Author Topic: Some new systems  (Read 584 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rane

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Some new systems
« on: August 21, 2014, 09:07:08 PM »
After a long hiatus (I pretty much lost interest when the 3DG blew apart) I have returned to playing 3rdR and am playing with SA. Maybe I'll get into Aurora, maybe not. 

I've been looking at adding a few systems and rules; any feedback welcome.

TL1

Bridge (B): Zero space system (like Z), may be placed anywhere.  Ships without a (B) or (A) suffer a -1 to all fire.
{Not having a Bridge or Aux system has always bothered me; chalk it up to SFB days}

Auxiliary Bridge (A): 1 Space system.  Provides a backup for the (B).   

TL3:

Improved CiC, (iCiC): 2 spaces; in all other ways identical to CiC.
{Never understood why CiC should take up as much space as 4 Q and I trust electronics and computers to keep shrinking}

Improved Laser, Li : Same as a L, except 45 cost and can be used as a Db system or to fire 2 with a -1 to damage (reduces range in this mode to 4; can fire at Fighters with a -1).  Requires a Lp system per four Li to be used in point defense mode.  In Db mode it operates similar to a calliope in Hammers Slammers, pumping out many short, lower power shots covering the area the missile is expected to cross. 

Laser PD Control, Lp : 2 space system, can provide fire support for up to 4 Li operating as Db systems. 
{Never understood why a ship armed with lasers can't shoot missiles}

TL4:

Auxiliary Datalink, Za: Identical to a Z except higher cost, 1 space, any location.  However, these additional rules apply.  When a Z system goes down, the Za cannot come up for 1-2 turns later (roll D10: 1-5 1 turn, 6-10 2) and roll D10 for each weapon; on a 1-3 the control linkages are burnt out and the weapon cannot be integrated into the datanet.  Za cannot be active at the same time as Z' still max of 3 ships in the net.

Anyway that's it for now.  I'm sure some big brain will see issues I haven't but these kinda make sense to me and are playing well so far. 

If anyone is playing a SA game or wants to and won't wimp out after 30 turns, hit me up.

-Roger Hanna
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1224
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: Some new systems
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2014, 07:28:47 AM »
Some comments on the systems:

Bridge:  this is covered by a crew grade reduction when you lose your Lh or last Qs.  As formulated it adds nothing but a free HTK and cost to all ships.  (A) is rather pointless as no one would ever not put the bridge behind the last LhQ, or Qs.  And after that is rather more often then not only a few HTK of either engines or a single weapon.  So the effect of loosing the bridge is nothing critical.  I'm not opposed to the existance of a bridge...somewhere is a post where I suggest them but only if you change how the current ship design process works (in particular for electronics).

Improved CIC:  There is a HT12 system that is pretty much identical to this CIC2 (1 HS rather than 2).  Personally I believe that it is balance that any of the electronics takes space.  Given the size of Starfire ships (they are not small) things like ECM, ECCM, Mx, etc should be 0 space systems that add to the cost.  CIC at 4 HS is for game balance: +1 initiative is a big advantage as it means you most often have initative and that can make a huge difference in tactical combat.  4thE has I believe CICx which get smaller or give bigger bonuses or something.  But given the existance of the CIC2 at TL12, I would suggest:
TL1 CIC (4 HS), TL5 CIC2 (3 HS), TL9 CIC3 (2 HS) and TL12 CIC4 (1 HS) instead.

Li I don't understand why you want to do this.  The D-series is laser turrets on the hull with a small counter missile launch system.  L can fire on fighters anyway.  The anti-shipping beam weapons can't fire on missiles becuase they aren't deisgned to do that, although they are allowed to intercept mine attacks for some reason or another.  Why should you be able to fire the weapon twice?   A -1 to damage or shorter range doesn't matter in a WP assault or defence where the range is low anyway...though I'm not sure of the point even there.  L: does 0:3, 1:3, 2:2, 3:2, 4:2; Li: would do 0:2, 1:2, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 (twice) so at 0 and 1 range you would do one more damage and at 2-4 you would do the same damge with twice the rolling.  Plus D is superiour to Db so why would you even want to use L for point defence rather than just carrying D on your ships?  It is useless for small ships as you then need 6 HS which are better devoted to L plus D rather than Li plus Lp.

As some sort of oddball NPR tech system thing for a SM to surprise a low tech Player with it isn't all that bad a system but I can't otherwise see much point in it.

Za: absolutely not.  At HT11 the command datalink system Z2 exists.  It takes 3 HS and by itself allows 3 ships to form a regular datalink.  No system that does that should require less than 3 HS.  The Zi at HT8 and 1 HS is a bad idea, and while I understand why players may wish it, it is far far far too good.  Zi has a huge effect on fighter attacks as ships with it can't be knocked out of datalink until they are destroyed which makes fighter missile attacks ineffective unless you can fire into the datagroups blindspot.  Consider also that at TL7 the Dz is available and you get back in 50% of the time in one turn the datalink coverage.  It also means more rolling, more paperwork and so on.  Also why bother using the Z when the Za is much better (not being so easily destroyed)?

I'm sorry to be more negative then positive here on your ideas.  One thing that I find differeniates say SFB or Attack Vector: Tactical from Starfire is that Starfire is about fleet actions.  Neither of the other two games can handle those effectively, but Starfire gives up a lot of ship details to allow you to fight 30 ships fairly easily.  Rules for Starfire, in my mind, need to focus on enabling combat between fleets rather than things that matter only to a single ship meeting engagement.  That is boring in Starfire, but exciting in SFB or AV:T.   Most of your suggestions look to be more focused on single ship engagements.  I don't want to be tracking which weapons can and can not be used in datalink or if the datalink comes back this turn or next.  In general combat with the empire state formation you blow one ship to smitherenes before engaging the next anyway so your rules on (A) or Za would be wasted.  Neither Starslayer nor myself use that combat style but we are weird that way...most people do.

Starslayer and I are playing a SA game...we are on turn 213.
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1043
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Some new systems
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2014, 01:24:33 PM »
Even if I still haven´t had a lot of practice in 3rdR, I have to agree with Paul on the Za.

The first thing that crossed my mind when I read the description was: Why would I _ever_ activate the regular Z, when I will lose 1 or 2 turns of datalink the moment the Z goes down, when i can also fight the entire battle with the Za?
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline Paul M

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1224
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Re: Some new systems
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2014, 02:14:08 AM »
Even if I still haven´t had a lot of practice in 3rdR, I have to agree with Paul on the Za.

The first thing that crossed my mind when I read the description was: Why would I _ever_ activate the regular Z, when I will lose 1 or 2 turns of datalink the moment the Z goes down, when i can also fight the entire battle with the Za?

While I didn't say so explicitely the same thought went through my head.  First two rounds of any combat...deactivate Z and re-activate Za...I can't imagine anyone not doing that.  Or any rule stating it was not possible not being house ruled out of existance.  Since combat starts at 60 hexs at TL4 (excluding WP assaults where the attacker most certainly would do this before starting the attack) you have lots of time to do it while on approach.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51