The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Feedback after implementing Space Combat House Rules
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Feedback after implementing Space Combat House Rules
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 438
Location: Arizona, USA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:23 pm    Post subject: Feedback after implementing Space Combat House Rules Reply with quote

Like many on this forum, I am a game rules tinker and sometimes I wonder if developing the rules is my primary enjoyment and playing might come in a close second.

Last night, I ran a capital ship battle involving a Victory II Star Destroyer (and its TIE fighter complement), a Carrack light cruiser, and an Intersector sloop against a Lucrehulk Battleship with a total of about 200 Vulture droid starfighters.

I was using several house rules:
1) Double ranges for all sensor modes except Focus
2) Modify energy weapon damage based on range: -2D at long range, -1D at medium range, no mods at short range, and +1D at point-blank
3) Decreased Fire Rate for Capital weapons - See CRMcNeill's rules elsewhere in this forum.
4) Requiring missile weapons to "Lock on" with a sensor Focus before firing at a target, otherwise Fire Control is 0D.
5) Difficulty to hit starfighter scale targets from Very Easy to Very Difficult (typically Capital shooting at starfighters)
6) Squadron Rules inspired by Star Warriors and other official and unofficial game mechanics (more on this in an upcoming post).
7) Mandatory Battery Fire / Combined actions for all weapons of the same type in the same fire arc.
8) Using full Shields code in all fire arcs and allowing shields taken down by Shields Blown to be brought back up with a Shields roll the following turn.
9) Expanded damage table with results chosen for 2D6 added

The first part of the game involved developing a battle plan scout the ship without being located and to devise a plan for a micro jump to exit hyperspace very close to the Lucrehulk to catch it unprepared. Here I used my simple house rules to double all sensor mode ranges (except for Focus). This was very easy, quick, and seamless. Without the increased sensor ranges, the scouts would have had to get way too close to the ship that was 'felt' right.

House Rule Feedback: Double ranges for all sensor modes except Focus - Worked Great!

After the scouts located the ship and retreated back, the Victory and Carrack jumped in close. Even jumping in close, using the modified damage rolls, required the ships to rethink their attack plan and required them to maneuver more and get closer. This combined with the reduced fire rate for their big guns, encouraged to players to hold fire until a critical time rather than just shooting every single weapon every single turn.

House Rule Feedback: Damage rolls modified by range and reduced fire rate for turbolasers - Both are fine when used independently, but amazing when used in conjunction.

When the Vulture starfighters swarmed the Imperials, I got a chance to use the modified ‘to hit’ difficulty at point-blank and rules for locking missile weapons as they skimmed the surface of the capital ships and launched their concussion missiles at close range. There were not enough TIE fighters to hold back the Vultures, so they were able to attack the capitals with impunity. I was using a standard Victory II per the RAW, so it had no point defense lasers. The carrack did have laser cannons, but instead of the standard 2D capital scale weapons, I had converted them to 4D starfighter scale damage, very similar to CRMcNeill’s standardized weapon and updated ship stat rules. The Victory was completely unable to do anything about the fighters, but they couldn’t hurt it either. The Carrack had the speed to get enough distance from the vultures for its starfighter scale laser cannons to rip them apart every round.

House Rule Feedback: Very Difficult difficulty to hit starfighter scale targets at point-blank range from Capital scale platforms (regardless of the scale of the weapon being fired) and requirement for sensor Focus to lock on to a target for missile weapons - It did stress the need for fighter screen, especially for slow ships against more threatening starfighters. I have been using the Lock-on rule long enough that I don’t even think about it anymore – it is just part of the game for me now. Both house rules worked beautifully.

There were several squadrons of TIE fighters and Vultures fighting. In the past, I had allowed the owning players to roll for the squadrons using the Combined actions rule, but it took forever and really dragged out the game, because it still required multiple actions and damage rolls. My system allows for a single D12 (admittedly unusual for Star Wars, but the 1-12 range with even distribution is what I needed for it to work) for each squadron’s Attack and Defense rolls, with the opportunity to concentrate on Attack or Defense at the expense of the other. These rolls give the number of hits against each squadron and there is a simple one die roll for each hit to determine if a fighter in the squadron is unaffected, damaged, or destroyed, with two damaged results equaling one destroyed.

House Rule Feedback: Starfighter squadron combat rules – This sped up the fighter combat A LOT and resulted in a really good balance. I had concerns that the squadrons would be wiped out in just a few rounds of combat, but this was not the case - there were several rounds where no fighters were hit on either side. I particularly liked that the TIE fighters with superior pilots fared much better against the low skill vultures. I also ended up using the quick damage rules from the squadron rules for hits from the capital ships to the starfighters later in the game when it was getting a bit late and I was trying to speed things up. I will definitely use the quick damage rolls against starfighters in the future, especially when there are lots of fighters because it picked up the pace. After all, who cares if a single starfighter in a large squadron gets its hyperdrive disabled after a hit?

I had started the game with the requirement for all weapons to fire as batteries using the Combined actions rules, but there were cases where this was tactically not the best option based on the number of weapons and the bonus thresholds. So, I allowed the players to chose if they shot as batteries, individually, or mix and match as they desired. Statistically it seems much better to fire individually because even with the modest die bonus provided by Combined Actions, the odds are better of getting a higher roll with more rolls of fewer dice. This resulted in the game drawing out more, so I am still not sure what to do.

House Rule Feedback: Mandatory Battery Fire / Combined actions for all weapons of the same type in the same fire arc – Combined actions seem less effective than rolling individual sots and damage rolls. The time savings of battery fire are not well translated using the RAW (IMO), so requiring platers to do it was a challenge. Has anyone else encountered this?

The battle among the capital ships lasted many rounds, with a nice ebb and flow with shields being knocked down and varies systems being chipped away a bit at a time, slowly making the ships less effective, as they suffered multiple lightly damaged results.

House Rule Feedback: Expanded Ship Damage Table – With multiple damage results, this made the damage less predictable and more impactful to the affected ship. It also added zero additional time or difficulty to implement, it is was a big win to use these expanded damage table.

The biggest concern was knocking down shields with the Shield house rule. The full Shields code was up on all fire arcs and even if they were knocked down with Shields Blown results, I allowed them to be brought up in a following turn as long as the shields were not specifically damaged with a light or heavy damaged result. There was a nice result where if the shields in a fire arc were reduced or knocked down, there was a sense of urgency to concentrate attacks on that fire arc before the shields were restored.

House Rule Feedback: Full Shields in all fire arcs and restorable after shields blown results – This gives ships with high Shields Codes much more survivability so makes shield much more valuable than in the RAW. However, it can be really difficult to hurt a ship with high Shields. However, in conjunction with the extra damage at point-blank, it made it even more important to get close and coordinate attacks and/ore use good tactics rather than just mindlessly shooting every round. I like the idea, but in practice it makes shield too powerful. I like the idea of recharging shields, but not fully the following round. I am thinking of making a maximum of 1D for the entire ship can be recharged each round, but I am open to suggestions.

Final Thoughts
I will continue to test out the House Rules and report on their effect. As I am running highly tactical Capital ship combats, I am looking for rules that enhance the experience, so it does not become monotonous, but it has to be easy to implement and speed up the action each round, not drag it down. So far, the house rules are working well, but as I stated above, a few need some adjustment still. I am open to feedback.

NOTE: Correction to damage modifiers by range, which previously had two different entries for medium range and incorrectly had short range and +1D and point-blank at +2D.


Last edited by Dr. Bidlo on Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 9:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Feedback after implementing Space Combat House Rules Reply with quote

Dr. Bidlo wrote:
I was using several house rules:
1) Double ranges for all sensor modes except Focus

Something I've been playing around with (but haven't gotten to work yet) is a uniform Range Band system, where Short, Medium, Long, etc, are the same range for everyone, but each weapon/sensor/whatever has different Difficulties at that Range. The general premise is relatively developed, but the conversion is giving me fits.

Quote:
2) Modify energy weapon damage based on range: -2D at long range, -1D at medium range, no mods for medium range, +1D at short range, and +2D at point-blank

This reminds me of the Scatter Rule I cam up with for Battery Dice and Auto-Fire rules. All things considered, your version may end up being easier to apply in-game...

Quote:
4) Requiring missile weapons to "Lock on" with a sensor Focus before firing at a target, otherwise Fire Control is 0D.

I based my missile / torpedo rules on the X-Wing games, where weapons could still hit when fired unguided, but some were better at it than others due to their speed. My Heavy Ordnance stats for externally carried rockets and torpedoes on strike starfighters are intended to be equivalent to the light launchers mounted on capital ships. The heavier missiles and torpedoes would just be the next Scale step up, so +2D to Damage, but -2D in Fire Control, and with superior range, but I have yet to stat them out.

Quote:
5) Difficulty to hit starfighter scale targets from Very Easy to Very Difficult (typically Capital shooting at starfighters)

A thought here: Maybe give Starfighters 1D of Cover for every 1D of Scale difference between the weapon and the target once they reach Point Blank Range. For example, a Starfighter with 4D Scale difference between it and a Nebulon could get to 75% (+4D Cover) once it's at Point Blank, but the Nebulon's laser cannon could still engage normally. Once the Cover value exceeds +4D, the weapons can't effectively target it any more. For example, the heavy turbolasers on my version of the ISD have a 6D Scale difference, so once a starfighter-scale target reaches Point Blank Range, it has the equivalent of 6D of Cover (over the 4D threshold) and the heavy turbolasers can't effectively target it.

Quote:
6) Squadron Rules inspired by Star Warriors and other official and unofficial game mechanics (more on this in an upcoming post).

That threw me for a second; I thought you were talking about my Fighter Squadron rules.

Quote:
7) Mandatory Battery Fire / Combined actions for all weapons of the same type in the same fire arc.

One rule I came up with later in my Battery Dice rules was that you could split Battery Dice between multiple targets by using the same Coordination System to generate a counter-bonus. For instance, if the Starboard Turbolasers on an ISD have 5D of Battery Dice, and the captain wishes to engage three Corellian Corvettes in that arc, he would suffer a -1D+2 penalty (for an effective Battery Dice of 3D+1) when splitting his fire. This could also be used to engage the same target multiple times, such as having half of the turbolasers fire in an attempt to bring down the target's shields (-1D to Battery Dice), with the other half firing a second or two late in order to exploit any shield disruption the first attack may have caused.

Quote:
8) Using full Shields code in all fire arcs and allowing shields taken down by Shields Blown to be brought back up with a Shields roll the following turn.

Did you end up trying the Shields as Cover rules I suggested, or were you still stacking with Hull dice, as per the RAW?

Quote:
I will continue to test out the House Rules and report on their effect. As I am running highly tactical Capital ship combats, I am looking for rules that enhance the experience, so it does not become monotonous, but it has to be easy to implement and speed up the action each round, not drag it down.

My Tactics skill update may interest you, then. Here's what the original has evolved into.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Feedback after implementing Space Combat House Rules Reply with quote

Dr. Bidlo wrote:
...I will continue to test out the House Rules and report on their effect. As I am running highly tactical Capital ship combats, I am looking for rules that enhance the experience, so it does not become monotonous, but it has to be easy to implement and speed up the action each round, not drag it down. So far, the house rules are working well, but as I stated above, a few need some adjustment still. I am open to feedback.

Thanks for compiling your space combat house rules and sharing them here.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 438
Location: Arizona, USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2021 12:28 am    Post subject: Re: Feedback after implementing Space Combat House Rules Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Dr. Bidlo wrote:
I was using several house rules:
1) Double ranges for all sensor modes except Focus

Something I've been playing around with (but haven't gotten to work yet) is a uniform Range Band system, where Short, Medium, Long, etc, are the same range for everyone, but each weapon/sensor/whatever has different Difficulties at that Range. The general premise is relatively developed, but the conversion is giving me fits.


That would be interested to see what you come up with, but that would be a tough nut to crack.

Quote:
Quote:
2) Modify energy weapon damage based on range: -2D at long range, -1D at medium range, no mods for medium range, +1D at short range, and +2D at point-blank

This reminds me of the Scatter Rule I cam up with for Battery Dice and Auto-Fire rules. All things considered, your version may end up being easier to apply in-game...


I read your rules, but it sounded a bit too complex for my preference. However, I know some rules aren't as complex as they first sound, so I will revisit them.

Quote:
Quote:
4) Requiring missile weapons to "Lock on" with a sensor Focus before firing at a target, otherwise Fire Control is 0D.

I based my missile / torpedo rules on the X-Wing games, where weapons could still hit when fired unguided, but some were better at it than others due to their speed. My Heavy Ordnance stats for externally carried rockets and torpedoes on strike starfighters are intended to be equivalent to the light launchers mounted on capital ships. The heavier missiles and torpedoes would just be the next Scale step up, so +2D to Damage, but -2D in Fire Control, and with superior range, but I have yet to stat them out.


I will definitely be working in many of your missile rules in future games, working them in slowly to get the players used to them.

Quote:
Quote:
5) Difficulty to hit starfighter scale targets from Very Easy to Very Difficult (typically Capital shooting at starfighters)

A thought here: Maybe give Starfighters 1D of Cover for every 1D of Scale difference between the weapon and the target once they reach Point Blank Range. For example, a Starfighter with 4D Scale difference between it and a Nebulon could get to 75% (+4D Cover) once it's at Point Blank, but the Nebulon's laser cannon could still engage normally. Once the Cover value exceeds +4D, the weapons can't effectively target it any more. For example, the heavy turbolasers on my version of the ISD have a 6D Scale difference, so once a starfighter-scale target reaches Point Blank Range, it has the equivalent of 6D of Cover (over the 4D threshold) and the heavy turbolasers can't effectively target it.


I would like your suggestion better for 'typical' games, but for the more tactical games I have been playing lately, I need the quicker rules as there are a lot of different starfighters and typically more than one capital ship I am keeping track of.

Quote:
Quote:
6) Squadron Rules inspired by Star Warriors and other official and unofficial game mechanics (more on this in an upcoming post).

That threw me for a second; I thought you were talking about my Fighter Squadron rules.


I will have to look at these rules again, but my rules are different enough that I don't think they mesh with yours very well for a hybrid version. However, the first review of your rules reminded me that I have no provision for combined actions or bonus based on squadron size, so I have adjusted my rules accordingly.

Quote:
Quote:
7) Mandatory Battery Fire / Combined actions for all weapons of the same type in the same fire arc.

One rule I came up with later in my Battery Dice rules was that you could split Battery Dice between multiple targets by using the same Coordination System to generate a counter-bonus. For instance, if the Starboard Turbolasers on an ISD have 5D of Battery Dice, and the captain wishes to engage three Corellian Corvettes in that arc, he would suffer a -1D+2 penalty (for an effective Battery Dice of 3D+1) when splitting his fire. This could also be used to engage the same target multiple times, such as having half of the turbolasers fire in an attempt to bring down the target's shields (-1D to Battery Dice), with the other half firing a second or two late in order to exploit any shield disruption the first attack may have caused.


So, the battery dice bonus is based on the number of identical weapons, but these dice can be split any way you like and the weapons can be split to shoot at any number of targets? So, only one roll would every be made against each target per weapon type, correct?

Quote:
Quote:
8) Using full Shields code in all fire arcs and allowing shields taken down by Shields Blown to be brought back up with a Shields roll the following turn.

Did you end up trying the Shields as Cover rules I suggested, or were you still stacking with Hull dice, as per the RAW?


I was stacking the Shield dice with the hull, but I am not completely happy with the results. I think I will be using your rules for Shields as Cover next time to see how it goes. I am definitely still shopping and your premise is very interesting. Before TPM, I had a very different view of ray shielding, but my perspective is still primarily informed by the original trilogy. I may have some clarifying questions for you on this topic.

Quote:
Quote:
I will continue to test out the House Rules and report on their effect. As I am running highly tactical Capital ship combats, I am looking for rules that enhance the experience, so it does not become monotonous, but it has to be easy to implement and speed up the action each round, not drag it down.

My Tactics skill update may interest you, then. Here's what the original has evolved into.


I forgot to mention it, but I have players roll Tactics to develop a "Battle Plan", which is compared to the opponent's Battle Plan. For every 1-3 points by which the winner exceeds the losers tactics roll, the winning commander gets +1 to Initiative. So, if the roll beats the other 1-3 +1 to Initiative, 4-6, +2 to Initiative, 7-9, +1D to Initiative, and so on to a maximum of +2D. I want to review your rules more though. We both seem to draw inspiration from the Capital Ship rule sin the 1E Rules Companion.


EDIT: Fixed quote tags
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 438
Location: Arizona, USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not quite sure how to respond to individual quotes, apparently... my responses are embedded in the quotes in every case except for the last
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Feedback after implementing Space Combat House Rules Reply with quote

Dr. Bidlo wrote:
I am not quite sure how to respond to individual quotes, apparently... my responses are embedded in the quotes in every case except for the last

It's something of an acquired skill, but it's easy enough to learn. You basically just Highlight & Cut out anything that isn't pertinent to your reply, then use the [quote ] and [/quote ] BBCoding to differentiate. Then use the Preview Button to check your results before you Submit it.

Quote:
That would be interested to see what you come up with, but that would be a tough nut to crack.

At some point, I expect I'll just give up and assign some approximate values. It will probably throw the calculus of combat off a tad, but I think it will greatly improve the narrative feel of the game and the speed of combat.

Quote:
I read your rules, but it sounded a bit too complex for my preference. However, I know some rules aren't as complex as they first sound, so I will revisit them.
Quote:
So, the battery dice bonus is based on the number of identical weapons, but these dice can be split any way you like and the weapons can be split to shoot at any number of targets? So, only one roll would ever be made against each target per weapon type, correct?

Correct, although it would be feasible to engage a target twice with the same weapon system by counting it as two targets. Returning to the ISD example from earlier, if an ISD wanted to engage two Nebulon B's, the captain would split his 5D Battery dice (using the x2 = +1D formula) into two 4D Battery Dice attacks. If, for whatever reason, the captain wanted to make two attacks against each Nebulon, he would then get four attacks with 3D Battery Dice per attack. Essentially, it's x2 = +1D Formula, but in reverse, as in /2 = -1D.

The major limiting factor is that, as range increases, the odds of all the shots hitting for effect decreases. That's why I came up withe Scatter Rule, to place a cap on how much Battery Dice a ship could put toward Damage at Medium and Long Range. Again with the ISD example, with 5D Battery Dice in its turbolasers, the captain could apply 5D Battery Dice to Damage at Point Blank, but only 4D at Short, 3D at Medium and 2D at Long.

Quote:
I will definitely be working in many of your missile rules in future games, working them in slowly to get the players used to them.

In that case, I should probably spend some time updating the Ordnance options for Capital Ships.

Quote:
I was stacking the Shield dice with the hull, but I am not completely happy with the results. I think I will be using your rules for Shields as Cover next time to see how it goes. I am definitely still shopping and your premise is very interesting. Before TPM, I had a very different view of ray shielding, but my perspective is still primarily informed by the original trilogy. I may have some clarifying questions for you on this topic.

The interesting thing is, there's not a lot of evidence for the WEG version of energy / particle shields. The closest reference is Dodonna's quote from ANH w/r/t having to use proton torpedoes to penetrate ray shielding, but that's not a conclusive statement. It also doesn't really address why they couldn't use concussion missiles, and not just proton torpedoes. I chewed on it for a while and ultimately decided to make torpedoes into specialist shield-penetrating weapons.

Quote:
I forgot to mention it, but I have players roll Tactics to develop a "Battle Plan", which is compared to the opponent's Battle Plan. For every 1-3 points by which the winner exceeds the losers tactics roll, the winning commander gets +1 to Initiative. So, if the roll beats the other 1-3 +1 to Initiative, 4-6, +2 to Initiative, 7-9, +1D to Initiative, and so on to a maximum of +2D.

I did something similar a while back, but in effort to simplify things, I thought it easier to go with specific results that affected Initiative, up to and including allowing Tactics to create a Surprised result that the opponent couldn't react to. Extensive discussions about Tactics with former and current active-duty military who are Pit members led me to consider the option of smaller situational advantages that come into play once the battle has joined. It's not fully formed yet, but IMO, the end result will more closely resemble the effects of coming up with a brilliant tactic without having to rely on the character's real-world tactical skills to describe it.

Quote:
I want to review your rules more though. We both seem to draw inspiration from the Capital Ship rule sin the 1E Rules Companion.

Indeed. There are a lot of very good ideas in that book; all that's needed is to sift out the bad ideas from the good and update them to 2E standards.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0