Saturday, 6 July 2024

Delta Vector 2024 - Spaceship Game Design Manifesto - and some LEGO, LoTR

 This is mostly a post about spaceship rules. But my 8 y/o son painted some miniatures, so here they are:

He also has some rather cool not-LEGO. The army guys in particular may prompt some simplified LEGO wargame rules. 

OK, back to spaceships.

Spaceship rules are something I revisit every year, I create/play a few test games, then put them away, distracted by some new shiny. It's tradition. In fact, whinging about how spaceship games are boring wet-navy-in-space was one of my first forays into making games (besides the "make 40K better" most wargamers have tried). Hello, 2012. I then pumped out 30+ posts in April 2012 outlining my game. I just had a quick skim - it was obvious the games I liked and played at the time!

Making near future sci fi (so it's not just Vietnam in space) and jet fighter games (this is super difficult as the nature of jet combat seems naturally opposed to wargaming) as well as "better Mordhiem" "better aeronef" and "supercavitating fighter subs" and more recently "tank commander RPG" also get annual dust-offs. 

As I get older I am less interested in pet mechanics. The game mechanics must merely be simple, easy and serve the purpose. I like them to be consistent if possible. (Although I've always found this hard in space games). It's like a car. I don't care what is under the hood as long as it goes fast and is easy to maintain.

Ok, LoTR pics + space discussion is a bit confusing but I like to track my painting in the blog and I don't like empty posts. These Victrix are serving as Wildman of Dunland - a cheap horde option.

DELTA VECTOR the GAME: 2024 MANIFESTO

I do one of these periodically, to remind me of my core focus. How do I want the game to play?

Influences were EvE Online (game), The Lost Fleet (book) and The Expanse (book/tv). It was not designed to play Star Wars or Star Trek. It is more like a combined arms game (or party RPG) not a mass fleet battle game. It should give a unique "feel" of space not just WW2 navies/age of sail-with-spaceships.

There should be minimal record keeping and no needless recording. Anything that is recorded should provide a meaningful choice/tactics. There's no "empty hitboxes" where you tick off 10 hits and nothing happens. Recording for a single ship should not be more extensive than a General Quarters SDS or a Warmachine warjack. The game should handle 2-6 ships per side; task forces comprise of a couple of big ships and a handful of escorts.

All Ships Have a Role

The game is more like a modern task force (2-6 ships) than giant fleets. Small escorts are not just cannon fodder but are vital in supporting the fleet and can even take down battleships if correctly employed. Inspired by EvE Online, small ships can tackle (stop ships warping off); paint targets, jam and defend against missiles as well as launch attacks from difficult to defend directions.

Movement - Space, not Sea

This has a sense of momentum. Ship trajectories can be predicted. Ships can drift one way and face the other - to brake quickly, bring weapons to bear or show undamaged shields. I have used some good systems but they have been messy. Small ships have high thrust and are unpredictable, while lumbering battleships positions can be calculated a turn in advance.  This allows small ships to dictate fights.

The inclusion of reaction mechanics allow you to engage a series of ships in your path, with ranges being measured from the enemy bases to the closest point on your path past them.

Missiles, Terrain, AoE = Tactics

To avoid space feeling empty and encouraging a scrum in the middle; missiles make an AoE "attack zone" - a radius (almost like dangerous terrain) to be avoided. Battles always occur near something of importance, never in empty space. Gravity can affect ship trajectories. Asteroids block fire.

Facing - Shields and Spinal Mounts = Tactics

Ship facing matters.  Firepower is weaker through rear arcs. Shields cover forward and aft hemispheres; one side can be up and the other undefended. Mighty spinal weapons fire forwards in narrow arcs; laser batteries cover broadsides. This is another way for a thoughtful player in a small ship to outplay a larger ship. Shields are probably just up or down; i.e. attacks are resolved vs shields and if breached then excess (or future) damage is resolved vs the ship.

Lightspeed, Relative Trajectories = Tactics

How the ships approach each other matters. (This is vectors/direction of movement, not facing)

Example: (a) Both ship head on = combine velocities = add; (b) One ship approaches other side on = use highest velocity; (c) Chase (one approaching from rear) = difference in velocities = subtract.

Yes, math - but we're talking about the sort you can do on your fingers. Why does this matter? Because lightspeed hard caps movement and firing. As you get closer to lightspeed; you are harder to hit. Again, small high-thrust ships can control modifiers.

Signature Range, Target Numbers and Reactions = Tactics

Ships have a signature - their size + how "noisy" or "bright" they are. There's no magic cloaking. No ships are invisible (unless behind an asteroid etc) - it's just about acquiring a predictable target solution. A distant target may have moved since the light reflected from them arrives at your sensors. A ship with a large, hot signature is easy to react to and predict and thus has a wider "reaction" radius. I.e. a sig 3 small ship might trigger reactions from enemies within 6" and a sig 7 ship trigger reactions within 14". The ship sig also determines how easy it is to hit - the sig 7 ship might be 70% and the sig 3 only 30%, for example. This makes small ships surprisingly survivable, not disposable glass cannons or extra hitpoints for capital ships - they're hard to engage and hard to hit.

Capacitors (mana) = Resource Management/Tactics

A bit like shields - you either have spare energy or you don't; there's no complex recording. Capacitor power is like mana or stamina - you use it to power extra abilities like extra (or overloading) energy bursts; restoring shields, jamming enemies or charging warp drives.

Capacitor boosters or batteries allows you to maximize your "support" tech or simply fire and defend more often/powerfully. It's an X-factor that allows more player decisions. 

I found some unpainted Rohan during my shed clean. My total +29 = 68 LoTR for the month.

Simple but Distinct Weapons = Tactics

Weapons should be limited in selection but act differently; not just a +1/-1 modifier.  Range bands are simple: effective range and falloff range. Many weapons can change ammo types mid-game which adds player agency. You choose the right tool for the job.

Kinetic weapons are grouped into railguns (which fire AP shells or shotgun AA flak rounds) and PDCs (rapid fire small calibre miniguns). They are inaccurate at long range especially against fast movers but lose no damage (and even gain damage if closing velocities are high enough).

Energy weapons are grouped into cutting beams and pulse (pew pew) lasers; the latter mode is weaker but rapid fire with faster tracking; more for engaging fast targets with short bursts. Lasers are accurate but weaken at long range. Weaker against shields.

Missiles are divided into giant slow short-range anti ship torpedoes, long ranged guided missiles, and short ranged rapid fire/seeker swarm micro-missiles. They retain momentum from the firing ship which impacts range/AoE. Missiles are a great leveller; torpedoes can allow even a small escort to down a battleship, while agile escorts can avoid them (and their heavy PDC armament can shoot them down). 

Missile bays can also deploy unguided AoE EMP bombs - fired along a ship's vector to break locks and nova bombs - which do very slight damage to ships but are deadly to missiles and drones. Likewise similar AoE interdictor bombs prevent warping. They work on friend or foe.

Many weapons can swap between modes/ammo types from turn to turn (which is a decision). Weapons are classed as small, medium and large. Spinal weapons are very powerful but have a limited firing arc.

Drones not Starfighters = More AoE

There are no expendable one-man snub fighters. Drones are tethered to the mothership (another AoE to maneuver/consider). They are similar to missiles but have unlimited endurance and usually their own subsystems and weapons. Sentry drones orbit and protect their own ship.

Drones can perform support duties like webbing and various E-war; as well as self/ally repair (like a AoE healer).

Support Tools, E-War = Combined Arms Tactics

There are a few key tools/roles that debuff enemies or buff allies. Small ships are useful as a fast, cheap way to provide these roles - mostly borrowed from EvE Online. These support tools take up "bays" in the ship, and can kinda align ships to "classes" like a RPG.

E-War/Sensors: Can include target designators = increase enemy sig size + buff own/ally weapons; disruptors = decreases accuracy of specific enemy ships/weapons/reduce ally sigs; jammers = disable weapons (if use energy; emp bursts (AOE) jam. A tracking computer increases the ships' own weapon accuracy. Drone links increase drone range and buff drone rolls.

Energy/Repair = booster batteries (less chance to drain energy) and rechargers. Hull Repair Nanobots = heal self.

Tackle:Tractor Beams/Stasis Webs = slow/tow enemy ships/move self and others vector; warp interdictor beams = stop enemy ship warping.

Propulsion: Microwarps = straight-line tactical warp jump from A to B to avoids reactions (drains energy); afterburners (double sig, double thrust) = uses lots energy

Shield: overboosters or rechargers (increase size of shield or restore)

Limited But Flexible Build System

Ships have "mounts" that can fit certain weapon types or sizes.They have set turret mounts and sizes i.e. a cruiser may have weapon bays, subdivided into "3 medium turrets" and "no drone bays" and "2 missile bays" as well as general bays, subdivided into "1 sensor slot" and "2 support slots". A ship can have a maximum of one turret designated as a spinal mount (supersized weapon).

Particular ship types may have innate "perks" - +1 or so to energy recharge, or drone attacks, etc - which combined with hardpoints/layours encourage a particular style of play. So you can min-max; but within a pretty structured framework - something I enjoy from Mechwarrior: Online. Aim is to allow creativity but not 'anything goes.' Just like the whole game is not attempting to be a 'sandbox' for every spaceship movie ever.

Ok visitors arriving so I'll post this up. If anyone is interested I may put up some of my experimenting with the rules...

18 comments:

  1. Los juegos de naves siempre son un desafío. Yo particularmente veo difícil estos puntos:
    -Altura: para que no parezcan barcas de vela, hay que controlar a qué altura vuela cada nave.
    -Niebla de guerra: estos juegos los veo mucho como emboscadas y asaltos por sorpresa y la niebla de guerra es un poco el Santo Grial de los juegos de mesa.
    -La iniciativa: creo que es importante la acción y reacción y cómo se gestionan.
    Hace tiempo hice un juego de naves para jugar con amigos y lo que más nos costó fue la niebla de guerra. Para la altura usábamos piezas de Lego que podían quitarse y ponerse con facilidad (las naves también estaban hechas con Lego) y asignamos un valor de iniciativa diferente para cada acción de la nave (las acciones iban en cartas que se colocaban boca abajo y se descubrían simultáneamente).
    Mucha suerte y ánimo, espero poder ayudarle.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find spaceship games pretty easy to make; it's not like jet air combat where the genre seems to have baked-in complexity that is difficult to simplify.

      My main concerns are more self imposed. Remaking 'better' Full Thrust or BFG is easy. It's design rules I've made for myself that add the issues!

      -minimise recording (but spaceships have lots of tech)
      -vector movement - the best methods tend to use (unsightly) tokens
      -consistent dice mechanics vs my dislike of 'roll low = best'
      -game speed vs decisions (does complexity add player choices - or can I remove it)
      -correct 'game feel' - gameplay fits my mental image of it

      So I make myself a 'design manifesto' so I know what my goal is: just finding the most efficient way to do it....

      -eM

      Delete
    2. Heh, remaking 'better' BFG is largely a Fool's errand. BFG is fundamentally a reskin of Epic 40k, which itself was refined and cleaned from the original Epic 40k. It's so good (fast, clean, smooth, flavorful) that there's almost nothing that actually needs tweaking. That is, if you're intending something like BFG, it's so tantalizingly close to perfect that tweaks are just as likely to do more harm than good as far as the overall play experience goes.

      If anything, the "problem" with BFG is the bloat from less-tested major expansions, specifically Necrons & Tyranids.

      - GG

      Delete
    3. Yeah, BFG has (imo) aged best of GW (alongside ME:SBG). I love the 'idea' of Necromunda and Mordhiem, but the rules (along with Bloodbowl) seem very dated nowdays...

      I liked (but haven't played) the idea of the newer Titanicus, but in Australia GW has insane mark-up (waaay beyond exchange rates) so I never got to try it.

      -eM

      Delete
    4. BFG, Mordheim and LotR all date from SG's Golden Age. Necromunda was very much small scale 40k2, whereas Mordheim was an evolution and refinement of Nec concepts fused with the 40k3-inspired WFB6 rules. Mordheim is great OOTB, although it lacks the complex chromey flavor that many people love. I would recommend getting the rules and playing a small campaign. It's worth seeing the inspiration behind so many fantasy warband games that have since become popular.

      - GG

      Delete
  2. I like the space design manifesto, although it doesn't seem to change that much year after year. You obviously know what you like, and it's a good set. The biggest issue I have with space combat games (similar to driving games a la Car Wars) is that they're probably best implemented on computer rather than tabletop, simply because of inherent mechanics around momentum and 3-D space (not unlike traction & collision) in real time. Something like EVE, but as a small scale RTS.

    - GG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can live without 3D space, but I can't live without a sense of momentum and drift. I do have (imo) simple and good velocity rules but they are just messy (each ship has an extra marker denoting its future location = messes up the table a bit)

      -eM

      Delete
    2. I agree that momentum > 3D, but you ideally have both, because the lack of gravity to define "down" is what separates powerful jets from spacecraft.

      - GG

      Delete
    3. While it's true it differentiates jets from spaceships
      (a) I'm more concerned about differentiating from wet navies which is what 99% of shows and wargames imitate
      (b) gravity being a non-factor means I am less concerned about up/down then I am in a jet game; distance from enemy, facing and relative velocities are more important
      (c) realism isn't a major concern; it's space magic!

      Being able to pick and choose what to include makes space games 100x easier than jet games imo...

      -eM

      Delete
    4. Most space fleet combat is explicitly wet naval because that's what people know from history. We haven't yet fought in space, and serious thought behind it looks like The Three Body Problem, where tech dominance >> strategy >> tactics. The concepts of higher dimensional warfare, altered physics, and translight weaponry is akin to modern America literally nuking islands of neolithic aboriginals because they might one day develop writing and the wheel.

      - GG

      Delete
  3. I really enjoyed reading this and it certainly gives food for thought.
    I like the simplification of the different velocities. An elegant solution.

    I am not able to work out at what level you are fighting at. For example, if the ships are moving very fast, even 1% percent of lightspeed, then asteroids will be irrelevant as these move relatively slowly. I don't think a spaceship could hide behind an asteroid without matching speeds and being very close. Maybe hide behind an asteroid field? Once again trying to work out the distances you are fighting at.

    Thanks for posting your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The command level is squadrons, the range level is.... sci fi? It's more about the ratio of weapon range to movement.

      Terrain effecting movement is more gravity i.e. a planetoid would 'pull' a ship toward it. It's sci fi, not realism - it's just to add interest and tactics. Like nebula (hinder accuracy). There's no need for a strict scale. We have forcefields and jump drives. It's space magic.

      Lightspeed is just to add a (somewhat contrived) hard limit on velocities and ranges, and to make velocities (aka maneuver) more important. It's not about realism...

      -eM

      Delete
  4. Yes, we would love to see your rules! That said, I recommend not overthinking movement. If the game mechanics merely need to be easy, simple, and serve the purpose, watch out when designing movement rules. That seems most likely where things can go off the rails.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mechanics have to serve the purpose of feeling like space/velocity and not Star Wars/Star Trek WW2 navies/age of sail.

      I'm OK with some complication and recording, but on the scale of say Warmachine warjack/caster or General Quarters; where handling 4,5,6 of them is not too onerous.

      It doesn't have to be fast fast play - I'm not handling fleets, but a handful of ships. Think light RPG party with a dps (destroyer) tank (armoured cruiser) ranger (missile or spinal mount railgun frigate) and some supports (drone carrier, ECM jammer or interdictor) to get an idea for the interplay between ships.

      -eM

      Delete
  5. Your wishlist sounds a lot like Mass Effect's in-lore space combat. Check out their codex entries

    ReplyDelete
  6. You had some mention of Dropfleet Commander years ago, and I know it was designed by Andy Chambers. Have you ever had the chance to try those rules, and if so what did you think?

    I recently saw an interview with Andy Chambers on his design decisions re BFG... he intentionally set out to make "navy in space" rules inspired by Jutland, at a time where space combat was dominated by hexes and Star Trek and those kind of games. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never mind, just found the blog posts where you did review it.

      Delete