Re: Babylon 5 Wars (LONG)

I said:
> > a miniatures game, though, it is intended for play on a hex map, and

> > the hex map distorts the movement.	

Mikko Kurki-Suonio responded:  
> Well... it does. While I agree, I think in essence you're saying EVERY

> tactical hex-based space game is fundamentally flawed. 

Granted, the hex-based map will always add some distortion to the game. 
In 
most cases, however, that distortion is not a minor annoyance that every
one 
in aa while forces you to pick one hex or the other, when you really
want to 
pick the space between them.  In B5W, on the other hand, the distortion 
fundamentally affects what maneuvers you can and cannot perform, and
leads to 
spontaneous course changes.  In the example I gave before, the situation

basically boils down to the following:

1) To change a ship's course 60 degrees to either the left or the right,
a 
player must spend thrust on one occasion, and after that he can coast
until 
the heat death of the universe;

2) To change a ship's course 30 degrees to either the left or the right,
a 
player must spend thrust *every* other *hex* until either he spends the
*same* 
amount of thrust as in case #1, (in which case the ship is now moving
along a 
hex row), *or* until the player stops spending thrust, at which point
the ship 
snaps back to it's previous course.

For example, two players have ships moving at a speed of 20 with a
thrust of 
10, a turn rating of 1/2 current speed, and a slip cost of 1/5 current
speed.	
The first player wants to change course 60 degree -- that costs 20/2 =
10 
thrust points, which he pays for once.	The second player wants to
change 
facing 30 degrees, which by any physics I know of should take *less*
energy 
than a 60 degree turn.	The cost for that slip, however, is is 20/5 = 4
for 
every other hex, which breaks down as follows:

HEX	ACTION		COST
1	move forward	0
2	slip		4
3	move forward	0
4	slip		4
5	move forward	0
6	slip		<ERROR!>

The ship can't slip again (because it only have two thrust points left),
so it 
returns to the original course!

I can think of a large number of tactical hex-based games that don't
suffer 
from this problem -- here are a few that come immediately to mind:

1) GDW's Triplanetary: Feels tactical, even though turns are one-day and
the 
map covers the solar system out to Jupiter.  Players record their
courses on 
the laminated map using AV pens.  Players use thrust to move the "head"
of 
their course's vector arrow.

2) GDW's Mayday/Battle Rider: Both use Past-Present-Future markers to
keep 
track of the course;

3) Bone Game's Laplace, Newton and Lagrange (LNL for shortfreeware on
the 
net):  Uses thrust markers next to ship to keep track of thrust;

4) GDW's Battle Rider: Uses a 12-point facing system (like FT) and a
marker on 
the ship card indicating which hex a ship is going into next (if the
ship's 
course is moving it along a spine).  [I seem to recall another system
which 
had a marker that went with the counter on the map that served the same 
function.]

Finally, there is the Vector Movement System (VMS) we proposed on my
website, 
which instead of markers like LNL, puts a display on the AoG ship sheets
to 
record basically the same information.

Now, these games have varying levels of complexity, but I think that
part of 
the problem is just finding a good way to *display* the course
information, 
not the underlying concepts.  The underlying concept is simply "rotate
the 
ship so a thruster faces opposite of the way you want to go, then fire
the 
thruster."  Heck, anyone who is old enough to have played Asteroids 
understands vector movement. <g>  Also, the AoG system's simplicity is
only 
superficial, as _every_ instance of a maneuver that doesn't involve a 60

degree turn has to be covered by a special case.

> I don't know the rules, but is there any reason why hexes MUST be
used? 
> Nothing's easier than dumping the map, one hex == 1 inch (or whatever)

> and 1 hexside turn == UP TO 60 degrees turn. 
>
> The only reason I can think of why this wouldn't work is if the game
uses 
> complex manuever diagrams (e.g. starting here, do half-loop to end 
> here). 

It doesn't really use diagrams, but it does proscribe what you can and
can't 
do pretty rigidly, and uses diagrams to illustrate the point.  

You could abandon the hexes, but basically this is saying "graft the B5W

combat system onto something like the Full Thrust movement system". 
That 
works.	I think to get the spirit of B5, though, you need vector
movement.  
(Since the VMS could easily work with FT, there are now at least _three_
sets 
of realistic movement rules for Full Thrust.)  If you decide you don't
want 
vector movement, I would abandon the AoG movement rules altogether and
just 
play the FT movement rules -- with 12-point facing/course changes, the
FT 
rules are almost flexible enough anyway.

> > While bad enough in itself, this will potentially become intolerable

> > when the ship design system is introduced, for two reasons.  
>  
> Are you sure there's going to BE a ship design system? Design and
point 
> systems are typically the first ones to go when the game has to be 
> "streamlined". 

I seem to recall saying that they planned one, and I certainly hope it 
happens.  If there isn't one, though, I think that makes the situation
even 
worse.	Ship design systems make a game better overall, because in the
"real 
world" (by I mean a universe where objects have mass and take power to
move), 
there are tradeoffs.  If you don't have a design system (even if it is
one 
that is never published), you can't tell if the tradeoffs are occurring 
properly, and as a result you can't tell if anything else in your combat
model 
makes sense.  Everything gets tweaked by the designers solely based on
whether 
it feels right.  If I wanted to play something that abstract, I'll go
play 
bridge, which doean't pretend to be anything but a card game.

> > Second, even if the original ships do not become illegal, it
promises 
> > to make them suboptimal designs.  
>  
> OR overoptimal, provided they are ruled legal through "exceptions". 

Exactly.  I think that there are two reasons why Star Fleet Battles has
become 
the mess that it is:  (1) the ship design system basically boils down to

"designer's whim", and (2) they've decided that detail equals accuracy. 
[It 
may seem odd to use terms like "model" and "accuracy" in regard to
something 
that is based on fictional technology, but without some basis in some
form of 
reality, then where does the line get drawn?  Why doesn't Full Thrust or
SFB 
have magic, for example?]  Detail, unfortunately, doesn't equal accuracy
in 
this case, only complexity.  

Or, as we say in the computer business, "garbage in, garbage out."

BTW:  Notice that I have never said "don't buy this game", and I *have*
said 
that I intend to buy it.  This isn't solely for legal reasons (although
I will 
note that a food critic was sucessfully sued by a restaurant about which
he 
gave a bad review), but rather that I don't necessarily intend to play
every 
game I buy.  There is some good ideas in this game, even if it takes a
lot of 
work to make them usable. Besides, maybe if enough people buy the game
and say 
"I liked everything except the sucky movement system", they'll get a
chance to 
fix it in the second edition.  

I'm going to buy it, and if you like the subject and have the money to
spend, 
maybe you should, too.

PS: Just picked up The Babylon Project, but I haven't had a chance to
look it 
over yet.

-- Chris Weuve	 [My opinions, not my employer's.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
mailto:caw@wizard.net (h)		http://www.wizard.net/~caw 
mailto:caw@intercon.com (w)		Fixes for AoG's B5 game, books,
mailto:chrisweuve@usa.net (perm)	stuff for sale and more