VBAM Games Forums

...is now up. You can read it here.

Charlie you seem to have Jay's link from the BSG at UN article.

-Mark

Journal #3 is http://blog.vbamgames.com/?p=165

MarkG88 wrote:Charlie you seem to have Jay's link from the BSG at UN article.

-Mark

Journal #3 is http://blog.vbamgames.com/?p=165

You got us. Charlie spoke about 2E at the UN last night .

-Jay

MarkG88 wrote:Charlie you seem to have Jay's link from the BSG at UN article.

-Mark

That was a test to see if anyone is actually reading the journals. Congratulations. You passed.

You waskily wabbit!

-Tyrel

Charles Lewis wrote:

MarkG88 wrote:Charlie you seem to have Jay's link from the BSG at UN article.

-Mark

That was a test to see if anyone is actually reading the journals. Congratulations. You passed.

So Tyrel is buying round one at the "1st Annual VBAM FEST", does this mean round 2 is on you?

I like it.

So, how long would it take to build the Death Star?

I hope there will be an option to build units quicker with add-ons to shipyards or better shipyard tech, otherwise whats the point of making anything larger than cruisers?

Hopefully that will become clear after you see the new CSCR in action.

Rainer wrote:I like it.

So, how long would it take to build the Death Star?

DS I 20 years, DS II takes about 6; I guess they streamlined a few things hehe

I love what I'm hearing about CSCR2 -- more cripples heading home for repairs, increased possibility of inconclusive battles. Sounds very good to me.

I also like the sounds of the new engine rules/interstellar engine rules. It makes system defense ships more viable, too -- Your bad-ass BCs speed into my system and come up against my monitors -- big, slow, no interstellar travel. More room for armor and guns.

MadSeason wrote:I love what I'm hearing about CSCR2 -- more cripples heading home for repairs, increased possibility of inconclusive battles. Sounds very good to me.

Escorts will still probably have a high attrition rate, though that is only if the player decides that he is unwilling to score damage against his larger, more valuable (and powerful) capital ships.

In 1E it was a given that a player would just assign damage to the weakest ships first, but with 2E's changes to the formation and damage rules, it is usually better to spread the damage around and take some hits to the larger capital ships, because those weaker escorts are faster and can provide a lot of Formation Points that the capital ships need to stay alive.

MadSeason wrote:I also like the sounds of the new engine rules/interstellar engine rules. It makes system defense ships more viable, too -- Your bad-ass BCs speed into my system and come up against my monitors -- big, slow, no interstellar travel. More room for armor and guns.

You do end up with a balancing act where ships can be built for specific functions. Ships without FTL Rating are stuck in their system of manufacturer (except if crated or transported in some manner -- think the Heighliners from Dune), but as you infer they will be able to use the extra space to add more defenses and weaponry.

FTL-equipped Starships must also decide whether having superior strategic speed (FTL) or tactical speed (Engines) is better for their particular military strategy.

-Tyrel

The extra detail with system zones is both exciting and scary to comtemplate in a detailed campiagn. And as much as it appeals to me there is a case for a certain amount of hand wavium to cover all sorts of explainations.
Those zones - nice concept but is it 0 (or maybe 1) movement point to move from 1 point in the outer zone to a similar distance from the sun but exactly the other side. It would be quicker to travel all the way to the sun and back out again (6 movement points?). Or even....
FTL ASAP. I can only recall one setting that demands getting as far as way from the sun as possible before engaging the FTL (40K). Star Wars, Trek, B5 can all press the pedal to the metal straight away (even at low altitude in one episode). Why not use the FTL to hop around in system?

Obviously certain concepts are setting specific but movement within the same zone may need looking at for consistency. Maybe moving within the same zone costs more depending on distance from the sun and cost extra to patrol?

I like the slow construction times, especially as it suits the 40k setting (we said each turn was a year to avoid cruisers being churned on a monthly basis!).

Cheers
Mark

MarkNorfolk wrote:The extra detail with system zones is both exciting and scary to comtemplate in a detailed campiagn. And as much as it appeals to me there is a case for a certain amount of hand wavium to cover all sorts of explainations.

Please note that the extra detail only applies to the Commodore and Admiral Campaigns. The Commander and Captain levels do not have that extra system detail, and therefore also do not have the extra movement detail. Captain gives you access to some of the more advanced system features, but retains the simply map detail.

I've been thinking it over, and its a bit worrying.

While in theory the rules seem very good, in reality (for me at least) it almost guarantees that pen-and-paper campaigns are going to be more trouble than they're worth.

At the moment, if a campaign goes on for a long time (say three-four years) I use up almost a full hundred pages. With the added details, I'm going to be pushing two hundred pages, especially with much longer extended construction times that are going to be core rules, not optional rules. Exploration campaigns will be a thing of the past for me. Large warships, which I like, will be a thing of the past. I'll be having to keep to lots of small vessels just in order to save on paperwork. Either that or massively alter the rules for my own campaigns...