|
Not sure what to do about this - any ideas?
And who said life is fair?
Basically, what are you trying to do? If you're trying to see if math works (which seems to be what your post is about) then congratulations! Numbers are good for stuff!
But if you're trying to see if there's a fun system for space combat...that is a horse of a different color.
ZenFox, I'm your friend, and I still am when I say that you're trying to be in the Prototype Phase, and we're not there yet. We're not even in the Test Phase.
This is straight-up Proof Of Concept, baby, and so far the concept is 0-2.
In the Proof of Concept you have to prove if the thing can work -at all-. And if the PCs win? Well that's just called a good day of gaming! =)
Let's recreate this scene, have the good guys win, and then you'll have two failed scenarios and one win to chew over.
Shields and all. =)
I think Atlas (Kara) hit the nail on the head. We're trying to hash out a system that is fun for everyone no matter what role they chose to play. The issue is that there is a lack of tactical decisions, especially for the gunner. I can chose to shot one gun or both guns. I can aim at a specific part of the ship, or I can aim at the ship and have a better chance of hitting. But that's it when it's one on one and we're in a vacuum. Now, if you put us in a crowded space port, I can have those options, or I can try to blast the moorings of the huge tanker we just passed and send it drifting into the other ship's lane. If we're in an asteroid belt, I can blast some space rocks apart in an attempt to over whelm their shields with debris strikes.
Then there's the goal. Their goal and our goal. So far, it seems like there's a gratuitous battle happening for no reason. The ships are just hammering away at each other for no reason. Are we trying to get away? Are we baiting them into a trap? Are we chasing them. Are they chasing us? Are they a patrol vessel trying to board us for customs, or are they pirates here to steal our cargo?
My point is that there's three parts to this and you seem to be completely ignoring two of them. I think that's part of the problem is that there's only one option, kill the other guy, and the other guy is so evenly matched and the environment so sterile that it's more about who's lucky than any tactical consideration. Aiming for parts of a ship lowers the odds more than firing twice, and firing twice ups your odds of scoring a hit per round. There's no reason to, as a gunner, do anything different. It's boring and and there's only so many ways I can describe a crotchety space cowboy pulling a trigger on a joystick.
I guess that's my thing, it's not just about mechanical options, but there has to be narrative options or paths that could lead to the outcome we want more quickly even if it is riskier.
So yeah, there's my two cents.
I appreciate the feedback, and I'm taking it all in, but I just want to point out a couple of things :
-If the Falcon has Shields and two guns, it won't be a combat, it'll be a slaughter (that's what the math tells me). That's just as useless as the two stalemate combats we've had so far - it tells me nothing about the viability of the system.
I'm basically looking for a (semi-)fair fight, but one the players can win (but not easily). We've seen that two equal ships can't hurt each other, but with Shields and two weapons, the Falcon could probably pick off 4 Ties even before they've lowered the Falcon's Shields to 0.
-The SWD SF Companion offers *ONE* options for a Gunner - fire the weapon. You can't even fire one gun twice in the same round (altho in SWADE you could). This system offers multiple shots (like SWADE) AND targeted shots.
Can anyone think of something else a Gunner could do with his weapons, against the enemy ship (not other stuff nearby)?
Regarding the "why" (goals) of the scenario, I'll come up with something for that in the next combat.
Regarding using the environment, you're basically trying to create Obstacles, which I could modify the SWEX Chase rules to incorporate. But honestly, when you're in space, there's very little else around (that's why I've been ignoring the "Clubs create an Obstacle" rule). If you're *very* lucky, you might run by *one* asteroid during the entire combat. Unless you're whizzing around orbiting a planet that has many many other spaceships in orbit, there's nothing to create an Obstacle *with*.
I'd be willing to allow Shields if y'all are ok with "waves" of Ties coming at you, to replace the ones that you're going to be picking off with one shot. But still, only one weapon on the Falcon. Ok?
Ah, I think I see a problem. Savage Worlds built for pulpy action. It sounds like you want something more like GURPS’ space combat system, where realism is more king than rule of cool. I think you lose something by taking out clubs cause an obstacle. Equipment failures happen, as do software glitches. In short, obstacles aren’t just external to the ship.
Oh phone. I have more to say, but Ihate typing on touch keyboards.
I'm okay with that setup. Also fine with clubs causing hiccups.
Okay, I'm home now and have a proper keyboard to type on!
So, the problem with realistic portrayals of space is that they are rather boring tactically. Most of the combat in Savage Worlds is centered on smaller units, maybe a platoon at most. There are mass combat rules, but those don't apply here. The challenge is to make combat interesting. Realistically speaking, ship to ship combat in space is a numbers game. The side that can dish out the damage the quickest is the one that wins. This makes for incredibly boring tactical play, but can make for more interesting strategic play.
That said, Savage Worlds is a very cinematically styled game. The PCs are tougher than your average dude and can walk away from an explosion with some scuff marks on their clothes. This leads to what I was saying earlier, you're wanting, it seems, something that is incompatible with the rules. Savage Worlds is a highly abstract system compared to other systems out there. You're not going to get a space combat simulator with any kind of realistic fidelity out of it. So, I say embrace the chaos. Use the PC's resilience as an excuse to throw waves of TIEs after them. They're mooks. They're supposed to be squishy, and occasionally one will get lucky. So what if the Millenium Falcon can mow through a flight of TIEs with ease? It's a Wild Card! It's a bigger, badder, more suped up version of anything like it in space! The only challenge for a Wild Card is another Wild Card, but you don't have them meet in the deep vacuum, because that's not where the cinematic action is. You race through megastructures trading blows and creating obstacles from whatever's handy. The TIEs are too weak? Then send in Baron von K*~+ss and his elite wingmen or the Bounty Hunter Shar Url, a dangerous doppleganger from Mystar IV and her dangerous crew aboard the Umber Hulk, a vessel feared throughout the spacelanes.
I went a little over the top there, but that's my point. Savage Worlds, I feel, is a system that works well with that kind of mindset. Let the players do crazy and awesome things with it. Let them be the stars. If you want to make a ship dangerous, don't give everyone in the crew wild card status, up their skills and let the pilot and maybe one other have that status and give them a pool of bennies to us collectively, since their are members of a wildcard ship. Force the players to make hard choices by having your gunner with a d12 pick off critical systems and force the players to choose between shielding the vitals and firing back.
I think part of the problem is that you want to see if the system is balanced, but it also needs to be fun, or it's not worth playing. Instead of worrying about balance, thing about what would be fun and work from there. Look beyond the obvious. For example, what about the gunner herding the other ship into the main gun's sights? What about Ops/sensors flaring the emitters to blind their sensors for a moment and going dark to hide? What if engineering cracked up the power on the engines to have them act as a short range DEW? What if comms sends a virus to infect their network? What if Comms tries to distract them with the unsexy?
I'll admit, being a gunner is kind of a one trick pony, but I think there's more there than is obvious at first glance. I think that things could be more fun by embracing the nature of the system and letting the PCs have lucky shots and bad days by not capping wounds. Sometimes you get wrecked by a golden BB. If that happens, give the PCs a chance to survive and make it back to port. If the PCs one-shot the mini-boss, or the final boss, let them celebrate and then turn the notoriety that they get against them. Space combat is part of the system, and when you're building it, treat it as such. Events and actions in one part of the game have knock on effects on other parts. Some social encounter could affect a space combat encounter and vise-versa.
All of this to say, take a step back, look at what's fun for the players, and then, once you have the bones of a fun system, worry about balancing things out. But even then, don't worry if the PCs are tough. that just means you can through tougher enemies at them.
Okay, I hear you and will drop the Wound cap. I've also said I'm fine with Shields on the Falcon which will make it all but invulnerable to the Ties, which it can pick off with ease. I will also endeavor to include "internal" Complications into the Chase system in the next test.
But regarding your suggestions : "For example, what about the gunner herding the other ship into the main gun's sights? What about Ops/sensors flaring the emitters to blind their sensors for a moment and going dark to hide? What if engineering cracked up the power on the engines to have them act as a short range DEW? What if comms sends a virus to infect their network? What if Comms tries to distract them with the unsexy?"
First off, this system does not have computer warfare. Not going there. Secondly, "distract them with the unsexy" - huh???
Are you suggesting that the players be allowed to do *anything* with their sub-system, leaving it up to the GM to figure out what rolls are needed to accomplish it? What if a player doesn't think the GM's call is fair? Things could bog down into a debate really quick...which is not FFF.
Hmmm...ok, let me try this : the gunner herding the other ship into the main gun's sights = Gunner-2 (for accurate shooting for herding), then the enemy Pilot makes a Piloting roll to figure out the ploy and avoid it.
Ops flaring the emitters to blind their sensors for a moment and going dark to hide = Ops roll to flare the sensors without burning them out, then another Ops roll to successfully go dark quick enough (both at -2 for the MAP), if successful then the enemy ship is at -6 to detect them with their sensors.
Engineering cracked up the power on the engines to have them act as a short range DEW = *if* the ships are withing 1 Range Increment of each other, Engineering-2 to rev the engines without burning them out, and a Piloting-2 to point the engines at the enemy ship.
Ok, maybe we can try "free-form" actions...
I mean, disagreements over rules can happen no matter what.
As for the whole unsexy thing that was my attempt at being funny. It was a play on distracted by the sexy.
And I wasn’t saying let the players do whatever they want, just posing ideas for actions that aren’t working immediately obvious.
Ok, well, the problem with suggesting specific other actions is that pretty soon the list gets pretty long, which is the opposite of the idea for this system (Keep It Short and Simple - my version of KISS).
So far, no one's come up with anything extra the Gunner can do (other than "herding", which could be covered by Cooperative Rolls), but there's still twice as many options in this system as in the SF Companion.
Hey, there's an idea - when doing a Cooperative roll, you can embellish what you're doing for that roll in any way you want!
If there's no more debate, I'll post the updated rules and the specs on the ships tomorrow...
Yeah, the well of inspiration is a bit drained for me this week.
Good stuff.
Here's the new ships' specs :
TIE:
Toughness 22, Crew 1
Quad Linked Medium Lasers (Fixed) : (150/300/600 3d10), +2 to hit, +4 damage
Pilots can make both a Piloting and Gunnery roll without MAP, and don't have to Line Up a Shot to avoid the -2 to Gunnery while firing the fixed weapon.
Falcon:
Toughness 25, Crew 5
Dual Linked Heavy Lasers : (150/300/600 4d10), +1 to hit, +2 damage
Fixed Heavy Laser : (150/300/600 4d10)
Notes :
Since the weapons' AP is always larger than the Toughness' Armor, I've just removed the AP and incorporated the Armor into the Toughness.
Instead of two pivoting guns, I've given the Falcon one pivoting gun and one "fixed" gun (pilot only can fire). So only 3 PC's are needed.
Everyone please go to Recruitment, and read up on the latest version of the rules (the last 2 posts).
Please note that I've expanded the use of "Off-Line" subsystems. They are not Wounded, and only need a Success on the appropriate skill roll to bring back on-line. They are also used in the Critical Hit table.
Post any questions here as soon as you can, and if you don't have any questions, please post that too, so we can get started ASAP.
Plenty there but I think I get the idea.
I'm good to go.
Looks good to me. No questions here!
|
|
"So far, no one's come up with anything extra the Gunner can do (other than "herding", which could be covered by Cooperative Rolls),"
Ya, that's what I was sort of thinking of. In that, they lay down fire not to hit, per se, but to make it so that the only way to avoid it is to move a certain way/do a certain thing, which makes it easier for someone else.
Hence, ya, it can be covered by either the combat tricks rules, or the Coop. (That's the, every success+raise = +1 to someone else's roll, yeah? That's seems fair.)
Kara - yes, you've got Cooperative rolls correctly. Up to +4 max.
ALL - please see Gameplay.
Savage Worlds Adventurer's Edition got an update.
Just a heads up. I did something stupid and gave my fingers a steam burn. I'm hoping that the pain will lessen in the next day or two, but posts from me are definitely going to be less than they have been.
Well, it seems I'm doing a lot better today than I thought I would be. Still stings a little, but not nearly as much as before. Assuming things continue this way, I should be good.
I'm just curious how many Ties it'll take (4 at a time) to do any damage to the Falcon.
|
|
Most likely it'll be when we run out of bennies.
Any chance we can put some kind of limit on it? Going against a limitless obstacle with no hope of conquering it is what I call my treadmill. =p
What other data do you need? It seems that you've already proved that the system can work. If there's a story here I'd like to get to it, but if you're just rolling numbers, it seems like the concept has already been proven?
I'm also curious to see the endgame.
Actually, I'm not convinced that the system *does* work (yet). In an even match, no ship got taken out even after 10-15 rounds. And so far, even with an apparently endless stream of Tie fighters, they are so weak compared to the Falcon that it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
I'm trying to find that balance point which provides some threat to the player's ship, without destroying it in a few rounds.
Now, if Erebasto didn't have Ace, the Falcon would be at 3 Wounds already (I think, without double-checking). And only 2 of the original 4 Ties would be destroyed. At that point, Erebasto would be motivated to use his Piloting to out-run the Ties. It seems to me that having Ace is what's throwing things off...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it is, actually. How many pilots are not going to take Ace? It's something that you need to account for.
Savage Worlds, as a system, is designed so that the PCs are larger than life, but still mortal. Mooks can get lucky and down a PC. In this case, we've been lucky enough to avoid that since we could have failed those soak rolls instead of succeeding. Mooks are also supposed to be easy to take out in droves, it's the Wildcards that are the dangerous ones.
So, you've proven that mooks die in droves and aren't a threat beyond the drain on resources and that two evenly matched Wildcards will fight to a stalemate. But this is all in a straight out brawl which isn't that interesting without the options to support a variety of tactics and ways to turn the tables.
To that end, change the parameters. The real threat isn't getting damaged by the TIEs, it's that they'll get a good read on the ship and radio ahead to have a cruiser waiting at the next port. The real threat isn't getting blown to bits by the pirate corvette, it's getting boxed in or disabled and being captured. The real threat from that scout isn't that it'll attack you, but that it'll radio the base and raise the alert that something is up. In the same vein, the PCs aren't there to blow up enemy fighters, but to make it to their next port of call and offload their contraband to get paid and stave off the loan sharks. They are trying to make an honest living as merchants and their insurance premiums will go up if they lose this shipment to pirates. They are trying to sneak in and get a commando team aboard the research station to steal the plans for the latest prototypes that the Empire is developing.
I think what's throwing you off is the lack of clear goals and tactical options beyond blow them out of space. This isn't about options for the different positions, this is solely about the options the PCs and the NPCs have as a whole outside of the mechanics. There's no story, just mindless, mind-numbing violence. That's all these three or four exercises have been.
Goals inform choices.
If our goal is escape a cruiser versus destroy a cruiser versus land on a cruiser, our choices will look quite different.
I'm game.
So, how about : y'all are being chased by a cruiser slightly more powerful than you, manned by Extras, thru an asteroid field (for Clubs complications and other options, like hiding). Your goal is to escape them since they are more powerful (so Erebasto, that's your main goal), but of course you'll try to damage them as you try to escape.
I would like to drop the Shields (pun unavoidable), because once they get down to 0, they can only be regenerated 8 points at a time, and the next enemy's weapon damage will just bring it right back down to 0 (even if the damage wasn't even enough to "Shaken" the ship). So the shields yo-yo between 8 and 0, 8 and 0, 8 and 0...what's the point? And, if you're going to argue that even 8 points of Shields will lower the damage done to the ship, well, that will just drag things out longer (it's like adding 8 points to Toughness, making inflicting Wounds *much* harder). Don't forget, the cruiser will have Shields if you do.
I think more Wounds would just drag things out longer.
Whatdayasay?
I'm game.
Same.
|
|
I am good with this.
A rules question:
How do we escape?
Under the Chase rules, position is entirely dependent on the cards, so your only action could be to "run away as fast as possible" but if they draw a higher card, they're right on top of you no matter what.
I think the "race to escape" clause in the rules is just a time limit. That is, we escape in 10 rounds, so we just have to survive that long.
How's that?
Actually, according to the SWEX Chase rules that I'm using (which doesn't use cards except for initiative), you've "escaped" when you get more than 10 Range Increments away from your pursuer.
That's doable.
Erebasto will be on hand to offer recklessly risky manoeuvres.
I need to ask for at least one more day to get this started, I've been continually slammed at work for the last 4 days.
No worries. Life gets busy.
Same. Just take it easy.
Ok, so here's the ship that will be chasing you :
Cruiser :
Toughness 29, Crew : many
Dual Linked Heavy Lasers : (150/300/600 4d10), +1 to hit, +2 damage
Dual Linked Heavy Lasers : (150/300/600 4d10), +1 to hit, +2 damage
Range Increment = 50, so
0-3 RI : no Shooting penalty
4-6 RI : -2 Shooting
7-12 RI : -4 Shooting
I'm very tempted to make the Extra's rolls all d10's which on average would give them only a 10% less chance of success than y'all with your d8&d6's. But to emphasize that they are Extras, I'm going to give them all d8's (against my better judgement).
But, their pilot will have Ace, too. And 3 Bennies.
They will have a much better chance of Wounding you than you will of Wounding them, so it will be in your best interests to run!
Thoughts? Comments? Questions?
It'll be interesting to see what the smartest moves will be against a noticeably superior vessel!
Also, I'd like to re-implement the +2 Toughness Shields that don't decrease with damage. That +2 can be boosted to +4 by Ops (with the trade-off of a -2 to some other subsystem), or to +6 with a lucky roll. That extra Toughness might just save your butts.
I'm not opposed to that.
All - check Gameplay. I was waiting to see if Belter or Kara had anything to say about the new setup.
Not really. Sorry, I should have said something earlier
I debated about that, but a d8&d6+1 has a 92% chance of success! These Extras are already down to a 50% chance of success with a d8. If you want the +1, I'm going to up their rolls to d10's for a 70% chance of success.
|
|
I debated about that, but a d8&d6+1 has a 92% chance of success! These Extras are already down to a 50% chance of success with a d8. If you want the +1, I'm going to up their rolls to d10's for a 70% chance of success.
Dude, I am getting really vexxed with your constant percentages.
If all you're going to do for the game is forecast the percentage of success, I really question why you need players at all.
Smaller ships go faster, and the PCs are supposed to be more skilled than the mooks chasing them.
I'm starting to wonder exactly what your purpose here is.
Same. I think I'm going to be bowing out.
Percentage chances of success for extras aren't a good reason for smaller ships to be as fast as behemoth cruisers. That hurts verisimilitude in my book.
Ok, fine, you can have the +1, and the Extras stay at d8. Belter, please reconsider leaving, I need at least 3 people to play-test!
I'll lay off the statistics from now on. It's just how I approach games of chance.
Well, I'm willing to press on.
Belter?
Still here. I'll see this one through.