The Problems of Fleeting

[Valiens Nantaris]

Carrying on from the other thread with Cyrus there are 3 major problems and related sub-problems I see which prevent fleeting being either widespread or enjoyable. None of them, I suspect, have easy answers.

• People don’t take hits/damage properly.
  Size of fleets being too small means people don’t want to lose even 1 ship.
• People aren’t sure how much damage a ship can give or take.
• Vast variety of weapons and tech can be confusing.

• Fleeting is complicated.
  Like sabre duelling, fleeting is a niche interest.
• Tactics, ranges, placements all very uncertain from canon standpoint, each writer has their own view.

[*]Fleeting is slow.

• Digging among invasion for posts & waiting for posts can be frustrating.
• Battles rarely end decisively due to the above 3 points.

Are there solutions to these problems? Not entirely, but there are ways to mitigate them.

My suggestion is that we come up with a comprehensive guide the fleeting based on the consensus of as many fleeters as possible for disputed questions. It can then provide tactical advice and strategies that other writers can use.

 

[Taeli Raaf]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

I suspect this idea has been floated before, but at least for point number three bout fleeting being slow, perhaps a separate thread for an invasion that is exclusively the fleeting action would make organization easier.

If someone wants to leave that part, it would be one post to leave in that thread then one post to arrive in the main invasion thread.

Fleet size could be bigger as then it turns into something where people are a bit more willing to see their ships becoming debris fields, but I also think a comprehensive guide to understand the details for a fleeting action would help fleeters immensely.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Darth Arcanix"]
I like the idea of a separate thread, but I'm not sure it will happen.

I'll look at getting together a guide.

 

[Boethiah]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

A huge issue is that people aren't on the same page. Communication is a must but even then people always have different perceptions of what's going on.

Perhaps also creating a list of potential resources to keep people on the same page in terms of visuals would help. I know some people like to make maps; so perhaps we could find such tools -- like we did with the dice log -- and put them all together for people to use.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Anja Aj'Rou"]
Maps are...tricky. My crappy powerpoint maps aren't that visually exciting, but they're time consuming to make.

What needs to happen I think is 3 things.

• Make people summarise their fleet movements OOCly so you can understand at a glance.
• Make people use a baseline damage display. Don't tell them how much damage, but give ships shield and hull points equal to their metre length. So Star Destroyer has 1600/1600 shield/hull.
• Offer incentives for playing fair...since at the moment playing fair means potentially losing....

 

[Irys Arist'lar]

[member="Anja Aj'Rou"]
Maps are...tricky. My crappy powerpoint maps aren't that visually exciting, but they're time consuming to make.

What needs to happen I think is 3 things.

• Make people summarise their fleet movements OOCly so you can understand at a glance.
• Make people use a baseline damage display. Don't tell them how much damage, but give ships shield and hull points equal to their metre length. So Star Destroyer has 1600/1600 shield/hull.
• Offer incentives for playing fair...since at the moment playing fair means potentially losing....

My god, all this sage advice, how many death scenes can you possibly do to make up for this?

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Irys Arist'lar"]

 

[Irys Arist'lar]

[member="Valiens Nantaris"]

http://www.sporcle.com/games/Weave/liamneesondeaths

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Anyway, let's not derail this topic.

 

[Irys Arist'lar]

I wish that the firepower ratings were used more, and we had some way to judge them sensibly. Many ships have really complicated load-outs and it's really hard to reduce that down to something sensible. Particularly when you have long range guns and HV cannons. We know long range guns cost x5 as much, they hit harder than normal, but only around x2 as much. This is for balance's sake as otherwise there would be no reason not to fit our pure long range, the IC rational being a large power draw to ensure coherence over a great distance.

Something like the following would be brilliant:

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Battlefleet Gothic!

But yes, firearcs would be nice. Suggest it!

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

I'm still wary of making things too boardgame-like, but a sort of tactical guideline pulling heavily from canon would be useful. At least the first three points could very reliably be addressed, and you could come to a sort of general consensus on the fifth, maybe (and that's a big maybe).

The last two points are perhaps better addressed by some other discussions we've had on revamping invasions in general. Separate threads for invasions could be very useful, not only to keep events happening in a certain region together, but also to simulate to some degree the different theaters of conflict in an invasion and travel between them. For example, if say the Sith are invading genericrepublicplanet then there would be two threads, one for orbital and one for planetside. Baring the possibility of infiltration forces, all the Sith woudl start in orbit and have to make their way planetside. It would make fleeting have a purpose beyond "smash the other fleet because that's how it goes" and rather the Sith fleet would have to punch a hole to be able to land troops and then maintain orbital supremacy to continue to reinforce their beachheads. So now you've got naturally evolving objectives and goals for the players.

You could take that other places as well, with interconnected objectives (consider the Battle of Endor, if you will) that shake things up more than the usual PvP.

 

[Beowoof]

Personally, I find when numbers are pushed to a higher echelon in the RP, it takes away from the... RP.

Plus, we have inconsistencies in what writers view in accordance with the potency of each weapon type. I, personally, am of the opinion that ion cannons should be able to bypass shields and take down systems (notably shown in Empire Strikes Back), as I portrayed here. I have noticed that [member="Anja Aj'Rou"] and I are perhaps the only people on the board who recognize the ion cannon as an effective weapon.

So there need to be rules and some solidifying of what exactly each weapon is capable of, in my opinion. But there should not be so many rules that it ends up being a numbers game and nothing to do with creative writing.

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

As usual, the main issue is inconsistency within the source material itself. The planetary Ion Cannon disables a Star Destroyer with a couple of shots, but Star Destroyers themselves are stated to have ~40 Ion Cannons, none of which we ever see do.... anything. In fact in the movies about the only time we see capital ships really having it out is the Nebulon B/ISD broadsiding each other to limited effect.

I think it's safe to say that the v-150 is significantly more powerful than your average Ion Cannon (and perhaps the Tyrant and other ISD's didn't have their Ray Shielding up because they weren't anticipating a rebel attack in space).

But either way I agree that it's a discussion we should have.

 

[Boethiah]

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"]

I believe that had more to do with the fact that writers tend to overlook such matters. Star Wars is a Space Opera, not a true SciFi so such consistency would not have been a priority when developing what was effectively an aide to a plot device.

That being said I don't believe that ion cannons are as weak as many people think they are. There are many installments--not just strategy games--in which they've had at least a larger effect than being able to quickly take down shields. Their weakness is that they have a shorter range but their ability to disable a ship is real; given enough power. Of course such disability is only temporary.

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

Right, my thinking would be that they are 1) very effective at taking down shields and 2) once Ray Shields are down, cause localized disruptions in the power grid (or something) which can lead to widespread outages and shorts under intense barrage.

Mitigated at least in part by effective damage control teams/systems, of course. There is an argument to be made at that point that why not just hit them with turbolasers and destroy permanently instead of disable temporarily, so the only balanced approach is that the disruptions cause more "damage" per shot than an equivalent turbolaser but it's only temporary (and as noted earlier, you can deal with it with proper reaction).

 

[Irys Arist'lar]

I'm still wary of making things too boardgame-like, but a sort of tactical guideline pulling heavily from canon would be useful. At least the first three points could very reliably be addressed, and you could come to a sort of general consensus on the fifth, maybe (and that's a big maybe).

The last two points are perhaps better addressed by some other discussions we've had on revamping invasions in general. Separate threads for invasions could be very useful, not only to keep events happening in a certain region together, but also to simulate to some degree the different theaters of conflict in an invasion and travel between them. For example, if say the Sith are invading genericrepublicplanet then there would be two threads, one for orbital and one for planetside. Baring the possibility of infiltration forces, all the Sith woudl start in orbit and have to make their way planetside. It would make fleeting have a purpose beyond "smash the other fleet because that's how it goes" and rather the Sith fleet would have to punch a hole to be able to land troops and then maintain orbital supremacy to continue to reinforce their beachheads. So now you've got naturally evolving objectives and goals for the players.

You could take that other places as well, with interconnected objectives (consider the Battle of Endor, if you will) that shake things up more than the usual PvP.

Given that fleeting is niche, I still can't see this happening.

90% of each faction generally wants to get cracking asap.

Agree on multiple threads with interconnecting objectives.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Personally, I find when numbers are pushed to a higher echelon in the RP, it takes away from the... RP.

Plus, we have inconsistencies in what writers view in accordance with the potency of each weapon type. I, personally, am of the opinion that ion cannons should be able to bypass shields and take down systems (notably shown in Empire Strikes Back), as I portrayed here. I have noticed that [member="Anja Aj'Rou"] and I are perhaps the only people on the board who recognize the ion cannon as an effective weapon.

So there need to be rules and some solidifying of what exactly each weapon is capable of, in my opinion. But there should not be so many rules that it ends up being a numbers game and nothing to do with creative writing.

I agree with this.

Also, Ion cannons are the best.

 

[Onrai]

Honestly, for the sake of convenience, it might be better to develop a series of "tabletop" stats for use regarding starships. That's one of the only ways I can really see us creating a viable system that's fair to all.

Eg. Ship hitpoints, damage per weapon, weapon range, weapon effects, etc. Could also give individual fleet sizes "point caps," providing ships with a point value as well.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Enigma"]
If you've been around here much you'll know I've designed...5...6 systems?

People don't really want a wargame though, so we get stuck in limbo.