2E Feedback

[darbycmcd]

so for surprise, how would it be to tie it more to the game situation as a reward/punishment for player action. something like, surprise can occur in the first scenario generated on the first turn a TF moves into a previously uncontested system from an uncontested system. and then give meaningful chances for surprise. that would incentivize players putting scouts into adjacent systems and allow for some tech advances (scout, LR sensors, Early warning bases, etc) that would mitigate the chance of surprise, or cloaking which could perhaps allow a TF to avoid scouts and attack with surprise in the next system.... just making the surprise mod be both a bonus for the attacker and a malus for the defender would make surprise a huge coup, and worth working to try and achieve.

then readiness would be more of a 'crew quality' modifier, in with the graded leader rules.

for me i just think that the granularity of the combat system leads already to extreme results. what i mean is for 2 evenly matched sides, two rolls that differ by 4 or 5 points will probably decide the battle. if one side does 10% own value in damage, but the opp does 60%, it is probably over but for the crying. that is just the way the system is (i really like the system by the way!). so things that make potentially make that even more uneven i think are not great for multi-player.

plus, just my opinion and just as an aside, but space combat, with limited human input, non-variable and non-interacting terrain would be relentlessly Lancasterian in outcome.

[darbycmcd]

How set are the ship building options? i remember you said energy web is not supposed to be there....
I think gunship is overpowered. for 1 space you do 1 point of damage. this makes it at the very least about 40% more effective than AS, why would anyone not put gunship on every ship? and what does it represent? ships with guns? typically, it is a designation that is smaller, lightly armoured ships that are overgunned for their size. but can't that already be shown just with the AS/DV system? having AS 8 DV 4 sort of gives you a gunship, yes?

[darbycmcd]

what do people think about the cyberwarfare aspect? it is interesting. 'firewall' and 'cyberwarfare' traits are not really defined, so it is hard to know how big a factor it will be. i am not totally clear on the effects, who controls the ship, and what the impact of squadron affiliation is for 'other' controlled ship, since it seems there is some player interaction with these things. and why there is even a rule for squadron attachment since it seems the ship is out of the battle..... but the idea is interesting for an alternative type of fleet. basically it functions as a seperate type of battle, you score 'damage' in the same way, and exceeding DV puts a ship out of the battle, but not destroyed. my first thought was it was too fiddley, but now i am sort of liking it.

[MarkNorfolk]

How set are the ship building options? i remember you said energy web is not supposed to be there....
I think gunship is overpowered. for 1 space you do 1 point of damage. this makes it at the very least about 40% more effective than AS, why would anyone not put gunship on every ship? and what does it represent? ships with guns? typically, it is a designation that is smaller, lightly armoured ships that are overgunned for their size. but can't that already be shown just with the AS/DV system? having AS 8 DV 4 sort of gives you a gunship, yes?

I kind of felt that 'Gunship' represensented some super-gun. Either a piece of cutting edge tech, or a weapon normally fielded on a larger vessel. Maybe Quantum torpedoes in ST, the main Laser Cannons from B5 and lances in 40K. These things can be represented by AV but it's nice to have something written down....

Cheers
Mark

[MarkNorfolk]

so for surprise, how would it be to tie it more to the game situation as a reward/punishment for player action. something like, surprise can occur in the first scenario generated on the first turn a TF moves into a previously uncontested system from an uncontested system. and then give meaningful chances for surprise. that would incentivize players putting scouts into adjacent systems and allow for some tech advances (scout, LR sensors, Early warning bases, etc) that would mitigate the chance of surprise, or cloaking which could perhaps allow a TF to avoid scouts and attack with surprise in the next system.... just making the surprise mod be both a bonus for the attacker and a malus for the defender would make surprise a huge coup, and worth working to try and achieve.

then readiness would be more of a 'crew quality' modifier, in with the graded leader rules.

for me i just think that the granularity of the combat system leads already to extreme results. what i mean is for 2 evenly matched sides, two rolls that differ by 4 or 5 points will probably decide the battle. if one side does 10% own value in damage, but the opp does 60%, it is probably over but for the crying. that is just the way the system is (i really like the system by the way!). so things that make potentially make that even more uneven i think are not great for multi-player.

plus, just my opinion and just as an aside, but space combat, with limited human input, non-variable and non-interacting terrain would be relentlessly Lancasterian in outcome.

I like the idea of of surprise being just a situational modifier for player actions leading up conflict rather than the die roll. After determining that then this is where players go into 'conflict resolution' mode either through the CSCR or through a TTG. (basically I'm saying the Readiness is part of the CSCR system and should be in that chapter).

BTW - Tyrel - I'm aware that my comments might seem negative - but I'm hugely grateful for the work you've put in - I've had great fun running VBAM campaigns in the past...but I'll always be thinking: How's this work with my toy spaceships and soldiers?

Cheers
Mark

[MarkNorfolk]

How set are the ship building options? i remember you said energy web is not supposed to be there....
I think gunship is overpowered. for 1 space you do 1 point of damage. this makes it at the very least about 40% more effective than AS, why would anyone not put gunship on every ship? and what does it represent? ships with guns? typically, it is a designation that is smaller, lightly armoured ships that are overgunned for their size. but can't that already be shown just with the AS/DV system? having AS 8 DV 4 sort of gives you a gunship, yes?

I kind of felt that 'Gunship' represensented some super-gun. Either a piece of cutting edge tech, or a weapon normally fielded on a larger vessel. Maybe Quantum torpedoes in ST, the main Laser Cannons from B5 and lances in 40K. These things can be represented by AV but it's nice to have something written down....

On the other hand, if one wasn't going to use the CSCR it's meaningless. The stats of your chosen rules set will have this stuff already factored in. It got me thinking "If I was never going to use the CSCR what do I actually need to know about the units to be able to fuction in VBAM?" It turns out a lot of the abilities in the construction chapter exist only for the CSCR and I wonder if there's way to seperate out the Strategic from the Tactical.

Cheers
Mark

[darbycmcd]

Gunship: you could very well be right about the idea behind gunship, i don't know. but from the actual way it enters play, it is just a super efficient AS. as far as i can tell, it would never make sense to NOT put one on a ship. it seems like it is a story related element but i am not sure what the story is...

one of the interesting things, and gunship is tangentially related to this, is the ship building formula. here you decide cost first, and basically stick as much in as you can. it works, i have no complaints. but the more typical system would be to decided size first, then total up the cost of the things you cram in. the difference is that you can show cost/size ratio more effectively and use that for things like special abilities or tech development. so say gunship could be size 1 (same as 1 AS) but cost 2x. then it makes more sense as a potential tradeoff, and makes sense to put it on small ships which need some extra umph (and then you end up with sort of like what a real world gunship is). or say you want to show a tech advance in defensive abilities, you could lower the cost per size for that specific ship system, without having to increase the total mass available for ALL systems.

that being said, i have no issue with the current system, i just want to point out that some things need to be balanced differently than typical.

[darbycmcd]

I also hope Tyrel is not taking this feedback in a negative way! We are all here on the forum because we really liked 1E, so I hope that comments are taken in the context of being supportive rather than destructive. I want this edition to succeed and get the widespread recognition that I think VBAM deserves, and I hope that all of us take on some sort of devils advocate position to help achieve that.

But Tyrel hasn't posted here for almost 2 weeks.... I

[Charles Lewis]

I'm sure you haven't offended him. This kind of feedback is just what is needed as 2E firms up. The nature of his work means he sometimes disappears for a stretch, but then he'll be back.

[Vandervecken]

This isn't best place to put this but I didn't want to start a new thread, kind of a one and done thing.

Want to apologize to Mavikfelna and any others that enjoy playing Starfire. After looked at some of my earlier posts, I seem to have did that game a disservice. Grew older playing all but Ultra versions of the game and still monitor their forums (my kids are very smart but Procyon's are some really dedicated and intelligent young adults).
I just can't get anyone to play a system that got that big. Oh, and I'm not a big fan of the Starship/Fighter/Smlcrft triangle. But Starfire inspired me to make my 1st system generator (and my 2nd thru 5th). In fact every generation of Starefire inspired me to do something new with what came to be my own game system, which ironically, like starfire, got too big for my friends to easily play. But 4x Space empire building is still the area we have the biggest concensus to play (even more than roleplaying and we've been playing D&D since 1978).

So that's why I'm here posting (while I continue to only lurk the boards at ADB and others) I see a nice chance to get my friends out of 4X empire building semi-retirement with 2E VBAM. And as much as I have loved Starefire, from the first Zip bag I purchased to the currently "almost done" edition of Ultra, I don't see me playing it any more. Those who do are a breed apart (or crazy - ) and I'll love reading about your empire highs and lows in your forums!

Now back to your regularly scheduled 2E Feedback forum.

[darbycmcd]

This is sort of a stylistic issue, but you have quite a bit of material that relates to why things are the way they are rather than just the straight up rules. i do like this actually, but from a rule-book ease of use standpoint, what do you think about moving that stuff to sidebars? it is useful to give especially newer players insight into the rule intent, but i notice that when i am trying to reference things, there is a 'wall of text' effect that is not so great. i get that you don't want to write a rulebook as we normally conceptualize that, but maybe a way to declutter a bit. for instance, you have 3 pages of descriptions of different ship types. while you do say they have no meaning for the game, it is a lot of space and eyecatching 'stuff' for something that doesn't have game play use. after my first readthrough, i really just want to be able to quickly flip to a section and read just the rule. just something to think about.

[countercheck]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I was wondering if it might be possible to link Intensity to Aggressiveness. The more aggressive the civ, the higher intensity the conflict. One would certainly imagine that a civ with a philosophy of bringing the fight to the enemy should generate more intensity points than a relatively pacifist society, and therefore be extremely successful at engaging the enemy, but unsuccessful at fighting delaying actions. Once characters are enabled, you could have them deviate slightly from the standard society ratings, allowing an aggressive commander to generate more intensity points (best put her in command of the invasion fleet) while others might be more interested in conserving their force (making him a good choice for leading a long range raiding party).

I must say, I really like the idea of trade being Census x Highest Infrastructure.

One option for Biosphere is to have it start at 0, but provide a tech that grants a global boost of 1 to Biosphere. That'll give you a reasonable number of rocks, but with the right tech, you can synthesize enough food to keep small populations stable. You could even provide it as an inherent bonus for achieving TL0 - If we have ships that can stay in space for months without resupply, it's likely hydroponics has come a long way. This feels like an optional rule.

While I'm not opposed to the readiness roll, I too agree that situational modifiers beyond +2 for Interception and blockading would be cool.

I LOVE the new piracy rules, but I imagine I'll reskin it as Criminal Activity in general. Is there any way to include number of hulls in the piracy suppression calculation? Currently, a battleship is as effective at suppressing piracy as a destroyer flotilla, and that doesn't seem right, as pirate hunting is specifically what light units are assigned. Perhaps the Scout ability should be involved instead of number of hulls? I don't really know.

[Tyrel Lohr]

After a month of being slammed by work and then spending the last week and a half of September rushing to create 3D models to be printed at Shapeways before its price increase, I am trying to get caught back up on the discussions that I've missed and get things setup for another internal playtest run to test some of the concepts as I finish up some additional modifications to the rules.

I have spent the last month contemplating the points that have been raised in this thread, and more importantly trying to figure out the best way to address them within the rules.


System Statistics

One discussion that has weighed especially on my mind has been the comments that decried the presence of the Orbital and Science system statistics. I still haven't made a final determination as to what I want to do there, as I can understand both sides of the argument and find my own mind caught in between the two positions. Star systems statistics would be quite a bit easier to track if the two were eliminated, and it would also allow for the table-based system generation rules to be introduced with less confusion (at present, they all end up being the same table).

One problem with doing this is that with only three real system statistics, you end up with Carrying Capacity, RAW, and Biosphere as the only system statistics that differentiate one system from another. This wasn't a huge problem in my 1E campaigns, but it did end up having the effect of some systems just being obviously worthless if their stats didn't hit a certain level. Thinking back on that now, though, that probably had more to do with the way that 1E handled sysgen than anything else (tying CAP & RAW together the way that it did).

The other issue with removing Orbital and Science from the 2E rules is how to go about calculating shipyard capacity and tech capacity without them. Shipyard capacity is the easiest fix, as you could use either Utilized Shipyards x RAW or Utilized Shipyards x Utilized Productivity. Both of these approaches has its own unique merits. Using RAW as a basis is the most straightforward, but it also has the unfortunate side effect of recreating the original problem of RAW being too important. Using Shipyards x Productivity has the benefit of allowing even resource poor planets to be used as manufacturing sites, so that would probably be the option that I would prefer.

Then there is tech capacity. Without the Science stat, the only conceivable solutions that I can think of are a) Utilized Tech x 5 (flat modifier); or b) Utilized Tech ^ 2. I think squaring the stat is too powerful, especially since most systems are going to top out at around 5-6 (depending on how the system stats end up), so that leaves a flat modifier. A flat modifier of 2x might be better for encouraging players to expand their Tech infrastructure, because otherwise you end up with the 1E problem of players just dumping huge amount of economic points into tech investment in a single turn to advance their technology rather than paying smaller tech installments over time.

Intel capacity has similar issues, mainly that if Orbital and Science are abandoned then Jump Lanes as a system stat should also be removed. Whatever happens to tech capacity would then have to be applied to Intel infrastructure and intel capacity, too.


Encounters

On the continued discussion of the combat resolution system, there's been a lot of good points brought up. Jay and I have talked about the problem several times in the last week and the current solution that we are going to try out is to roll the Encounter resolution back to something that is a bit closer to 1E in that encounters will be resolved in specific segments (Space Combat, Bombardment, Ground Combat) and surprise will go back to being resolved only at the start of a scenario (and its effects minimized so that it isn't as powerful). Initiative order will more than likely be determined by how much intensity an empire brought to the scenario, from highest to lowest.

A change to intensity is planned to make the predominant function be a force's total construction cost. I do like the idea of Aggressiveness being incorporated as an additional element, however. I'll try out a few ways of implementing that as I rework those rules.


Commerce

Countercheck's idea of changing the commerce value to be Census x Highest Utilized Infrastructure would work. Doing that would eliminate the bonus a system currently receives from having a lot of jump lanes attaching to it, which means that systems that have large numbers of jump lanes won't receive any kind of trade advantage. I can't find it in the current draft, but at one point I was giving empires a +1 EP bonus for each foreign trade link operating in their territories. I am thinking about maybe reviving that, but it might be too lucrative a bonus, especially considering that an "average" system is going to have a commerce value of 10. A better solution would be to give a player an additional cut of the commerce value where foreign powers are trading, but that gets a little dicey, too, because it adds a lot of extra math that I would rather not have to deal with each turn.

A solution to that problem would be to make the cost of trade links variable based on the number of jump lanes that are in a system, but I don't think that would help that much -- the current commerce rules make it more advantageous from a cost perspective to establish trade links in high jump lane systems because they offer more routes of expansion for your trade routes.

Speaking of trade routes, while I still prefer the current trade link system, I do think that Darby's system of extending routes across jump lanes instead of establishing trade links in systems would make a great optional rules for the Companion.


CSCR & Unit Stats

It is an excellent point that the strategic and tactical effects really do need to be separated as we can't assume that everyone is going to be using the CSCR. I need to read over the draft with that in mind and tweak any of the abilities that make that assumption.

Along similar lines, I made the decision earlier this week to remove all of the special technology rules from the Campaign Guide. The technologies that represent standard campaign abilities will be moved back to the Special Abilities section of the Unit Statistic rules, and all of the special technologies will be moved to the Engineering Manual product. There are several good reasons for doing this. The central one is that it eliminates some rules cruft that was getting in the way and may not even really be important to the rules themselves (as above: rules that have purely tactical implications). The other major issue I saw is that there is no way to provide a comprehensive set of special technologies in the CG, and as it is the list that we could add would be positively anemic. Better to instead fold the abilities into core stats for the base game and then allow players to add these special abilities later on to reflect the needs of their own setting or tactical system.


Side Bars
I've run into that, too, Darby. Let me know as you find rules that you think fit into that category and I'll see what can be done to fix them. The ship class descriptions are a really good example. For those, it might be better to move them to their own appendix in the back of the book. I do think the information is valuable to have, as it provides a baseline for what players should expect or how different sizes of units compare to one another. This is one thing that Starfire does that I do really like -- regardless of who is playing the game, class terms such as "battlecruiser" mean the same thing and provides a common point of reference that players can use to quickly get a feel for what sizes of units each side if fielding without having to examine the unit's stat line.

In this case, the class sizes can be listed in a table in the military section as part of a side bar, with a reference to the appendices so that the players can read through the descriptions if they so choose. Meanwhile, the table in the Military chapter would just provide a quick breakdown (by command cost) that players can use as a quick reference.

[darbycmcd]

Good to hear your current thinking on these things. It sounds like the rules are firming up and getting tighter, it is great!

System stats: I understand what you mean about few stats leading to more low value systems, but I am not sure it is a bad thing. You were right when you pointed out before that more stats lower the role of survey luck (which is a good thing), but on the other hand, if most systems have value, that lowers the relative strategic value of key systems. i think the most interesting strategic situation is when there are a few, maybe 10%, systems that are really valuable, then the rest are split between sort of worthless and ok value. it makes those great ones important. but at the same time, each player has to have a good chance to find them at the same rate or they become unbalancing.

with science, why not just have an investment facility, like productivity, x census = research points. it gives value to cc, in that it provides a max (via census) to the multiplier, but still makes research respond to player investment choices. so in the long run some planets would be more attractive to investment, but research is still choice driven. it also captures a bit of the actual relationship that larger populations will produce more (in raw numbers) innovative thinkers.

trade: well, if you really don't want trade in the basic game to be represented by two trade partners i like the idea of tying it to infrastructure, it is good in that it responds to economy and investment. it also means that the intensive growth, rather than extensive, is given some boost, which is nice, to give strategic options. maybe it is the economist in me, but i don't see how you can call it trade when there is only one partner.... but you seem to really really want it to just be in one system so it is not a big deal, it will work fine i guess.

cscr: that is a good point about the tactical. you know what would be cool, have a more tactical system as another add-on later, something like a sky full of stars maybe. i would love to see what you guys could do with that, it would be awesome. less crunchy even than starmada. or you could fully integrate with starmada fleet ops.

rules: i totally agree that the info should be in there. i think it adds a lot to have a peak into what you are thinking with some of the rules, it is great to have. i am currently reading through some gurps books, and they do lots of boxed out sections with "what we were thinking" types of comments. while there is still lots of color text to the rules (it isn't like advanced squad leader, or god forbid steve cole's tax document nightmares) it does make it easier to find the important info with a quick glance at the page. maybe it is because i am mostly a wargamer, i value being able to quickly find a rule and just get the info i need once i am playing. don't know if you are familiar with OCS from the gamers, but it is a really well written rulebook for what ends up being a fairly complex wargame.

well, i am really looking forward to this set of rules!

[countercheck]

System Statistics

Even if you eliminate Science and Orbitals, which I'm not convinced is a good idea, I don't see any reason to remove Jump Lanes. Jump Lanes (or at least the number of explored jump lanes) would certainly have a effect on a number of different factors. Perhaps you could tie both intel and science to Jump Lanes. The more connections to other places have, the more robust intelligence networks you develop, and the more opportunity for exchanging scientific findings and discovering esoteric bits of tech. High tech civs have almost always been those who have access to their neighbors. If you want to force continued investment in tech, perhaps use Tech x Explored Jumplanes/2?


Commerce

What about Highest Utilized Infrastructure x Explored Jump Lanes, or HUI x (Adjacent Trade Links +1). The first option assumes that your traders will be going everywhere, even uninhabited systems, to try to find deals, while the second assumes that we're only looking at large, state supported trading firms, and that this is a hub. Even without any adjacent trade links, heavy investment in intrasystem trade and the building of large warehouses and transfer stations gives a bit of a bonus.


Side Bars
Could I request that in addition to the standard WWI/WWII terminology you use in the sidebar, you pull some alternate classifications to give inspiration for other styles of navies? If you need someone to compile lists, I'd be willing =)