A slew of answers:
MarkNorfolk wrote:A chapter/appendix/sidebar with advice on converting benefits/hinderences gained in the VBAM mechanics to other companies tactical systems. In fact I'd like the book to assume a miniatures system would be used for combat and the VBAM resolution method to be the 'option'.
I have a feeling that something like this would probably best fit the COMPANION, but if we have the space in the CAMPAIGN GUIDE we could see about adding it there. We will definitely add it to the checklist, as it is something that should be available for players that are looking to convert a tactical system into the game system.
One advantage that CSCR 2 will have in relation to CSCR 1 is that we will be introducing some new unit abilities that allow for easier translation from tactical systems into the CSCR. The best examples are the addition of Engine Rating and Sensor Rating. The former is especially easy to convert, as most units in a tactical system have a maximum speed or accel/decel rate that can be easily plugged into that value.
coriendal wrote:Where do you want the full ideas sent? Here, or some other place?
I think the forum or mailing list, either one, will be the best places to post thoughts and debate the merits of what we are trying to do with 2E, or what we SHOULD be doing with 2E. Once we have something in a playtestable form, we will let the internal playtest group know and go from there. The tech system and updated CSCR will be released to the public, however, in order to get the most eyes looking at them so that we get any leaks patched before release.
mriddle wrote:If you want a combat resolver app like the one I wrote for 1st let me know.
We would love to have one! In some ways the job should be easier this time around, as we are simplifying matters a good deal. However, there are a few places (like purchasing Formation Level increases using available Formation Points) where a new mechanic will have to be created to automate the battle resolver.
MarkG88 wrote:They were the product of a very advanced (and old) galactic empire so they'd definitely be the pinnacle of the tech branch (besides the obscene production cost, maintenance would be a matter of on-board factories etc..........they are big people).
With the ENGINEERING MANUAL, we hope to include a lot of these kinds of specialized techs so that players can recreate their favorite settings. So something like this should be possible.
One thing to briefly touch on, all technologies should end up being measured by Tech Levels, ranging from 0 (no knowledge) to 10 (full mastery). The cost to earn the next tech level will be progressively more difficult -- maybe not exponential, but still very high. Maxing out a tech field will take time and money.
JoeBuckeye wrote:I know when I got started VBAM that the encounter resolution system was/is confusing to me.
Some examples of different situations and how they lead to the different encounter types would be great (unless you are re-doing this part of the system).
Having an extended example of a few campaign turns may also be helpful to those new to the system. This lets them see how everything ties together.
Jay made some great strides with the scenario resolution options in FEDERATION ADMIRALTY, and we will be building on that for 2E. Essentially, diplomatic states will now determine the amount of "scenario intensity" available with which scenarios can be generated, and these scenarios will be generated in a specific order -- which will eliminate the guess work of 1E. To be honest, I myself pretty much just winged it when deciding what type of scenario was "correct" in 1E! Sigh.
As for examples, it is currently our intention to have the second (or third) chapter of the book be a complete overview of how to record turn orders, what options are available to the player (along with proper rule references to the detailed overview of said rules), and an overview of several campaign turns of actual play. This should make it easier for a player to pick up a copy of the CAMPAIGN GUIDE and just play.
I am posting some threads in this forum about other specific topics, for review and comment. These are mainly "idea posts" and reflect my impressions of the current early developmental "build" of the 2E rules (which amount to a rough outline of game mechanics, to be thoroughly honest with all of you).
Charlie is going to be writing some in-depth development essays for the blog, with one released each week (starting in about a week or two). Everything is subject to change, but we hope to start posting weekly progress updates along with these in-depth overviews of the direction 2E is headed.
-Tyrel