Coda starship rules-now and then

So, in general, how do you feel about the starship rules in Coda Trek? Initially, prior to the games release, there was some. . .tension/confusion in regards to particular aspects of the rules (Constituion class versus Galaxy class comes to mind). In light of actually having the rules, do you like the system?

I think that the starship rules (everything from creation to combat) are Coda Trek's greatest strength. I also think that other rpgs (d20 Star Wars) should take notes on this system. Starship traits and maneuver modifiers, for example, are simply ingenious. These two simple rules insure that almost every starship (including those of the same class) are different. And the fact that the game keeps space combat where is belogns--with the PCs and not on a tacticle mat--is equally ingenious.

I have one pressing question, though: where are evasive maneuvers? In almost every episode of Trek you hear this term; how do I simulate it in my games?

I really like them. I had a hard time convincing my players about some aspects ("what? No firing arcs?") but the maneuvers are great and they really capture the feel of the shows. Now all we need is the Starships book for the system to take its full flight.

As for maneuvers, I believe they will be in Starships - otherwise, some of us have made up some new ones on the board (I designed "Evasion" with the idea of evasive maneuvers).

I love 'em, but then, I'm biased. :D I really wish we had more time to work on them and playtest, but overall I'm happy with the end-result. "Starships" let me do a lot of things that one chapter in the NG wouldn't let me do.

In our Coda-Trek game (that I'm the CO) we got to use starship combat for the first time in a "non-test" situation, where we didn't have the benefit of knowing what was going to happen to us.

It rocked! W00t! :D

They're good; I like 'em. They do a better job of giving everybody something to do. The addition of the starship building rules in the same book was even better.

We've had a couple of ship engagements, and the rules are solid. (And we've learned that the Galaxy class is one tough piece of work...)

In thinking about the starship combat rules I noticed a major premise of combat in Coda: it is not assumed that you will use a battle mat. This is surprising to me because I come from d20 land (a land that focuses heavily on battle mats and miniatures). To me, this is a very good thing. Nothing spoils a cool cinematic cobat scene in your head than pushing around miniatures on a battle mat.

I like the rules having only read them. Hope to use them in a game soon. I think a neat thing to have would be transparencies withe the ranges increments printed on them like circles and moving them around on a star map. I think it would look something like the tactical display from "The Wounded". It would keep that "Trek" feel to think that you're looking at a tactical display instead of your gaming table. I could design them in Photoshop and print them on transparencies.

Let us know how they turn out

Long Tom

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Antonsb214
I like the rules having only read them. Hope to use them in a game soon. I think a neat thing to have would be transparencies withe the ranges increments printed on them like circles and moving them around on a star map. I think it would look something like the tactical display from "The Wounded". It would keep that "Trek" feel to think that you're looking at a tactical display instead of your gaming table. I could design them in Photoshop and print them on transparencies.

---

Oooh, me likey likey. :)

The idea behind the starship system is to take away that tactical layer where the players are pushing around minis and the game switches from an RPG into a wargame. Tread carefully. :)

I've found describing the action much more satisfying, personally.

Quote:

---

I like the rules having only read them. Hope to use them in a game soon. I think a neat thing to have would be transparencies withe the ranges increments printed on them like circles and moving them around on a star map. I think it would look something like the tactical display from "The Wounded". It would keep that "Trek" feel to think that you're looking at a tactical display instead of your gaming table. I could design them in Photoshop and print them on transparencies.

---

Now that sounds cool. I like mid solutions like that - I liked the approach that 1st ed D20 Star Wars took with some representation of the battle, but with big abstracts.

However, I suck when it comes to anything art related. If you do come up with them could you send me a copy? pleaaaasseee ;)

later days!

Mark

My intention is not to turn this into a tactical starship combat system with a player saying "We're coming around in front of him now" , it's just meant to be a way for me to keep track of who's in what range increment of who and to look cool at the same time. It would be fun with just two starships, but with three or more, I don't want to loose track of who's at what range from whom. So, I'll design one with a Starfleet emblem at the center and the others with emblems from the other stellar powers.

The Starship rules for CODA are the best space combat rules for any science fiction game I have ever seen.

Allen

How do the Coda rules compare to the expanded Icon rules found in Spacedock?

TchaU!

We played our first Coda starship combat at the weekend. The players agreed that it was better than Icon and less complex than spacedock, but lacked a little oomph.

Thet suggested that it needed some kind of critical hit or lucky shot type thing, akin to hitting the warp core or EPS system in spacedock.

So, I noticed the weapons doesn't have a damage rating per se, but a penetration value divided by slashes, which I assume refer to the ranges. Are those values the damage inflicted by the weapon?

And what's those codes at the end: +0C +2H +3T?

Thanks and tchau!

Those Codes are modifiers to the different types of maneuvers you can perform with the ship. C is for Command, H is for Helm, and T is for Tactical.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Antonsb214
Those Codes are modifiers to the different types of maneuvers you can perform with the ship. C is for Command, H is for Helm, and T is for Tactical.

---

Are these combat maneuvers? If so, what's teh difference between a Command and a Helm maneuver?

Tchau!

They are modifiers to combat manuvers. the manuvers themselves list which modifier is apropriate

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllenS
The Starship rules for CODA are the best space combat rules for any science fiction game I have ever seen.

Allen

---

I love you Allen, and I want to have your babies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred
Are these combat maneuvers? If so, what's teh difference between a Command and a Helm maneuver?

Tchau!

---

Technically, the difference is that Helm maneuvers require the Flight Control skill, while Command maneuvers require the tactics skill.

Conceptually, Helm maneuvers involve positioning the ship in relation to the enemy. Command maneuvers are tactical decisions that can involve any of the other stations. Anyone can decide to move very quickly at the opponent, firing all the while, and zoom past him out of danger. But anyone not trained in starship tactics will pick the wrong time to do it, and end up flying into a barrage of fire from the oppposing ship. Therefore the Commander uses his tactics skill, not to figure out how to do a Fast Attack, but when the ship is in the right tactical position for it to work.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AllenS
The Starship rules for CODA are the best space combat rules for any science fiction game I have ever seen.

---

I love Allen tooooooo! :D

;)

I love the Coda system and so do my players. Before this we used a crossover of d20 Star Wars to play out starship combat, a sort of d20 Star Trek. But since I've gotten the Coda Rules I have been very impressed. Next to d20 Star Wars these are the BEST rules on the market!!!

I do not like the starship rules for coda. I think that they are not as good as those from Spacedock.

One of my major quarrels is structure points being based solely on size. There is no consideration of hull composition.

Second, it has no power allocation system, which I really don't like. Power allocation is one of the fun parts of starship combat.

Third, they have the torpedo strengths mixed up. A quantum torpedo, even Mark I, should be stronger than that.

Fourth, all shields have the same strength. Plus they don't have grids.

And finally, why are the weapons all grouped into one? All phasers give one penetration value, all torpedoes of a certain type, I mean, come on.

Anyways, I've ranted long enough. If anyone has a starship creation/combat system that addresses these details, I'd love to see it.

Part of me says "why bother," but the fact that you've spewed this misinformation, now, twice, I feel obligated to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lonoto
I do not like the starship rules for coda. I think that they are not as good as those from Spacedock.

---

Then use Spacedock! :) There is nothing stopping you from porting Spacedock into your RPG--the skill tests involved are almost identical.

It's worth mentioning that if you prefer Spacedock then you have totally missed the point of the combat/construction system that comes with the RPG. We are not shooting for a tactical-level space-sim that requires you to stop your game, juggle tedious amounts of numbers, and spend hours resolving what takes place on-screen in a matter of seconds.

Quote:

---

One of my major quarrels is structure points being based solely on size. There is no consideration of hull composition.

---

For our purposes a hull is a hull, however it's worth mentioning that the "Starships" sourcebook does introduce new variations on hulls.

Quote:

---

Second, it has no power allocation system, which I really don't like. Power allocation is one of the fun parts of starship combat.

---

Accountants like numbers and math, but that doesn't mean it's fun. There's no point in having power allocation as you don't have Captain Picard saying such things like "fire all the weapons, but damn we don't have enough left for life support." Starships in Star Trek--sans combat damage--have enough power to do whatever the story dictates.

Quote:

---

Third, they have the torpedo strengths mixed up. A quantum torpedo, even Mark I, should be stronger than that.

---

Quantum torpedoes have been enhanced in "Starships." As it is, the basic torpedo/weapon configuration is based on the (say it with me) collective firepower a vessel is able to bring to bear. The abstraction of the system removes the necessity to stat out all 12 Type X phaser arrays on a Galaxy-class starship. Who cares if an enemy is in range of your aft port-side dorsal array? You just want to fire at the ship--you don't care what actual weapon does it. Apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Fourth, all shields have the same strength. Plus they don't have grids.

---

These statements are both false and only serve to signify that you have no concept on how the system works or what its design philosophy is.

Quote:

---

And finally, why are the weapons all grouped into one? All phasers give one penetration value, all torpedoes of a certain type, I mean, come on.

---

Weapons are grouped together via their offensive value to determine an aggregate penetration rating to represent the collective firepower of a vessel.

Quote:

---

Anyways, I've ranted long enough. If anyone has a starship creation/combat system that addresses these details, I'd love to see it.

---

You want a tactical simulator. The starship combat system in the RPG is not a tactical simulator. Therefore, the system does not fail on its merits; it fails because it doesn't fulfill the role you want it to fill. For others who want an easy-to-use dramatic system that flows easily within their RPG and dramatic storytelling, the system in the Narrator's Guide fits this purpose.

If you want to juggle numbers and play with spreadsheets then I refer you to the old FASA simulator, Spacedock, or (gasp!) Star Fleet Battles.

Our group just love the new system. We feel it totally captures what happens on screen - and we hate juggling with zillions of numbers; we want to PLAY, say cool things like "Hard about, commander, then fire on their weapons array!" and see the result - not count damage on deck 15 section 17-20-alpha-bis...! :)

Two thumbs up on the combat system, for us :D

Though I haven't played with the new system yet, I too feel it'll allow for a feel much closer to what we see on screen.
After all, battles in Star Trek are often viewed from the bridge point of view (except DS9's last seasons), and you see more often the Captain ordering to take evasive manoeuvers or returning fire than the ship actually diving over the ennemy while firing from its aft phaser array (again, except in DS9's season finales).

For excruciatingly detailed battles, I agree with Don that SpaceDock is the system to go.

I totally agree with Don here. And I think that the system was designed quite intelligently. Of course if you are a "mini-maxer" you will find quite a number of holes or anomalies in the rules but I often find that when ST is involved hard and fast rules seldom work well. But gaps in a RPG system can be countered by a very powerful arbiter: the GM, something that most wargames do not have (which is why that such rule gaps become far more problematic). The intent of the CODA ship battle system is to emulate what you see on screen in ST, where in most ship encounters you see the TOS Enterprise, the Movie Enterprise, the 1701-D, the Defiant, Voyager or the NX-01 statically facing an opponent and only trading a few shots. So you don't really need to care about wargaming considerations like facing, weapons and shields arcs, escort units, fleet formations, etc. I guess that in a "real world" ST setting, yes, a ship captain would have to maneuver for advantage (for instance, presenting his most powerful phaser banks towards the enemy while minimizing his own ship's profile, etc) but on the shows and in the RPG as well this is represented by loose orders like "come about", "initiate Alpha-One", etc. When an officer may call for, say, an "Omega-Five", maybe the actual move is to go past an opponent's weak shield and fire the aft torpedoes in a narrow-spread pattern. Now, we did see a lot of epic fleet battles in DS9 and I that would be great grounds for a wargame. But it would have to be abstract to a certain point even in that regard because I feel that you cannot pin down ST ship combat with hard and fast rules. You have to account for the fact that the ship's capabilities are determined by whatever the scriptwriters decide a particular week, not by standard miltary logic or what tech manuals say (which is fine, ST is NOT a military show... I'd say quasi-military ;) ). For example, take 2 exact same Galaxy-class ships; put one in a series context with a regular crew (say the 1701-D); this ship will take a pounding week after week and will go through 7 seasons... while the other Galaxy-class ship will last 5 seconds in another show, either being rammed by Dominion fighters, cut apart by Cardassian warships or being broken in half by the alien superbeing of the week.
And an eventual wargame would have to reflect that... and the current CODA RPG system reflects that quite well.

I just finished a starship form in Printmaster. It's plain and simple and much more printer friendly than the Decipher version. It's two pages, each about 870 Kb in bitmap format. I just sent them in to the submissions address, I hope they put them in the core. I could email them out though if they don't put them in the core.

I must say, I've also thoroughly enjoyed the new Coda system. Comabt in my games (particularly starship combat) has been speeded up no end, and even my number-crunch-loving players have enjoyed it - maneuvers, tactics - the lot. It's like they can really feel *part* of the action, which is surely the aim of an RPG?

I love it, and I can see why it was designed the way it is. Sure, it doesn't simulate starship battles down to the last minute details, but like Don suggested, there are plenty of alternative games/systems people can use if they really want combat to be more of a "game" in itself than a dramatic device in a story.

I like it. Finally a system for space combat in an RPG that isn't math-intensive, requiring a ton of talbes and charts, and doesn't cut into roleplaying. If I wanted to play Starfleet Battles, I can do that; combat in an RPG should be part of or subordinate to, the story and characters.

Credit to where credit is due: Matt Colville pushed very hard for the non-tactical system found in the NG. The first few passes were very FASA simulator-ish (too much so for my tastes). After he sold me on the idea we jointly went through the task of ripping out the tactical system to make it flow better during play. This, of course, led to new problems, specifically ranges, which led to the abstract little "range line" that you use to track ranges. (Maneuvers were always a key cornerstone of the system--I wanted something for the players to do. There were, for a time, Engineering maneuvers, as an example.)

With very little alteration you could re-add the tactical movement system (grid-based), movement rounds, actions (maneuvers), and the individual weapons/arcs.

Of course, at that point I think you've gotten so far away the point of the current design that I don't think you've gained anything via this additional complexity. There are probably better systems out there (Full Thrust, Silent Death, Noble Armada, FASA Simulator, Star Fleet Battles) to handle that level of "crunchy-ness." :)

Glad people out there like it and understand what we were trying.

I must say I'm of two minds on the issue since I do appreciate some degree of complexity, but I love the CODA system. I've actually found that some of the simplifications have smoothed a few of the idiosyncracies of the Icon system (which I hold dear, don't get me wrong, but the players had their comm system destroyed every other episode! :) ) The maneuver system is quite excellent at simplifying things for the players as well as myself -- I essentially ask them, "What do you want to do this turn?" and then I decide which maneuvers best fit what they're attempting. At first, I did miss power allocation, but then again I did a root canal on it when I ran my Icon games. The only minor complaint I have is with the system damage tracks... on first impression they seem to penalize larger ships, because longer reliability tracks give over to more damage effects (although that might be balanced by the fact that smaller ships have less original capacity to reduce anyway). But, in the spirit of this most excellent and well-designed system, I just tweaked them a bit to my own tastes.

Conclusion? It rocks! ;)

Engineering maneuvers? :)

Could you tell us a bit more, Don? What were they about? Upgrading systems, doing repairs and all? Things that finally happen simulatenously to the main combat, I gather? :)

Engineering maneuvers actually sound like a good idea to me.

What were the Engineering maneuvers? I suppose stuff like getting damage control to fix a key system in the middle of battle and the like. I always had a little trouble figuring out what to do to give my engineering PC something to do, should he be in engineering or on the bridge? A few things like the reinforcing shields help, but I suppose the engineering guy could fix some of that battle damage, re-route a blown panel, whatever. But I do like the ship combat rules, I feel abstract rules work best with big ships in small engagements. Playing D20 Star Wars in fighters with an abstract system didn't feel right. Maybe it's just taking me longer to make the transition. But CODA works for me....:D

The original starship combat rules were the typical "top down" view of the battle, with your ship represented with...a ship.

This really bugged me. I said so. My Masters said "How would you like to see it work?" I responded "Like it does on the show."

They said "How would that work?" I was really, really surprised by the block everyone had with this. The idea of simulating what you see on the show simply never occured to anyone. Everyone I talk to instantly presumes starship combat = top-down tactical view. A la SFB, Silent Death, etc...

However, on the show, that's not what you see. On the show, you see the bridge. The captain gives orders, the crew all do shit. Some of that shit is "pilot the ship/fire" which are maneuvers, some are "reroute the power!" which are skill tests. That's what I thought starship combat should be.

There was no reason, I felt, to leave the POV of your characters behind, and have everyone go from picturing what their characters saw, to picturing two ships fighting. In no other sense do you do this. No matter what you're doing in any RPG, you're always dealing with what your character perceives. I wanted to stick with that. So, even though every else took it for granted, I rejected the idea.

I still feel like a better, more direct example of the rules is possible. I also feel like Range as it stands is A: very simple, B: functional, and C: not explained (actually, not illustrated) well. That's too bad.

As a writer, when I recognize that everyone is expecting something (top down POV) and I'm not going down that route, I want to address that. I fear people will get confused if they're expecting one thing, and you deliver another, because if they're really presuming it's going to be one way, and you never say "it's not that way, here's how it is" they can get confused because they're reading Way B and presuming it's Way A and not understanding what the hell we're talking about.

However, I got the chance to reinterpret these rules for CODA's Mass Combat system. Interestingly, the new CODAMCS has rules for armies that work basically like starshiup rules do, but with an optional spatial element. You'll have to see it to understand it, and it probably wouldn't work with normal space fights, but if you're talking about starships fighting to hold a system, it would work, I think, well.

well the D20 incarnation of the SW RPG faced the same problem. And a lot of people were put off quite frankly by the hexless, "all in your head" system. I admit that, as a wargamer, my first (knee-jerk) reaction was "haaaaaaaa it sucks" but now I completely understand the 'whys and wherefore' of such systems. And come to think of it the D6 SW RPG also had similar system. I don't think the ST or SW rpgs would work well with traditional wargame-based rules for an RPG. I think that the points you raise about the PC's perspectives are very eloquent. It is the best perspective I think to define such a system.

CODA MCS? And where/when will we see this? Or is the the mass combat stuff from LOTR

I too would like to see a mass combat system, both for ground and for space. Would make those Dominion War battles a little more feasible......

I started work on a MCS for "Starships" but ran out of space and had to delete it. If given the opportunity in another book I'd still like to provide one. Perhaps even Matt's material for LotR might be ported over at some point for starship use.

Actually I wanted to port Matt's system - but never had the time to...