Jump to content



Photo

Starship combat system doesnt work


  • Please log in to reply
327 replies to this topic

#321 Hedgehobbit

Hedgehobbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:02 AM

The verbiage is not helpful.  I cry every time I say Close and Short range aloud.  I cannot fathom why engaged had to be replaced in game jargon between space and personal scales.

 

I don't see why they changed the names either (perhaps Close was first and they changed the name of the personal scale to emphasis that it was melee range). I'm a big fan of game terms that can be said by characters as in-world speech. I can totally see a character saying,

 

"Engage those TIE Bombers before they get to the medical frigate"

or

"Red Leader moving to engage the TIEs"

etc. 

 

Rather than "move to close range with those TIE Bombers". Not as natural. 


Edited by Hedgehobbit, 08 August 2014 - 10:24 AM.


#322 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,719 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:03 AM

I don't even mind odd verbiage, consistency is always nice though.  Plain language does help in rule retention though.


Edited by 2P51, 08 August 2014 - 10:04 AM.

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze  and D&D 5E  Swords for Adventure


#323 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:23 AM

But space isn't a racetrack.  The problem is the basic assumption, that if *nobody* is flying/driving then they're all moving at the same velocities in exactly parallel vectors and do not change position relative to each other.  This breaks "suspension of disbelief" immediately:  a TIE moving at speed 5 who does not "fly" will not overshoot or depart from a freighter moving at 2 who also does not "fly".  What is this mysterious glue that holds them together?   :)

 

There has to be a better way...

 

The better way is to not think of it as the pilot making an effort to fly away.

 

Think of it, instead, that the pilot is not doing some other maneuver that would change their course. If they don't spend any maneuvers, then they are flying around looking for a clear shot. 


Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#324 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,062 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:35 AM

 

But space isn't a racetrack.  The problem is the basic assumption, that if *nobody* is flying/driving then they're all moving at the same velocities in exactly parallel vectors and do not change position relative to each other.  This breaks "suspension of disbelief" immediately:  a TIE moving at speed 5 who does not "fly" will not overshoot or depart from a freighter moving at 2 who also does not "fly".  What is this mysterious glue that holds them together?   :)

 

There has to be a better way...

 

The better way is to not think of it as the pilot making an effort to fly away.

 

Think of it, instead, that the pilot is not doing some other maneuver that would change their course. If they don't spend any maneuvers, then they are flying around looking for a clear shot. 

 

No, that's the point.  Why are they assumed to be flying around looking for a clear shot?  Why are they assumed to be trying to stay together at all?



#325 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,668 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 10:40 AM

 

 

But space isn't a racetrack.  The problem is the basic assumption, that if *nobody* is flying/driving then they're all moving at the same velocities in exactly parallel vectors and do not change position relative to each other.  This breaks "suspension of disbelief" immediately:  a TIE moving at speed 5 who does not "fly" will not overshoot or depart from a freighter moving at 2 who also does not "fly".  What is this mysterious glue that holds them together?   :)

 

There has to be a better way...

 

The better way is to not think of it as the pilot making an effort to fly away.

 

Think of it, instead, that the pilot is not doing some other maneuver that would change their course. If they don't spend any maneuvers, then they are flying around looking for a clear shot. 

 

No, that's the point.  Why are they assumed to be flying around looking for a clear shot?  Why are they assumed to be trying to stay together at all?

 

 

Because it's combat. 

 

If they aren't, then they fly in a straight line (the player spends a maneuver) and there they go.


Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#326 progressions

progressions

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,711 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:15 PM

But space isn't a racetrack.  The problem is the basic assumption, that if *nobody* is flying/driving then they're all moving at the same velocities in exactly parallel vectors and do not change position relative to each other.  This breaks "suspension of disbelief" immediately:  a TIE moving at speed 5 who does not "fly" will not overshoot or depart from a freighter moving at 2 who also does not "fly".  What is this mysterious glue that holds them together?   :)

 

There has to be a better way...

 

It's an abstract principle that covers all conditions, from pod racers literally racing through a narrow canyon, to starfighters who are moving roughly around each other as they dogfight.

 

This isn't a tactical game, it's abstract. Just like characters on the ground don't necessarily have to be standing still during their round, but they do need to spend a maneuver to get closer to another character. Likewise the starships can be considered moving around in space but they must spend a maneuver to get closer to another character.

 

I do agree about the range band names, I kinda wish they were just the same as in ground scale, so that "engaged" meant roughly the same as it does on the ground, just at the bigger scale.


  • Donovan Morningfire likes this

EOTE Styles and Dice Symbols for Obsidian Portal

Our group's EOTE Obsidian Portal: Explorers on the Edge


#327 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,062 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 05:01 PM

This isn't a tactical game, it's abstract. Just like characters on the ground don't necessarily have to be standing still during their round, but they do need to spend a maneuver to get closer to another character.

 

But last I checked, players don't have a "Speed", i.e., a velocity and direction.  If you do not move you are at Speed 0, which makes sense.  The personal combat isn't tactical, but it works fine.  At some point, calling it "abstract" feels like an excuse.



#328 progressions

progressions

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,711 posts

Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:52 PM

Whatever you say. It makes sense to me, and it's worked well in my games.

 

If you don't find that it works as written in your games, I'm sorry to hear that and I sympathize, but I dunno what else to tell you.


EOTE Styles and Dice Symbols for Obsidian Portal

Our group's EOTE Obsidian Portal: Explorers on the Edge





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS