You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Game Design → Space fighters
Wonder why it is that MJ-12 doesn't have a space fighter game?
I'd like an alternative to Silent Death or Interceptor.
Kevin
twould be cool.
If you use Aces at Dawn as the base, you could add extra weapons and shields...However, I think you're more likely to want dozens of ships on the board
But Noel said that already.
I'm envisioning a game with a scale more like Silent Death or Interceptor, so I wouldn't want dozens of ships on a side. More like players running from one to four ships. If I want dozens of ships, I'll just play Starmada with small hulls. I'd also prefer to see it hex-based.
With that in mind, I'm thinking:
1) Movement could be sequential, with the order of movement determined by a die roll at thet start of a turn. Maybe adding in some kind of pilot skill mod. This would be similar to Silent Death.
2) Combat resolution could be sequential, again with the order determined by pilot reflex. Or in lieu of that, it could be simultaneous, but with firing declarations determined in order of pilot reflex, from low to high.
3) Damage would be set up so that a typical fighter can take several hits before being destroyed. But they could also have external or internal systems destryoed before the fighter as a whole is destroyed. This would be similar to Interceptor. Or even Assault Corps. I'm thinking that fighter size could be represented by a die type. I'd like to stay away from damage tracks. Silent Death is okay, but identical fighters get destroyed "identically" from game to game.
Back to movement. Silent Death again is okay, but I've always felt that the movement rates are way too high. If you roll low at the start of a turn and have a fast movement rate, you simply run away to a board edge and hide until the next turn. I've never really liked this effect. I'd think that you could keep movement rates lower, to keep this effect from happening, and keep fighters engaged more of the time.
I could also see using a fairly simple set of maneuvers, with different maneuvers costing different numbers of movement points. Or even have the success of some maneuvers determined by a pilot skill die roll, similar to Spitting Fire.
So before I lose a second post, I'll stop now.
Kevin
Okay, I'm getting ready for a bike workout, but thought I'd post a few more thoughts before doing that.
2D VERSUS 3D:
Ah, the great debate.
I'm perfectly fine with 2d, but we could simulate a rudimentary 3d system by doing something similar to Spitting Fire or Check Your 6. Just assume the dogfights take place in a space box that has tactical levels (maybe 6 to 10 of them). There wouldn't be any penalties for "changing" levels one direction or the other, and they would be more for ranging effects. I don't know whether this adds enough to worry about it, or not. 2d seems to work fine for most of the other fighter games I'm aware of.
DIE TYPE:
I'm thinking either d10 OR multi-die types.
We've got enough games based on d6s.
One mechanic I have been really intrigued with over the last couple of years uses multi-die types.
Imagine fighter size as a die type: d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12.
This die type also defines a fighter size, which is half of the die type, and which is used to set the basic "to hit" number for weapons.
So d4 = 2, d6 = 3, d8 = 4, d10 = 5, and d12 = 6.
Fighters will also have a built in armor or defensive value, which could be represented by a number ranging from 0 to 1 (little to no armor), up to 8 to 10 (very well protected).
Weapons are also a die type: d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12.
The basic "to hit" for a weapon is roll the number and type of dice representing the weapon, and every die that rolls under the size of the target represents a hit.
The penetration mechanic is then to simply re-roll the weapon dice that hit, and any dice that roll above the armor value penetrate and damage the target. What this does is imply that "smaller" weapons are inherently more accurate than "larger" weapons, and can actually auto-hit larger targets, while larger weapons will have a hard time hitting smaller targets, but will almost always penetrate and damage lightly armored targets.
I really like this mechanic, but originally intended it to be used for a historical wet navy ship game. And it still probably will be. But it just might work in a space fighter application also.
Guess I've put off the workout long enough.
Kevin
Wonder why it is that MJ-12 doesn't have a space fighter game?
I'd like an alternative to Silent Death or Interceptor.
It would be good. Though I have those two and a dozen more, there isn't one space fighter game that I consider perfect to me. I played a lot of Silent Death and like it a lot. But movement always have been the weakest part of all the systems.
I think it could be hex based without hexes. Every player had some cardboard hexes and would make the path of the fighters in the table with the hexes. That would give a lot of freedom to the game.
I do think that movement could be made by iniciative card or die roll. I like the iniciative card system. Every pilot has a card attached to him. So when the card is draw, the player must move tha ship of that pilot, but the good thing is that pilots have a tactic value, and they can spend it to put back the card in the deck and draw again.
Fire should be simultaneous, except when a pilot wastes a tactic point to fire first.
Movement, IMHO, is the core of every system. If movement is good (Starmada AE is the high point in this, IMO) all the rest is aceptable. I would link movement with class, being light is worst in guns and armour and it's good in maneuverability. The more the speed, the more difficult is to maneuver. But a lighter fighter is more agile than a heavier.
The basic "to hit" for a weapon is roll the number and type of dice representing the weapon, and every die that rolls under the size of the target represents a hit.
It wont work well that way, I'm afraid. You see if you can only hit a very light fighter (D4) with a 1 in any dice, the margin for modifiers is minimal and a D4 fighter in a optimal range is only hit by a D4 weapon 25% of the times where a D6 fighter is hit 75% of the times, making it be 3 times bigger that the D4 fighter. All the other fighters would suffer a hit always. Unreallistic and not a good mechanic. But do keep trying, because you do have good ideas.
I typed some incorrect information earlier.
The "to hit" mechanic is rolling equal to or under the size, while the damage mechanic is rolling equal to or over.
So a d4 weapon will hit a size d4 ship 75% of the time, while a d6 weapon will hit a size d4 ship 33% of the time.
And I'll disagree with you about the mechanic not working.
The mechanic is sound and works, because we've used it, albeit in a wet navy setting.
However, it may or may not be appropriate for a space fighter game.
Which is why I tossed it out for discussion.
As you say, the bigger weapons (d8, d10, and d12) have an extremely hard time hitting the smaller ships (d4 and d6), while armor values can get larger enough to where the smaller weapons can't penetrate them.
In the wet navy setting, this was (and is) easy to explain.
As for smaller weapons "always" hitting, I don't really have an issue with that. The fact that they're always "on target" is going to be offset by the fact that they're not going to penetrate much armor.
Kevin
A summary, compilation, whatever - and some of my ideas...
Movement----------------------------------------------------
Order of movement determined by a die roll (d12) at thet start of a
turn, then add in the pilot skill mod:
Amateur -3 Green -2 Rookie -1
Veteran +1 Ace +2 Crack +3
Movement rates: ????? low
Set Maneuvers:
Different maneuvers cost different numbers of movement points.
Immelmann.... Cobra.... Inside Loop......
Success of some maneuvers determined by a pilot skill die roll,
similar to Spitting Fire........
Link movement with class, being light is worst in guns and armour and
it's good in maneuverability. The more the speed, the more difficult
is to maneuver. But a lighter fighter is more agile than a heavier.
2D VERSUS 3D: 3d system by doing something similar to Spitting Fire.
There wouldn't be any penalties for "changing" levels one direction or
the other, and they would be more for ranging effects.
Assume the dogfights take place in a space box that has tactical
levels (-5 to +5).
COMBAT------------------------------------------------------
Resolution is sequential, with the order determined by pilot
Initiative.
Fighter size is represented by a die type. Imagine fighter size as a
die type: d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12.
Fighters will also have a built in armor or defensive value, which
could be represented by a number ranging from 0 to 1 (little to no
armor), up to 8 to 10 (very well protected).
Weapons are a die type: d4, d6, d8, d10, and d12.
Basic number of hits per fighter is determined by die type.
d4 = 2 hits, d6 = 3 hits, d8 = 4 hits, d10 = 5 hits, and d12 = 6 hits.
The basic "to hit" for a weapon is roll the number and type of dice
representing the weapon, and every die that rolls under the size
(hits) of the target represents a hit.
The penetration mechanic is then to simply re-roll the weapon dice
that hit, and any dice that roll above the armor value penetrate and
damage the target. What this does is imply that "smaller" weapons are
inherently more accurate than "larger" weapons, and can actually
auto-hit larger targets, while larger weapons will have a hard time
hitting smaller targets, but will almost always penetrate and damage
lightly armored targets.
A fighter can also have external or internal systems destroyed before
the fighter as a whole is destroyed.
Fighters can fire ANY weapon forward.
Missiles can fire at targets to the side, or forward.
Turreted weapons can fire at ANY target.
CONSTRUCTION------------------------------------------------
Cost Calculation will require more thought than I've put into this so
far.
Hull: HIT : AVAIL:TURRET:
type: POINTS: SIZE : y/n :
D4 2 8 n
D6 3 27 n
D8 4 64 n
D10 5 125 y
D12 6 216 y
Hit points is the number of hits that the fighter can take internally
before breaking up.
Available Size is the amount of space you have to fill with systems,
armor, engines, or weapons.
"Y" under turret only means you can INSTALL a turret, not that one
comes in the base hull. D10 hull can only mount a light weapon. D12
hull can only mount up to a medium weapon. no fighter can have more
than ONE turret.
Light Gun - D4 - takes up one space.
Medium Gun - D6 - takes up two spaces.
Heavy Gun - D8 - takes up three spaces.
Light Beam - d6 - takes up four spaces.
Medium Beam - d8 - takes up five spaces.
Heavy Beam - d10 - takes up six spaces.
Light Missile - d8 - takes up four spaces.
Medium Missile - d10 - takes up five spaces.
Heavy Missile - d12 - takes up six spaces.
Light Tropedo - 2d10 - takes up six spaces
Medium Torpedo - 3d10 - takes up seven spaces
Heavy Torpedo - 4d10 - takes up eight spaces
ARMOR - Space required equals:
Armor Value X fighter Hit Points X 2
ENGINE - Space required equals:
(ACCEL value X fighter Hit Points squared)/2
Turn rate (number of hexes you have to go before you can turn)
equals: Fighter Hit Points squared/(10-Turn Rate value)
CHAFF?????
ECM POD????
And I'll disagree with you about the mechanic not working.
The mechanic is sound and works, because we've used it, albeit in a wet navy setting.
I was just giving my view. Never meant to insult your idea. My view of things is just what it is.
I just think that even with the modifications you explained in the last post:
I typed some incorrect information earlier.
The "to hit" mechanic is rolling equal to or under the size, while the damage mechanic is rolling equal to or over.
So a d4 weapon will hit a size d4 ship 75% of the time, while a d6 weapon will hit a size d4 ship 33% of the time.
It still feels strange.
In a dogfight, the idea that a weapon always hit an enemy craft seems unrealistic. The difference between silhouettes being so great that some weapons hit a type of ship always and just 25% another class is a difference in size too big to call both classes fighters. From reports during wwII, a FW190 pilot said that from 300 meters, it was just slightly easier to hit a B-17 than it was to hit a P-47. Slightly.
P-47C
Wing Span: 40 ft. 9.75 in. (12.44 m.)
Lenght: 36 ft. 1.75 in. (11.02 m.)
Wing Area: 300 sq. ft. (27.87 sq. m.)
B-17G
Wing Span: 103 ft. 9 in (31.6 m)
Lenght: 74 ft. 4 in (22.6 m)
Wing Area: 1,420 sq ft (132 sq m)
The wings area of the B17G is 4.73 times bigger than the wings area of the P-47. Almost 5 times. So in comparison, how bigger will be a class D8 against the size of a class D4 fighter?
And the same questions remain: If at optimum firing solution you can only hit a D4 fighter with a 1 or 2 in a die roll, if the fighter is at long range, and with a difficult aspect position and with any other negative modifier no weapon can hit it. Even weapons that should be more accurate at long range because they are heavier will have very small to no chance of hitting this fighter. And if we can fit a better penetrating weapon into an ultra-light figther we have the ultimate fighter. Hard to hit and a killer of bigger clumbersome fighters. But using the P-47 example, although it was two times heavier fighter than almost all the same type of fighters in the war, it was hard to hit and fast enough to escape the enemy fire, just by... diving.
"All these features were costly in weight and the airplane would have a take-off weight of 11,600 lb. (5,262 kg) which was more than twice the weight of its contemporaries such as the Supermarine Spitfire, the Hawker Hurricane, the Dewoitine D.520, the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Curtiss P-40 and Mitsubishi A6M Zero. Despite the monsterous size of the P-47, it would turn out to be one of the best three USAAF fighters of the war—the other two being the North American P-51 Mustang and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. " Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers. The American Fighter. Sparkford, Nr. Yeovil Somerset, 1987. 390.
A naval engagement is about position and weapon range and pitting the best of our warships against the worst of the enemy warships. A dogfight engagement is about speed and out-maneuver the enemy planes/starfighters and deal damage. A better machine is a better machine, but this difference cannot be built out of ship classes. A Mosquito is from a different size class of a Spitfire, but you can't really tell what is the better plane, can you?
But this is just my view. Use it if you want or not at all.
Cheers.
You're comparing 'modern' stuff to space fighters....
One of the things to remember is that simulations might be ACCURATE, but rarely are they FUN....
But the best thing is to make it both accurate and fun.
And its possible with a little effort. When I'm playing a game and a rule contradict good sense I don't care if the universe is a fantasy one or a simulation of reality, I just have to change the rule, or if the rule is an integral part of the game engine, I let go the game in a whole. Example:
The Game of Hammering the War Fantasy: You charge, so you strike first. You charge against spears and you strike first. Very unrealistic, even for a fantasy game. I let it go.
So if you have a game where a fighter is as easy to shoot as a blue whale and the other is as difficult to shoot as a fly...
A good system is simple without being simplistic. Where did I hear this?
How would I diferenciate classes? In dexterity. I would make it simple:
Thrust per turn at different speeds, half round up to make a slip, double to make a loop:
Fighters - Light Medium Heavy Assault Corvette
Speed
1-3----------1--------1-------2--------2---------3
4-6----------1--------2-------2--------3---------3
7-9----------2--------2-------3--------3---------4
10-12-------2--------3-------3--------4---------4
13-15-------3--------3-------4--------4---------5
16-18-------3--------4-------4--------5---------5
19-21-------4--------4-------5--------5---------6
22-24-------4--------5-------5--------6---------6
25-27-------5--------5-------6--------6---------7
28-30-------5--------6-------6--------7---------7
Thust wold be used to turn, make side slips and loops and to speed up and speed down. If a ship didn't speed up or down it would keep the same speed. The amount of thrust a ships gets is decided by the type of engine and the mass of the ship.
How easy or hard is it to hit a ship? I don't know, it depends on the system you want to use. I'd use a D10 system.
6+ to hit modified by:
Aspect of target ships (tailing, aproaching, diagonal)
ECM suit (weak(+1), medium(+2), strong(+3))
Speed (zero(-3), 1-5(-2), 6-10(-1), 11-15(+1), 16-20(+2), 21+ (+3)
Distance (point blank (-2), short (-1), Medium (0), Long (+1), very Long (+2)
Order of movement determined by a die roll (d12) at thet start of a
turn, then add in the pilot skill mod:Amateur -3 Green -2 Rookie -1
Veteran +1 Ace +2 Crack +3
I like these.
Damage: Fast and furious. If you can hit - you can damage. If you are able to put your fighter in a good position and you hit, it's very frustrating and "not funny" not to be able to deliver damage. Even if it is a little amount of it.
And I like the system degrating style of damage, salted with the occasional catastrophic damage.
Once again, just ideas.
Been dinking around a little with the space fighter idea.
Although my approach has changed to make it more of a variation of Spitting Fire.
* D6 based
* Maneuver markers, which would be speed oriented instead of direction oriented.
* Maneuver markers are placed per squadron.
* Sequential activation
* Movement sytem similar to SF, except that the turning radius is defined by the speed band you're in, and not by the craft's performance rating. Sorta...
* Damage system very similar to SF
* At half damage, performance degrades.
Still pondering movment point cost for tight turns, half loops, Immelmans, and Split-Ss.
mj12games.com/forum → Game Design → Space fighters
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.