Re: OFF-TOPIC mini review B5 Wars (Designers Comments)

Hello,

Sorry for the delay in posting this response -- I sometimes don't have
the 
luxury of reading listmail on a daily basis.

I'm heavily editing out some of the comments, especially were they are
not 
germane to my response.  Where necessary, I am adding the text from the
web 
page essay [http://www.wizard.net/~caw/aogprob.htm] to which Mr. Glass
is 
referring.

Let me say up front, though, that as I said at the beginning of my
email, that 
I didn't have a chance to play the final version. Since my original post
I 
have had a chance to re-read the rules a second time, however; I will
try to 
point out instances where that re-reading may have changed some of my
earlier 
views.

My example from the web page:
> Example #1: Pivoting (i.e., rotating the ship) while coasting at speed

> zero (i.e., dead stop) uses a different procedure than pivoting at
speeds 
> greater than zero, although from a physics standpoint the two
maneuvers 
> are identical. The speed zero procedure allows you to change your
facing 
> to point in any direction; the other procedure limits you to a pivot
of 
> exactly 180 degrees (which takes exactly three turns). Why? Because if
a 
> moving ship changed facing other than 180 degrees, the movement system

> couldn't handle it; you literally could not move using the current 
> system. Patching the current system would involve adding yet more 
> special-case rules to the system. 

Mr. Glass' comment:
> He is correct in that all current ships (not fighters) take three 
> turns to completely turn around.  However, what is not mentioned (and
is not
> in the book as it is not yet needed) is that this is not going to be
true 
> for all future ships.  There will be a series of medium class ships
(such 
> as the White Star or the Drazi SunHawk) which will be considered agile

> and be able to pivot and turn at a greater rate.  None of the ships in

> the basic set have EVER been seen doing excessive maneuvers in the
show 
> and they will not do them in the game.  

There are two issues here:
Minor issue: All ships by definition rotate at the same speed.
Major issue: Ship rotation MUST be in exactly 180 degree implements,
i.e., 
start rotation, rotate 180 degrees (3 facings), then stop rotation.  If
the 
ship stops rotation in any orientation other than 0 or 180 degrees, the
rules 
state that the	ship is under the same restrictions it is during the
course of 
the pivot:  it may not "turn, slide, roll, accelerate, decelerate, or
conduct 
launching/landing procedures".	

In addition, some ships are not allowed to pivot:  I assume this means
that 
their rotational systems are meager enough that they can't pivot within
the 
timeframe of the game turns. Otherwise, of course, maneuvering such a
ship at 
low speeds would be next to impossible.

Mr. Glass address the minor issue, but not the major one.  The system as
is 
does not provide a mechanism for changing your course unless your
engines are 
parallel to your direction of travel. 

My next example from the web page:
> Example #2: Ships may only coast along hex rows. Ships may "slide"
into 
> hexes not along the same hex row, but sliding costs thrust points
equal 
> to 20% of the ship's current speed every other hex. This leads to an 
> extremely odd phenomenon: A player who wants to conduct a 60-degree 
> course change (from a hex row to a hex row) can do so by paying the
turn 
> cost and then coasting. A player who wants to conduct a 30-degree
course 
> change (from a hex row to a hex spine), however, must expend thrust 
> points equal to 20% of the ship's current coasting speed every other
hex 
> for the duration of this course, potentially forever. (In other words,
in 
> most cases 30 degree course changes cost much more energy than 60
degree 
> course changes, which is non-sensical.) If the player is unable or 
> unwilling to continue paying this expenditure (e.g., the ship is
damaged 
> by enemy fire), the ship then spontaneously returns to it's original 
> course, without expending any thrust. 

The illustration is at [http://www.wizard.net/~caw/images/aogprob.gif].

Mr. Glass' comment:
> As for the 60 degree turn costing less than a 30 degree turn, I have
no 
> idea what he is talking about.  The game is currently based on a hex
map 
> and 30 degree turns are #1-not possible and #2-not in the rules. 

Which is *exactly* my point -- you can't make a 30 degree turn, but you
can 
make make a 30 degree slide, which acts like a turn but costs much more. 

Normal movement in the AoG system is along hex rows only.  From any
particulr 
hex, therefore, there are six hexes into which a ship could
theoretically move 
(ignoring current course and such for the moment).  Sliding is the
process by 
which a ship moves forward one hex along a hex row and then slides
sideways at 
a sixty degree angle to the direction the ship is facing.  The end
result is 
that the ship is two hexes away from it's initial location, with a hex
spine 
in between the starting and finishing hexes.  That's a 30 degree angle
from 
its direction of travel.

So what's the problem?	The problem is that once the ship has started
moving 
off at a 60 degree angle (i.e., it turned), it continues to move at a 60

degree angle to the origin hex.  With the slide, however, it "snaps"
back onto 
the original course, when it should continue to move at a 30 degree
angle.	

It costs thrust equal to 20% of your current speed for rach 30 degree
slide 
maneuver, whereas a 60 degree turn is paid *once* (at a cost which
varies from 
ship to ship), after which the ship drifts in that direction forever. 
So, say 
a ship is doing a series of slides, one after another.	Each turn the
ship 
pays thrust points to keep the ship doing the slides.  It does ten
slides over 
the course of five turns, moving a total of twenty hexes. Then the ship
is 
fired upon and theengine or reactor is damaged so badly that the ship no

longer has the thrust to continue sliding -- at which point it magically
makes 
a 30 degree course change BACK to the direction it was moving five turns
ago!

Or, in _Full Thrust_ terms, this is the equivalent of saying that the
ship 
could turn from a 12 o'clock facing to a 2 o'clock facing as per the
rules, 
but if it turned to a 1 o'clock facing, it would have to keep paying
thrust 
for it as long as it faced one o'clock.  If damaged, it would then
spring back 
to the 12 o'clock facing and course.

Now, some may comment that it is an extreme example.  I would argue it
isn't -
- it's one that came up in playtesting all the time.  The movement
system 
forces you to take certain courses, and puts you in situations where
shallow 
course changes cost more than radical course changes.

My comment from my email:
> > 2) One other problem with the playtest version that I have not had a

> > chance to test with this one was the arbitrary nature of the combat 
> > system.  This is an excerpt from our second playtest report: 
> > > The more we play the game, the more uneasy we feel about the
combat 
> > > system.  We made certain assumptions about what the various values

> > > (defensive ratings, damage ratings, fire control, etc.) are
intended 
> > > to represent -- many of these are detailed in the discussion on
fire 
> > > control and defensive ratings.  The more we played, however, the
more 
> > > we ran into specific instances that seemed to not fit in with the 
> > > implicit model we had constructed.  Therefore,  either our 
> > > understanding of what the values represent is wrong, or the value 
> > > itself is wrong, or both.  Next, we realized that not only had we
not 
> > > determined in the system and/or values made sense, but that we _
> > > could_ not do so without more information.  At best, we would have

> > > only a vague feeling that this or that value is wrong -- often
times 
> > > it seems that different ships are different solely for the sake of

> > > being different, or that the values were assigned in a totally 
> > > arbitrary manner. 
> > > 
> > > While bad enough in itself, this will potentially become
intolerable 
> > > when the ship design system is introduced, for two reasons. 
First, 
> > > if there is no method by which a ship's ratings are determined, it

> > > will be difficult if not impossible to devise a system which will 
> > > allow you to design the ship's included in the game.  Second, even
if 
> > > the original ships do not become illegal, it promises to make them

> > > suboptimal designs.  There should always be room for players to 
> > > improve on the efforts of the naval architects of the fictional 
> > > setting, but care needs to be taken not to invalidate all the
designs 
> > > which came before. 

Mr. Glass' comment:
> The values were assigned based on a variety of factors-but not on a 
> specific formula.  The most influencial information was feedback we
got 
> back from some contacts we have with Babylonian Productions.	

Once again, I think Mr. Glass misses the point.  As we playtested it, we
tried 
to determine what the various numbers (defensive ratings, damage
ratings, fire 
control, etc.) represented.  Does the defensive rating refer to the
relative 
size and cross section of the ship?   Does it represent defensive
systems?  As 
we played we realized that we didn't have a good feel for exactly what
the 
numbers should be, because some of the numbers seemed inconsistant with
the 
numbers from other ships.  We concluded that there were two
possibilities:

1) We didn't understand the model, i.e., there were factors in it that
we 
didn't account for (perhaps based on info from JMS), the relationship of
the 
factors was incorrect in our own minds, or they simply weren't modelling
what 
we thought they were modifying.

2) There was no real system or model.  Offensive and defensive numbers
were 
assigned totally based on feel, and were differentiated mainly to give
the 
numbers from both sides (firer and target) to be computed together. 
Trying to 
look at the defensive rating, for example, and determine what went into 
calculating it is doomed to failure, because there is no calculation.

We feared that the answer was #2.  Mr. Glass' answer above does nothing
to 
alleviate my fears.

Mr. Glass continued:
> As for the ship design system, the decision was made not to build the 
> historical ships to a specific system.  In truth, when we do print the

> ship construction rules, you will not be able to build ships which
will 
> out perform the ships in the game on a point for point basis.  This 
> decision was reached after looking over various other companies
systems 
> and talking with other game designers who have had the same issues
come 
> up. The problems are this: players can always find loop holes in
design 
> rules which will allow them to build ships which can outperform 
> historical ships if the historical ships are built by the same rules. 
> This is because historical ships are usually designed with 'realistic'

> budgets and racial tendencies in mind.  We will be providing the 
> equivelant custom ship value for all historical ships for players 
> reference. 

Presumably, if there is a ship design system, then there needs to be
some way 
for that system to calculate all of the different ratings needed for
combat, 
so I guess this means we will get to see exactly what goes into the
model.

I suspect I am not the only one, however, that views the inability of
the 
design system to reproduce the ships that come with the game as a bug
and not 
a feature.  While I am sympathetic to the idea that game designers are
human 
beings who, while producing and marketing a game (on a deadline) may not
be 
able to outwit all their customers (especially these days, where the
internet 
allows us to gang up on them), I think the solution is to fix the
problem at 
the source -- through "'realistic' budgets and racial tendencies", etc..

I said: 
> > 3) My personal pet peeve -- the Earthforce Omega class destroyer
does 
> > not have a rotating section.  Anyone who has seen the episode where
the 
> > loyalist forces attacked Babylon 5 know that the bridge crew of the
_
> > Alexander_ was VERY worried about damage to the spin section forcing

> > them to stop rotation. 
> > Considering the damage system involves specific hit locations, you 
> > would think the rotating section would have to be included.  Yet,
there 
> > is nothing in the game to indicate the ship even has a rotating 
> > section! 

Mr. Glass' response:
> We did not include anything on the rotating section because George 
> Johnson of (co-producer of the show and the tech head there) told us
that 
> the control systems on Omegas are designed to automatically compensate

> for the spin of the section and thus did not need to be simulated in
the 
> game.  These sections can be locked down if necessary. 
> The crew of the Alexander was not worried so much because of the fact 
> that the rotation would stop (it wouldn't effect the combat
capabilities 
> of the ship) but rather the fact that the crew was not set up for
zero-g 
> operations.  Within the game, there will be rules (and this was told
to 
> playtesters) on the rotating section when we do the Earth-specific
rules 
> in the Earth Wars supplement.  We did not do it in the basic set
because 
> we were told it was NOT something that was necessary to simulate in
the 
> basic game.  

Mr. Glass certainly has better info than I do in this regard; if the
producers 
say it is not a problem, then I guess it is not a problem.  I don't 
specifically recall being told that there will be rules on rotating
sections -
- I'm not saying I wasn't told, mind you, just that I don't recall it. 
I'm 
glad to here it will be in there.

I said: 
> > 4) The Earthforce ships have "interceptors", which are CIWS designed
to 
> > intercept incoming fire.  To their credit, AoG change it so that the

> > interceptors can no longer intercept incoming laser fire.  However, 
> > they have added the idea that the interceptors somehow generate a 
> > forcefield that degrades laser fire.  Yuck. 

Mr. Glass said:
> Once again, this was done because we were specifically told by George 
> Johnson (and he has also stated this in public moderated groups) that 
> this is the case.  He specifically said to us that interceptors use
have 
> two basic functions: an active mode which is the little white balls
which 
> are fired at incomming fire or fighters, and a passive function which
is 
> the energy net around the ship. 

I stand by my "yuck". <grin>  Well, if the producers of the show say
that's 
how they work, then that's how they work.

I said:
> > 5) The ship sheets are in the back of the book, perforated for 
> > removal.  Why do it this way?  Why not make the ship sheets a
separate 
> > booklet, where they would be easy to photocopy (which they grant 
> > permission for), like GDW did with _Star Cruiser_, TFG does with
_SFB_, 
> > etc.?  Players are left with the alternatives of defacing the rules
or 
> > limiting the quality of the copies that can be made. 

Mr Glass responded:
> This was a business decision.  The price difference of printing the
SCS's 
> seperately as another book or including them in this book are rather 
> significant.	For the printer, it's the differnce between two differnt

> set-ups and amounted to over three thousand dollars for the print run.
 
> This breaks down into around 30 cents per box which, while is does not

> sound like much, is too much.  There will be a series of products 
> released which will contain multiple copies of every SCS we publish in

> the future.  I should also note that we also have to look at our
re-print 
> costs.  As our re-print will probably be half the size of the first
run, 
> that 30-cents jumps to nearly 45-cents per box. 

I figured as much.  Why it was done makes it no less irritating to the 
customer, although I can certainly understand it.  I wonder how much it
would 
have cost to simply have the sheets loose in the box?

Mr. Glass said, after my "overall assessment":
> Earlier the author of this email commented that we ignored 
> everything which the playtesters stated.  

I most specifically did NOT say that.  I said:
> 2) Almost all of the suggestions our playtest group made were ignored.
 If
> this means you think that I am a cranky and bitter old coot whose
pissed he
> didn't get his way, well, I would like to point out that my opinion of
the
> product hasn't changed since I saw the first playtest copy.

I specifically said that ALMOST all of the (important) suggestions made
by MY 
PLAYTEST GROUP were ignored, from the very beginning. 

> Specifically, from our second playtest report: 
> Overall, of the three fatal problems I listed in the first round
playtest,  
> two have not been addressed in the current playtest rules.  They are: 
> 1) The unrealistic (and hence overly complex) nature of the movement 
> system; 
> 2) The lack of definition regarding energy points and masses for
ships. 
>  
> In addition, a new problem -- the lack of definition regarding the
combat 
> system -- has emerged. 

Of the three things that we determined to be "fatal" problems -- defined
as, 
"if this isn't fixed, we don't find the game worth playing" -- only the
second 
problem was addressed.	The problem was that one energy point always
produced 
one point of thrust, which implies that (a) energy points are relative,
and 
only valid per ship (i.e., an Omega-class energy point is a different
amount 
than a Rossevelt-class energy point), or (b) all ships are the same
mass.  We 
felt this was a serious realism problem, and soureed the entire
experience for 
us.  AoG fixed this in the final release, by adding engines (which
convert 
energy points to thrust points, at different rates for each ship) and
the 
Accel/Decel Cost (which is the number of thrust points necessary to
change the 
ships velocity by one hex per turn).  While this can sometimes be
cumbersome, 
I haven't been able to come up with anything better, and I'm glad AoG
took the 
issue seriously enough to resolve.

The first problem -- the movement system -- was not fixed.  

The last problem -- lack of definition in the combat system -- does not
appear 
to have been fixed in the initial release, nor does Mr. Glass' response 
indicate that it has been.  I must admit, though, that I only glance
over the 
combat system.	Sometime in the next week or so I intend to sit down and

compare the d100 based numbers to the d20 based numbers in an attempt to
see 
if I can determine the underlying model.

Mr. Glass said:
> The biggest request we did not do was creating a true vector movement 
> system as a system like this is simply too complex for the average 
> gamer. 
  
Was this tested?  Every communication I have ever received from AoG
concerning  
this issue at least implies that they _assumed_ it was too complex
without 
bothering to determine whether that was true or not.  Considering the
number 
of vector movment games out there with simpler mechanics than the AoG
system, 
I wonder what this decision was based on.  I would disagree with both
the 
premise that the AoG system is simple or that the average gamer is too
dumb to 
handle vector movement.

> The movement system is as realistic as you can get in a simple system
and 
> it has been commented by a great number of people that it is more 
> realistic than most games on the market while still be playable.  

I would disagree with this premise as well.  It is not even as realistic
as 
_Full Thrust_, which while not a true vector system in the currently
published 
version, is more realitic in that it allows you to make 30 degree turns.
 When 
compared to ICE's _Silent Death_, I suppose the argument could be made
that it 
is easier.  But this case can't be made when compared to _Triplanetary_,

_Mayday_, _LNL_, _Freefall_, etc., all vector meovement games whose
movement 
rules IN TOTAL are probably fewer pages than _B5W_'s.  [I compared
_Mayday_ 
and _Triplanetary_ this weekend and, printed at the same font size as
_B5W_, 
the equivalent movement rules -- including three or four illustrations
-- take 
up about a single page for each game, compared to about seven for
_B5W_.]  
   So, I guess if you limit the comparison to the stuff on the market
(the 
above games are all OOP or net games), the movement system of _B5W_
could be 
argued to be "simple" and "realistic".	Of course, this is the
equivalent of 
being the best ballet dancer in all of Tulsa.

Mr. Glass said:
> If people wish, contact Mike Wikkan at mww@ n-space.com 
> and ask him about how much we listened to our playtesters.  We take 
> everything any playtester has to say very seriously and I do not 
> appreciate the implication that we ignore our playtesters.  

I did not meant to imply that they did not listen to _us_, let alone the
other 
playtesters.  My group sent in a report that was about twenty pages
long, with 
a variety of comments that were classified as being of Minor, Serious,
or 
Fatal impact.  A large number of the Minor and Serious ones became
non-issues 
either by abandoning the two-phases-per-turn sequence of play others or
by 
clarifying the issue in the rules.  

The fact remains, though, that of the three things we said would affect
our 
decision to play the game, we were told flat-out that one was a
non-starter 
and another was not addressed with the core release.  Whether either of
these 
will be addressed at a future time is currently unknown. Mr. Graw did
comment 
via email that they might do an "advanced rulebook" including a vector 
movement system, but whether this was a serious consideration or simply
an 
attempt to get me to drop the subject, I can't say. I'll assume the
former, 
and reiterate that Arius and I are willing to donate the work that we
have 
done.

> I don't mind a player posting negative comments about a system (even 
> one which I wrote), however, I do mind when that post includes false
or 
> misleading comments. 

And which statements would those be?  That the problems that my playtest
group 
thought were most important were not fixed?  If that is the claim, I
will 
gladly produce a copy of the playtest report and every piece of
correspondence 
that I ever received from AoG on the subject.  That the problems I cite
with 
the movement system don't exist?  If that is the case, then I must have
a 
serious misunderstanding of what the _B5W_ movement system does and does
not 
allow -- please explain to me why the examples that I use are not legal
moves.

It was not my intent to get into a pissing match regarding this issue. 
I 
can't help noticing, though, that Mr. Glass either failed to address
most of 
the issues I brought up or took offense at things I did not say.  I am
forced 
to conclude that he did not read either my original email to the list or
the 
contents of my website with any great care.  Which is to be expected,
not 
because he is in any way evil, but because he is probably very busy;
dealing 
with a perceived gadfly such as myself is probably far down on his list
of 
priorities.  Which is as it should be -- he has supplements to write,
and we 
want them NOW. <grin>

I would like to publically thank both Mr. Glass and Mr. Graw for their 
efforts.  The production values on the game are quite high, the counters
are 
beautiful, and it is clear they have put a lot of work into it. I
hopefully 
will be able to go buy my copy (and return my borrowed copy) later
today.	
While we disagree on some of the particulars, I consider myself to be no
more 
than the loyal (but friendly) opposition on some issues, and if that was
not 
clear from the outset, then I offer everyone my apologies.  My saying
that I 
intend to play the game with a using a different movement system should
not 
cloud the fact that, while replacing eight pages, I am keeping the other
90% 
of the system as is.

Buy the game.  If you like it as is, then play it as is. If you would
prefer 
to see a vector movement system for the game, then visit my website and 
download the vector movement system for it.  Either way, buy the game
and 
enjoy it.

Please note that the files on my site are out of date. The "aogprob.htm"
in 
particular has, perhaps, more of a negative tone than I really intended
when I 
wrote it.  My colleague Arius Kaufmann and I are working on the rewrite
-- in 
fact, we spent last night discussing a bunch of issues while cutting and

pasting some ship sheets and moving ships around the map.  I hope to
have a 
new beta version of the files up on 8/4, with updates taking place on a
weekly 
basis.

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