CSCR- Less is more? (LONG POST)

Playtesting & Rules Development
Post Reply
strongbif
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:05 pm

CSCR- Less is more? (LONG POST)

Post by strongbif »

I'm surprised at how detailed the purchasing of individual military ships is in a game that boils star systems down to such an elegant string of stats. As Star Confederacy High Representative, Supreme High Tyrant of the Galactic Empire, or God-King of the Holy Theocracy of the Deep Black, or whatever, I would probably never pay that close attention to just what ships were being commissioned where. I might come across a detailed list of the ships in my Navy during a briefing with my Defense Administrator, Warchief, Archpaladin, or whoever, but I'd probably only glance at it before tossing it aside to consider how large, how numerous and where my fleets and battle groups were, and how that would affect my policy decisions.

I propose the following idea: have players purchase a whole battle group at once, and don't go into too much detail about what's in it. Essentially, create a ship class called "Battle Group" with stats like DV, AS, Cost, etc. comparable to those of many individual ships added together using normal CSCR rules.

For a bit more detail, you could create several such classes broken down by size and function, e.g., "Large Carrier Group," "Small Escort Group," "Medium Planetary Assault Group," etc., with matching stats, supply capacity for troops, and maybe one or two options that capture the flavor of that type of entire group. I'll give specific examples once I'm more experienced with the rules.

During a battle, you'd make task forces out of groups instead of ships, and there would only be 3-4 max per side typically. Dice are rolled, AS factors applied, damage is distributed. Instead of crippling individual ships, damage would reduce a group's DV. Once the DV is reduced to the level of the next lowest-size group, a group essentially "becomes" that type, e.g., my large battle group takes enough damage that its DV falls to the level of a medium group. For all intents and purposes, my large group becomes a medium group, taking on all the stats of the medium group. Tugging ability, etc is assumed organic within a group, so those rules are ignored.
A group could be repaired or augmented (which are both essentially the exact same thing) by docking at a shipyard and spending Econ points to increase its size, either back to Large in the example above, or maybe from Large to Huge for the first time, etc.

One could handle supply by giving a supply value to each battle fleet. This represents the supply infrastructure a battle group would already include, and would be used just like a separate supply ship to prolong operations out of supply. Additionally, a power could build separate supply groups to augment the supply of its battle groups.

I haven't played VBAM yet and I only just read through the rules. What haven't I considered about this idea? Would it break something invaluable? For my PBEM campaign I want my players focused on macro-level issues. I think this simplification is a good start without overhauling the rules too much, but please give me your feedback. Thanks!
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

To some extent you're just replacing the word "ship" with the word "fleet" (or battlegroup), (albeit you're making the "ships" larger and more expensive)

So I don't see why VBAM couldn't work with it,

It depends upon your background - I tend to prefer economy-strapped backgrounds with fairly few ships, so being able to play individual ships is of use, but if you're playing galactic empires (ala star wars or whatever) then you might well be better of doing it your way,
Gareth Lazelle
zyffyr
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:38 pm

Post by zyffyr »

There is no change in mechanics, just a change in labels. Play it how you want.
User avatar
logan400k
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:56 pm
Contact:

Post by logan400k »

I also think you want to make sure the research trees all work out too, if you are going to have research. Maybe instead of having to work up to things like 'Carriers' instead they have to research "Carrier Groups". As others have noted its just a small change in nomenclature and I do not think it would affect the rules at all.
Its 2300hrs, do you know where your Supercarrier is?
User avatar
mwaschak
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:43 am
Location: The data mines of VBAM
Contact:

Post by mwaschak »

There is the labeling issue of course, but what you suggest could be implemented in a slightly different way. The key would have to be a change in how battlegroups, or divisions, or squadrons, or whatever you prefer, would behave. Since VBAM is modular it is easy to change what you buy, and pass the results between combat and back.

Because you would be buying battle groups the CSCR would probably simplify quite a bit. There would be less need to know what fighters are doing, or that carrier division 6 has three ships. So outside the unit cost change, I would definitely recommend trimming battle decisions to make it easier to track. I know of some players who used an Axis and Allies type roll and hit system to keep things going. Either way, please let know if you do something and how it works.

Like Gareth I prefer the low ship, weak economy games where every single deployment matters to keep pirates in check, or counter incursions. But if you get in to a huge universe, say hundreds of hive ships, or thousands of destroyers, there is also a reason to change the scale of the unit.

-Jay
strongbif
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:05 pm

Post by strongbif »

Thanks for all of your helpful comments. You're right- this is a cosmetic change. The only immediate rules change I see is how damage is handled. Another benefit of doing it this way is being able to plug in a tactical system and let each side choose their own fleet. For example, say we decide to resolve an encounter with Starmada. We could translate the total economics point cost of a given fleet into a Combat Value pool that could be used to purchase individual ships for a given encounter. Since don't define exactly what is in the fleet, there's some leeway there.

Having not yet played, I face the problem of determining stats and costs for each given fleet or group or whatever. I guess I can rummage through the sample source material at the back of the campaign guide, pick roughly what ships would go into a given fleet, and total their basic stats into one ubership... I'll let you know how it goes if I can get a game off the ground.
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

strongbif wrote:Having not yet played, I face the problem of determining stats and costs for each given fleet or group or whatever. I guess I can rummage through the sample source material at the back of the campaign guide, pick roughly what ships would go into a given fleet, and total their basic stats into one ubership... I'll let you know how it goes if I can get a game off the ground.
That seems a complex way of doing things,

If I where you I'd decide on your basic flotilla types (escort, cruiser, battlecruiser, battleship, carrier, etc) and simply assign values to each flotilla type,

You could even use the basic hull types to represent the flotilla stats (so an escort flotilla might use the basic destroyer hull as its basic stat-line) and assign special abilities as you feel appropriate (for example, an escort flotilla might have Recce, Carrier group would have carrier, etc),

The only thing you'd have to tweak then are the costs - if your basic flotilla has roughly a dozen ships in it then cost and maintenance can be figures out from that - and you're done stat-wise,

You could even keep Basing-Capacity as-is, and just assume a 'flight' of fighters is a wing, and a wing is a regiment (or whatever),

This way the numbers are easy (after all, if you're not using individual ships then you can tweak the ranges to suit what is normal in your campaign),

Obviously you are going to need some rules-tweaks elsewhere, but at least the basic groundwork is then done with little effort,
Gareth Lazelle
strongbif
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:05 pm

Post by strongbif »

I like that, especially since I'm going for simple. The net effect could be similar to an economy-strapped, few-ship scenario, but with a little heavy lifting by players' imaginations, it would be flotillas they're buying. BTW flotilla is the word I was grasping for in previous posts. Thanks.

For different-size flotillas- I can use basic hull stats to represent a medium flotilla, halve all values for a small one, and double everything to go from medium to large. That way, a player could merge two smaller flotillas or split up a bigger one by having them spend a turn doing nothing else. All involved flotillas would have to be in supply.

This also means that flotilla size would downgrade when DV is halved. I wonder if that's too drastic a change to be realistic. Would a flotilla operate at 100% until it was reduced to half size, then suddenly operate half as effectively? No, the change would be more gradual. That's the issue I'm wresting with presently. Suggestions appreciated.

I initially think I'll do away with ship-based fighters and the AF value altogether. System-based fighters and fixed defenses would add AS value to the appropriate side in Defense encounters. The rest of the fighter combat will happen in players' imaginations.

I'll get started on the details this weekend. After that, I'll reread the troop combat section with an eye toward similar relabeling.
Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Post by Gareth_Perkins »

strongbif wrote:This also means that flotilla size would downgrade when DV is halved. I wonder if that's too drastic a change to be realistic. Would a flotilla operate at 100% until it was reduced to half size, then suddenly operate half as effectively? No, the change would be more gradual. That's the issue I'm wresting with presently. Suggestions appreciated.
Well, if your background is one where damage is attritional (ships accumulate damage until they explode) then that would work fine. Ships should accumulate damage and then several will probably explode at roughly the same time (as they will tend to accumulate damage at similar rates),

On the other hand if your background is more one-shot-one-kill lethality then you might want something more gradual,
I initially think I'll do away with ship-based fighters and the AF value altogether. System-based fighters and fixed defenses would add AS value to the appropriate side in Defense encounters. The rest of the fighter combat will happen in players' imaginations.
Possibly not a bad idea - fighters are one of the trickier parts of the game to balance at the present. If you do eventually decide to include them it might be worth placing them only on dedicated Carriers,
Gareth Lazelle
User avatar
logan400k
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:56 pm
Contact:

Post by logan400k »

strongbif wrote:
This also means that flotilla size would downgrade when DV is halved. I wonder if that's too drastic a change to be realistic. Would a flotilla operate at 100% until it was reduced to half size, then suddenly operate half as effectively? No, the change would be more gradual. That's the issue I'm wresting with presently. Suggestions appreciated.
That may make more sense but it seems you are going against the initial idea: that is to make fleets less detail heavy. Making gradual attrition seems to me to be adding back another layer of detail. If you want your players to concentrate on the big picture, then I think just keep the size downgrading when DV is halved. As opposed to worrying over various attrition levels.
Its 2300hrs, do you know where your Supercarrier is?
mriddle
Commander
Commander
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:12 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Post by mriddle »

One option is to use the base methodology..
take damage in 25% portions..
1/2 DV = 3/4 capability (DV at FULL ?)
DV = 1/2 capability (DV at 3/4?)
1.5 DV =1/4 capability ( DV = 1/2 DV ?)

(bases do not change DV) but I think that the firepower required to kill a crippled target is NOT equal to amount of firepower required to crippled a unhurt target, but that is just me..:)

Mike
strongbif
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:05 pm

Post by strongbif »

Attrition Damage for the win! I'm convinced that simpler is better now. Dilemma resolved.

I kicked around the idea of handling fighters as a "Carrier Pool," a value on a Carrier Flotilla's hull stats that can be "spent" during an encounter. CP can be allocated to increase DV or AS or both on a one-for-one basis for any flotilla on the same side in an encounter. Once used, CP are gone for the rest of the (phase? round? scenario? encounter? game turn?), then replenish automatically. By extension, atmospheric fighters based in a system could also be represented by a CP value to be used as normal during a Defense encounter. CP would be included in the cost of a Carrier Flotilla, and purchased separately for atmospherics.
Post Reply