Printable View
I was wondering if anyone knows anything about plans for producing smaller scale miniatures (ie. not big model kits) of ships from the TNG onward series and films. Given the gloom about forhtcoming products I've seen on other threads, I presume not. Does anyone know who owns the licences for them?
Decipher.
Thanks for confirming that, I've emailed them to ask about it.
The RPG studio was in charge of miniatures, hence their name "Decipher RPG & Minatures Studio." (now defunct)
Good luck.
Glad I got my micromachines when I could. Of course for TOS you've got Starfleet Battles miniatures. And if you can hunt them down, FASA made a few for the movie era, but I don't think they got to do TNG. There are a few people out there who scratch build miniature starships out of wood and other materials, you can probably find them with a web search.
I use Micromachines as well. I picked up a few just before they left the stores years ago and have collected a few more from ebay since then. They are not great quality but are better than nothing.
What I would really like to see is a fan written CODA compatible starship combat game since it seems likely that Engage will never see the light of day.
oh-ohQuote:
What I would really like to see is a fan written CODA compatible starship combat game since it seems likely that Engage will never see the light of day.
Why do I feel the sudden urge to think something up... that's exactly the kind of challenge that could get me going.
I asked them about Engage too. No reply as yet. With the holiday coming I might get the chance to bat a few ideas (and photon torpedoes) round the table too.
Well right off the bat I'm thinking about a few concepts here. The ideas are:
-What I would do is a proper wargame, not a "wargame-flavored" RPG supplement (like Spacedock was). The idea is that the CODA RPG ship combat rules are excellent and they satisfy every need of those who need starship combat rules during their RPG session.
What I would do is a true starship wargame like Babylon 5 Wars, Lightning Strike, BattleFleet Gothic or Full Thrust.
Then the scale. Would I focus on ship to ship engagements (like SFB), small fleet action (like Full Thrust) or fleet-level action like (Turning Point)? I'd take the middle road and go for small fleet action, with enough detail to make ship-to-ship engagement still interesting.
Then I would have to decide if I want a hex-based game or a hex-less one. Most Star Trek wargames in the past have been hex-based so I'd go for somehting new and go hexless.
A few pointers:
-I would keep the complexity to a minimum, while retaining enough intergrity to keep the 'flavour' of the game. I would like people to say: "oh wow! that really feels like Star Trek". A single player should be able to handle a few ships (say 3-4) without too many problems.
-the system should be able to cover very well all eras of Trek, from ENT to VOY. What I'm thinking is that there should be a very wide disparity in capabilities between the ships of the various eras, unlike the RPG system. For instance a Movie-era Excelsior should be absolutely worthless in the TNG era, kinda like a 18th century galleon during our modern era. Thus, I would treat the old designs seen in TNG as total refits that bear little in common with their ancestors. Think WW1 battleship upgraded with Harpoon missiles.
-this being Trek, the single most important stat should be the crew. I would like an elite crew in a batterd old BOP to be able to defeat a Green crew in a shiny new Klingon cruiser. Also, that is WHERE I would make the tie-in with the RPG- I would use the RPG characters' stats in the system, like FASA did in their game. However, the PC's stats in the FASA system only granted a few marginal bonii- this time they should be very important, to the point where if you would have to choose between an experienced crew and a quantum torpedo upgrade you'd pick the former.
-I would include a construction system and a pointing system.
-I would have to decide what kind of dicing system I'd pick. D6, D10, D12, D20, a combo, etc. I'd tend to stay with D6 if only because the RPG only uses D6. Could be a nice tie-in factor.
-I would keep power-costing to a minimum, if any.
-So as I said, I wouldn't use in any form the RPG stats. For instance, I wouldn't make use of stats like 17/4 shields and photon penetration at 5, etc. While the mechanics of the stats are excellent within an RPG setting they are absolutely incompatible with a wargame structure. However I would keep many of the principles of the RPG system- such as the outmost importance of shields. Speaking of which, I would handle damage in about the same way: shields protect from damage but at a certain point some damage leaks through (ie the treshold system).
-lastly, I would use the 'official' stats (like the top speeds or the max torp range) as much as possible but I would try to find ways around them at the same time to make the game playable.
Well, I'll give it some more thought.
Look at what I found...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...&category=2547
Keep in the mind the original iteration of the starship combat system was minis-based (units, facing, measuring distances, etc). The current version is based on that same foundation.
Also, I don't agree with the "absolutely incompatible" comment. Partly, see the previous paragraph, also, as a designer, I think the two could be tied together. I did further work on this on the side when I wrote "Starships," including a mass-combat system.
Matt Colville was doing all the work on Engage! while at Decipher. I'd hazard a guess to say its all but dead. (Engage! hasn't appeared on a product schedule in, what, two years?)
The current system betrays a bit of its roots from Full Thrust, Red Alert!, and Silent Death if you look closely enough. They weren't intentional design decisions but I won't dismiss the similarities either.
I just received the following reply from Decipher:
"Not at this time - but we are talking with some manufacturers so keep watching the site."
So there you have it.
On the system (quickly - haven't had time to read comments in depth): I agree with non-hex, and "squadron" level rather than single ship or grand fleet. I disagree with the "galleon" comment.
Cthulu's initial wish-list was for "CODA compatible", so don't can CODA without trying - we're looking for evolution, not revolution.
Personally I think I'd start with CODA as the basis and see what works, tweak what still takes too long to work out after a few test games to see if it gets easier. Bear in mind you're starting the game with the fleet's ship stats and a rules cribsheet and tables for cross-reference already generated in front of you, not figuring all the maths out from scratch.
Sticking to one dice type (d6) does generally make for simpler game mechanics.
And yes, the crew should always be the heart of the ship!
P.S. re-Ebay - I see the Ferengi chop shop has been busy!
I beg to differ; the main reason is that the range of values is too narrow in the system. A proper wargaming system needs a wider range of values in order to work. Especially with the ST setting, since now we'd have to cover several eras with a very big tech gap between them. In the Coda system, the Galaxy class is better overal than the movie-era Constitution but only by a small margin. Succinctly speaking, the range of values for shields from the movie era until TNG is from 14 to 18; that leaves very little room to cover a gap of about 80 years.Quote:
Also, I don't agree with the "absolutely incompatible" comment.
Also, wargames need more definitive rules. One of the oft-mentionned reasons why phasers should be used instead of torpedoes is that relying too much on torps isn't "Star Trek"-like and that the moderator should, well, step in and "moderate" their use. That kind of RPG context won't work in a good wargame.
I recently got a hold of some rules (Heavy Gear and Lightning Strike) from Montreal-based DP9. The rules are fine but after talking (in person) to some of the staff over there I got the feeling they're rather green in the wargaming dept. Indeed the rules felt like they weren't sure if the game (both HG and LS) was a wargame or a RPG supplement. Soemthing to think about.
Again, Spacedock was an attempt at giving a 'wargame flavor' in a RPG context and in my opinion it failed.
BTW, I've said so in the past and I still think it: if I would have been commissioned to write a set of RPG starship combat rules I don't think I would have ever been able to come up with something nearly as brilliant as what you did. I've never seen ANY system, be it a RPG, wargame or video game system, that captured the feel of the show quite like that. Which is btw to my knowledge the best RPG spaceship combat system ever devised.
oh-oh juicy... any details you'd like to share?Quote:
. I did further work on this on the side when I wrote "Starships," including a mass-combat system.
well I'll admit that I'm basing that aspect on sheer personal preference. I feel that the older ships (say movie-era) shouldn't be able to compete with the "in-between" era (2300s-2350s) or the TNG era. However there is almost no canon evidence to back this up... and there is also almost none to contradict it either (!). The problem with established sci-fi franchises when it comes to wargaming is how to reconcile the "realistic" aspect of wargaming and the "plot-device" aspect of the shows. As Steve Long once mentionned in Spacedock, one week a torpedo hit destroys a ships than the other week the same torpedo barely scratches the paint. It's funny though how ships which feature the lead characters are always built incredibly tough ;)Quote:
. I disagree with the "galleon" comment.
An RPG-based system (like the current CODA one) is usually much better at handling that problem than a wargame system with more rigid rules. That is why I've long felt that Star Trek wasn't a great candidate as a wargames background, although it is feasable (and the more I think about it the more I'd like to see what I could come up with).
Snake, I agree with a lot of your comments re: wargames and RPGs.
Probably not a whole lot to share; I believe Jesse was going to adopt the mass-combat rules from Jeff and LotR for Trek (the fixed ones, yet to be printed). I imagine shortly thereafter someone (me?) would have taken a stab at converting them for starship use.Quote:
Originally posted by Snake_Plissken
Ioh-oh juicy... any details you'd like to share?
My rules might make an appearance at some point; I have plenty more ideas for starship combat add-ons that one book just didn't let me do. :)
Thanks for your kind comments. I appreciate them. :)
Snake:
I wish you the best in "meeting the challenge" of a game. If I had any time or ambition, my ideal game design would be:
1- A true starship wargame that had modular elements in it to allow for roleplay adaptation by a gaming party's groups of characters (i.e. functioning as bridge crew at respective stations). This would be akin to the CODA rules (and even the old FASA Star Trek RPG rules), but more streamlined for faster play. I would, however, consider more "manuevers" to provide greater variation... yet play balance it. Modular means optional... not necessary, but available.
2- Small squadron level actions should be handled ably in these rules. In other words, if ships were represented by an SSD (i.e. SFB, Starmada, Full Thrust), it should not be so filled-with-boxes that it would take an hour to kill a ship. On the other hand, each vessel (especially if their is a gaming group's crew on board), must be "crunchy" enough so as not to be vaporized by a simple laser hit.
3- Representations of weapons and equipment (sensors, etc) must have enough variation to show a tangible difference in the game. This philosophy will have an effect on some fundamental decisions such as: Range/Scale; Energy Concepts (if any, I agree with Snake that we should avoid it); Movement Mechanics, etc.
4- Hex-less. In addition, a simple mechanic for ship manuevers should be allowed to represent a third axis that might have some game effect (i.e. like the Z-Axis helm manuever a la Wrath of khan)
5- A D6 based mechanic.
Quite frankly, I have played around with StarmadaX rules and have made some Trek concepts. It is close, but not quite to my taste... yet. Look up the game at : http://www.mj12games.com/
One last thing, look at these beautiful Trek miniatures, hand carved bby Larry Enoch from balsa wood, fairly pricey, but he will make to order: http://www.virtualscratchbuilder.com/trek/trek2.html
Charles
Fair comment, Snake. As I said, my reply was a quick response after a quick skim.
I think that ships from the 2300-2350 era should be considered as having a fighting chance. Normally the primary defences of ships are their shields and their offense comes from phasers and similar energy weapons, all systems that rely on energy relays and emitters that could be upgraded to more advanced versions without necessarily making a huge difference to hull configuration, and saving the extra cost of constructing a new hull. Look at the decision to upgrade the old Iowa WWII battlewaggons (not that I have any idea how genuinely useful that was compared to ordering a new hull).
The system should most definitely be light on book-keeping, can I suggest aiming to fit at least 4 ship status displays (pref. more) to an A4 page? I'm a big fan of Full Thrust and as you'll know, you can pretty much get all the paperwork for a squadron onto a single page. A Trek system would probably need to be a bit more detailed than that (more definitive to Trek, which has quite a volume of canon material to draw from, and a huge timeframe to cover), which is why I suggest aim for 4 ships to a page.
I think involving power/energy management in some way is pretty much unavoidable - you have to be able to "Re-route auxillary power to the forward shields" to keep it Trek - but it must be kept to a low, and straightforward level.
As I say, the ship primary defences are the shields, and once they're down, a look of horror crosses everyone's face, so perhaps focus on keeping shields up at all costs. I was thinking perhaps permit damage to one shield facing to be absorbed by different one, indicating either an immediate response by the captain "rerouting" the power, or a 3D maneuver to roll a different facing in harm's way. Either way it avoids having to do shield power accountancy from one turn to the next.
Maybe give the option to forgo some weapons or sensors or other major systems in favour of beefing up ailing shields, but without requiring a decision to power the ship's ornamental fountains every turn to keep up morale.
Shields rarely seem to be favoured over propulsion, so maybe have that largely (completely?) unaffected by decisions about the shields.
Would you break shields down into sectors? Again, it's part of the mythology, so I reckon so, even if for simplicity it's just forward and aft, or 4 quadrants. Coming back to my suggestion on shields, a 3D maneuver could permit dorsal and ventral shield facings to take damage without having to build a forest of adjustable height ship stands. Like I did for my air wargames. Ugh.
Well I'm getting way too far into specifics here, but one final thought. To keep it RPG compatible don't include an "armageddon" critical hit that utterly destroys a ship. While that has historical and canon precedent, it means the PCs or the major villain could be wiped out in a single shot. If this is included, make it optional to be agreed in advance, and probably not in an RPG context.
You both make excellent points; here are some additional comments:
That's what I'm thinking too. I was thinking more in terms of the actual way the FASA RPG was tied in with the wargame. In essence, the wargaming rules were integral to that specific game but a small opening was left for a RPG tie-in. But as I have mentionned I would make the PC stats more meaningful into the gaming mechanics. In the FASA system even with very good rules you only gained some marginal advantages, like 2 power pts when you already had 60 at your disposal.Quote:
A true starship wargame that had modular elements in it to allow for roleplay adaptation by a gaming party's groups of characters (i.e. functioning as bridge crew at respective stations). This would be akin to the CODA rules (and even the old FASA Star Trek RPG rules),
That I'm not sure; you see, a lot of the moves a player would normally make in a wargame were represented by the PC's abilities in the RPG system. For instance, when you play a game of Full Thrust or BFG (Battle Fleet Gothic) the actual real life player has to decide how and where he will move his ship, taking into consideration his ship's facing relative to where he thinks his enemy will move, etc. In the RPG, the maneuvers have been designed to allow the PCs to use such maneuvers but not really worrying about the 'how' and 'where' but the final effect. And the scope of the success of such a maneuver is determined by the PC's stats. For instance, the PCs may decide to come about and fire on an enemy, the helm officer's stats will determine how well they succeed, but the real life player controlling that PC has no effect on the actual action.Quote:
I would, however, consider more "manuevers" to provide greater variation...
Good point. I personally like SSDs when they are well-done like the ones for games like FT, BFG or Starmada. But on the other hand doing so for a Trek game wouldn't exactly be reinventing the wheel... both SFB and the FASA game used the 'checkbox' system, as well as Full Thrust and to some extent Starmada (who have both seen their fair share of ST conversions). I'd try to come up with something like Lightning Strike, where there is little "box-checking" and damage is done by measuring the amount against a treshold value for each component.Quote:
it should not be so filled-with-boxes that it would take an hour to kill a ship. On the other hand, each vessel (especially if their is a gaming group's crew on board), must be "crunchy" enough so as not to be vaporized by a simple laser hit.
agreed; sacrificing details for the sake of simplicity will make the game bland.Quote:
each vessel (especially if their is a gaming group's crew on board), must be "crunchy" enough so as not to be vaporized by a simple laser hit.
oh for sure- especially since there is now such a wide era to cover; I wouldn't expect ENT era beam weapons to be anything like those used during the Dominion War. Speaking of sensors, they are of such importance in the show that I think that they should play a very important role in a ST game. For instance, let's assume that most Starfleet ships do not have the firepower of Klingon ship BUT if we assume they have better sensor we could then say that they are more accurate. So Klingon ships on avergae hit you harder but Starfleet ships will hit you more often or more precisely.Quote:
Representations of weapons and equipment (sensors, etc) must have enough variation to show a tangible difference in the game. This philosophy will have an effect on some fundamental decisions such as: Range/Scale; Energy Concepts (if any, I agree with Snake that we should avoid it); Movement Mechanics, etc.
Starmada is an awesome game. IMVHO it almost rivals Full Thrust (and in many areas it is actually better than FT). I think that Starmada is a much better system to handle a ST conversion. The way shields are handled in Starmada screams 'Star Trek'!Quote:
Quite frankly, I have played around with StarmadaX rules
That makes a lot of sense. And that is why we could say that there are plenty of old Excelsiors and Mirandas in the TNG era. Of course the true reason is that the studios were re-using the models that were available to them to save money. And that matches my argument which is that a "stock" 2290-vintage Excelsior shouldn't be much of a threat in the TNG era. For instance, that would go as far as prefering a refitted Miranda in that era over a "stock" Exclesior. But that again is only based on my opinion. As you said if you strip an old Excelsior of its phaser banks and replace them by modern ones, you get an old ship that may not be top of the line anymore but that could still pack a surprising punch.Quote:
all systems that rely on energy relays and emitters that could be upgraded to more advanced versions without necessarily making a huge difference to hull configuration, and saving the extra cost of constructing a new hull.
That's one of the things I love about FT: it is easy to manage your small fleet on a single sheet. As I said above simplicity in record-keeping would be nice.Quote:
The system should most definitely be light on book-keeping, can I suggest aiming to fit at least 4 ship status displays (pref. more) to an A4 page? I'm a big fan of Full Thrust and as you'll know, you can pretty much get all the paperwork for a squadron onto a single page.
Agreed, it is very much a part of Trek ship combat. I was thinking of not doing power management "accounting" like in the old FASA game, but rather a simplifed tier system where you could cut some power from a system to increase another. For instance, systems could be rated in 'levels' and say you have a level-4 shield grid and a level-6 phaser banks . Now say that you want to boost your shields, you could take a level away from the phasers, making them 'level-5' which would make them weaker but you'd instead 'level-5' shields which would allow the ship to increase its resiliency.Quote:
I think involving power/energy management in some way is pretty much unavoidable - you have to be able to "Re-route auxillary power to the forward shields" to keep it Trek - but it must be kept to a low, and straightforward level.
I would try to strike a balance between using the hard numbers (like ships travelling at 0.92c/sec) and some abstract concepts. It would be very hard to use only 'hard' numbers and make the game playable- you'd end up with issues like ships being able to outrun the maximum phaser range in a few seconds. Regarding shields, I'd tend to favor various quadrants and not a whole single shield for the ship. There are numerous examples of this in the shows "aft shields down, port shields at 75%, etc".Quote:
Would you break shields down into sectors? Again, it's part of the mythology, so I reckon so, even if for simplicity it's just forward and aft, or 4 quadrants. Coming back to my suggestion on shields, a 3D maneuver could permit dorsal and ventral shield facings to take damage without having to build a forest of adjustable height ship stands. Like I did for my air wargames. Ugh.
I couldn't agree more. As with the CODA system shields should be of paramount (pun intended) importance. Once they are down a ship shouldn't be able to last too long.Quote:
As I say, the ship primary defences are the shields, and once they're down, a look of horror crosses everyone's face, so perhaps focus on keeping shields up at all costs.
Care to share now that your leaving?:pQuote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
I believe Jesse was going to adopt the mass-combat rules from Jeff and LotR for Trek (the fixed ones, yet to be printed). I imagine shortly thereafter someone (me?) would have taken a stab at converting them for starship use.
My rules might make an appearance at some point; I have plenty more ideas for starship combat add-ons that one book just didn't let me do. :)
Thanks for your kind comments. I appreciate them. :)