Cold War Comments Thread

[Shinanygnz]

Been enjoying this Kurt, thank you 

Before the whole 3DG vs Marvin schism largely killed my interest along with further development of SA, I was using some ideas from 4th in my 3rd edition Haggi campaign, along with some other optional rules.  For example, the Linked Beams option from Communique, extra missile range for bases/AF/PDC (+3/+5/+7), changes to WP capacities, so you could get more ships through based off HS rather than just one per impulse, primaries 3HS but can only penetrate TL*5 shields and armour, and so on

Stephen

[Kurt (OP)]

Been enjoying this Kurt, thank you 

Before the whole 3DG vs Marvin schism largely killed my interest along with further development of SA, I was using some ideas from 4th in my 3rd edition Haggi campaign, along with some other optional rules.  For example, the Linked Beams option from Communique, extra missile range for bases/AF/PDC (+3/+5/+7), changes to WP capacities, so you could get more ships through based off HS rather than just one per impulse, primaries 3HS but can only penetrate TL*5 shields and armour, and so on

Stephen

Thanks, I appreciate it. 

The Marvin/Steve-3GC schism was a defining event in many ways.  It's also ancient news at this point.  I wonder how many of us are still around from the old Starfire mailing list? 

I used a bunch of those rules in the Phoenix Campaign, in particular the warp transit capacity changes.  I liked that a lot, and I'll probably use it in this campaign as well.  So far I haven't had to decide, as there haven't really been any major opposed transits.  The part I liked best was that it removed the major restriction on larger hulls imposed by the warp capacity rules.  I like  big ships, and didn't like there being a lot of warp points they couldn't go through. 

[Paul M]

*sighs* well Starslayer and I are, hell I only know him because of the starfire mailing list.

It was a defining event alright.  I wasn't directly involved.  It was painful to watch from the sidelines.   I tried to get the locals in München interested in 4th edition but no dice without a starfire assistant replacement.  It is sorta the gold standard for this kinda game in my mind.  I'm good at EXCEL and I tried with that but very quickly ran into trouble at turn 20 or so of a 4thE solo game.

I have to admit I find the "Ai exist therefore the L is useless" an interesting argument given the F faces the same level of Ai plus the shields a ship may be carrying, it just does more damage.  I'm curious to see what the sovietski's do when the Wa rears its ugly head.  That is a seriously overpowered system once AM shows up.  The shanirian's kept the L is service for warp point defense purposes...since stripping XOs was a bonus.  I sorta think that the "SM" is part of the problem the W would not be so much overpowered if you had to decide how many "sprint" and how many "regular" missiles will I carry...that you can use one missile for both tasks removes a bit of strategic choice and contributes to making it overpowering.  But in many ways I think this may be something that can be laid on David Webers shoulders, weapon systems he liked got special treatment (HETs are the only capital beam weapon that both get smaller but also do more damage and are longer ranged with each generation)...if not David Weber then someone decided certain weapons are the "meta" and all other ones got the other end of the stick.

[Warer]

Would anyone happen to still possess the files for the Phoenix campaign? I tried but all the links I found were dead.
I also note that I find this discussion of ancient history rather interesting.

[misanthropope]

i'm another antique starfire player. i remember kurt and starslayer from the list.  i'd played some 1st and 2nd ed starfire, kind of the beer to the whisky of SFB (as it was designed to be).  sporadically played 3rd, but when 4th came down i wound up playing quite a lot of both, for the few years til the community de-materialized.  i thought 4e was pretty good, and i was especially happy that it was _different_.  given how hard the starfire pretentious acronym thingie subsequently pushed the game in the direction of utter bloat idk how 4th turned out so playable.

this campaign definitely has me more jonesing for starfire than aurora, once rl/bs has been brought to heel.  much higher violence-per-click, yes please.

[Shinanygnz]

The lack of an SA equivalent for 4th onward was the real killer for me.  There was quite a lot of good stuff in there, and whilst I wasn't fond of the rather bland, uniformity of it compared to 3RdR and 3DG, I'd have given it a go if there was.  Hence the retrofitting of some of it into my SA based game
Let's just not mention original Alkelda Dawn   though with some massaging J/Jc can be made a sensible system
And in a 'made me look' moment, it's now 6th edition, aka Solar Starfire

[Kurt (OP)]

*sighs* well Starslayer and I are, hell I only know him because of the starfire mailing list.

It was a defining event alright.  I wasn't directly involved.  It was painful to watch from the sidelines.   I tried to get the locals in München interested in 4th edition but no dice without a starfire assistant replacement.  It is sorta the gold standard for this kinda game in my mind.  I'm good at EXCEL and I tried with that but very quickly ran into trouble at turn 20 or so of a 4thE solo game.

Yeah, Marvin has an excel spreadsheet for tracking everything in 4th that he, or someone, put a lot of work into, but I could never get it two work to my satisfaction.  Which probably says more about my issues with excel than anything else.  I considered doing a 4th/Solar campaign when I decided to get back into writing campaigns, but without SA I'd have to put a lot of work into either building an excel spreadsheet myself, or figuring out someone else's.  SA just makes it so much easier. 

I have to admit I find the "Ai exist therefore the L is useless" an interesting argument given the F faces the same level of Ai plus the shields a ship may be carrying, it just does more damage.  I'm curious to see what the sovietski's do when the Wa rears its ugly head.  That is a seriously overpowered system once AM shows up.  The shanirian's kept the L is service for warp point defense purposes...since stripping XOs was a bonus.  I sorta think that the "SM" is part of the problem the W would not be so much overpowered if you had to decide how many "sprint" and how many "regular" missiles will I carry...that you can use one missile for both tasks removes a bit of strategic choice and contributes to making it overpowering.  But in many ways I think this may be something that can be laid on David Webers shoulders, weapon systems he liked got special treatment (HETs are the only capital beam weapon that both get smaller but also do more damage and are longer ranged with each generation)...if not David Weber then someone decided certain weapons are the "meta" and all other ones got the other end of the stick.

Well, that right there was one of Marvin's driving forces for wanting to do a 4th edition, that and the problems built into the strategic economic system.  He wanted to balance everything to remove chance as much as possible.  He hoped that by removing the "only one right path" issue from strategic (and sometimes tactical) starfire, it would become a better and more attractive game.  He was exactly right about the balance issues, but in creating 4th edition, and the editions after that, he removed the 'flavor' that so many people liked. 

As for the Ai/L issue, the Soviets feared falling behind the Coalition in deployed tech, even though generally they've been ahead in terms of research.  They only reluctantly gave up lasers, and when they get to HT 6 they are going to leap on the DeC/Lx combo, which also kind of fits in with their attitude about smaller ships being expendable.  The Coalition would never go for a weapons system that might blow up their own ship, not unless things were really desperate. 

As for the influence of Weber, I think that's more down to David Weber wanting to tell a story, and being absolutely willing to bend the game system to tell it.  If he wants to introduce a new threat species with an exciting new weapons system, he's not going to let a little thing like game balance become an issue. 

Kurt

[Kurt (OP)]

Would anyone happen to still possess the files for the Phoenix campaign? I tried but all the links I found were dead.
I also note that I find this discussion of ancient history rather interesting.

I could probably dig it up if I took a bit of time.  It might still be up on the Starfire website message board, if you want to go look. 

The old Starfire Mailing List was kind of a golden age for interest in starfire, IMHO, before the community split and all of the resulting bad feelings.  No one talked about the schism for a long time, mostly, I think, for fear of reigniting the old wars that raged around the schism. 

Kurt

[Paul M]

On Weber and "bending the game system" have you ever played the Stars at War Scenarios?  I never found a single description of how the battle turned out that matched the way it played out in the game, though I didn't play all of them so some might...in my view by fluke of luck.   The 3 starting ISW3 ones are just hilariously different in the Stars at War book compared to how they turn out in the game system.   Or as caused considerable shock in a game "When Enemies Join Hands..." when I had to point out it is putting F2 or F3 up against F0...  I just had the Rigillians be drive field down well away from the WP and launched a long range fighter strike...I made the mistake of arming it for anti-fighter work since I was thinking to take out their fighters and then deal with the ships...   That turned out to be not required when you actually see how much more movement an advanced fighter has, so I just went on to kill the carriers...needless to say we stopped that game.   ISW4 just plain doesn't work that way...  Command Datagroups of BC would have no chance against 3rdR SDs...for that battle result the bugs need to mount Z and D, not Z/Zi and Dx.  Even worse is the designs of the CLs...they could not keep up to the SDs without risking engine burnout...they need to have speed 6 just to match strategic speeds.  I enjoy the books (and consider Stars at War more in that light) but it is clear they ignore the game system.  David Webers rule writing it also wonderful but it lacks the clarity of Avalon Hill leading to serious questions on how things are supposed to work, presser beams being one of the worst offenders.  Still Imperial Starfire is by far one of the most readable sets of game rules I've ever seen.  Heck it is FUN to read.

4thE had several good things but it was bland.  There was no real difference between the beam weapons, and I found it "roll many dice and do nothing" in terms of combat.  The attempt to balance things killed the whole "I have the new wünderwaffen!" feeling.  This is true of HoI IV as well...in a wargame you have to accept that imbalance exists...it just alternates...as either the defense or the offense always should be ahead.  Plus my feeling on the economics was that it didn't solve the problem it just pushed it back, it would take longer than a game Marvin liked for the economic snowball to rear its head but it was still there.  The Rich get Richer, Faster and Faster is the result of an over simplified economic model you can't solve it by tweeking the model parameters you need a new model.

Starslayer is a fan of the Dx/Dec system.  Be advised that SA doesn't properly use the warheads in the magazine though.  What I am not a fan of is the next generation of it, that basically gives you all the good stuff and removes the risk of using it.

The problem with EXCEL is that it isn't a database, and for this you need a database.  If you understood the database stuff well enough it might be possible to write linked EXCEL spreadsheets using EXCELs database functions to track all the data you need to track but that requires skills I don't have.  And having I think it was 4 spreadsheets PER RACE was just not going to work properly.  It is book keeping hell.  Starslayer is adamant: "Does it have the equivalent of SA? If not we won't try it!"   I've tried to get him to try a couple of other systems and get that response each time  

[Kurt (OP)]

On Weber and "bending the game system" have you ever played the Stars at War Scenarios?  I never found a single description of how the battle turned out that matched the way it played out in the game, though I didn't play all of them so some might...in my view by fluke of luck.   The 3 starting ISW3 ones are just hilariously different in the Stars at War book compared to how they turn out in the game system.   Or as caused considerable shock in a game "When Enemies Join Hands..." when I had to point out it is putting F2 or F3 up against F0...  I just had the Rigillians be drive field down well away from the WP and launched a long range fighter strike...I made the mistake of arming it for anti-fighter work since I was thinking to take out their fighters and then deal with the ships...   That turned out to be not required when you actually see how much more movement an advanced fighter has, so I just went on to kill the carriers...needless to say we stopped that game.   ISW4 just plain doesn't work that way...  Command Datagroups of BC would have no chance against 3rdR SDs...for that battle result the bugs need to mount Z and D, not Z/Zi and Dx.  Even worse is the designs of the CLs...they could not keep up to the SDs without risking engine burnout...they need to have speed 6 just to match strategic speeds.  I enjoy the books (and consider Stars at War more in that light) but it is clear they ignore the game system.  David Webers rule writing it also wonderful but it lacks the clarity of Avalon Hill leading to serious questions on how things are supposed to work, presser beams being one of the worst offenders.  Still Imperial Starfire is by far one of the most readable sets of game rules I've ever seen.  Heck it is FUN to read.

Yeah, it was unbalanced as hell, but Weber's background and writing made me want to play the game.  Even if none of the scenarios worked the way they were supposed to. 

4thE had several good things but it was bland.  There was no real difference between the beam weapons, and I found it "roll many dice and do nothing" in terms of combat.  The attempt to balance things killed the whole "I have the new wünderwaffen!" feeling.  This is true of HoI IV as well...in a wargame you have to accept that imbalance exists...it just alternates...as either the defense or the offense always should be ahead.  Plus my feeling on the economics was that it didn't solve the problem it just pushed it back, it would take longer than a game Marvin liked for the economic snowball to rear its head but it was still there.  The Rich get Richer, Faster and Faster is the result of an over simplified economic model you can't solve it by tweeking the model parameters you need a new model.

Marvin and I had several conversations on this exact subject.  Marvin never really understood the attraction of the role-playing aspect of the game.  Instead, for him it was a contest, and it was about winning, or at least having fun losing, and if it depended too much on random luck, then it wasn't fun when you won or lost.  He had a good point, if there is only one winning strategy, then what's the point.  The problem in my mind is exactly what you identified above, in trying to balance the game he took all of the flavor out of it.  In my opinion.  I could never really get excited about the tech system the way I can in 3rdR, and I still miss having asteroid belts give bonuses to ship construction, even though that was totally unbalancing. 

Starslayer is a fan of the Dx/Dec system.  Be advised that SA doesn't properly use the warheads in the magazine though.  What I am not a fan of is the next generation of it, that basically gives you all the good stuff and removes the risk of using it.

Yes, I vaguely remember there were some issues with some of the ammunition types in SA.  I'll find a way to deal with it, I guess.  That's tech progression for you, however, your point that it doesn't work that way for all tech systems is well taken. 

The problem with EXCEL is that it isn't a database, and for this you need a database.  If you understood the database stuff well enough it might be possible to write linked EXCEL spreadsheets using EXCELs database functions to track all the data you need to track but that requires skills I don't have.  And having I think it was 4 spreadsheets PER RACE was just not going to work properly.  It is book keeping hell.  Starslayer is adamant: "Does it have the equivalent of SA? If not we won't try it!"   I've tried to get him to try a couple of other systems and get that response each time

I was willing to give it a try, but it always ended up looking like a lot more work than SA, which is, of course, the problem and is at the heart of much of the acrimony and troubles that exploded the old mailing list. 

Kurt

[Warer]

Would anyone happen to still possess the files for the Phoenix campaign? I tried but all the links I found were dead.
I also note that I find this discussion of ancient history rather interesting.

I could probably dig it up if I took a bit of time.  It might still be up on the Starfire website message board, if you want to go look. 

The old Starfire Mailing List was kind of a golden age for interest in starfire, IMHO, before the community split and all of the resulting bad feelings.  No one talked about the schism for a long time, mostly, I think, for fear of reigniting the old wars that raged around the schism. 

Kurt

Found it on Starfire Design https://www.starfiredesign.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=51&start=250

Thanks for giving me the idea to just google it, for some reason it didn't occur to me other sites about Starfire exist. When did that schism even occur? For reference I turned eighteen less than half a month ago.

[Paul M]

Yeah survey luck pretty much determines how a short-ish campaign will go.  And it is there and nothing you can do about it...I mean it is true in say Stellaris or MOO or any of these sorts of games.  And since money now is better than more money later I don't think you can get away from it.

Yeah, SA brought back life to Starfire, in my view at least.  I also still think if other people had not got involved Marvin and Steve could have sorted the issues out.  But there was too much partisan influence...or at least that is certainly the way it looked to an outsider (me).  But SA is pretty much "gold standard" for campaign game support.  And amazingly Steve was willing to put stuff in it that he didn't use which made it wonderful for the rest of us.  One thing that SA allowed was long detailed campaigns, and those are the things that generate interest and attract new players or even drag older ones back.  4thE isn't bad, I like it, I like a lot of the changes and ideas in it, especially the tech system but it is so damned balanced it has no heartbeat to it.  Generic missile weapon type 1 and generic beam weapon type 3 and small craft do-dad type A aren't the same as SBM, E-beams, and Gunboats compared to CM, HETs and fighters.  I never get the feeling looking at the changes they made that you suddenly go "ooooh I just got (tech system) wow that is going to require me to have a think about how my ships are used/built!"

What I really have to do is find the motivation to invest a bunch of time into Vassel to make a good set of counters and maps for Starfire.  I know what I want in my head I just have to get it out from there.

The Schism was a while back...you were knee high to a duck sorta thing must be 6+ years now.

[Shinanygnz]

Yeah, SA brought back life to Starfire, in my view at least.  I also still think if other people had not got involved Marvin and Steve could have sorted the issues out.  But there was too much partisan influence...or at least that is certainly the way it looked to an outsider (me).  But SA is pretty much "gold standard" for campaign game support.  And amazingly Steve was willing to put stuff in it that he didn't use which made it wonderful for the rest of us.  One thing that SA allowed was long detailed campaigns, and those are the things that generate interest and attract new players or even drag older ones back.  4thE isn't bad, I like it, I like a lot of the changes and ideas in it, especially the tech system but it is so damned balanced it has no heartbeat to it.  Generic missile weapon type 1 and generic beam weapon type 3 and small craft do-dad type A aren't the same as SBM, E-beams, and Gunboats compared to CM, HETs and fighters.  I never get the feeling looking at the changes they made that you suddenly go "ooooh I just got (tech system) wow that is going to require me to have a think about how my ships are used/built!"

The Schism was a while back...you were knee high to a duck sorta thing must be 6+ years now.

We all know who you mean, especially those of us who were in 3DG.  But end of discussion for me there.
Pretty much sums up my opinion on SA and 4th too.

I still have lots of archived messages from the mailing list, good times

More like 10 years ago from the dates on my files.  Feeling old yet?  I am 

Stephen

[Kurt (OP)]

Yeah, SA brought back life to Starfire, in my view at least.  I also still think if other people had not got involved Marvin and Steve could have sorted the issues out.  But there was too much partisan influence...or at least that is certainly the way it looked to an outsider (me).  But SA is pretty much "gold standard" for campaign game support.  And amazingly Steve was willing to put stuff in it that he didn't use which made it wonderful for the rest of us.  One thing that SA allowed was long detailed campaigns, and those are the things that generate interest and attract new players or even drag older ones back.  4thE isn't bad, I like it, I like a lot of the changes and ideas in it, especially the tech system but it is so damned balanced it has no heartbeat to it.  Generic missile weapon type 1 and generic beam weapon type 3 and small craft do-dad type A aren't the same as SBM, E-beams, and Gunboats compared to CM, HETs and fighters.  I never get the feeling looking at the changes they made that you suddenly go "ooooh I just got (tech system) wow that is going to require me to have a think about how my ships are used/built!"

The Schism was a while back...you were knee high to a duck sorta thing must be 6+ years now.

We all know who you mean, especially those of us who were in 3DG.  But end of discussion for me there.
Pretty much sums up my opinion on SA and 4th too.

I still have lots of archived messages from the mailing list, good times

More like 10 years ago from the dates on my files.  Feeling old yet?  I am 

Stephen

Longer even than that, I think.  Oh, man, I just looked at some of my old emails.  The final split was early 2005, so fifteen years ago.  Ouch. 

So for you, Warer, you were a toddler at the time.  Ugh, now I do feel old. 

Kurt

[Warer]

Yeah, SA brought back life to Starfire, in my view at least.  I also still think if other people had not got involved Marvin and Steve could have sorted the issues out.  But there was too much partisan influence...or at least that is certainly the way it looked to an outsider (me).  But SA is pretty much "gold standard" for campaign game support.  And amazingly Steve was willing to put stuff in it that he didn't use which made it wonderful for the rest of us.  One thing that SA allowed was long detailed campaigns, and those are the things that generate interest and attract new players or even drag older ones back.  4thE isn't bad, I like it, I like a lot of the changes and ideas in it, especially the tech system but it is so damned balanced it has no heartbeat to it.  Generic missile weapon type 1 and generic beam weapon type 3 and small craft do-dad type A aren't the same as SBM, E-beams, and Gunboats compared to CM, HETs and fighters.  I never get the feeling looking at the changes they made that you suddenly go "ooooh I just got (tech system) wow that is going to require me to have a think about how my ships are used/built!"

The Schism was a while back...you were knee high to a duck sorta thing must be 6+ years now.

We all know who you mean, especially those of us who were in 3DG.  But end of discussion for me there.
Pretty much sums up my opinion on SA and 4th too.

I still have lots of archived messages from the mailing list, good times

More like 10 years ago from the dates on my files.  Feeling old yet?  I am 

Stephen

Longer even than that, I think.  Oh, man, I just looked at some of my old emails.  The final split was early 2005, so fifteen years ago.  Ouch. 

So for you, Warer, you were a toddler at the time.  Ugh, now I do feel old. 

Kurt

I can`t even remember where my family was living at that time so i feel young, thanks for that  . Also reading the Terran Campaign and have reached the Battle of Khalia, all i have to say is that you make the best aliens. https://www.starfiredesign.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=586

“Clan Lord, the prey have stopped dead in space, and are attempting communications. Their fleet consists of 6 strength 15 vessels, with 6 strength 3 escorting vessels.” The sensor officer hesitated as he studied his instruments, then straightened and said with the utmost disdain, “Sir, they have.... Shields!”

Thruckun bared his fangs in a grimace. “Truly, they are prey to cower behind...defenses. Communications, Fleet orders. All ships are to accelerate to maximum speed and attack. Battleships will remain at long range and engage with missiles, all other ships will close and attack. For the honor of Torkal. FOR THE UNIVERSE!”

EDIT Added back in the proper line so that the whole post wasn't a quote.