Re: Babylon 5 Wars (LONG)

On Sun, Mar 16, 1997 at 2:07:54 PM, SGibson260@aol.com wrote:
 
> Also, I believe AOG decided to scrap the interceptor rules we
playtested, 
> and have interceptors & defensive mode weapons increase the defensive 
> value of the ship.  Much better. 

Interceptors was another thing my playtest group really hated, since
they 
allowed you to intercept incoming *lasers*.  We thought it was a
(relatively) 
minor point, since they were not very widespread. 

I think it's probably a good move to roll them into the defensive values

somehow.

On Sun, Mar 16, 1997 at 6:57:02 PM, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
 
> > I need to double-check the FT rules (it's been a while), but IIRC
the 
> > only real reason for limiting the turns to clock-facing increments 
> > seemed to be to guarantee that people didn't fudge their facing.  
>  
> The real reason? Allowing smaller turns would make giving orders
harder, 
> as you'd have to specify exactly how much to turn. And what if you
want 
> a 45 degree turn? Do you turn 15-30, 30-15 or 22.5-22.5? More
complexity, 
> which is unnecessary since all the weapon arcs are rather generous. 

I hadn't thought of that, but it does make sense.  See my comments
below.

 
> Hex grid suits 6-point heading well. Finer gradiation doesn't fare so 
> well. The six-sidedness of it is a fact of life. I just live with when
I 
> play hex-games. 

Agreed, but most designers recognize that there is a problem and do
something 
to compensate for it.  There are always going to be limitations imposed
by the 
hex grid, but that doesn't mean the system can ignore them.

> > Steve Jackson Games has the rights to it now -- hoepfully we will
see a 
> > new version of it come out soon. 
(http://www.io.com/sjgames/triplan/) 
>  
> Steve has had the rights for some time. Steve also has a number of
other 
> projects he'd really like to do. Has wanted to do for a long time.
I'll 
> just say I believe a SJG release date when I hold the product in my 
> hands. 

Hey, _In Nomine_ finally came out.  [In related news, weather satellites
have 
detected a severe winter storm heading in the direction of Hell...]

> > It could be grafted on, but that means that the rotation rules would

> > have to be changed as well.  
>  
> What's so hard about that? If turning 60deg costs X thrust, turning 30

> costs X/2. 

My apologies -- I did not state the problem clearly. The rotation rules
(i.e., 
ships spinning around their center of gravity) are different from the
turning 
rules.	The rotation rules limit a ship that is coasting to turning
EXACTLY 
180 degrees which takes EXACTLY three turns.  Ships are allowed to apply

thrust ONLY when facing their direction of travel or 180 degrees away
from 
their direction of travel.  The movement system cannot handle a rotation
of, 
say, 120 degrees, followed by thrusting.  Note that ships at dead stop
CAN 
rotate in place, using a different procedure entirely.	

 
> > But you don't need to do physics homework.	Triplanetary, for
example, 
> > has the shortest movement rules I have ever seen in a tactical space

> > game.  LNL's and MayDay's are about the same length, and so are
Battle 
> > Rider's.  
>  
> The movement system doesn't have to be complicated -- its effects are.

> A bit like chess. Just because you know the rules doesn't mean you can

> win a game. 
>  
> Don't get me wrong. I really, really like newtonian movement. But
every 
> time I try it, people end up flying all over the place, either
colliding 
> with everything or zooming off the board. 

Good point.  I do find it odd, however, that people would rather play a
game 
that have ten pages of movement rules to memorize, rather than a system
which 
has two pages of rules but offers more complexity in the effects. 

> A typical case is two forces accelerating towards each other, meeting
and 
> then flying off the board before they can decelerate and change
course. 
> Or people moving too carefully because they're afraid they can't
control 
> it. 

In my experience, this only happens once as a normal course of play,
usually 
the first time they play.  It will occasionally happen later, if players
are 
forced to maneuver for tactical reasons.

> > You don't need a navigational computer for Triplanetary -- you need
the 
> > ability to count and the ability to draw a (mostly) straight line.	
>  
> Will that answer the question: "Given my initial velocity and
position, 
> what's the fastest way to be at point X at full stop?" Because that's 
> what players want to know, not "where do I end up if I use 3 thrust?" 

Well, yes, people are going to have to think a little bit.  If I didn't
want 
to think, I would be playing Super Mario Brothers.  <grin>

 
> > AoG said the same thing, and I will admit I don't understand why it
is 
> > more alienating to present a simple movement system that allows you
to 
> > recreate maneuvers seen in the show, than a more complicated system 
> > which does not.  
>  
> It's the control. It's not about understanding the rules, it's about 
> being able to do what you want to do. Believe me or not, newtonian 
> movement robs that control from players who don't like planning and 
> calculating several turns ahead. 

This reminds me of a comment made by one of my wargame group who is an
avid 
science fiction reader/gamer/B5 fan, but who refused to playtest B5W: 
Then 
why play tactical space games?	If the things that make a tactical space

combat game different from playing _Ironclads_ are stripped out, then
why play 
it at all?  While I don't wholeheartedly subscribe to that view (i.e., I

_really_ like Full Thrust), I have to agree with it in many instances.

> > This is like saying that it would be alienating if, in Dirtside II, 
> > they didn't allow magic. 
>  
> More like if DS2 required you to roll for stopping your tanks and
after 
> failing a couple of rolls you'd have to watch helplessly as they
plowed 
> off the board. 

My point was that once you decide that science (i.e. physics) has no
place in 
the game, magic becomes just as valid.

 
> > And what about all the people who are alienated with the idiotic
space 
> > games out there?  Most of the gamers I know who won't play tactical 
> > space games won't do so because of the movement system. 
>  
> You got me there. I haven't seen a single one of those. 

Half of my game group falls into this category.  Of the six of us, all
are 
science fictions readers of some sort (ranging from "occasional" to
"rabid"), 
all except one likes science fiction games, and we all play historical 
wargames as well (we're currently playing Battleline's _Dauntless_).  Of
that 
group, fully half wouldn't playtest B5W once they found out the movement

system wasn't Newtonian.  [On the other hand, the one guy who doesn't
like SF 
games ("because they don't model anything") liked Triplanetary enough to

purchase it.]  There was similar disappointment on Consim-L.

Maybe I spend too much time hanging out with historical gamers, but I
really 
don't think the science fiction gaming community as a whole understands
why 
they can't get any respect from the historical gaming community,
especially 
considering there is far more overlap than I think both sides are aware
of.  
Michael Friend had an editorial in a recent _Vindicator_ (http://
www.millcomm.com/~forhan/vindicator.html) arguing that historical gamers
are 
are afriad to play something without a historical reference point,
whereas 
sceince fiction gamers are more daring.  I disagree -- the problem is
that too 
many science fiction games are based on the premise that since it is
science 
fiction, you can make up anything you want.  Historical gamers are not 
interested in such games because they are not valid simulations and have
no 
educational value.  (FYI, I am working on an article for _Vindicator_ on
this 
very topic.)

If AoG fixes the bugs, it will be a big hit and a great game.  If they
don't 
fix the bugs, it will still, probably, be a big hit, but it will become
Yet 
Another Bad Space Game with a cool background but shitty mechanics, with
a 
small core of dedicated followers who Just Don't Understand why everyone
else 
hates it so.

 
> > Oh well -- perhaps Tuffley's B5 rules will save the day.  I sure
hope 
> > so. 
>  
> Oh well, I guess I'll settle for the B5 figures :-) 

Me too.  

BTW, I think we have reached the point where we are vehemently agreeing.
 
<grin>

-- 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