Starfire without WP's?

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Sat 18 Jul 2009 19:30

Cralis wrote:Fred, have you seen Admiral's Challenge yet?



"Seen it", yes. Read it carefully. Not yet.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Sat 18 Jul 2009 19:46

PracticalM wrote:The entire reason WPs become stagnated is that income is too high. Any time you can place 9x the max transit HS in ships at a WP you have a good chance of sealing the system. Under Ultra there are some interesting ways to change that and you get Drones pretty early so I've rarely seen unbreakable WP defenses.

WPs give you
Clearly defined boarders


And here I thought that there were no recent boarding rules... ;)

Mystery of Exploration
Gives a good reason to keep SRW tech high (otherwise go max with LRW as the enemy always has to cross that range)
Allows slower ships to engage enemy (Max speed ships with Max range weapons are very valuable in a no WP situation)
Secret ways into empires
Wj tech gives you some interesting avoidance systems

A non WP system would need a way to prevent players from sending large waves of separate fleets forcing the enemy to try to figure out which fleet is the big attack fleet.


Clearly defined borders: And the advantage of that is?

Mystery of Exploration: I think that there would be plenty of mystery without WP's. Sure, you might know what the basic system type and star type(s) in the system your heading to are. Big deal. After you've seen a ton of star systems, the mystery is sort of minimized. You still would't know if there are habitables or NPR's in the system until you go look.

Allows slower ships to engage enemy: And allowing inferiority to be considered good tactics or ship design strategy is a "good thing" because?

Gives a good reason to keep SRW tech high : Yawn. ;) SRW's secondary weapons, plain and simple. I don't recall seeing any modern navy building its warships using guns as their primary weapons. The historical trend in warfare is to build weapons that can shoot the other guy before he can shoot you. I see no compelling reason to defend a contrivance simply to promote an historically inferior technological imperative.

Secret ways into empires: in a no WP paradigm, your entire frontier is a "secret" way into an empire. Well, of course, it depends on the model of No WP's used. But in general, you may not be able to stop an invader in a hyperspace paradigm from reaching the destination, which effectively means that all of space is a secret way into an empire. OTOH, with Dan's model, you could conceivably position pickets all around your empire's frontier and have response forces in key systems.

I'm not terribly sure that I agree with your assessment about income being the reason that WP's become stagnated. It's a contributing factor, but I'd also say that it's the nature of WP's to be that way. They're choke points. Defenders are going to seek to place massive defenses on WP's. And no matter what the income levels, you'll eventually be able to make a WP's defenses super nasty.


And for a way to try to prevent the other guy from sending bunches of huge fleets at you, you can start by sending out raids of your own. Without WP's to make blocking such raids, you could conduct raids similar to those carried out in the most recent mainline Honor Harrington book, where HH's 8th FLT was raiding major rear area star systems and forcing Haven to tie up lots of its own ships... And without WP's blocking those raids, ALL star systems can become potential raiding targets. One might argue that finding sufficient ships to build an offensive fleet might be difficult against a determined practitioner of raiding tactics...


And, without meaning to come off sounding harsh or like I'm attacking you, Jeff, so long as Cosmic is a 3e revival product, it will not be using solutions that are clearly anti-Canon. (And I do apologize if that does come off harsher than intended...) :|
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby GFFP on Sat 18 Jul 2009 20:58

Crucis wrote:Oh, and yes, the system generations rules might need a tweak or 2, but not as many as you might think... well, aside from the entire WP section. Of course, there'd be no such thing as "Starless nexuses".

The biggest difference would be the following. In Starfire, you have no clue whatsoever what lies on the other side of a WP until you go look. But in a no-WP's environment, you really should be able to see the stars out to a considerable distance, and know a couple of very basic pieces of data before you bother to go to a star system, such as whether it's a single, binary, or trinary system and the Star Types of the star(s) at a bare minimum. If nebula rules were used/included, you'd know if the system was in a nebula.

Also, if nebulae were used, they should seriously impact the distance at which you could see another star system if your "line of sight" passed through a nebula hex.



Very true, no starless nexuses as any hex withut a system effectively becomes one.
And technically with my scale a trinary system becomes 2 separate systems.

My sighting range is 6 Sector hexes, limited because of dust/dark matter and plot-onium.
You can see into a nebula hex but not through it. You can see the star(s) types in a visable
system but not what the planets (if any) are.
GFFP
Midshipman 2nd Class
Midshipman 2nd Class
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue 14 Jul 2009 16:38
Location: Muskegon, Michigan

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Sat 18 Jul 2009 21:19

GFFP wrote:
Crucis wrote:Oh, and yes, the system generations rules might need a tweak or 2, but not as many as you might think... well, aside from the entire WP section. Of course, there'd be no such thing as "Starless nexuses".

The biggest difference would be the following. In Starfire, you have no clue whatsoever what lies on the other side of a WP until you go look. But in a no-WP's environment, you really should be able to see the stars out to a considerable distance, and know a couple of very basic pieces of data before you bother to go to a star system, such as whether it's a single, binary, or trinary system and the Star Types of the star(s) at a bare minimum. If nebula rules were used/included, you'd know if the system was in a nebula.

Also, if nebulae were used, they should seriously impact the distance at which you could see another star system if your "line of sight" passed through a nebula hex.



Very true, no starless nexuses as any hex withut a system effectively becomes one.
And technically with my scale a trinary system becomes 2 separate systems.


Yes, you're correct on that, Dan. Your scale is basically 1 StMP = 1 strat hex, while my likely scales for an FTL model would either be 1 LY or 1 parsec per strat hex. Obviously in your model, given the distance of comp C's, they would be in different strat hexes. :)

As for starless nexuses, well, I suppose that it's a PoV as to that a starless nexus is. I guess that I'd say that with no WP's, you can't have a starless nexus, since the defining feature (IMO, of course) is the presense of those WP's. No WP's, no starless nexus. Regardless, empty strat hexes are just that ... empty starless strat hexes.

My sighting range is 6 Sector hexes, limited because of dust/dark matter and plot-onium.
You can see into a nebula hex but not through it. You can see the star(s) types in a visable
system but not what the planets (if any) are.


So, in your system if you have a star system that's in a nebula, but the nebula is rather large and the star system is not in the "edge" strat hex of the nebula, would you be able to see that star system, since you'd have to see through an intervening nebula strat hex?
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby GFFP on Sun 19 Jul 2009 08:44

Crucis wrote:Yes, you're correct on that, Dan. Your scale is basically 1 StMP = 1 strat hex, while my likely scales for an FTL model would either be 1 LY or 1 parsec per strat hex. Obviously in your model, given the distance of comp C's, they would be in different strat hexes. :)


My Sector hexes are 60 sH wide, so they are 2 StMP to cross.
Thus at maximum separation, the 2 component stars of a binary are just inside
the same Sector hex, as the A comp star is in the direct center of the Sector Hex.

My sighting range is 6 Sector hexes, limited because of dust/dark matter and plot-onium.
You can see into a nebula hex but not through it. You can see the star(s) types in a visable
system but not what the planets (if any) are.



So, in your system if you have a star system that's in a nebula, but the nebula is rather large and the star system is not in the "edge" strat hex of the nebula, would you be able to see that star system, since you'd have to see through an intervening nebula strat hex?



Nope, only the star systems in the border sector hexes of a nebula are visable from outside the
nebula. From inside the nebula only the star systems in adjacent systems are visable.
Looking out from a nebula edge system is normal range into non-nebula sector hexes.


Dan
Last edited by Crucis on Sun 19 Jul 2009 08:55, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed missing [ quote ] bbcodes
GFFP
Midshipman 2nd Class
Midshipman 2nd Class
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue 14 Jul 2009 16:38
Location: Muskegon, Michigan

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Sun 19 Jul 2009 09:55

GFFP wrote:
Crucis wrote:Yes, you're correct on that, Dan. Your scale is basically 1 StMP = 1 strat hex, while my likely scales for an FTL model would either be 1 LY or 1 parsec per strat hex. Obviously in your model, given the distance of comp C's, they would be in different strat hexes. :)


My Sector hexes are 60 sH wide, so they are 2 StMP to cross.
Thus at maximum separation, the 2 component stars of a binary are just inside
the same Sector hex, as the A comp star is in the direct center of the Sector Hex.[q/uote]

Ok, my bad.



My sighting range is 6 Sector hexes, limited because of dust/dark matter and plot-onium.
You can see into a nebula hex but not through it. You can see the star(s) types in a visable
system but not what the planets (if any) are.



So, in your system if you have a star system that's in a nebula, but the nebula is rather large and the star system is not in the "edge" strat hex of the nebula, would you be able to see that star system, since you'd have to see through an intervening nebula strat hex?



Nope, only the star systems in the border sector hexes of a nebula are visable from outside the
nebula. From inside the nebula only the star systems in adjacent systems are visable.
Looking out from a nebula edge system is normal range into non-nebula sector hexes.


Dan



Actually, that's what I was asking. Miscommunication... :|

Star systems in border hexes of a nebula: visible
Star systems deeper in a nebula: not visible
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby PracticalM on Sun 19 Jul 2009 18:21

Crucis wrote:
PracrticalM wrote:Clearly defined borders
Mystery of Exploration
Gives a good reason to keep SRW tech high (otherwise go max with LRW as the enemy always has to cross that range)
Allows slower ships to engage enemy (Max speed ships with Max range weapons are very valuable in a no WP situation)
Secret ways into empires
Wj tech gives you some interesting avoidance systems

A non WP system would need a way to prevent players from sending large waves of separate fleets forcing the enemy to try to figure out which fleet is the big attack fleet.


Clearly defined borders: And the advantage of that is?


It allows for clear rules for ownership of systems and rules on interdiction of systems. Without WPs which systems in space are cutoff when raiders are operating in the space between the system and the capital system? Flow of goods are clearer with WPs and very vague in open space.

Also with WPs you can deal with non-euclidian space to have multiple empires border in one system. This isn't really possible with non-WP methods.

Crucis wrote:Mystery of Exploration: I think that there would be plenty of mystery without WP's. Sure, you might know what the basic system type and star type(s) in the system your heading to are. Big deal. After you've seen a ton of star systems, the mystery is sort of minimized. You still would't know if there are habitables or NPR's in the system until you go look.


This is completely false. Right now with IND1 technology we can spot planets out to 50 LYs away.
http://www.spacetoday.org/DeepSpace/Sta ... sions.html
Using the Terrestial Planet Finder information about their formation, development, size, temperature, amounts of gases like carbon dioxide, water vapor, ozone and methane, and suitability for life would be available.

With WPs any empire or any anomaly in the entire game could be found behind a WP. In a normal space game players expand from their starting location until they reach their opponents.

Crucis wrote:Allows slower ships to engage enemy: And allowing inferiority to be considered good tactics or ship design strategy is a "good thing" because?


So you like there to be only the fastest LRW ships be the best and eventually only strategy? Already Fast small ships with LRW are a powerful fleet and this just makes it more so. If you bother to build large ships, I just run around your large slow ships with my small ships and attack your planets.

Original 3rd edition had BCs be the only ship built (except for WP assault ships) because it was the largest speed 6 ship. You want to return to those days and you call that inferiority? I would recommend you review the Mailing List archives on the discussion around the power of LRW armed CTs (I engines) and FGs (J engines).

Crucis wrote:Gives a good reason to keep SRW tech high : Yawn. ;) SRW's secondary weapons, plain and simple. I don't recall seeing any modern navy building its warships using guns as their primary weapons. The historical trend in warfare is to build weapons that can shoot the other guy before he can shoot you. I see no compelling reason to defend a contrivance simply to promote an historically inferior technological imperative.


What do modern naval guns have to do with Lasers, Force beams, or Energy beams? These are original Starfire game technologies. Why do you want to get rid of them? WPs give a reason for different technologies and try to break the fast LRW ship superiority in at least 1 different combat situation.

If you want to make a space game that doesn't deal with WPs heck there's many of them. Star Fleet Battles, original Traveler, Attack Vector, Silent Death, or Renagade Legion. Starfire has always been more about the kind of trench warfare and attrition that you get with WPs. If you change the core of that part of the game, there are a lot of core game assumptions need to change too.

Crucis wrote:Secret ways into empires: in a no WP paradigm, your entire frontier is a "secret" way into an empire. Well, of course, it depends on the model of No WP's used. But in general, you may not be able to stop an invader in a hyperspace paradigm from reaching the destination, which effectively means that all of space is a secret way into an empire. OTOH, with Dan's model, you could conceivably position pickets all around your empire's frontier and have response forces in key systems.


Again it depends on the model of the No WP system you are using as you say, but most allow you to detect your opponent from some distance. If you don't then there's hardly a game to it at all, you can't afford to divide your fleet up into small pieces trying to defend everything. Just take a big fleet and go smashing planets and hope you smash his before he gets yours. If you can't stop or intercept an invader then the attacker has all the advantages and there's never a reason to stop attacking.

Crucis wrote:I'm not terribly sure that I agree with your assessment about income being the reason that WP's become stagnated. It's a contributing factor, but I'd also say that it's the nature of WP's to be that way. They're choke points. Defenders are going to seek to place massive defenses on WP's. And no matter what the income levels, you'll eventually be able to make a WP's defenses super nasty.


How many Ultra games have you actually played? You prefer 3rd edition that was very income out of whack (far too much income which allowed too big of fleets). Even 3rd edition games where we cut the income by 1/5, still had too much income and no way to break WPs because of the 6 ships a turn limit and the ability for all the ships to be active at the WP.

I've played in 5 GSF to Ultra games and rarely can someone build a WP defense that can't be cracked within 10-15 turns. Most of those were single system NPRs which had little effect on the game because they were trapped in as much as the other empire was trapped out. Ultra WPs allow for a fairly large number of enemy ships to transit a WP in one turn and then you can't have all your fleet active and the WP activation rules means that unless you have about 9x the amount of HS that can transit a WP in a turn you just can't stop a WP.

Unlike 3rd edition there are no mines to keep enemies bottled up on the WP, and while there are a number of weapons you can place in buoys, you have to pay maintenance on them and they just are not nearly as effective. In addition Drones come much earlier in the tech path than SBMHAWKs in 3rd.

I would love to have other GSF and Ultra players chime in. There are just so many different Ultra technologies to break WPs that I can't see it happening like original 3rd could.

Does the maintenance cost of buoys prevent empires from building roadblocks that last longer than 15 turns?

Crucis wrote:And for a way to try to prevent the other guy from sending bunches of huge fleets at you, you can start by sending out raids of your own. Without WP's to make blocking such raids, you could conduct raids similar to those carried out in the most recent mainline Honor Harrington book, where HH's 8th FLT was raiding major rear area star systems and forcing Haven to tie up lots of its own ships... And without WP's blocking those raids, ALL star systems can become potential raiding targets. One might argue that finding sufficient ships to build an offensive fleet might be difficult against a determined practitioner of raiding tactics...


For non WP setups, you attack right from the start and never stop. GFFP becomes critical because holding systems is next to impossible. You will never be able to defend a system because if you do happen to have enough forces, the attacker will disengage and move to the next system instead.

Really even WP setups favor GFFP so if that's what you want you just have to follow that strategy there too.

Crucis wrote:And, without meaning to come off sounding harsh or like I'm attacking you, Jeff, so long as Cosmic is a 3e revival product, it will not be using solutions that are clearly anti-Canon. (And I do apologize if that does come off harsher than intended...) :|


Then I recommend you actually edit your posts so they don't sound like they are coming off as attacks. To me you sound like someone who doesn't know what you are talking about. Especially around the problem with small fast LRW ships in this situation.

I've played a some Federation and Empire and I'm quite familiar with issue of reaction forces and forcing your opponent to spend effort tracking down a huge number of fleets looking for your major attacking fleet. Starfire just doesn't have the rules for dealing with that sort of thing without significantly changing the sensor rules.
--
Jeffrey Kessler
PracticalM
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:27
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby BillW on Sun 19 Jul 2009 20:32

I don't normally do "me too" posts, but I have to agree with everything that PracticalM said; he said it better than I could have. I will emphasize the following point however.

PracticalM wrote:I would love to have other GSF and Ultra players chime in. There are just so many different Ultra technologies to break WPs that I can't see it happening like original 3rd could.


The biggest objection to WPs is WP stagnation. This problem has been solved in GSF/Ultra. I have played and run games with those rule sets and never saw the old 3rd edition problem of unbreakable WP.
User avatar
BillW
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue 14 Jul 2009 22:31
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Cralis on Sun 19 Jul 2009 22:14

As a GSF/Ultra player, I would agree with Jeff.

However, having worked with Fred for a while I think there is a misunderstanding going on right now. Fred's project is to rebuild 3rd edition and continue working with the Weber canon history. Because of that, one of Fred's first priorities is: stick with the canon history and technologies. There are some clear 3E "parameters" that Fred is following and some clear like/dislikes that echo the 3E player-base and I think Fred is right to follow them.

Your ideas are good Jeff for an Ultra framework, but I don't think they will work for where Fred is going. But that is ok - we don't want to turn this into a 5E vs. 3E debate because they have different aims and objectives. 3rd edition players like the framework and assumptions of the canon history, so there is merit to Fred sticking by his guns. 5E players prefer a different type of game balance, and so they play Ultra, just like me. There is room for all of us!

I think that if we turn this into a 5Ev3E debate, or try to "convince Fred to change his mandate" that the only result could be a flame war or people continually talking past each other. Perhaps we should split this thread into two: one for 3E and one for 5E?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10712
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Starfire without WP's?

Postby Crucis on Mon 20 Jul 2009 00:38

PracticalM wrote:
Crucis wrote:
PracticalM wrote:Clearly defined borders
Mystery of Exploration
Gives a good reason to keep SRW tech high (otherwise go max with LRW as the enemy always has to cross that range)
Allows slower ships to engage enemy (Max speed ships with Max range weapons are very valuable in a no WP situation)
Secret ways into empires
Wj tech gives you some interesting avoidance systems

A non WP system would need a way to prevent players from sending large waves of separate fleets forcing the enemy to try to figure out which fleet is the big attack fleet.


Clearly defined borders: And the advantage of that is?


It allows for clear rules for ownership of systems and rules on interdiction of systems. Without WPs which systems in space are cutoff when raiders are operating in the space between the system and the capital system? Flow of goods are clearer with WPs and very vague in open space.


And maybe a little vagueness could be a "good thing"... A no WP's situation could make raiding and piracy relevant, depending on the "no WP's" model used.

Also with WPs you can deal with non-euclidian space to have multiple empires border in one system. This isn't really possible with non-WP methods.


Whatever. Doesn't seem like a dealbreaker in any direction.

Crucis wrote:Mystery of Exploration: I think that there would be plenty of mystery without WP's. Sure, you might know what the basic system type and star type(s) in the system your heading to are. Big deal. After you've seen a ton of star systems, the mystery is sort of minimized. You still would't know if there are habitables or NPR's in the system until you go look.


This is completely false. Right now with IND1 technology we can spot planets out to 50 LYs away.
(snip).


Jeff, when I said, "You still would't know if there are habitables ...", I wasn't talking about real life. I was talking about what the likely rule would look like on the topic.



With WPs any empire or any anomaly in the entire game could be found behind a WP. In a normal space game players expand from their starting location until they reach their opponents.


And this is different from what happens in a WP paradigm how exactly? :roll:





Crucis wrote:Allows slower ships to engage enemy: And allowing inferiority to be considered good tactics or ship design strategy is a "good thing" because?


So you like there to be only the fastest LRW ships be the best and eventually only strategy? Already Fast small ships with LRW are a powerful fleet and this just makes it more so. If you bother to build large ships, I just run around your large slow ships with my small ships and attack your planets.

Original 3rd edition had BCs be the only ship built (except for WP assault ships) because it was the largest speed 6 ship. You want to return to those days and you call that inferiority? I would recommend you review the Mailing List archives on the discussion around the power of LRW armed CTs (I engines) and FGs (J engines).


Note that I'm not a big fan of swarm tactics, and a part of my plans for Cosmic is to weaken swarms in a number of ways that I don't want to discuss at this point...






Crucis wrote:Gives a good reason to keep SRW tech high : Yawn. ;) SRW's secondary weapons, plain and simple. I don't recall seeing any modern navy building its warships using guns as their primary weapons. The historical trend in warfare is to build weapons that can shoot the other guy before he can shoot you. I see no compelling reason to defend a contrivance simply to promote an historically inferior technological imperative.


What do modern naval guns have to do with Lasers, Force beams, or Energy beams? These are original Starfire game technologies. Why do you want to get rid of them? WPs give a reason for different technologies and try to break the fast LRW ship superiority in at least 1 different combat situation.


Who said anything about getting rid of them?

But the fact is that this represents (IMO) a difference between the 3e and 4e philosophies. Many, many 3e fans (at least that I've talked to) like seeing the weapons have a healthy respect for historically accurate technological imperatives. And since Cosmic is a 3e revival product, that respect will hold sway.

That does not mean that SRW's might as well not exist. It does mean that they are secondary weapons whose use is reserved for special situations. Obviously, in a WP environment, WP defenses and assaults are a key location for the use of SRW's.

HOWEVER, I do NOT think that any decision as to whether to use or not use WP's should be dictated by a desire to keep SRW's "relevant", simply because a certain segment of players are stuck in a "phasers at 2 paces" mentality.





Starfire has always been more about the kind of trench warfare and attrition that you get with WPs. If you change the core of that part of the game, there are a lot of core game assumptions need to change too.


I'm not convinced that it's THAT severe. Of course, a lot hinges on the exact model used for a no WP's game. A model like Dan's STL "Dark Stars" campaign... Heck, even in a hyperspace model, there are probably a considerable number of ways in which HS could be done... for example, are hyper journeys from system to system instantaneous, or do they take a long time? The choice between these two would have a massive impact on maintenance issues, for starters...




Crucis wrote:Secret ways into empires: in a no WP paradigm, your entire frontier is a "secret" way into an empire. Well, of course, it depends on the model of No WP's used. But in general, you may not be able to stop an invader in a hyperspace paradigm from reaching the destination, which effectively means that all of space is a secret way into an empire. OTOH, with Dan's model, you could conceivably position pickets all around your empire's frontier and have response forces in key systems.


Again it depends on the model of the No WP system you are using as you say, but most allow you to detect your opponent from some distance. If you don't then there's hardly a game to it at all, you can't afford to divide your fleet up into small pieces trying to defend everything. Just take a big fleet and go smashing planets and hope you smash his before he gets yours. If you can't stop or intercept an invader then the attacker has all the advantages and there's never a reason to stop attacking.



I agree that those are concerms and that the exact model of no WP system would impact that as well....





Crucis wrote:I'm not terribly sure that I agree with your assessment about income being the reason that WP's become stagnated. It's a contributing factor, but I'd also say that it's the nature of WP's to be that way. They're choke points. Defenders are going to seek to place massive defenses on WP's. And no matter what the income levels, you'll eventually be able to make a WP's defenses super nasty.


(snip)

Unlike 3rd edition there are no mines to keep enemies bottled up on the WP, and while there are a number of weapons you can place in buoys, you have to pay maintenance on them and they just are not nearly as effective. In addition Drones come much earlier in the tech path than SBMHAWKs in 3rd.



Adherence to the Canon History is a non-negotiable mandate of Cosmic Starfire.

This will apply to minefields, though I make no guarantees that MF's will look exactly the same as in 3e, since so many people always seemed to have trouble understanding the MF rules... However, minefields having the ability to bottle up the enemy on a WP is a very Canon thing and in this case, nearly untouchable.

This will particulary apply to WP transit rules. There will be no TSA. There will be no multiple ships safely being able to transit in the same transit pulse (as this is VERY anti-Canon, and appears to be very pro-swarm).

I do agree with the value of paying maintenance on AW's, but I don't see that as a Canon issue.




I would love to have other GSF and Ultra players chime in. There are just so many different Ultra technologies to break WPs that I can't see it happening like original 3rd could.


Frankly, Jeff, this is not necessary. As I stated emphatically above, Adherence to the Canon History is a non-negotiable mandate of Cosmic Starfire.

I will not be drawn into any 3e vs 4e/5e bashfests. And I cannot effectively do what I need to do on Cosmic if I let people draw me into 3e vs 4e flame wars.

Now, I am not saying that you are intentionally trying to bait me into a 3e/4e flame-a-thon, but I was soooorely tempted. And if not for my special SDS membership training, I'd have fired away with all force beams a-blazing!!! :lol: (j/k)



Crucis wrote:And for a way to try to prevent the other guy from sending bunches of huge fleets at you, you can start by sending out raids of your own. Without WP's to make blocking such raids, you could conduct raids similar to those carried out in the most recent mainline Honor Harrington book, where HH's 8th FLT was raiding major rear area star systems and forcing Haven to tie up lots of its own ships... And without WP's blocking those raids, ALL star systems can become potential raiding targets. One might argue that finding sufficient ships to build an offensive fleet might be difficult against a determined practitioner of raiding tactics...


For non WP setups, you attack right from the start and never stop. GFFP becomes critical because holding systems is next to impossible. You will never be able to defend a system because if you do happen to have enough forces, the attacker will disengage and move to the next system instead.

Really even WP setups favor GFFP so if that's what you want you just have to follow that strategy there too.


There may be a lot of truth to that (the GFFP part, I mean). But perhaps the issue (just thinking out loud here) is that colonization is so easy that GFFP becomes almost too potent, too tempting, and too profitable a strategy... ?


Crucis wrote:And, without meaning to come off sounding harsh or like I'm attacking you, Jeff, so long as Cosmic is a 3e revival product, it will not be using solutions that are clearly anti-Canon. (And I do apologize if that does come off harsher than intended...) :|


Then I recommend you actually edit your posts so they don't sound like they are coming off as attacks.


Pot.... Kettle .... Black. Think about it.



To me you sound like someone who doesn't know what you are talking about. Especially around the problem with small fast LRW ships in this situation.


Swarm ships will find that life is going to get a lot more uncomfortable in Cosmic in a number of ways. (Or at least that what I hope will be the case.)


Jeff, you should consider that I have some very different opinions about Starfire, given my past associations in the game, and that it's quite likely that we may not be agreeing about much of anything Starfire, given that you (IIRC) are a dyed-in-the-wool 4e person ... and I'm very old school 3e person.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

PreviousNext

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests