A few general questions about spacedock

[Doktor Evil]

In light of the new Klingon SRM, I was reviewing other Spacedock-related stuff and some design philosophy questions came to my mind.

First of all, what is the point of having a ship with 6 torpedo launchers if supposedly only a single player handles weapons and thusly because of multiple action penalties it becomes very difficult for even the best tactical officers to score more than 8-9 torpedo hits on a target. Are there several tubes for the sake of redundancy (in case some tubes get damaged) and because you can fire some launchers while the other ones are reloading? If I understand the rules correctly, a ship with 5, 10-spread tubes is no better off in practical ability than a ship with a trio of 10-spread launchers. Is the practice of having one officer manning each launcher an acceptable practice? That would nullify the multipe action penalty problem. But still, what is the point of having a launcher than can shoot up to 10 torpedoes if the tactical oficer can, at best, effectively target maybe 6 or 7 to score hits?

And then, it seems to me that most spacedock ships are grossely overarmed. Before Spacedock appeared I had seen on this site fan-posted designs for the normal LUG RPG versions of the rules that were far less armed than most Spacedock designs and that were later pulled off the site because they were deemed to be unreasonably overpowered! I mean, most ship designs sport more armament than the Galaxy-class cruiser or the D'deridex Warbird, which I both believed to be at the top of their classes in that domain (?). Am I nuts?

Also, if launchers have a 360o firing angle, then why bother positionning some launchers aft, or port or starboard? Why care?? Why not putting all of them in front? or aft? or ventrally?,etc.

Another thing : since most weapons have a 360o firing arc, and that all of the shields are always of equal strength; AND given that most ships move more or less alike (from Dominion fighters to the huge battleships like the Negh'Var), what is the point of moving your ship? The only thing that came to mind was to keep a weak shield away from the opposition, but at the start of a fight how does manoeuvrability play in?

If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd appreciate!

[Sea Tyger]

Also, if launchers have a 360o firing angle, then why bother positionning some launchers aft, or port or starboard? Why care?? Why not putting all of them in front? or aft? or ventrally?,etc.

Another thing : since most weapons have a 360o firing arc, and that all of the shields are always of equal strength; AND given that most ships move more or less alike (from Dominion fighters to the huge battleships like the Negh'Var), what is the point of moving your ship? The only thing that came to mind was to keep a weak shield away from the opposition, but at the start of a fight how does manoeuvrability play in?

In Spacedock terms, a 360 degree arc is not a full sphere. If you look at pg. 136 of the book, you'll find the definition for each type of arc. For example, 360 degrees means that the ship can fire at any target on one side of the ship, meaning that the weapon covers a half sphere.

Torpedoes are listed as being located in a position, but with the stipulation that they are self-guided, meaning that they effectively have a 720 arc of fire.

[Steve Long]

As you note, Doktor, there's a big issue of redundancy here. I suspect ship designers would rather not have their ship's tactical options curtailed by a lucky enemy shot -- so they install extra launchers and such.

In terms of why I write ships up that way, there's also the existence of canonical and quasi-canonical sources. Regardless of what the rules do or don't allow, if a reliable source shows me that Ship Class So-And-So has six launchers, I feel obligated to put 'em in the writeup.

Also, there is some possibility for use of multiple weapons in the rules. You could use multiple launchers as part of a multiple-weapon attack, for example.

But, as always, it's your game -- do what you wanna do! If you'd just as soon get rid of the "extra" launchers and use the SUs for something else, go for it, sez I.

Steve Long
HERO System Line Developer

[Paul]

Originally posted by Doktor Evil
Another thing : since most weapons have a 360o firing arc, and that all of the shields are always of equal strength; AND given that most ships move more or less alike (from Dominion fighters to the huge battleships like the Negh'Var), what is the point of moving your ship? The only thing that came to mind was to keep a weak shield away from the opposition, but at the start of a fight how does manoeuvrability play in?

If anyone would care to enlighten me, I'd appreciate!

Well...

If you look at most ships weapons placements, you'll find that the bulk of weapons are located in a forwards position, with some (but certainly a minority) weapons in back to cover the ship's butt.

That said, if vessel A and Vessel B have equivalent forward fire-power, but Vessel A is more manouvreable than Vessel B - wouldn't it then make sense for Vessel A to get in behind Vessel B and pound it with its forward-firing weapons, while only taking minor damage from Vessel B's rearward-firing weapons?

Tough choice, really...

[Doktor Evil]

Ah thank you for your input. I would like to point out the following issues:

when I meant "360o" I had in mind the traditional, 2D, wargaming 360d, which is all of the firing arcs (fore, port, starboard, aft). I know how the SD system works. A phaser strip with a 360o ventral arc can fire at any target below the ship, all around.

As Paul pointed out, torpedoes have a 720o arc. But if you review most of the ships, you'll find that their beam weapons can practically hit an enemy ship at any angle. Only a very few ships like the B'rel have really restricted firing arcs. Since firing more than a couple of banks/strips at a target becomes impractical, the firing ship's position relative to the target matters very little, if at all. Get behind a Galaxy, a D'deridex, an Akira, an Ambassador or Galor class ship and it will be able to pound you exactly as if you were in front of it. Hence, my movement question.

As for the canon stuff, I look at the DS9 Tech manual and I don't see ships with 4 or 5 torpedo launchers. But I think that LUG staff got some input and clarifications from people like Rick Sternbach; and apparently the DS9 tech manual is full of bugs in the starship section (so I heard). But still, I read a reference in the first SRM calling the Galor-class undergunned because it "only" had a pair of 10-spread torpedo launchers. I mean, most ships seem to have like 3-4 launchers. Even the SD Nebula has 3 launchers now.

Any thoughts?

[tonyg]

Evil,

The DS9 tech manula doesn't give much information of ships. From the write-ups listred in the TM is wasn't important how many Type X phaser emiiters a ship had, just what type of emiiters.

As for the launncehrs issue-

In Real world ship designs, one of the major reasons for multiple turrets on a ship was to increase the chances of hitting the target. Generally, it's difficult for a moving weapons plaform (like a ship) to hit another ship-sized moving platform, and even a hit didn't necesarritly mean inflicting any significant damage.

With better targeting systems and faster reloading times, modern ships have fewer weapons, but they are much more effective (compare an AEGIS defense system to the .50 cals used in WWII).

In SPACEDOCK the mutiple launchers do grant some game benefits (mostly using the multifire rules. Tecnhcially it is possible to squak out a couple of extra torps).

The redundance factor is also improtant, since it prevents someone from crippling too easily by targeting weapon emitters. For example, if someone took out the portside phaser array, most Fed ships could simply keep a different side trained towards the enemy.

This can also be significant for defensive purposes. If the portside shields are weak, it makes sense to have a differnt side facing the enemy, and it is better if there are weapons on that side.

[Lancer]

Another issue in the number and placement of weapons on a starship hasn't yet been mentioned, i.e. what kind of ship you are designing.

Sometimes having 4 or 6 launchers on a vessel just feels right for the designer. If you want to build a warship under Spacedock rules there is nothing that says more clearly than heavy weapons that "yes, this IS a warship!".

The commissioning date plays an important part in this design process as well.
A lot of fan designs you see posted in this forum have a design history that places their commissioning during or after the Dominion War. While personaly I don't agree with the more-military-minded-Federation-after-the-war line of thinking it makes a convincing argument for ship designs that seem overgunned compared to ships of the TNG era.

[Phoenix]

Originally posted by Lancer
A lot of fan designs you see posted in this forum have a design history that places their commissioning during or after the Dominion War. While personaly I don't agree with the more-military-minded-Federation-after-the-war line of thinking it makes a convincing argument for ship designs that seem overgunned compared to ships of the TNG era.

Hey...Not all fan-based ships of the durring/post DW are military minded , of the three I've been working on, one is heavy on the militant side. However it was designed with a single purpose...to strike deep in Dominion territory (Achilles-class based of the DW Computer game, class of the same name) the other two fill roles that I figured would be wanted/needed after the war, first a small deep-space scout (mentioned in the PoF, but later dropped- and I thought that class type was an excellent concept), cheap to build, effective at it's task, and fast. they exist to go infront of the new explorers (Sovie's). The second is more driven by core-world fear, after the Breen's attack on Earth, the loss of Batazed, and threats to other core Federation worlds. I am working on a monitor type ship- heavily armed and shielded, but it's sole job is to remain in system just-in-case, also functions as a heavy Comm relay satellite/micro-Starbase (for an idea see the FASA's UFP ball ship, only TNG it). An un-glorious job, "...I baby-sit planets and screen their calls for them..."

With most of the Fed ships I try to design, I go with the flexability concept, and as I said one military design (for the Fed's that is). The next three designs I want to try are all non-military, a Merchant Marine Bulk-Cargo type ship, a Merchant Marine Police Corvette, and a Deep-space rescue/recovery ship (SF, MM, or Civilian- I don't know yet).

Now I know that there are several SFB type players out there, I don't complain. It's their game, not mine. Sometimes even I get that "lets blow something up" thought in my head (and I use to do that for my job...hee hee bombs ar' great).

Ok, starting to write a book here...type to you later...

[Doktor Evil]

I think it suddenly dawned on me : you are doomed if you look at Spacedock through a wargamer's eyes. It just won't work. Because Spacedock is an RPG supplement.

Yes, seen from the wargamer's perspective, moving the ship or all those weapons don't seem important in SD. But you have to look at the RPG elements to understand what SD is trying to portray in the ST setting. For instance, it is not where to move that is THAT important, but how. By using the various patterns (ie evasive Alpha-1, etc) you can create a set of very elaborate moves. And I think I see the wisdom in that : those RPG-ers who don't like to map out on the table the ship action can use elaborate moves without physical representation.

And since most weapons pretty much can fire anywhere, the differentiating qualities that matter are not the weapon stats, but the people manning the weapons. So in true ST fashion, the people are more important than the machinery itself.

I think I finally "dig it"!

[tonyg]

Doc,

That's part of it. It also seems to be part of the difficulties you seem to be having with CODA.

I think you were looking for a tabletop wargame.


Now SPACEDOCK can be used that way. It just than many things that you EXPECT to see from similar games aren't in SPACEDOCK.

Weapon arcs, individual weapon batteries and the like make for a good wargame, but don't necessarily reflect TREK or even real life. (WWII battleships might have fired invidiual batteries, but most calculations foreffect were calculated from the total number of guns firing. Generally, volly fire was used becuase of the difficulties involved in hitting ships at sea). A game that did a good job of representing that was task Force's BATTLEWAGON. Ironically, it was very similar to thier SFB. ). Likewise, postional maneuvering becomes less important in games without weapon arcs.
What was a good wargaming rule doesn't always fit in TREK. In TREK the fire control systems are mUCH better than the equivalent system in WWII or even modern day.


Also, since wargames are meant to be battles, a lot of the rules ae very cut & dried in order to help reduce agruments over "who killed who". THis leads to other problems because game rules might conflict with other data.

[Doktor Evil]

I never said that the CODA ship portion should be modelled like a wargame, to the contrary. I was questionning some stat issues.

As for how things work in the ST universe, your guess is as good as mine, and mine as good as anyone else's. And for each 20th century or historical reference you use to support a point, I can throw one in to refute it. Then you end up in an endless spiral. Instead, you're always better off relying on the context and the spirit of the setting you want to depict, and on sheer common sense. For instance, in the DS9 episode "Valiant" the writers came up with the Dominion Battleship. It was big. Real big. It looked menacing. You got the idea right away that it was a kick-ass ship.

You seem to think that the ST setting won't work for a wargame. Well then I guess that whoever's working on Engage at Decipher is wasting his time then...
I think that if you could make GREAT tabletop games with B5, you can do the same with ST. The DS9 Dominion War story arc is an awsome background that would easily be translated into a wargame format.

Some people, especially some ST fans, are OBSESSED with following "canon". But the thing about ST canon is that for every single fact established, there are 99 other ones that aren't. And then again, there are many ways to interpret the canon statements. For instance, the whole concept about ST torpedo range is based on a SINGLE line written in a tech manual. It says that type II torps have a max effective range of 3,500,000 km. But then you have plenty of room to work with what HASN'T been said. Me, I'd make it extremely difficult for torpedoes to hit anything past 300,000 km, which is the max beam range. I'm talking here a 10% chance of hitting something at max torp range. Only ships with TONS of torpedoes could afford to sit back and bombard the enemy at long range with torpedo barrages to soften him up. That means then that enemy fleets MUST close on each other to fight, thus EXPLAINING why in ST you NEVER saw big ships sitting iddle and launch torpedoes. And that works just perfectly for a wargame. Above I mentionned common sense. Well, the tech manual VERY ambiguously states that torps have a 360o firing arc. Why bother then to put an aft launcher on the Galaxy class? Why not all in front? On the back? Under the ship? Common sense : if there is an aft launcher it isn't there by accident. But what about the 360o firing arc? Here's what you do : yes, torps can hit anything around the ship BUT the fore torpedoes are most effective when, surprise, they are aimed at targets in the fore arc, and the same goes for the aft torpedoes. If you'd make a wargame rule based on this, fore torpedoes fired at a ship lying within the fore arc cuold have, say, a 75% chance of hitting the target, but if the target were lying in the aft arc then your chances of hitting would fall to 50%.

When you think about it, there is very little we know about ship combat in ST. We know that apparently ships have different shields (fore, port, etc.); what are the effective ranges of beam and torpedo weapons; that the Galaxy class torpedo launchers can launch 10 torpedoes at once, etc. So there is APLENTY that we don't know about and that can be bult up to create a wargame that can be fully canon. Hey even as an amateur game designer I was able to create a set of ST conversion rules for FT that (I believe) are 100% canon. I challenge anyone to look them up and find something that has been contradicted on screen.

I have to give you credit for something where you influenced me : the importance of people over technology in ST. In the FT design notes I've conceived, there is a section on crew quality that is at the core of the system. Take 2 similar ships in abilities, but crew one with a great crew and the other with an average crew and the ship with the best crew will blast its opposition in no time. If you had the chance to upgrade your ship with either quantum torpedoes or bump the crew level up one grade, your ship would be much more powerful with the new crew.

[tonyg]

Evil,

What I meant was that you have appeared to look at CODA through "wargamer's eyes"

As for how things work in TREK. For the most part you're correct about following what's on-screen. THere is a certain degree of internal consistience, but as much as most gamers would prefer (Its entertainment, not a documentary).


ST certainly can work as a wargame. That what SFB has been for years. Heck, I've even wrote a couple. It's just not every ST game that invloves starships IS a wargame.

The torp range is actually something that's shown up on-screen, and not just in the DS9 TM. Common Sense- One problem I have with some of your statments is that many things that you take as commen sense aren't. For isntace the reason for mutiple torp lauchers in different locations could just be bacuse they wanted spare launchers in case of battle damage. Likewise spreading them out make it less likely for one hit to take them all out.

You see, I know you don't want torps to be effective at longer ranges (I've read your wargames), and are intrepreting things to support that. THat doesn't make it fact or common sense. Just one intrpretation.

Hey, if you rember my board game, torps fired at long ranges usually don't have a target left to shoot. Same is true of SPACEDOCK.


As for your game. Everything can be contradticted on-screen-the shows contractic themselves. Look at how inconsisitent the shields are just in TOS. Thats TV.


Games that try to reflect the TV aspects usually have to adjust things a bit to match. Otherwise it's hard to explain half of what happens on-screen.

[Doktor Evil]

You see, I know you don't want torps to be effective at longer ranges (I've read your wargames), and are intrepreting things to support that. THat doesn't make it fact or common sense. Just one intrpretation.

Well I am biased

Never said it was factual, but it does make sense. For Elvis'sake, if you have a major weapon pointing in one direction you'd expect its for a reason. I yet have to see a ship that fires its fore launcher at a target in its back and vice-versa. Viewers would be going "WTF?!?".

But of course your interpretation is as good as mine on that one. Again, anything that HASN'T been mentionned is pure conjecture and thusly anyone's guess can be right.

Hey, if you rember my board game, torps fired at long ranges usually don't have a target left to shoot. Same is true of SPACEDOCK

You often used conters to represent torps, which is a great way around the range issue, but I don't understabd what you mean by not having a target left to shoot. Line?

[tonyg]

Bias,
UIt's good that you are aware that your biased. It's good to be aware of that when you read posts.



Weapon's Fring:
Not a lot of sense. If the weapon can fire in a full arc it would still have to be somewhere . If it can't, it would probably be in a turret.
I always thought that they used the "facing" launcher primarily as a time issue. It would take time for the torp to do a U-turn.
STVI seems to be the best example of torpedo maneuverability.



Not Having a target left to shoot:
By using torp counters and having torps move on the board, torps now take time to reach thier target. At ranges beyond 50 hexes that time can be used by the target vessel. That means that the target could:

1) Got to warp
2) Try to outrun the torp
3) try to shoot the torp (with phaser or another torp)
4) try to jam the torp


Note that this dovetails well with the facing launcher idea. It might take a few seconds for a trop to make that U-turn.

[Doktor Evil]

Note that this dovetails well with the facing launcher idea. It might take a few seconds for a trop to make that U-turn.

Yes it would. I think we're basically arguing along the lines of : "I'm saying 2+2=4 and you're saying 1+3=4"
I never said that torpedoes don't have a 360o arc (or 720o if you think in 3D); as you pointed out, the swirling torpedo in STVI showed us what they could do. But I was arguing that the probabilities of hitting a target lying in front of you with the aft launcher would be lower than with the fore one (and of course vice-versa), hence explaining why you might always be better off using primarily the launcher that lies closest to the target.

One point you reminded me of: you mentionned using torpedo counters. When you were designing rules, one of your concerns was that in larger games the board could become cluttered with torpedo counters. One of the ways you offset this was to have launcher recharge rates at 3 turns (I have adopted that bit BTW... thanks !); but what would you recommand in situations where you split your fire? For instance, if you'd fire your 10-torpedo volley at 3 different targets (say 3 torps for ship A, 3 for B and 4 for C) would you have 3 counters?