New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

A place for all those house rules and custom campaign ideas from the players.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby procyon on Sat 31 Dec 2016 01:20

Whitecold wrote:Do you still allow internal weapons on AP? They fire only every 5th round, which is a heavy penalty on its own.


Currently, no. For two reasons.
First, if we allow them on AP - why can't the small craft mount them? And since we don't want internals on small craft - it would eventually cause an issue.
Second - it has always been a major pain in the *** to deal with the 'every 5th round' rule.

As far as cargo craft go, do you separate out H and Qv for short distances? For shuttles I see little need to specialize your craft, I'd imagine their holds looking like an oversized military cargo plane, which is perfectly capable of transporting both cargo and crew.


We do separate them, as terrestrial cargo planes don't have to worry about exposing their passengers to hard vacuum or extremes of temp. If you are just dropping soldiers onto an airless moon - probably wouldn't matter much. But since we also see them transporting regular people from one habitat to another in the ABs and such, or even evacuating them in the face of an invasion - you can't just assume every passenger is climbing on board in a space suit with integral life support that will last longer than the shuttles endurance. So Qv on the shuttles and such is capable of extended life support, while H just assumes the cargo is packaged.

ETA
Oops, managed to miss the first question.

Our sXOB have their own rules in this regard.
They have the same 'spaces' rules as standard XOB. And they recharge at the rate of one space per turn - but the small craft has to reduce speed by 3.
Now, this has created much of the same problem you get with the 'every 5th round' rule in tracking which craft shot at what time - so we are still fishing for a better solution with less paperwork. We just haven't come up with one yet.

Oh, and on a side note - this means buoys have no sXOB capability. Either you mount LRW or APew on them.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby Whitecold on Sat 31 Dec 2016 01:33

Procyon, thanks for your answer, however the XOB part got lost I am afaid.
How do you recharge those? I imagine keeping track of that is similarly painful to counting down the 5 turns.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby procyon on Sat 31 Dec 2016 01:35

Looks like I was editing my post while you made yours. :D
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby Whitecold on Sat 31 Dec 2016 04:05

Seems so :D
My feel is that the every 5th turn is easier to track than space per turns, and XOB are exchangeable. I am not sure if I want to give smcft the ability to exchange their entire ordnance.

Could you possibly provide a hull table? I am not entirely sure how the three different hulls fq,fc,fh and generations work together in terms of tech levels, as well as what speeds/DP/cost you assigned to them, and I'd really like to try it out myself.

How is D/Dc working out? From the numbers you gave Dc definitely looks much better than D all around, which makes the choice rather obvious, and the values look rather high compared to regular weapons. Dca looks something like 10 times the damage per HS compared to a SRW.

As for the H/Qv thing, I definitely agree when it goes to long-duration flights, but for invasions and shuttle flights from the surface to ships around the planet, the trip is very short, and for airdropping troops, you definitely want just a big cargo bay where you can slide out the entire load in one go.

Some thoughts about planetary survey, I don't feel like the shuttles need their own instrumentation, but rather that the carrier needs a bigger research lab to support the smallcraft. Taking soil samples, collecting specimens are all tasks that mostly require transport capability.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby thebard on Sat 31 Dec 2016 04:49

A bit off topic, but following "smallcrft and planetary surveys"

some time ago it was suggested that there should be a limit to the number of smallcrft that each X could handle (for exemple, you only get survey points from one small craft for each X mounted on the ship)
thebard
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2014 08:47

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby procyon on Sat 31 Dec 2016 20:35

Whitecold wrote:My feel is that the every 5th turn is easier to track than space per turns, and XOB are exchangeable. I am not sure if I want to give smcft the ability to exchange their entire ordnance.


For us, the every 5th turn has been a pain. And our current solution for sXOB isn't much better. We are really trying to come up with something better. But every solution so far that has made it easier to track (paperwork-wise) has been something that would be even more useful (and unbalancing) on a ship or makes the SRW pointless to carry.
So at the moment - it is beginning to look like the only SRW that is going to make the cut and not be a problem is G. Other than the possibility of laser warheads on missiles.

Could you possibly provide a hull table? I am not entirely sure how the three different hulls fq,fc,fh and generations work together in terms of tech levels, as well as what speeds/DP/cost you assigned to them, and I'd really like to try it out myself.


I will. I just haven't had time here at work to type it up. Soon.

How is D/Dc working out? From the numbers you gave Dc definitely looks much better than D all around, which makes the choice rather obvious, and the values look rather high compared to regular weapons. Dca looks something like 10 times the damage per HS compared to a SRW.


D is fairly powerful if smcft come in close - which isn't common at the moment. Dc is devastating - if smcft come close. But it can be an issue if ships support the smcft since a shot used on smcft is lost for intercepting inbounds. So if you want to fire two shots from your Dca at a fc, then you will only have one shot for each volley that comes.
D and Dc can make a huge difference in WP assaults though as they can tear through buoys around the WP.

As for the H/Qv thing, I definitely agree when it goes to long-duration flights, but for invasions and shuttle flights from the surface to ships around the planet, the trip is very short, and for airdropping troops, you definitely want just a big cargo bay where you can slide out the entire load in one go.


And if drop pods become a form of AP that can hold troops and supplies - then loading them in H will become a possibility (but I have no idea where it will end up going...). But for the moment - we still have them as separate things with different capabilities. But it would be easy enough to rule that Qt can be transported in H for landings and assaults on smcft. We just don't want to deal with H FT's doing the same thing.

Some thoughts about planetary survey, I don't feel like the shuttles need their own instrumentation, but rather that the carrier needs a bigger research lab to support the smallcraft. Taking soil samples, collecting specimens are all tasks that mostly require transport capability.


Depends on how you want to see it.
I don't think that ships will need to land to analyze soil composition, underground features, etc - by the time that ships are running around with DF tech. But smcft with their own instrument packages that can collect data would add to the speed of a planetary survey.
But if you want smcft that can add to planetary surverys without sX, that would also be ok.

thebard wrote:some time ago it was suggested that there should be a limit to the number of smallcrft that each X could handle (for exemple, you only get survey points from one small craft for each X mounted on the ship)


And this may be where sX comes in. Perhaps an X can only add SP from a limited number of smcft and after that you need either another ship with X or smcft with sX.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby Morpheus on Mon 20 Mar 2017 11:56

I’m working on some house rules of my own for my games, and I wanted to get a little input on a couple things to see what you all were doing and what had seemed to work for you.

For gunboats (GB), It was mentioned that you (procyon and others) were going to have a “regular” and a “heavy” gunboat that was going to occupy 8 and 12 boat bay (BB) points respectively. What have you been doing for hits to kill (HTK) for GB? I am thinking about going with some multiple (right now I am playing with something between 2x-4x) of the BB points for the HTK and then having an increase to the multiplier for generations above 1st generation.

For fighters (FQ) similar question. Are you going with a single HTK for fighters, or multiple HTK? I am considering making one FQ squadron consume 6 HS and have 12 BB points. Each squadron will contain 6 fighters. Each fighter will carry one external ordinance per BB point, and have a HTK that is some multiple of its BB points (I’m thinking of 1.5x for 1st generation). I’m also thinking about the option for higher FQ to carry internal ordinance, but only allowing internal ordinance to be anti-small craft (sD or equivalent).

I'm very curious on what you all have been doing and welcome comments.
User avatar
Morpheus
Lieutenant SG
Lieutenant SG
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat 29 Mar 2014 15:51

Re: New test game/attempt to integrate AP & Smcft

Postby Whitecold on Thu 11 May 2017 14:10

Hi procyon,
is there any update on your rules? I'd love to get my hands on your hull table for my own game.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Previous

Return to House Rules

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron