VBAM Games Forums

Welcome to the official VBAM Second Edition Public Playtest Thread! I will be updating this first post to include new playtest materials as they are posted to the blog.

Blog Posts
* Part 1: Technology & Unit Design
* Part 1A: Sample Tech Tree
* Part 2: Campaign Maps & Movement
* Part 3: Star Systems

Playtest Files
* CSCR Alpha
* Technology
* Unit Design
* Tech Tree (Draft)
* Campaign Maps
* Movement
* Star Systems


-Tyrel

Great work, Tyrel! Now we can really build up a head of steam to plow through to release!

For playtest reference, here is a listing of the basic tech unlocks at each major Empire Tech Level. This is used to determine what starting techs an empire has before applying any pre-game tech improvements. All of these technologies begin at TL 0 (unlocked).

Pre-Industrial Base Tech Unlocks
None

Industrial Base Tech Unlocks
Attrition
Anti-Ground
Anti-Sea
Assault
Bombardment
Cargo
Command
Diplomatic
Mobility
Medical
Science
Towing

Interplanetary Base Tech Unlocks
(includes all Industrial Unlocks)
Anti-Air
Anti-Fighter
Anti-Ship
Atmospheric
Defense
Engines
Hangar
Launch
Shipyard
Sensors

Interstellar Base Tech Unlocks
(includes all Industrial & Interplanetary Unlocks)
Endurance
FTL

Unit design is a relatively simple step-by-step process that can be done by hand with paper, a pencil, and a calculator.

Simple relative to what? The math actually seems relatively complex compared to modern tabletop and RPG games - this is the only one I know of that has exponential formulas. A calculator is required because the math is too difficult/time-consuming/not-fun to do by hand or in your head. The math is a problem and the calculator is a workaround.

I'm skeptical that I'd be able to convince my friends to play after they see the math. If the complexity breaks the threshold where electronic assistance is required, then why not take it the rest of the way and play Sins of a Solar Empire or some other space-simulation computer game?

The game components are good, the mathematical models are good.. it is the usability that is lacking in my opinion. I would think that punching numbers into a calculator or a spreadsheet is going to be a non-starter for a lot of people.

I wouldn't worry too much about that, Nys. It's been our experience that the vast majority (95%+) of the non-solo games are played via email and usually utilize a spreadsheet to track an empire's assets and orders. By the time 2E is released, I am confident that we'll have a nifty little unit builder spreadsheet that is fully functional and will take the math out of unit design. Also, this is actually a simpler process than designing Starmada ships, which after the crossover book came out many groups used for ship design.

Please bear in mind that VBAM is not really intended to be played by a group sitting around a table (though that has been done successfully by some groups) and is not a board game in the traditional sense.

nys wrote:Simple relative to what? The math actually seems relatively complex compared to modern tabletop and RPG games - this is the only one I know of that has exponential formulas.

It is as simple as Starmada's design system, and doesn't require the heavy math that I have seen posted for Squadron Strike or Attack Vector.

Also, you shouldn't let the formulas scare you; they can be quickly and easily presented in a pre-calculated, tabular form as lookup tables that you could use when designing new units. That way the only calculate you would really need to do some math for would be Maintenance Cost, as everything else would be available on a lookup chart.

I'm skeptical that I'd be able to convince my friends to play after they see the math. If the complexity breaks the threshold where electronic assistance is required, then why not take it the rest of the way and play Sins of a Solar Empire or some other space-simulation computer game?

Lookup tables would suitably hide most of the math, as indicated above. As for how you would get them to play VBAM instead of just playing a computer game -- that is pretty much the reason that pen-and-pencil gaming has died out in the last 10-20 years. It will never be easier to run a game by hand than it will be to let a computer do the work for you, whether it is electronic play aids or full-own computer games.

And, unfortunately, the only solution is to reduce the complexity of the game to the point it is just a simple board game. While that is certainly doable, and something that some groups may want to do, it is not what we are aiming for in this product.

The game components are good, the mathematical models are good.. it is the usability that is lacking in my opinion. I would think that punching numbers into a calculator or a spreadsheet is going to be a non-starter for a lot of people.

The best advice I can offer for groups like yours would be to seriously consider pregenerating a list of generic campaign units and assembling a custom tech tree based around those designs. Instead of unlocking and researching technologies you would each instead unlock and research various hull archetypes. That would hide the math from the gaming group, as the designs would all be created before the game, but still give players an avenue to customize their forces.

For example, a player that has unlocked Destroyers might then be able to unlock Light Cruisers, gaining the first generation version of the CL. Further research could either unlock better ships or improve the stats/cost (depending on how the pre-generated archetypes are setup) of their existing ships, or else even research other specialized archetypes (such as a Light Carrier after researching Light Cruiser).

-Tyrel

Charles Lewis wrote:Please bear in mind that VBAM is not really intended to be played by a group sitting around a table (though that has been done successfully by some groups) and is not a board game in the traditional sense.

Just quoting this, as Charlie had already said when I said, just in fewer words a bit more to the point.

That all being said, I have put some thoughts into how players could convert the rules into more of a board game experience, and I will probably be looking more into that next year as we prepare for Origins 2010. We would like to run some sort of VBAM event there next year and it just makes more sense to setup a "simplified" version of the rules in a more controlled environment. Thus the pre-generated unit stats, printed tracking sheets, smaller economies, etc.

It would be an interesting topic to discuss, but it is a tangent that will have to wait until later

-Tyrel

It's been our experience that the vast majority (95%+) of the non-solo games are played via email and usually utilize a spreadsheet to track an empire's assets and orders.

Needing a spreadsheet to handle the previous edition is/was just as much of a problem. I'm sure people usually utilize a spreadsheet because that's the only way to feasibly handle the rules the way they are written, not out of any particular love of spreadsheets. I suppose you make a valid point that it isn't worse than the first edition.

I appreciate the advice for front-loading a game by creating a bunch of pre-generated stats myself.. but that does seem like a lot of work and takes one of the more creative aspects of the game (unit creation) out of the hands of the players. Not ideal, but could be workable.

I am definitely interested in your thoughts for a simplified system. Not necessarily to the "board game" level, but maybe closer to "role playing game" level.

It will never be easier to run a game by hand than it will be to let a computer do the work for you, whether it is electronic play aids or full-own computer games.

I disagree. Many modern pnp RPGs are actually very easy to grasp. Complex interactions can be resolved using simple mechanics, often faster than the time it would take to enter the necessary data values into a spreadsheet. These games maintain complexity by the variety of interactions between the game components, not because a calculation involves an exponent or multiplication of a decimal value.

It is important to note that there are different kinds of complexity. some forms are desirable and some are not. I think VBAM has both kinds at the moment. While it might not be easy, I hope my feedback encourages you to keep an eye out for ways to make the math simpler to resolve without hurting the interesting parts of the game.

nys wrote:Needing a spreadsheet to handle the previous edition is/was just as much of a problem. I'm sure people usually utilize a spreadsheet because that's the only way to feasibly handle the rules the way they are written, not out of any particular love of spreadsheets. I suppose you make a valid point that it isn't worse than the first edition.

I disagree fairly strongly,

There was very little in 1st Edition that required complex calculation - it was simply that a spreadsheet was an extremely convenient way of presenting the data in a use-able form, or to handle lots of simple calculations (like income, I got the impression that using word documents wasn't too uncommon, so it wasn't the math that was an issue),

That said, 2nd edition looks to have a lot more math in it (there where no ^ calculations in first edition for a start), albeit tucked away in aspects of the rules that are only used intermittently (ship design, etc).

As for the pen&paper vs computer thing, for me the big deal is being able to set my own parameters. The PC may be good, but ultimately I'm in the hands of the design-decisions that the game designer made. With the pen&paper game I get to make my own decisions about what rules to use, house rules, etc...

nys wrote:I appreciate the advice for front-loading a game by creating a bunch of pre-generated stats myself.. but that does seem like a lot of work and takes one of the more creative aspects of the game (unit creation) out of the hands of the players. Not ideal, but could be workable.

Unit creation is one of those things that will make-or-break the game though. If it is broken then the game simply will not work.

I've seen a lot of simple unit-design systems, and balancing them is extremely difficult. So if there is one area where complex math is acceptable it is here,

I figure that the only time I'll ever need to design a lot of ships is at campaign start - after that I doubt that I'll need to design more than a couple of ships at a time, and a simple spreadsheet will make the task extremely simple surely (especially if released as an OpenOffice file rather than Excel so that it's free, and summarises ship stats conveniently after design),

For me, simple combat is far more important than simple ship design (combat requires player-interaction which is long-winded if it is complex, ship design does not), and I and most of my group would rather play emperors, etc rather than battlegroup commanders (we employ battlegroup commanders to do that job, why do they need our advice?),

nys wrote:I am definitely interested in your thoughts for a simplified system. Not necessarily to the "board game" level, but maybe closer to "role playing game" level.

Hmmm,

There are some very complex RPG's

I just posted a sample tech tree for players to take a look at:

Part 1A: Sample Tech Tree

-Tyrel

The discussion of simplifying the math did bring me to one possible simplification: for Maintenance Cost calculations, instead of using the current formula it could be reduced to Mass / 2000. This doesn't work as well for taking into consideration different unit types as the previous formula does, as it doesn't integrate Maximum Mass into the calculation, but it simplifies the formula a bit more.

I just thought I would throw that out for consumption.

BTW, the Campaign Maps chapter is about ready to post. It would have been ready before, but then I realized that some of the rules that I had included there really needed to be moved to the Movement chapter. A large part of these delays posting material are due to how many interlocking pieces there are in the new rules, and I am always so tempted to tweak and move rules around... sigh.

The good news is that both chapters may be almost ready for posting later tonight before I head to bed.

-Tyrel

The campaign maps bit looks excellent,

I am a little puzzled by the "system lanes" bit?

Generally however, while I really don't see me using anything larger than a sector, I like the idea that each level of zoom is kind of the same as the level up and down, as that makes things very intuitive,

Really looking forwards to seeing the system-design notes...

Gareth_Perkins wrote:I am a little puzzled by the "system lanes" bit?

Do you mean the Sector Lanes? Those are used to connect systems in different sectors together. They function as Interstellar Lanes, but have twice the movement cost so that movement between sectors isn't too fast.

Generally however, while I really don't see me using anything larger than a sector, I like the idea that each level of zoom is kind of the same as the level up and down, as that makes things very intuitive,

In my largest solo campaigns, I think I would have ended up with about 2-3 sectors in play, I think. That is based on the old 1E "sector" that held 100 star systems. I had a few games where I ended up having to expand into a few surrounding map hexes to allow empires to continue exploring. That being said, most players will probably limit themselves to a single sector map.

One reason for the change between 1E and 2E (and the introduction of Sector Lanes) is that, by limiting a sector to 50 systems, it helps to minimize the "jump lane snarl" that you end up with once a map starts to get filled in with systems. You don't have to worry about moving the systems around to make sure their Sector Lanes are immediately adjacent to their destination sector -- you can just draw the lane, indicate where it goes, and leave it at that. In my tests it makes things much cleaner. You still end up with jump lanes that criss-cross one another, but it doesn't seem to be quite as bad as before.

One rule I just removed from the draft, but that might be reintroduced later on, is the rule saying that if a system doesn't have any unresolved jump lanes left that you can't attach a jump lane to it. I did that more to force the map to be a bit more spread out, but I am not sure it is really desirable. Additional testing is needed to know for sure.

The star system rules should be coming down the pike in the next few days, along with the rules for colonies. I have some cleanup I have to do on both, but I may just release what we've got so that players can start fiddling with them.

-Tyrel

Tyrel Lohr wrote:

Gareth_Perkins wrote:I am a little puzzled by the "system lanes" bit?

Do you mean the Sector Lanes? Those are used to connect systems in different sectors together. They function as Interstellar Lanes, but have twice the movement cost so that movement between sectors isn't too fast.

Nope,

Section 4.4.1 mentions "Interplanetary Lanes",

Should the roll in 13.5.2 be a skill check, or are you moving away from that idea?