Full name:  
Password:  
Register 
It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
 Post subject: Any thoughts on a campaign? Or is there one?
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 99
Was wondering if there is a campaign system for the Ten Worlds, something like Federation and Empire where each battle is part of the overall strategic war.

Have to read up on ten worlds, man there is so much material in here that I am struggling to know where to start, once I get my boxed set of AV:T I will probably come to an even keel.

Without even having looked at it yet, yarg!, "Ten Worlds" keeps setting my brain to thinking of a game I played once called Living Steel, specifically the Seven Worlds, Rhand, Starguild Imperium, and those dirty rotten Spectrals.

Heh, so is there some kind of framework for running a campaign with individual battles playing important parts in how the campaign turns out?

And I just started looking at Star Strike... is this in development? Gotta read more on it... you guys are way to creative, you got to slow down so I can get my bearings. Maybe in a couple years when I know how to play I can even dig out my simple little Star Fleet Battles Doomsday Rulebook for nostalgia.. heh heh heh..


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 5095
Location: Milwaukee, WI
There are hooks for a campaign game in there.

However, we don't use them that much for Ten Worlds backstory. One issue is scalability; AV:T doesn't work for largish fleet actions without a lot of people handy and some effort in coordination.

Fun fact:

Federation Commander (SFB's lighter, faster playing cousin) has about 25,000 more words than AV:T does.

_________________
Ken Burnside
President
Ad Astra Games


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 130
Ken Burnside wrote:
Fun fact:

Federation Commander (SFB's lighter, faster playing cousin) has about 25,000 more words than AV:T does.

...but don't let that fool anyone into thinking that AV:T is an easier game to learn or play... :)


 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 5095
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Andy Palmer wrote:
Ken Burnside wrote:
Fun fact:

Federation Commander (SFB's lighter, faster playing cousin) has about 25,000 more words than AV:T does.

...but don't let that fool anyone into thinking that AV:T is an easier game to learn or play... :)


Nope - not necessarily to learn. Most people can map flying a ship in Fed Commander to driving a car. There isn't a convenient "experience mapping" for AV:T, other than playing Asteroids.

The difference in play complexity is closer than you might think.

Movement is faster in AV:T, once everyone knows what they're doing. MUCH faster, because it's all simultaneous. Figuring out what you want to do is a bit more difficult, because you have to be able to "look ahead".

Fire allocation is faster - it's all secret plotting, and handled simultaneously. Plus, the movement method means you can always tell if it's a better shot next turn, which Fed Commander doesn't do.

Determining what's in arc is slower - much slower at first as you get used to the AVID. Once you've figured it out, and can do it without thinking, it's pretty fast. (Here's a hint - when you no longer need to use the RALT to determine the bearing angle, it's fast.)

Damage allocation is slower in AV:T, because the defender has to feed data back to the attacker (how much damage was soaked off). On the other hand, it's more interesting. Even so - damage allocation in AV:T is one place where while I like the results, I do not like the time consumed.

Seeking weapons in AV:T are slower at first, but scale up to nigh infinite numbers of seeking weapons easily due to the lack of individually tracked damage states per seeker, and not having to shove stacks of them across the map. You DO have to follow a written procedure to launch them, rather than the vastly more intuitive "put counter on map" bit.

I found that whole turns of Fed Commander took about 15-20 minutes to play out; add about 10 minutes per fire phase in addition to this. It's easier to run more than one ship in Fed Commander.

I find that whole turns of AV:T take about 15-20 minutes to play out; add about 10 minutes per fire phase in addition to this.

A typical Fed Commander game is done in 3-8 turns. AV:T takes 5-10 turns to resolve because ships are less maneuverable.

A lot of ease of play comes down to what you're familiar with, and in that - as mentioned - Fed Commander has an edge: It's like driving a car, even down to mashing the clutch to avoid running into things.

By comparison, we're typically doing 4-6 ships per turn, and running 10-12 turns per hour with Squadron Strike.

_________________
Ken Burnside
President
Ad Astra Games


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:54 pm
Posts: 143
Location: Redwood City, CA
Ken Burnside wrote:
Damage allocation is slower in AV:T, because the defender has to feed data back to the attacker (how much damage was soaked off). On the other hand, it's more interesting. Even so - damage allocation in AV:T is one place where while I like the results, I do not like the time consumed.


Can't this be mitigated by using the 1.5 fast damage allocation method? I am probably going to be teaching AV:T to some people soon and I intend to use fast damage allocation at first, simply to keep things moving as fast as possible.


 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:00 am
Posts: 5095
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Erich Schneider wrote:
Ken Burnside wrote:
Damage allocation is slower in AV:T, because the defender has to feed data back to the attacker (how much damage was soaked off). On the other hand, it's more interesting. Even so - damage allocation in AV:T is one place where while I like the results, I do not like the time consumed.


Can't this be mitigated by using the 1.5 fast damage allocation method? I am probably going to be teaching AV:T to some people soon and I intend to use fast damage allocation at first, simply to keep things moving as fast as possible.


It can be - this front loads the data exchange, so the attacker knows that every N damage points translates into one box. It is faster - but it loses the nifty variability.

_________________
Ken Burnside
President
Ad Astra Games


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:28 am
Posts: 1336
Location: El Segundo, CA
Erich Schneider wrote:
Ken Burnside wrote:
Damage allocation is slower in AV:T, because the defender has to feed data back to the attacker (how much damage was soaked off). On the other hand, it's more interesting. Even so - damage allocation in AV:T is one place where while I like the results, I do not like the time consumed.


Can't this be mitigated by using the 1.5 fast damage allocation method? I am probably going to be teaching AV:T to some people soon and I intend to use fast damage allocation at first, simply to keep things moving as fast as possible.


(Sound of vomiting ...)

I've found that new players like the damage allocation system because it's difficult enough to set up an effective shot and it gives a feeling of accomplishment. You're not doing damage allocation constantly, so a little break in the action after 90 minutes of maneuvering isn't a bad thing.

Just be sure that, if you have more than one player besides you, that you do the damage allocation so that everyone can see exactly what's going on. Have people get up and stand behind that guy whose ship is getting whacked, if necessary.

_________________
3-D makes no difference.

No, really.

Stop laughing.


 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:03 am
Posts: 405
Location: Platte City, MO
I tend to allocate parts of the damage procedure to as many people as possible: YOU track the total damage ppol, YOU track the damage in this hull layer, (Attacker) roll hit location, YOU roll soak, YOU call off hit location from the ship book SSD, (Defender) mark stuff off.

Giving everybody a job cuts the boredom factor.


That said, I'd do fast allocation as soon as anybody asked for it. :)



Regarding numbers of seeking weapons, at a largeish battle at Origins a number of years ago, with around 5 per side, we had over 1500 seeking weapons on the map simultaneously -- not counting munitions that hadn't yet deployed from some 15-20 missiles.

_________________
James Sterrett


 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron







Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
mile200 v1.0 desgined by CodeMiles Team (msi_333)