cost - reduce range to normal, reduce ADs etc.

Now I disagree about making the larger weapons cost less (even with fewer AD). This is part of the balancing mechanics to prevent ultra-long ranged weaponry in low PL games. It makes the whole thing very hard to balance and what would you do about the stipulation that stations can only take two of any weapons module?

Abbai Interceptors: I'd consider copying the EA for this one. The Abbai are big fans of the technology.

Yeah, I can see the argument for this but are they really big fans or this this a legacy of 1st ed.?

Abbai/Shadow Shields: I'd consider halving the effect and halving the costs to allow them to have an option of being placed on the smaller cores (currently takes up most of a Raid core, though adds a massive boost).

Shadow shields I'm not worried about. Abbai I could very well do this!

Brakiri: Make Gravatic Lances available?

Maybe...they have a good variety of weapons already though.

Centauri Guardian Array: mentions additional interceptor modules, should this read Guardian arrays?

Yes. Good catch.

Minbari Stealth Module: Candidate for reducing the damage of a Core

Maybe, I'm not a huge fan of decreasing core damages I must say.

pak'ma'ra: Make Heavy Plasma Modules available?

Like the Brakiri, maybe... if you notice, the heavy plasma gun equivalent is the "Plasma" module anyway.

Vorlon Empire: Add the Advanced Point Defence module (from Minbari)

I suppose the Minbari should get this too - you're right though.

Planet Killer: Great idea, especially the adding Lumbering. Although when the Vorlons squished planets, they left behind asteroid fields in the show. Also, would a sliding AD scale be better for attacking Moon / Rocky World / Gas Giant?

Good idea! Also, replacing Vorlon destroyed worlds with asteroid fields would also be more appropriate.

B5 Battle Station: Your changes mean that a Star Fortress has 27 HP not 24 now. I'd reduce the Habitation modules to 2 (to match the diplomatic Station) and add in a second Interceptor module and a Traffic Control module instead. It feels more B5y.

I haven't updated this or the Orion station from the v1.2 rules...yet! I have posted what B5 War station would have in an earlier post on this thread.

Was it ever answered if a Shadow Station could be blocked telepathically, or pinned by beams?

It wasn't answered but I'd say categorically no, for the fluff reason of they are too large and have too many redundant systems and the gameplay reason of it makes them a lot worse.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Weapons: Good work adding more weapons in some of the options lists were pretty light. You just need to make sure that Range/AD and traits balance with the cost (much like you did with the Drakh Neutron cannon and Minbari/ISA Neutron Lasers). In need of attention still, the Narn and EA heavy lasers and perhaps a few others.
Also, I'm in agreement with the others about making less powerful weapons available for less cost - reduce range to normal, reduce ADs etc.

Now I disagree about making the larger weapons cost less (even with fewer AD). This is part of the balancing mechanics to prevent ultra-long ranged weaponry in low PL games. It makes the whole thing very hard to balance and what would you do about the stipulation that stations can only take two of any weapons module?

I'm not seeing any such stipulation in there, but if it is, it's a horribly artificial stipulation, and should be scrapped if at all possible...
As for upping HP costs to rule certain weapons out, sure it should be done on a case by case basis, but such a trick currently seems to be levelled against way too many weapons.
Range isn't the issue you seem to be making out for example. First, you have a good chance of starting within weapon range, so anything over that is actually a waste for the space station. Then there's a fair chance of using cover to get closer before you have to expose yourself. Then there's the relatively high speeds that a lot of smaller ships can use to close in. Then there's tricks (like jumping in) to make it so that the station can't fire on you until close range anyway.

 

[Da Boss]

There are a number of rules questions the present incarantion

1) There are no restrictions on scenario use of Space Stations - Ambush - "Decloaking space station off the starboard bow Captain" ?

2) Blockade Run - er yeah I have this really big defensible station thats not going to run and you need to kill it to win.

3) What about scenarios where one side enters from a table edge - is the station towed on and left (we need Tug variants?)

4) If a campaign scenario is lost and a station is captured - can you use all of its abilities, weapons? It now just says that you change the fighters for ones of your own - whcih are autore filled - what happens if the Drakh get one - do they keep the hangers or change them for Huge Hangers? Or should you just replace with a equivalent level station of your own?

5) At present the loss of a patrol level scenario can lead to the capture of a War level station as well as the Target?

Perhaps there should be a special "Station Assault" Scenario that takes place if there is a station at the campaign target?

6 ) Does a station that has been reduced to 0 damage still repair one level automatically at the end of the campaign phase? Does a station with self repair repair all damage in a camoign turn the same way as ships?

 

[Da Boss]

re the Command Module - its prob about right - I would however use it with some fleets in low level battles - ie Shadows /Vorlons

Something like 5pts Skirmish - be tempted to have a Command skirmish station.............

Given the amount of EA tech its already useing and having a ship with this trait in the fleet - shouldn't a ISA station have the interceptors option?

I am not sure if 8AD Minibeam is a bit too much for 3HP?

Stealth 5+ for 6HP may be a bit cheap on big stations - I'd prefer it based on size of the station - ?

sp Patrol =1 HP
Skimrish = 2HP
Raid = 4 HP
Battle = 8HP
War = 12HP

Should Stealth Modules be available to other races who use that tech extensively - Am thinking of Psi Corps and Shadows? perhaps at a higher cost?

I like the Planet Killer Module but rather than your examples I would probably make these in a campaign 8)

Can these be bought as part of your initial campaign fleet roster?

Vorlon Planet Killer
Hull 4, Damage 395,
Craft: 6 Vorlon Fighter flights
Traits: Adaptive Armour, Anti Fighter 12, Carrier 6, Command+1, Escort, Lumbering, Fleet Carrier, Scout, Self Repair 1D6, Space Station,

Planet Killer Beam - B arc 18" range, 5 AD QD, B P
Heavy Lightning - T arc 45" range, 2AD QD, B , P

HP = Command (4), Traffic(1), PK, (16), Organic Armour (4), Hanger (7), Heavy Lightning (8) Bio tech (4) War Room (1)

Shadow Cloud
Hull 5, Damage 410,
Craft: 4 Shadow Fighter flights
Traits: Antifighter 12, Carrier 4, Command+1, Escort, Lumbering, Fleet Carrier, Scout, Self Repair 1D6, Shields 20/1D6, Space Station,

Missiles T arc, R 6", 20AD, QD, SAP,
Phasing Pulse Cannon T arc, 12" range, 4AD, Accurate, DD, SAP
Phasing Pulse Cannon T arc, 12 " range, 4AD, Accurate, DD, SAP,

HP= Command (4), Traffic (1), PK (16), Shield (6), Hanger (7), 2X pulse (4), BioTech (4), SpaceDock (3),

 

[Silvereye]

Point Defence: Is it really worth adding the interceptors with this since they have been removed from the generic Station Cores.

Sure, this one may need some balancing too...maybe a few more points of AF instead?

I think that +2 is pretty fair, especially as the Cores already have a basic AF rating to start with. As you say though play testing could be required to confirm.

Hangers: I like the idea of making them less affordable on the small stations. However, instead of increasing the HP costs of the regular hangers, why not reduce the Craft and Carrier complements, it would still means that small stations may have a fighter flight or two.

There is a case for this certainly, the balancing of numbers gets a lot harder though. If enough people supported this I could easily have a go. Probably halve the number of fighters (rounding down) and halve the carrier trait to give a "Launch Bay" module in addition to the "Hangar" module and would cost 2HP.

I'll second the idea of the launch bays. Just make it so it provides 'X' Craft and doesn't include the Carrier trait.

Also, how about adding a Flyer hanger into the Minbari Modules. Their current hanger option is the equivalent of other races advanced hangers.

Weapons: Good work adding more weapons in some of the options lists were pretty light. You just need to make sure that Range/AD and traits balance with the cost (much like you did with the Drakh Neutron cannon and Minbari/ISA Neutron Lasers). In need of attention still, the Narn and EA heavy lasers and perhaps a few others.
Also, I'm in agreement with the others about making less powerful weapons available for less cost - reduce range to normal, reduce ADs etc.

Now I disagree about making the larger weapons cost less (even with fewer AD). This is part of the balancing mechanics to prevent ultra-long ranged weaponry in low PL games. It makes the whole thing very hard to balance and what would you do about the stipulation that stations can only take two of any weapons module?

I agree with your disagreeing . I certainly don't want to see the big guns going back to being more accessible on the smaller cores.

What I was trying to get across was, for example:
A Narn heavy laser module is 36" range/4AD/Beam, Double Damage for 6 Hardpoints. What I was asking to be considered was something like 'small heavy laser module' 24"Range/2AD/Beam, Double Damage for 4 Hardpoints. Or a Centauri Battle laser 27" range/6AD/Beam, Precise for 6 Hardpoints and 'small Battle laser 18" range/3AD/Beam, Precise for 4 Hardpoints

What you would be getting should be less than half the full version, meaning that the larger versions are much more attractive if you can afford the Hardpoints, but the smaller versions can be used in the smaller games without being excessively dominant.

I also posted an idea for Small/Regular/Large mounts on the earlier thread - here.

Abbai Interceptors: I'd consider copying the EA for this one. The Abbai are big fans of the technology.

Yeah, I can see the argument for this but are they really big fans or this this a legacy of 1st ed.?

Perhaps it is a bit of both. Certainly the 1st ED-Armageddon Abbai were festooned with interceptors, however it does fit in with their defensive mindset. Either way, they still will not be able to squeeze interceptors (or shields) onto a Waystation.

Minbari Stealth Module: Candidate for reducing the damage of a Core

Maybe, I'm not a huge fan of decreasing core damages I must say.

I think Stealth could be a case for this, especially as it has the potential to completely negate the incoming attacks. This could give a massive boost to a station. I'm also with Da Boss in his view of a scaling cost like the armour modules, which would mean that the Minbari get their signature defence on all stations. Even if you cost the damage as -25%, it would still likely be worth it. You have already put in a negative damage module - Vorlon Organic Armour.

pak'ma'ra: Make Heavy Plasma Modules available?

Like the Brakiri, maybe... if you notice, the heavy plasma gun equivalent is the "Plasma" module anyway.

I hadn't actually noticed that....

Was it ever answered if a Shadow Station could be blocked telepathically, or pinned by beams?

It wasn't answered but I'd say categorically no, for the fluff reason of they are too large and have too many redundant systems and the gameplay reason of it makes them a lot worse.

I heartily agree. It's just if it is not specified, then some rules-lawyer/powergamer will argue that they can be.

With respect to the Planet Killer modules, I've remembered a comment from CZuschlag after I suggested a Biodrive module for the Shadows way back when. With the Planet Kille rmodule allowing a station to move it seems relevent again. (original post)

...Also, can you slow down a station? How? Damaged/Crippled thresholds?

My suggestion to this was "The first threshold Halves the Speed, the second threshold will immobilise it."

Finally, the Minbari Advanced Point Defence Module still mentions that any interceptors will be removed.

--Edit--
Added links and CZuschlag's comments re: moving stations.
Some more of my ideas from the previous thread.

 

[Triggy]

The latest new version up:

Triggy's Space Stations

The changes here are launch bays have been included (2 Hardpoints, half a wing of basic fighters, rounding numbers down, no addition to the carrier trait), some example stations are updated, stealth module has been modified, planet-killer modules have been scaled to match the size of target, Vorlons get advanced AF, and a few rules points have been clarified addressing Da Boss's questions.

Any new changes are in purple.

 

[Grunvald]

DOUBLE POST!!! LAGGIN INTERNET CONNECTION!!!!!

 

[Grunvald]

Any new changes are in purple.

Pretty soon Triggy you are going to run out of colours and we'll end up with a multi coloured Station Rules Testing Guide!

Oh and "Fook" ment WOW or OMG!!!! BRILL!

 

[Grunvald]

OK a couple of minor points while reading through the new list:

Vorlon AF
"Each Advanced Point Defence Module will change the Core’s Anti-Fighter trait to Advanced Anti-Fighter, and increase it by +2. It will also increase the Damage scores of the Core by +5/+2/+0, but it will remove all Interceptors from the Core."

With a core now having no INT to start with, although the only way you could increase your INT is with the Point Def module, how about rewording to Int not allowed, cause what would be the point in buying INT in the 1st place if your going to upgrade to AAF!
(Beleive it just old terminology from previous station rules)

(EDIT: hadnt noticed rewording of PD module so you cant get INT for vorlons anymore so wording of removing them on AF mod is obsolite!)

Bio-Tech Module, Organic Armour Module:

Still think these should be variable costings as they are part of what makes the race what they are for game purposes. It has been done for minbari "Stealth" why not these?

Wording on the planet killer modules, states if you fire on a planet etc with 20AD it goes BOOM!
Is your intention for use to not roll any dice???
ALSO shadow planet killer does not have an arc yet the vorlon does (although technically the shadow planet killer was a cloud and so did not need an arc, as a station either make them both Bore or foreward)