Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

Yeah. The triangles are task force markers, the diamonds are outposts, and the stars are starbases.
As you can see, it appears things are about to heat up. In true kzinti fashion, they are probably pressing forward before they are ready!  wink
I think that the next optional rule I post up will be for "hidden" task forces that need to be scouted or engaged before their components are revealed. Such a thing could be handled in vassal with a delayed note, but might be subject to annoyance if not abuse otherwise.
Cheers,
Erik

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

I really like these ideas and I'll be watching this thread as time goes on.

The VP from the opponent is an odd rule, bu if you think that it works after your playtest, I'm okay with it.  A friend and me played a game using the simple campaign system rules and by the middle part, we were so beat up that the games boiled down to who could roll the better RP amounts.

I had some tactical ideas for the game that would still qualify for "Somewhat simple".

The first is having to pay for the number of task forces one has.  Since it allows for more tactical options, I thought that you subtract the number of task forces from the die roll from your colonies' production.  So fo example, if an empire has 2 colonies and 4 task forces, it would roll 2d6-4.  I'm debating if this should be to a minimum of 0, allow this to go negative or state the the minimum result is alwasy equal to the number of dice rolled (so in the above example, the minimum that the modified die roll can be is 2).

To combat that, my second thought would be create a initiative modifier (IM) for each task force.  The  modifier is the equal to the MP of the slowest ship in the task force and a penalty based of the number of ships).  During the initiative phase, each player rolls a d6 for every task force currently in serivce and then assigns a single die to each. Then you add the IM to the die result to give that task forces rate (adding the initative modifer).  Initiative order is from lowest to highest (break ties first by higher MP, then lower size modifier and finally dice off).

Ship number modifiers
1 Ship: -1 Modifier
2 to 3 ships: -2 Mod.
4 to 6 ships: -3 Mod.
7 to 10 ships: -4 Mod.
11 to 15 ships: -5 Mod.
16 to 21 ships: -6 Mod.
22 to 28 ships: -7 Mod.
29+ ships: -8 Mod.

So let say player A has three task forces. 
TF1: Has 5 ships in it with a slowest ship having 6 MPs.
TF2: Has 18 ships in it with the slowest ship having 2 MPs.
TF3: Has 3 ships in it with the slowest ship having 9 MP.

TF1 has an IM of 6 - 3 or a 3
TF2 has an IM of 2 - 6 or a -4
TF 3 has an IM of 9 - 2 or a 7

Each initiative phase, player A rolls 3d6 and assigns them to the three task forces.  Depending on the die rolls and  which die gets picked for each task force will give players more options on how they should create fleets (in thoery)

Thoughts?
-Bren

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

jygro wrote:

I really like these ideas and I'll be watching this thread as time goes on.

The VP from the opponent is an odd rule, bu if you think that it works after your playtest, I'm okay with it.  A friend and me played a game using the simple campaign system rules and by the middle part, we were so beat up that the games boiled down to who could roll the better RP amounts.

I had some tactical ideas for the game that would still qualify for "Somewhat simple".

The first is having to pay for the number of task forces one has.  Since it allows for more tactical options, I thought that you subtract the number of task forces from the die roll from your colonies' production.  So fo example, if an empire has 2 colonies and 4 task forces, it would roll 2d6-4.  I'm debating if this should be to a minimum of 0, allow this to go negative or state the the minimum result is alwasy equal to the number of dice rolled (so in the above example, the minimum that the modified die roll can be is 2).

To combat that, my second thought would be create a initiative modifier (IM) for each task force.  The  modifier is the equal to the MP of the slowest ship in the task force and a penalty based of the number of ships).  During the initiative phase, each player rolls a d6 for every task force currently in serivce and then assigns a single die to each. Then you add the IM to the die result to give that task forces rate (adding the initative modifer).  Initiative order is from lowest to highest (break ties first by higher MP, then lower size modifier and finally dice off).

Ship number modifiers
1 Ship: -1 Modifier
2 to 3 ships: -2 Mod.
4 to 6 ships: -3 Mod.
7 to 10 ships: -4 Mod.
11 to 15 ships: -5 Mod.
16 to 21 ships: -6 Mod.
22 to 28 ships: -7 Mod.
29+ ships: -8 Mod.

So let say player A has three task forces. 
TF1: Has 5 ships in it with a slowest ship having 6 MPs.
TF2: Has 18 ships in it with the slowest ship having 2 MPs.
TF3: Has 3 ships in it with the slowest ship having 9 MP.

TF1 has an IM of 6 - 3 or a 3
TF2 has an IM of 2 - 6 or a -4
TF 3 has an IM of 9 - 2 or a 7

Each initiative phase, player A rolls 3d6 and assigns them to the three task forces.  Depending on the die rolls and  which die gets picked for each task force will give players more options on how they should create fleets (in thoery)

Thoughts?
-Bren

I think there is merit to both of these ideas, although the TF cost might be a bit too abstract (a TF with 1 ship will "cost" as much to maintain as a TF with 10 ships?). I think that there is room for optional rules which would go with these ideas. maybe on the initiative thing, instead of rolling a bucket of dice, the two sides roll one die for initiative and "activate" individual TFs in the order of their movement rate? Actually, that would be problematic on a number of points. Never mind...thinking out loud. There are a few things to think about. Thanks for the interest!
Erik

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

Well, the two sides have come into contact after just three campaign turns. The Kzinti, sensing their economic inferiority have launched a spoiling raid against the powerful Gorn main fleet. Attacking within a dust cloud with just a handful of ships they hope to slow the advance of the Gorn Juggernaught.
Here is the strategic situation:[attachment=2]Screen shot 2010-07-10 at 9.51.17 AM.png[/attachment][attachment=1]Screen shot 2010-07-10 at 10.02.55 AM.png[/attachment][attachment=0]Screen shot 2010-07-10 at 10.02.40 AM.png[/attachment]

The Kzinti "scream-and-leap" seems to have struck again!
More as events develop.
Erik

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

Ok, so our campaign test ground to a shuddering halt due to real life. Recently though I have been working through some conversions which brought me back to some ideas for the campaign system. I intend to do another draft/edit of the overall system in the next week or so changing a couple of things and darkening some of the grey areas but I figured I would post up the first draft of these ideas (be kind...it is a rough draft thank you) to see if others thought I was on a useful path. Thanks in advance for the input. Erik

Simple Nodal Map Generation

    To start, the players must decided whether they will used fixed starting locations for Home-worlds or random. If using fixed Home-worlds, they may be placed at the players' discretion, usually on opposing sides of the map, a few hexes in from the edge. The procedure for random placement of home-worlds is as follows: First, determine and mark the center (or a close approximation) of the hex map to be used, and mark the six facing sides with the numbers one through six. Next, roll 1D6 for each Empire in the campaign, re-rolling any duplicate numbers. The result is the “bearing” from the central hex to the Home-world of each Empire corresponding to the matching numbered hex-side. Then each Empire rolls an additional 1D6, and consults the following chart:
Die result      Distance
     1              2 Hexes
    2-3           4 Hexes
    4-5           6 Hexes
     6             10 Hexes
This is the distance from the central hex of the map to the hex containing an Empire's Home-world (placed in the nth hex).

    Once Home-world placement is determined Jump Routes can be placed, if it is to be a “fixed map” campaign. If pre-generating Jump Routes, create only one Route for a single Empire and then go to the next to create a Route. Continue in this fashion one Empire at a time until the available map is suitably filled, or until all Empires are in contact with at least one opponent. It should be more interesting, though more time consuming, for Empires to explore a map by scouting Jump Routes (covered later).
    To create Jump Routes choose a Home-world and roll 1D6; this number is the base number of Jump Routes possible from this system. Next roll 1D6 for the “bearing” of each possible route, numbering the system's hex as you did the map's central hex earlier. If multiples of a single number occur, drop the additional rolls completely.  Now that number of routes is know, the “length” of each route must be determined. This may refer to physical or hyperspace distance, or even time debt for campaigns where such systems are in use. In settings with instantaneous interstellar travel, the “length” of a route can be ignored for game-play, but should still be generated to help fill out the map. To determine the length of a Jump Route, roll 1D6 and consult the following table:
Die Roll         Route Length
    1                   1 Hex
  2-5                  2 Hexes
    6                   3 Hexes
While different campaign settings could use different movement rules, the default is that all ships move 1/2 of their Starmada Engine Rating (rounded DOWN, minimum of 1) in strategic hexes during 1 Strategic Movement Phase.

The same procedure is used in every system beyond the Home-world to create jump routes. If, when rolling for bearings, the number of the facing which leads to a previous system is rolled it is discarded as the prior route has precedence. This can lead to “dead-end” or “cul-de-sac” systems. Similarly, if an exploring/expanding Empire connects a jump route to a system previously explored by another Empire, the route becomes “fixed” along with the route that brought the opposing Empire to the hex in dispute. A route that is generated is not considered "opened" until units move along it to another system, until the route is explored it is just theoretical. Full rules for scouting jump routes are found in the Optional Rules for Auxiliary Services (Science).
NOTE: one of the things I will do in the rules edit is flesh out the mechanics a bit as far as "scouting" goes with options for using both "Science" type scouts and Small/Fast type scouts.


Optional Random System Habitability:

   
     In the basic campaign rules it is possible to place a colony in any controlled hex, and the maximum possible Level for any Colony is five(5). If the players decided to use Random System Habitability, the odds are that most star systems will not be perfect for colonization, and there may even be some totally unable to support a colony at all. When this option is in play each Empire's home-world is automatically considered "Ideal" as it begins the game at Level 5. Whenever a new system hex is entered for the first time roll 1D6 and consult the following chart:
Die Roll         Habitability
      1              Uninhabitable
    2-3             Marginal
    4-5             Acceptable
      6              Ideal
Uninhabitable systems cannot support a Colony of any type for some, or various reasons.
Marginal systems lack many of the essentials to build and sustain a thriving colony, are generally relegated to being small outposts or way stations. Colonies built in Marginal Systems may not exceed Level 2.
Acceptable systems have many more advantages than Marginal ones and will form the backbone of most Empires though they may present some challenges to colonists. Acceptable systems have a maximum Colony Level of 4.
Ideal systems are as the name suggests, perfect for settlement and expansion, reminding colonists of their home-world and providing everything that is needed for settlement.
Optional Habitability Cost Increase: Players may also choose to apply a surcharge to the building and expansion of colonies based on habitability. Using this option, building a colony in a Marginal system costs an additional 25% to the base cost (fully explained in the section on system improvements), colonizing an Acceptable system costs 10% more, with no additional charge for an Ideal system.

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

The system so far is awesome - really like it.  Keep going!

Some time ago Nomad suggested a matrix to generate scenarios rather than the standard scenarios rolled by dice, and I've got a suggestion below I plan to try out (real life allowing, of course).  I also wondered how it would be not to have VPs at all - which might mean beefing up the EPs from colonies, so that territory becomes worth fighting for and the only tactical victory is staying on the map - making it a fine call about when to turn tail and run for hyperspace with your fleet (leave it a bit too long and you might lose everything).  Interested in what you think...

Scenario Matrix

Scenarios do not have points limits or victory conditions – only EPs can be used to build or repair units.  Hyperspace rule in operation, you “win” if only your ships remain on the map at the end.  A large hex map is used for all scenarios.

The tactical phase commences with each side declaring the total number of ships it has, but not the total CR.  The roll for terrain is then made.  At this point the Defender must decide if they wish to decline battle, not later.

Assuming the Defender chooses to fight, the terrain is placed.  Next, each side secretly chooses one of the six formations listed below.  They reveal this to each other at the same time, and the results are cross referenced.  For example, if one side chose “Pincer” and the other chose “Line Abreast” the result would be scenario “D”, Broken Centre.  From this point onwards who is considered the attacker or defender for tactical set up may change.

Only the defender may select the "dug in" formation.

                            1    2    3    4    5    6
1.  Pincer                    I    F    F    D    A    G
2.  Flanking            F    H    F    C    E    G
3.  Surprise Attack    F    F    F    F    F    B
4.  Line abreast            D    C    F    F    F    G
5.  Diamond            A    E    F    F    F    G
6.  Dug In                     G    G    B    G    G    G

(sorry, my skills are inadequate to make the table come out right on the forum  :oops:  - there should be 7 rows and 7 columns, with the scenario letters beneath the numbers to show which cross references with which)

The proportions of ships below are by numbers of ships (regardless of CR), but combat rating could be used instead if preferred.

A – The Trap – as Scenario in Rules, with side executing the “Pincer” becoming the “Attacker”.  Each of the attacker's set-up areas must contain at least 1/3 of their ships

B – Defender Surprised – Attacker sets up as normal, Defender sets up with 2/3 or their ships at their baseline, and 1/3 of their ships within 3 hexes of the central point on the map.

C – Flanked – The side executing the flanking becomes the “Attacker”.  Both sides set up with their baseline being the long side of the map.  The Attacker reserves 1/3 of their ships, which are deployed either after all other ships are deployed, or at the end of turn 1,2 or 3.  The attacker decides whether to deploy at once, or on which subsequent turn, prior to set-up and writes this down, revealing it only at the point at which those ships are deployed.  The deployment area for the reserved ships is either the right or left third of the defender's baseline.

D – Broken Centre – the side executing line abreast becomes the attacker, the side doing the pincer becomes the defender.  Both sides have their baselines along the long sides of the map.  The defender must split their force into 2 distinct forces with at least 1/3 of their ships in the smallest force.  Each force sets up in one of the outer thirds of their baseline, no ships may deploy in the middle third.

E – Quick Strike – the side executing the Diamond becomes the attacker, that attempting Flanking becomes the defender.  Set up is as normal except that the defender is missing 1/3 of its ships by Combat Rating (the flanking force which has failed to arrive).

F –  Fleet Action – standard set up

G – Dug In – this represents the defender taking an entirely defensive posture.  If they are in a system with an outpost or star base, they may choose to have its planet present along with any defensive bases.  In addition the defender, if they have ships with mine factors, may place 2x the mine factors of their ships within their set-up area AND still have mine factors available from their ships.  The Defender sets up in the third of the map closest to their baseline, and entirely completes their set-up first.  The attacker then sets up at their baseline as standard.

H – Failed flanking – both sides set up as standard by minus one third of their ships by Combat Rating.

I – Failed Pincer – Both sides set up along the long side of the map, with half of their ships in the two outer thirds of their base line, and no ships in the centre third.

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

Governorflax wrote:

The system so far is awesome - really like it.  Keep going!

Thanks. I don't think there will be any additions to the system as it stands as it has already grown too large for my taste, though that is mostly do to the additions of the various options.

I also wondered how it would be not to have VPs at all - which might mean beefing up the EPs from colonies, so that territory becomes worth fighting for and the only tactical victory is staying on the map - making it a fine call about when to turn tail and run for hyperspace with your fleet (leave it a bit too long and you might lose everything). Interested in what you think...

I actually removed VPs from the "economic" considerations of a campaign, and as you point out can only end a scenario when the vp criteria are met. Personally, I have no problem playing until the bitter end, and have played a number of enjoyable games like that. Often I have found that doing so leads to the "winner" being much more badly mauled than if the game had ended at the VP point. I left VP victory determination in the game mostly because that is the default for Starmada, and it will generally leave more ships available for both players following the scenario which is useful in terms of the campaign. I can see were having an open ended scenario would lead to more decisions about when to run away from a fight though, so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be played that way. Does anyone else have an opinion?

Thanks for the comments.
Erik

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

Just wanted to note that I had edited a few more things after doing some test runs creating nodal maps. I'm not totally happy with the somewhat dubious wording which I think is a bit confusing, but I am happier with generated results. I did a two Empire map by hand on hex paper and it took about 5 systems generated each for them to come in contact. I don't think I will ever find the "perfect" solution for anything, but I am willing to keep trying  wink
Erik

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

Ok, instead of doing the work I was supposed to be doing I used excel as a die roller and tested the random nodal map idea with some simple graphics. All in all I think the system works, but I was wondering what others thought. I generated 1 route at a time alternating blue and red empires until they came in "contact". As you can see, it didn't take long, and did not require and fudging. This jives with some of the trials I have done with pen and paper, all though I must admit a couple of those have gone several systems longer before contact, but not that many and not too often.
I think the ideal way would be for a 3rd party to generate the map and then let other players "explore" it, and that way it could be tweaked a bit to taste.
Cheers,
Erik

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

Have you gotten the chance to play around with your system some more?

I'm in the process of doing something very similar in scale and scope with my gaming group. We plan on playing fully by PBEM/Vassal/GoogleDocs. Were you using PBEM for turn resolution the entire time?

But before I get into any more rules for our game, I thought it would be nice to try out yours and see how we fare. I definitely like the feel you have going with this system.

Thanks!

Re: Somewhat Simple Campaign System

pickledteak wrote:

Have you gotten the chance to play around with your system some more?

I'm in the process of doing something very similar in scale and scope with my gaming group. We plan on playing fully by PBEM/Vassal/GoogleDocs. Were you using PBEM for turn resolution the entire time?

But before I get into any more rules for our game, I thought it would be nice to try out yours and see how we fare. I definitely like the feel you have going with this system.

Thanks!

Hi, unfortunately the player that was helping me test the system fell off the face of the Earth (or so it seems) before we got too far into a campaign. I did a play around with some of the system generation elements, but other real life stuff has kept me from doing any more play-testing of the system as a whole. What we played out was done totally through Vassal/PBEM and it seemed to work very well, even if the evil die roller hated me  wink  I'd be very interested to have somebody else take it out and kick the tires...when you play something you made you tend to do what you meant for the system to do, if you know what I mean. Having somebody else play it out might find more problem areas and loopholes that I overlooked. Nothing is ever truly "rules-lawyer" proof, but at least if there are no horrible problems I will be happy! Glad your interested, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say about it!
Cheers,
Erik