This week I started designing a boardgame; mainly for my own benefit and amusement. It's a long, long way from completion and not even in a vaguely acceptable state at the moment (plus it's littered with trademarked starship terms which will have to be removed at some point, but I find them a useful tool of reference when designing).
Anyway, I figuredd some folks might be vaguely interested, so I made a quick-and-dirty web page for it with the current version of the rules.
Don't even begin to view this as a complete game - it's about 5% done, if that. It needs TONS more stuff, plus a lot of the stuff in it will probably get changed. But if space combat games are your thing, feel free to check it out.
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 11th June 2009 at 04:34 PM..
This week I started designing a boardgame; mainly for my own benefit and amusement. It's a long, long way from completion and not even in a vaguely acceptable state at the moment (plus it's littered with trademarked starship terms which will have to be removed at some point, but I find them a useful tool of reference when designing).
Anyway, I figuredd some folks might be vaguely interested, so I made a quick-and-dirty web page for it with the current version of the rules.
Don't even begin to view this as a complete game - it's about 5% done, if that. It needs TONS more stuff, plus a lot of the stuff in it will probably get changed. But if space combat games are your thing, feel free to check it out.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Yeah, that site actually inspired my design goal of having ships at different scales.
I just updated the site and PDF, by the way. SPACE FIGHT! now has a cover, nicer formatting, a few error fixes, and colour coding for the ahip abilities for easy at-a-glance use.
Claudio Pozas is designing a logo, which I'm quite excited about seeing.
I downloaded this today and have to say I think this is one of the coolest projects I've seen in awhile. I definitely want to give this a try ASAP and will be following along with interest.
I made a template in Campaign Cartographer 3 today to make hex maps to use in the game, and posted a sample star chart in my mapping thread. Like I said there, I know you are selling starscape PDFs through EN Publishing, and I really don't want to step on your toes. Would you object if I made a few Star Trek ones (and possibly for Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica too) and posted them? They would use images and screen captures from Star Trek etc.
I'm really excited about this - I've been a fan of Star Trek since I was five years old. Last Unicorn Games Star Trek RPG was probably my favorite RPG ever (although tied for first with TSR's Masque of the Red Death Victorian horror campaign setting). When LUG lost their license to produce the Star Trek RPG when WotC bought them, they were just starting to release a Star Trek space combat game that looked promising called Engage! but that was cancelled too. SPACE FIGHT! has that same sort of fast action appeal, so I can't wait to see more!
Would you object if I made a few Star Trek ones (and possibly for Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica too) and posted them? They would use images and screen captures from Star Trek etc.
That's totally fine - I can't really include such stuff in SPACE FIGHT! (and I'll have to remove the existing ships at some point), but there's nothing stopping fans from creating stuff!
Thanks Morrus! I downloaded yesterday's update with the basic movement rules and look forward to checking it out today.
I updated it again just a few minutes ago with a major change to how movement is approached, although it hasn't been fleshed out yet.
Essentially, I was struggling with the decision as to whether velocity should be a factor, with speed points being used to accelerate/decelerate. For the moment, I've decided to give it a try, although it still needs more information.
Also, in the section which describes a starscape, I've noted that a starscape doesn't have to be of space! It could be the surface of the Death Star, complete with laser towers and trenches, or it could be a post apocalyptic landscape with starfighters dueling in the high atmosphere. This also brings up the question of bombers, of course!
These movement rules are proving to be something of a challlenge!
We have a system whereby your speed remains the same as it was last round unless you accelerate or decelerate. That bit's fine.
Incorporating turns, however, is more difficult. Ideally I want it to take into account both maneuverabilty and speed, but not become complicated. At the moment I'm thinking something along the lines of variable costs to make a hex-side turn, or a number of hexes moved before a turn is allowed. Not sure yet.
These movement rules are proving to be something of a challlenge!
We have a system whereby your speed remains the same as it was last round unless you accelerate or decelerate. That bit's fine.
Incorporating turns, however, is more difficult. Ideally I want it to take into account both maneuverabilty and speed, but not become complicated. At the moment I'm thinking something along the lines of variable costs to make a hex-side turn, or a number of hexes moved before a turn is allowed. Not sure yet.
Maybe: Every ship gets x speed points to spend each round. However, to each ship assign numbers to "Top Speed," "Maneuverability," and "Acceleration." The Maneuverability score is the number of speed points required to change heading by 60 degrees, and the Acceleration score is the number of speed points required to change speed by +1 or -1. You can freely alternate between moving and changing velocity (speed and direction) until you have moved as far as your top speed will allow and you run out of speed points.
Example: For no particular reason, take x=10. A fast, nimble ship might have Top Speed=10, Maneuverability=1, and Acceleration=1. Such a ship with current speed=4, might spend 1 point to turn 60 degrees, then 6 points to hit top speed, then move 10 hexes (we're done moving but we can still spend points), then spend 1 points to turn 60 degrees, then finally spend 2 points to reduce speed to 8.
__________________ It's times like this I wish I had 500 foot bottle of tequila.
Last edited by Flatus Maximus; 14th June 2009 at 07:04 PM..
Maybe: Every ship gets x speed points to spend each round. However, to each ship assign numbers to "Top Speed," "Maneuverability," and "Acceleration." The Maneuverability score is the number of speed points required to change heading by 60 degrees, and the Acceleration score is the number of speed points required to change speed by +1 or -1. You can freely alternate between moving and changing velocity (speed and direction) until you have moved as far as your top speed will allow and you run out of speed points.
Example: For no particular reason, take x=10. A fast, nimble ship might have Top Speed=10, Maneuverability=1, and Acceleration=1. Such a ship with current speed=4, might spend 1 point to turn 60 degrees, then 6 points to hit top speed, then move 10 hexes (we're done moving but we can still spend points), then spend 1 points to turn 60 degrees, then finally spend 2 points to reduce speed to 8.
How wold you then fit that in with the fact that the ship has a velocity already - would you allow him to rotate 60 degrees, then 60 degrees again, then sixty degrees again and then accelerate to 6 and fly 6 squares, and then turn again? My feeling is that a fast flying ship's turning arc is larger.
How wold you then fit that in with the fact that the ship has a velocity already - would you allow him to rotate 60 degrees, then 60 degrees again, then sixty degrees again and then accelerate to 6 and fly 6 squares, and then turn again? My feeling is that a fast flying ship's turning arc is larger.
Well, a fast flying nimble (Maneuverability=1) ship might pull this off, while a fast flying clumsy (Maneuverability=5) ship would not. If you want it to be impossible for a ship to turn 180 degrees in a single turn, then set Maneuverability greater than x/3.
Just to make sure I'm answering the question: Yes, I'm proposing that Maneuverability be independent from current speed, mostly for simplicity. If ship A is more nimble than ship B, then that should hold no matter what the speed, right?
Edit: Maybe my example was bad -- you probably don't want the fastest ships in the game to also be the most maneuverable.
__________________ It's times like this I wish I had 500 foot bottle of tequila.
Last edited by Flatus Maximus; 14th June 2009 at 08:26 PM..
Also, another thing: Just because a spaceship's nose turns doesn't mean its "velocity vector" instantly changes. If you rotate a ship 180 degrees, it will still be traveling in the same direction it was before. If you want to make it go the opposite direction you will have to apply enough thrust to cancel out the existing velocity vector and then accelerate in the opposite direction.
By the way, the site linked above also has a lot of good information on how space combat would be likely to work realistically (see the "Space War" section). I don't know how realistic you are planning on making your game, but this could be worth looking at.
Also, one question: For the "raise deflector shields" actions, do you have to spend the action points every turn in order to keep the shields up, or do you just have to spend them once? If the latter, is there any reason why you wouldn't want to raise the shields once at the beginning of the battle and keep them up for the entire battle?
And another thing about the movement: Don't forget that Newton's First Law applies to angular motion as well as linear motion. If you start a ship rotating at 60 degrees per turn, then it will keep rotating at that rate until thrust is applied to stop it.
Also, another thing: Just because a spaceship's nose turns doesn't mean its "velocity vector" instantly changes. If you rotate a ship 180 degrees, it will still be traveling in the same direction it was before. If you want to make it go the opposite direction you will have to apply enough thrust to cancel out the existing velocity vector and then accelerate in the opposite direction.
By the way, the site linked above also has a lot of good information on how space combat would be likely to work realistically (see the "Space War" section). I don't know how realistic you are planning on making your game, but this could be worth looking at.
Yup, I've thought about all that and rejected as being contrary to my design goals of fast-moving, easy-to-play cinematic space combat. Plus, realistic though it is, it dosn't often happen in the gneres I'm trying to emulate (Star Wars, where ships act like WW2 dogfighters, or Star Trek where they act like naval vessels; some show slike B5 make a nod towards it, but I'm encapsulating that with specific maneuvers available to those ships).
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 14th June 2009 at 09:20 PM..
Well, a fast flying nimble (Maneuverability=1) ship might pull this off, while a fast flying clumsy (Maneuverability=5) ship would not. If you want it to be impossible for a ship to turn 180 degrees in a single turn, then set Maneuverability greater than x/3.
Just to make sure I'm answering the question: Yes, I'm proposing that Maneuverability be independent from current speed, mostly for simplicity. If ship A is more nimble than ship B, then that should hold no matter what the speed, right?
Edit: Maybe my example was bad -- you probably don't want the fastest ships in the game to also be the most maneuverable.
That works; however, it doesn't allow for the image of a ship accelerating to max speed and thus having to turn in a long wide arc; whereas if it were moving slower it could make a tighter turn.
These things can be done, but I want it to be simple, elegant, and aloow for fast play. I dont want players speding 5 minutes working out their move. Combining all those factors into one movement system without getting too bogged down is a challenge!
Also, one question: For the "raise deflector shields" actions, do you have to spend the action points every turn in order to keep the shields up, or do you just have to spend them once? If the latter, is there any reason why you wouldn't want to raise the shields once at the beginning of the battle and keep them up for the entire battle?
Not fully developed yet; but likely points to sustain. The other option is points to charge up, but they get worn down, so you have to charge them up again. I haven't decided yet.
That works; however, it doesn't allow for the image of a ship accelerating to max speed and thus having to turn in a long wide arc; whereas if it were moving slower it could make a tighter turn.
These things can be done, but I want it to be simple, elegant, and aloow for fast play. I dont want players speding 5 minutes working out their move. Combining all those factors into one movement system without getting too bogged down is a challenge!
Let's see: Drop the association between speed points and Maneuverability. Instead use Maneuverability as follows: Divide your Current Speed by Maneuverability (round down) to get the number of hexes the ship must move before making one 60 degree turn. Speed points are strictly used to speed up/down, and can be used before or after, but not during a turn. Examples:
* A ship with Current Speed=1 and Maneuverability=5 could move+turn in any direction. The same ship could first spend 4 speed points to increase Current Speed to 5, but would then need to move two hexes for every 60 degree turn. Etc.
* A ship with Maneuverability=1 would need to move a number of hexes equal to its Current Speed for each 60 degree turn.
It probably goes without saying but keep the numbers small so that the division is trivial. I was thinking in terms of the range 1-10, which seems small enough to do division in one's head but large enough to provide variation.
__________________ It's times like this I wish I had 500 foot bottle of tequila.
Let's see: Drop the association between speed points and Maneuverability. Instead use Maneuverability as follows: Divide your Current Speed by Maneuverability (round down) to get the number of hexes the ship must move before making one 60 degree turn. Speed points are strictly used to speed up/down, and can be used before or after, but not during a turn. Examples:
* A ship with Current Speed=1 and Maneuverability=5 could move+turn in any direction. The same ship could first spend 4 speed points to increase Current Speed to 5, but would then need to move two hexes for every 60 degree turn. Etc.
* A ship with Maneuverability=1 would need to move a number of hexes equal to its Current Speed for each 60 degree turn.
It probably goes without saying but keep the numbers small so that the division is trivial. I was thinking in terms of the range 1-10, which seems small enough to do division in one's head but large enough to provide variation.
Now we're getting somewhere! Lemme think about this for a bit!
OK, I've made a preliminary update. Needs tweaking, but the basic concept is there!
I like it conceptually, but I don't like that we're dealing with three numbers here when all we need is two. The problem is that for the velocity/maneuverability calculation to work, we need maneuverability to be better if it's higher; for the cost per hex side, we need that to be better if it's lower. Those are two numbers which basically say "maneuverability". Finally, we have speed, which is better higher. I'd like to combine those first two numbers, which represent the same thing, so all we have is speed and maneuverabliity.
__________________
Last edited by Morrus; 15th June 2009 at 12:02 AM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
