Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Home of the 1st and 2nd editions of STARFIRE

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Forum rules
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.

Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby artbraune on Sat 09 Apr 2016 19:11

I recently found this on BoardGameGeek:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/114062/starfire

I found corroborating evidence here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~pdr4455/jpp.html

And then found a copy at Noble Knight Games.

As I do not see a way to add an attachment here - I am going to direct you to either the Starfire Facebook group (where I have posted scans and my update in the Files section):

https://www.facebook.com/groups/518441601575446/

Or to the Starship Combat New Forum - where I attached the files to this thread:

http://www.star-ranger.com/forum/viewto ... d1316d3ea4

Let me know what you think?

FWIW - Cralis is aware of this find and I asked for permission prior to uploading the scans... 8^)
artbraune
Shuttle Pilot
Shuttle Pilot
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun 28 Feb 2016 13:00

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby jbanes on Sun 10 Apr 2016 08:24

After all the difficulties in getting the 1979 Starfire, I never thought I'd see a copy of the Starfire prototype. In digital scans no less! Thank you so much for sharing!

It's interesting to compare the rules. If I'm not mistaken, the impulse system is completely missing. The way it's described makes it sound like you just move your ships by their movement factor and move on to the next phase. I played this way a time or two until I figured out how impulses are supposed to work. I get that impulses provide a more chess-like balance to movement, but I wonder if it's really that helpful?

It's also interesting to see how much more complicated the rules are. Carriers, orbitals, and other aspects that wouldn't come back to Starfire for a few releases.

The final observation that stuck out to me was the close-in design of combat. Looks like only a single D6 is used in attack tables and ranges are stated in relatively few hexes. That's probably due to the size of the he map, but it doesn't seem that much smaller that the 79 release.

Thanks again artbraune! I love seeing this stuff!
jbanes
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 16 Feb 2016 21:00

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby aramis on Mon 11 Apr 2016 05:43

I was unaware of the "zero edition" version. Until this morning.

It's interesting, but OY VEY is the text hard to read, even in the relayout version.
aramis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2010 00:42
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby artbraune on Mon 11 Apr 2016 17:06

@jbanes - you are most welcome. 8^)

Quite the find and quite an interesting path from the prototype to the TFG versions.

@aramis - when I received the original version it was in worse shape - I spent some time cleaning it up to get it to where it is today.

As for the updated version - I tried to retain the layout - but update it to modern - clean standards. The 8pt font, can at least, be zoomed in for easier reading. The printed copy does require me to take off my glasses, though.

I might do a 2-page version of the rules in the future...

Also thinking about renaming the "Tractor" ship type to "Tug".
artbraune
Shuttle Pilot
Shuttle Pilot
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun 28 Feb 2016 13:00

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby jbanes on Mon 11 Apr 2016 19:43

aramis wrote:It's interesting, but OY VEY is the text hard to read, even in the relayout version.


Standard PDF software (e.g. Adobe Reader) has a zoom function that will allow you to read without difficulty. If you have an iOS device just pinch and zoom. You'll be able to read it just fine.

If you printed the instructions... wait, you printed the instructions? Who does that? :lol:
jbanes
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 16 Feb 2016 21:00

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby aramis on Mon 11 Apr 2016 20:45

jbanes wrote:
aramis wrote:It's interesting, but OY VEY is the text hard to read, even in the relayout version.


Standard PDF software (e.g. Adobe Reader) has a zoom function that will allow you to read without difficulty. If you have an iOS device just pinch and zoom. You'll be able to read it just fine.

If you printed the instructions... wait, you printed the instructions? Who does that? :lol:

I'm VERY well aware of the features- but I'm one of those for whom, if it isn't on paper, it won't get played. And on paper, that's hard to read. Even at 200%, due to his font choice, it's hard to read.
aramis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2010 00:42
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby jbanes on Mon 11 Apr 2016 20:57

aramis wrote:I'm VERY well aware of the features- but I'm one of those for whom, if it isn't on paper, it won't get played. And on paper, that's hard to read. Even at 200%, due to his font choice, it's hard to read.


As much as I might joke about it, I understand your plight. I wear glasses made out of spy satellite optics. (It was the only way to get rid of the Coke bottles. Was not cheap.)

Unfortunately, the document is correct to the period. If there's one thing I learned in researching early microgames, it's that they tried to save paper as much as possible. Probably because computer typography hadn't yet arrived. Everything had to be typed, typeset, or copied. The recreation at least uses modern, legible fonts.

Putting aside the fact that this is more of a historical curiosity than a playable game, I realize that historical accuracy is not much comfort. So here's a suggestion: If you have a copy of OpenOffice or LibreOffice you can open the PDF into an editable document. This will allow you to reformat it to your liking before printing. I can't guarantee it will handle the formatting, but it can't hurt to try.

I hope that works for you. Good luck!
jbanes
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 16 Feb 2016 21:00

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby Whitecold on Sun 17 Apr 2016 00:12

Very interesting. These rules doesn't seem to describe everything later listed, at least I didn't see what the cutting beams are supposed to do.
Others might have known already, but this finally explains where the G in Sprint Missile comes from.
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby aramis on Sun 17 Apr 2016 02:45

Whitecold wrote:Very interesting. These rules doesn't seem to describe everything later listed, at least I didn't see what the cutting beams are supposed to do.
Others might have known already, but this finally explains where the G in Sprint Missile comes from.

The G was "Gun" in everything prior to 3rd... third still referenced it as Gun, but made note that it was actually a sprint missile....

Even the 3r UTM still called the G system a "Gun"... but on XO, they are listed as "XO Sprint Missile"... and the ammunition is "Sprint Missile" or "Standard Missile"...
aramis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 01 Mar 2010 00:42
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

Re: Speaking of "Original" Starfire...

Postby LesMasters on Sun 17 Apr 2016 06:14

"at least I didn't see what the cutting beams are supposed to do."

The definition is given in the paragraph on Tractor Beams - the cutting beam is what later became the shear plane. I had to read the rules very carefully before I spotted this - it is just one sentence alomg quite a few.

Les
LesMasters
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon 30 Nov 2009 12:26


Return to Original Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron