I just think subsystems (which starship combat IS a subsystem imo) can only get so large with so many rules before it becomes more of a hindrance than a boon. A subsystem should be detailed enough to get the feel across but not so daunting that it becomes cumbersome and distracts you from the 'actual' game you're playing. The original starship combat felt like the latter the enhanced version feels like the former.
Individual fighters seem to be the only option. If Startrek style bridge fighting hasn't found a way to work in 40 years I don't think a solution is likely.
You could make piloting like anyone can drive a car. Or there's an autopilot with assurance to keep everyone from needing to train in piloting.
No ship combat subsystem or JUST a "lite" one would be a deal breaker for me and the groups I run honestly. It just has to be a part of Starfinder 2nd Ed.
The SF team, and us to a way lesser extent have just under 2 years to come up with something different, better, more fun and engaging and ease of use.
If the team and/or the player/GM base at large can't figure it out by then then we might as well shelve it right now and get onto other things and sadly other systems perhaps for some.
An extreme but many of us feel this has to be in here, just like if SF II feels to much like a PF II subsystem and not its own thing a lot of peeps are going to drop it pretty fast.
Hoping when the play text hits this GENCON we will have stuff to work with, to still use the base SF I but could be easily modified to fix the issues many are having. Or yes a whole new system not thought of before.
Honestly I think the KEY thing here is they need to have a working ship combat and specific scenarios and or a short module day 1 of of playtest release, or perhaps even multiple systems to test out to see what works the best for most. Lots of work yes but I think that would be worth it for everyone in the long run to do it right with multiple ways one can play test ship combat.
Also hope they have a meaty playtest module to run through to run all the base classes through for the base SF II. Just a play test with just a "do what ya want and report back" kinda thing would be a real shame.
Paizo has said they learned their lesson from the PF II playtest debacle, so hoping this is already in the works.
I did think the have a separate feat tree for starship stuff might be a way to go. So one would have your base SF II character stuff, then your Ship combat stuff separate So one won't gimp the other, at level X one gets a class feat and a starship feat, perk skill adjustment or whatever.
The ship crew roles have to be better defined is a given then. And specific and interesting perks one can choose for each crew position, so not just the gunner, capt or whatever has the "fun stuff" while others get bored at their stations.
Also it has to be easy on GM's to run the enemy ship, or ships :)
Tom
I would agree that shipping (heehee) SF2 without starship rules, including combat, would be a massive mistake.
I think the worst case scenario is a smoothed over and optimized version of SF1 starship combat, and that would be workable for me. I could see reducing GM workload by like 98%, simplifying tracking weapons, and beefing up the viable options for non-pilot roles getting us a serviceable system.
The best case scenario would be a whole new design that no one has ever thought of before that works perfectly.
I can see them shooting for the second but keeping the first as an option.
|
Honestly I think the KEY thing here is they need to have a working ship combat and specific scenarios and or a short module day 1 of of playtest release, or perhaps even multiple systems to test out to see what works the best for most. Lots of work yes but I think that would be worth it for everyone in the long run to do it right with multiple ways one can play test ship combat.
A good play test for ship combat would be good, but I'd like to see something a bit crazier in addition to a spaceship-only playtest. If the goal is that the subsystems don't feel like another game, then I'd like to see a playtest that is one big encounter that uses them all. Starting in space then needing to land on a battlefield, shooting at some vehicle or mechs from your spaceship as you land. get out of your ship and fight some standard combat to get to a vehicle to take across the battlefield to the other side, to get to some mech to finish the fight.
Basically, put it all on the table and see how easy or not it is to mix and go from one to another subsystem. There might be different rules to build each type but in the game would be nice if they had a way to interact with each other more seamlessly.
I have images in my head of trying to repel boarding parties while also carrying on ship-to-ship combat, and different members of the party deciding on which side of the battle to engage themselves as the fight on board the ship spills out into compartment after compartment. I just can't seem to figure out how to make it not terrible.
|
|
I have images in my head of trying to repel boarding parties while also carrying on ship-to-ship combat, and different members of the party deciding on which side of the battle to engage themselves as the fight on board the ship spills out into compartment after compartment. I just can't seem to figure out how to make it not terrible.
I think the first step is to figure out exactly what makes it terrible or not. At least in published material that I know of there has never been a situation where it's all on the table at one time. So just trying it no matter how bad it is is the first step. Best done in a playtest not a live campaign.
I can see it working if everyone is using the same initiative and action economy. Maybe with some variation for pilots, like all ships move first, but hight initiative for pilots can choose to move last.
Splitting the part is not as big of a deal in Starfiner if everyone has a COM unit and can keep in touch with the rest of the team.
The movement needs to be figured out how a spaceship would move on a small 5-foot or 30-foot square map. It could be possible for a ship to start and end it's turn off the map making an attack or other action as it passes over. and characters or creatures on the map only have time to take reactions to shoot back. So there would need to be reactions for that created.
For Ship to creature combat, ships could have dedicated anti-personal guns or other weapons, and or their larger guns that could do area-of-effect damage reducing the amount of damage on an individual. or the area of effect could act as supporting fire and do area of effect Harrying fire or suppressive fire.
Hmm. Well... maybe if "manage the ship" was a two-action activity that you had to do from a specific set of squares, requiring a free hand. Like, if you wanted to do the Pilot thing, you'd need to be in the pilot seat. If you want to do the Captain thing you need to be int eh Captain's chair. If fighting erupts inside your compartment, you can afford to take a single action getting off a (hopefully useful) shot with a one-handed weapon or getting behind cover, but you're pretty limited in your ability to do things. If you want to run to the door, it's possible to give up your Ship Action for a turn, take a move to get to the door, take two actions, and still get back in time to have your Ship Action for the next turn. That might be flexible enough to make it work.
|
|
So that's a great example. To do it you need a map with the ship station on it because it's important to know where the stations are to defend the station from someone trying to take it over.
Some ship station actions might only be 1 action with more complex ones taking 2 or 3 actions. Steering straight might just take 1 while a barrel roll might take 2 or 3. And letting the ship fly on its current course wouldn't take any action.
If the game can get to the point where you can fight a battle on the bridge and at the same time be in ship combat, that would make ship combat not feel like a separate game.
I like the idea of your pilot getting shot and the team's mystic has to heal them to keep the ship flying. It lets characters do what they are built to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't even just have to be a ship, I suppose. Like, a space station is effectively the same thing except without the "pilot" position. Dialing it in, that suggests that a one-person vessel might be more inclined to have single-action activities on a single station (so that you can both fly and shoot on the same turn) while the bigger ships would tend to have 2-action and 3-action activities (with greater associated effectiveness on the ship-vs-ship scale).
It also immediately suggests a scenario where the PCs are repelling a boarding attempt on a ship they *don't* own, where a big part of the goal is to prevent the enemies fro overrunning stations that various NPCs are at, trying to fight the larger fight outside. Like, those NPCs can join in if they have to, but they're a lot better at flying the ship than they are at repelling boarders.
Oh, and how much more complicated does this get if one of the stations is "security", and controls the turrets and whatnot inside the vessel?
Of course, "repel boarders and also fight in space" is a bit of an edge case unless your party does a lot of spaceship combats. They'll still need to make the "battles in space" part be fun in and of itself.
Follow-on thought: the even more exciting one is where the party is playing the boarding team in the middle of a pitched space battle, trying to push ahead as fast as they can without getting overextended, trying to take out enemies that are running various stations, considering if they maybe want to take control of same for a round or two themselves to contribute to the battle outside directly... if you want to make a more complicated extended encounter with trade-offs and degrees of success and interesting decisions to be made, there's some real meat here for such things.
edit:
I mean, this seems like it could go beyond ships and piloting. That just seems like how computers should work in combat. Like, imagen if in a large chunk of combats, there was one or more computers, each of which either controlled something on the battlefield (like turrets, doors, or poisonous gas) or something in the narrative (piloting the ship, setting off an alarm, finding critical information). Some actions could be done by anyone, others need rolls, some could be done by one side for free while needing a hack check for the other side. This just seems like a great general use mechanic for creating interesting tactical decisions.
Oooh, yeah! Also, it would be a great way to let "mystical hacking fu" be something interesting for your character to bring to the table. Like, Technomancer should be all over this, in a variety of ways, and the mechanic maybe as well (but in clearly distinct ways). Hacking from a distance, being able to get one-way LOS/LOE from one station to another, activating Stations with fewer actions, leavign traps for the next person who tries to use the thing, leaving a temporary robot or Living Code buddy to keep running the Station for you....
Huh... and now I want a Technomancer who has a critter that's halfway between a living virus and a data elemental to serve as a Companion. Not particularly useful out in the real world, but so handy when it comes to controllable systems.
Today's Kyle Hill video about Sci-Fi space combat felt pretty relevant. Sure, realism isn't the goal but if we used it as a reason to significantly depart from previous tropes and starship combat incarnations what could that get us?
Reserve starship combat for high level cruisers? Dramatically extend the in-game duration of starship combat to account for the vast distances being covered? Beef up the sci-fi and magic responses to the problems raised, like cloaking, teleportation, or illusions that give more impactful options for non-pilots? Dramatically reduce the importance of the pilot role?
Thought it was fun to consider.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another video on the physics of space battles.
physics of space battles.
Here's one on Why The Expanse Has the Most Realistic Space Combat
Why The Expanse Has the Most Realistic Space Combat.
And if you are having trouble getting to sleep here's one on the current state of the Physics of real Space War. This one would more apply to ships orbiting Absalom Station.
The Physics of Space War.
I think the two most important questions to ask are
1: What combat tropes would be most fun?
2: What combat tropes work best for a party of 4 to 6 characters?
|
|
I would like to see fires break out on the ship.
Ship components get damaged and destroyed.
Holes in the ship that vent out all atmosphere.
Ship components that can be tuned and customized.
You can really get into the numbers by going with bigger numbers.
Go with percentages.
Just a couple ideas.A bigger ship is more likely to be disabled VS blown up.
-0-G combat.
Gravity generator is down because PowerPlant is damaged.
Have you had a chance to play Battle for Nova Rush yet? It doesn't have any tactical Starship combat, but the entire adventure takes place during a starship battle.
I would like to see fires break out on the ship.
Ship components get damaged and destroyed.
Holes in the ship that vent out all atmosphere.
.
So overall, I think The Battle for Nova Rush did a really good job of feeling like you are on a ship during a ship battle. I'm courious to see how this could be combined with tactical ship combat, perhaps the pilot and gunner deal with the tactical part, the rest of the crew deals with hazards caused by the combat, similar to how The Battle for Nova Rush handled them.
Side note: the Nova Rush is a big ship, by big I mean it would take up both sides of an enormous flip mat. Our GM printed out the maps from inside the cover, each of the 2 maps was around 46 x 36 inches, lots of room for the PCs to customise that ship. Also worth noting, most of the ship's corridors are 10 to 15 feet wide, so plenty of room for large PCs. The storage areas have enough room for mechs, vehicles, and or small starships, possibly all 3 at one time.