• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

chase and fly's attempt at a wargame

flykiller

SOC-14 5K
before we pick a name or begin brainstorming, we should attempt to determine scope. ff&s is way beyond me, but I do have a copy of snapshot and have played through it a few times. are we looking for a full-scale wargame, or just a set of rules fora handful of individuals with various weapons (such as might be encountered in an rpg).

playing through snapshot there were several things about it I didn't like. I tried to come up with something similar to it but couldn't get it to work right. I'd like your take on it.
 
A house-mod of AHL is one of my (many) back-burner projects. I may be able to help with a few ideas if your scope is simply an update of Snapshot/AHL, but I have little interest in a mammoth project that incorporates these plus Striker, plus FFS, plus...
 
well, "wrong" is such a strong word.

in snapshot the turns are 15 seconds long and sequential by player. 15 seconds is a long time to do nothing while one player acts. for example, an ordinary person will have action points enough to arm and throw 2 grenades during this turn, but meanwhile everyone else will be frozen and doing nothing - this seems an inordinate advantage to higher ap characters. put simply the turn is too long. more than that, I don't think a system based on turns and positive action points well-serves a combat game involving firearms and snap reactions. I'd like to suggest a track system that uses negative action points.

I want to hear from chase before I go any further.
 
Beautiful Title. Lets keep it (ROFL)
before we pick a name or begin brainstorming, we should attempt to determine scope. ff&s is way beyond me, but I do have a copy of snapshot and have played through it a few times. are we looking for a full-scale wargame, or just a set of rules fora handful of individuals with various weapons (such as might be encountered in an rpg).

playing through snapshot there were several things about it I didn't like. I tried to come up with something similar to it but couldn't get it to work right. I'd like your take on it.

Well, my thoughts are not microarmor or any grand large scale battle system. A bit much to accomplish for first timers.

I was thinking along the lines of Snapshot/Striker. 1 man, 3 man team, squad and up to say platoon level (of course Platoon can mean different things to different people.)

What I would like (if this isn't too big of a chore) is a set of rules that could do the following:
1.Quick and dirty set that fits within the game being played that allows GM/players to position and move and shoot/evade and not take hours to accomplish a 15 min world fire fight.
2. A step up where you can take a group/fire team and do a mini-firefight mission that always each figure to move and act independently without having to do a StarFleet Battles type prep for each turn ( love SFB but it was an all day affair to play out just one scenario)
3. A game that allows for any and all actions that a player/figure could possibly do limited only by game time, figure skills(knowledge), equipment available and enviroment(location).

I like action points based on character abilities (and some limited skills). I like a wee bit of luck possible (besides the throw of the dice) and I like fast turns/play. (In my Futura RPG home made game, battle turns during combat are 3 seconds)

And what's wrong with other games. Nothing depending on what you are wanting out of the game.
What I would like to create is an open play, miniature game rule set that is focused on SciFi type enviroments and equipment. Easy to adapt for the RPG group to do some quick battles/firefights and easily upgradable to lots of detail into plans, tactics and individual movement/actions in both close enough to smell their breath to ship boarding/repelling.

I feel (IMO) that Striker is as a bit large in charts and creation. Which is fine, love it but the miniature play is very rigid. Snapshot is a good intro game for shipboard fighting. Speed it up and take out some of the extra detailed references to other things and I think it would make a very good 'teach someone how to play miniatures'.

Dave Chase
 
Let me give some examples of what I liked and don't like about some games

This is not complaining about any of the following games NOR is promoting or reccomending any of the following games over Traveller. Just examples of what I like and don't like (mainly like)

Loved WarHammer RPG, I mean where else would start as a RatCatcher. ( I was so upset when the GM told me I had to roll for career instead of choosing but that afterward if I did not end up as a ratcatcher, I could Role Play to become one. )
One of the best things about WarHammer RPG for miniatures was that the stats and game play could easily move back and forth between minis and RPGing. (that is until the great many changes/editions. I had my first edition WarHammer miniature rules stolen, Boy was I mad. )

Love MageKnight/clickbases. (and not becaused I worked for them, they asked me to interview for a job. I did not know anything about them other than playing the hell out of it at that time.)
click bases made the combat recording keeping easy for anyone to do. You could heal/improve (Dungeons) and it took in account that your stats changed based on your health level. Some got better, most got worse.
Rules were intentionally made as simple as possible because the target audience was 11 yrs and up. House rules (along with some official scenarios) were encouraged to expand the game.

Really enjoyed 40K because in the begining like WarHammer you could make anything and equip them however, you just had to pay for it (in points and few figures to fight with). (later editions took a lot of this away. Still fun at times but more limiting)

Space Marine was great also because it took the 40K rules and made them large scale battles but that is beyond what I would like to accomplish here.

Legions of Steel(small squad movement) and later PlanetStorm (tabletop to large scale battles) were very fun. Legions was very straight forward with several options/choices of actions besides move and shoot. Designed to be played fast and competively. Neat figures also.

MicroArmor WW3 rules (along with many WW2 rules) was well defined and extremely stat'd for all known vehicles. Play was more on how to out move your opponent versus just what equipment you had. (of course some equipment was more equal to others)

One on One series, (yes, they are books) was a very good example of action/reaction combat. Love the flowchart of what options were open next after you and your opponent made your decisions and dice rolls (if any d rolls were needed).

CarWars, lots of shoot them ups, rebuild, manuvers and injuries. Encourged risk taking and build your own cars along with having many stock vehicles and settings to use. Could be fast pace if you kept on your opponents to play.

And lets not forget SFB and BattleTech. Though different games they had some very similar parts. SSD/Battle diagrams for tracking damage (could be tedious at times).
Love both and still have many minis for both along with the rules but they had so many rules that a rules lawyer could break down the scenario and beat you up before you even knew it, as long as they did not roll failures every time.

Dave Chase
 
Last edited:
This is my take on the holy trinity of 80's tactical games:

The Trio of Classic Gaming Goodness is formed by the following:

Car Wars: Highly nuanced design system based on cost/weight/space. Good for 2 to 3 hour every-body vs everybody games. Not so good for large battles. Free-form movement has lots of possibilities, but leads to arguments with obstacles and dropped weapons are involved. Good for light roll-playing scenarios. Ramming rules freeze the game due to complexity and required referee interpretation/fudging.

Battle Tech: Not so good of a design system, but a good stock of accepted "canonical" designs makes up for this. One on one duels suffer due to the sequence of play (no phased movement), but larger battles are possible: four on four lance battles (with maybe some supporting units) seem to be the sweet spot. Things die nicely-- critical hits are interesting and more colorful than Car Wars' gradual ablative whittling away. [Less rules arguments than Car Wars and less rules consultation than SFB means greater accessability.]

Star Fleet Battles: More rules, 32 phase movement, weapons are actually custom crafted instead of just having different stats. No design system... and an extremely thorough library of canonical designs. Tournament rules provide really good one-on-one battles-- superior to Car Wars and Battle Tech. On the one hand, this ceases to be a beer and pretzels game, but on the other... many many interesting tactical possibilities can be derived from the ships and rules. Fleet battles are more work, though-- maybe too much work.
 
Last edited:
Brainstorming and such

Please, everyone who would like to post something about what they like and don't like about certain miniature games do the following

Could you please tell us what you would like for individual to small groups of individuals for a firefight, boarding action, escape & evasion and etc
Also, please tell us what you would like for a Traveller addition/version of such.
Or tell us that you are happy with what is.

Icosahedron
Incase you fell a sleep during my long posts (LOL), no I am not planning on a mamoth set of game rules. Nor do I wish to rewrite any of the games of Traveller.

I would like to make a set of "generic" Sci Fi rules that would apply specificialy toward the following:

Easy of play for those who don't like or play miniatures
Easy of conversion from RPGing to miniature setting to handle firefights, battles, boarding actions, etc
Ease of upgrading if wanted by others to a more detailed level of actions, tactics, and such

I have played ASL and other games by that company. Fun if you are really into them (and at times I really do like that level.) Great historical and as teaching tool for new officers (cause you can get overwhelmed easily with all the details.)

I don't know if I would want an ASL Traveller like game, but I would like one that would intro into or could be added to that might make such a game for others who really desired such.

On Brainstorming in public,
I fully would like this on this project. My reason is, anyone can make a game that they would like. A few can make a game that everyone can like.
I would like to help create a game (set of guidelines) that most Sci Fi gamers would like.
So input is welcome :)

But on development of said game please read the next post.

Dave Chase
 
IP (Intellectual Property)

I like open content as long as everyone is aware of what it means.
I am for copyrights and licensing
I am for several other items along these lines which includes IP (and thanks to WotC for making this a realty with MtG.)

(Edit)
So, I have removed the long Legal layman information on IP.
What this thread will be is for open SnapShot (AHL, LBB1 and Limited Striker) discussion on how to improve or what you would like to improve about SnapShot.

Only Legal not is this:
Each author or submitter to this thread does so with the understanding that others may and will use the material presented as desired. The only requirement is that credit of concept or ideas are given as appropriate. Ie Don't claim work that others do as your work.

Outside of that lets have some fun and think of some ideas and work out the bugs. (word bugs first then alien bugs later)

Dave Chase
 
Last edited:
I never liked the abstract 'Range Band' aspect of LBB1 combat, and wanted a hex-based or free-form movement system.

Striker was ok for large skirmishes, especially incorporating vehicles, but was heavy on C3 for my tastes. I tended to use it more for vehicle design than anything.

MegaTraveller combat, with its multiple interrupts etc etc was too fussy and took too long to play out (maybe I didn't practise enough with it, but it put me off early on).

I only found Snapshot and AHL recently, when I bought the CD. I liked them both, but deduced that AHL was probably a modification/improvement of Snapshot, incorporating the Striker armour and penetration values with which I was already familiar, so it seemed the best base for my own modifications.

I also recently purchased ACQ from BITS. This is similar to AHL but more complex. I'm not sure the extra complexity is justified.


The main things I wanted to change in AHL are:

A cinematic option - eg a Special Forces/Martial Arts 'expert' (Skill 5+?) uses a pair of handguns/blades simultaneously to kill six badguys before they have time to fire. (Not to everyone's taste, but it's an option).

An improved system for brawling/close combat/martial arts - sadly lacking in Traveller's gun culture.

An improved system for tactical movement, including diving for cover, etc.

A useable rule for KOs

A system for incorporating non-lethal weapons (linked to a working KO rule).

There were others, I'd have to look them up.

Re: IP.
My modifications were/are for my own use. I'm unlikely to make any money from them myself and I'm happy to share on a community/cameraderie basis, but I'm not happy about others making money from them (if they're good enough to sell). Does that exclude me?
 
actually, I just read the above post.

I don't have an argument with any of it. but as for me, everything I do in this game I do for fun and not for any other reason. I've generated a large volume of traveller material over the years, and every last bit of it I've posted and put up for anyone to print and use at any time - the only reason I've ever put a little (c) at the bottom is to prevent someone from copyrighting and then selling it, should anything I've done be worth such effort. I want to see games played, and if anything I've done contributes to that then my attitude is "here you go, and enjoy."

I believe attempting to copyright games of this nature is a futile effort anyway. I've said for decades (wince), anyone capable of playing these games is capable of changing the rules and playing them the way they see fit. most do. "imtu" is one of the most common acronyms here. when gary gygax wrote, "If you're not playing by AD&D rules then you're not playing AD&D", I responded, "well then I don't know anyone who plays ad&d." true then, true now.

dave chase is obviously a "professional" designer, I'm just some idiot amateur. I thought we were only going to hack on snapshot a bit, but I'm belatedly realizing he has more in mind (duh!) than I am able to contribute. hope you don't feel led-on dave, but I'm out of my league here. I'd do better yapping and snapping with the chihuahua pack than trying to come up with something for sale.
 
actually, I just read the above post.
dave chase is obviously a "professional" designer, I'm just some idiot amateur. I thought we were only going to hack on snapshot a bit, but I'm belatedly realizing he has more in mind (duh!) than I am able to contribute. hope you don't feel led-on dave, but I'm out of my league here. I'd do better yapping and snapping with the chihuahua pack than trying to come up with something for sale.

My apologize flykiller. I must of misled you a bit with my legalize of long windedness.

I am not a professional designer but I have worked (be involved with many).
I do want to post it for others to use, I just don't want others to make money off of our work. (putting a (C) does not always work)

And in no way are you out of your league. Some of the best ideas that I have seen in the past have been from those who game more than they design.

Just call my posting an upfront approach to make others aware of issues. I wrote in a layman legal fashion to show a strong intent of knowledge of IP and related issues.

And again I apologize for think of more than what you were thinking. You are correct in that I was wanting to generate a new game (or new set of rules) of sorts instead of just improving an already existing game.

I humbly ask for you to forgive me for getting to exicted about the talkings of a miniature game and for assuming to much of others intent.
Sorry,

Dave Chase
(and no hard feelings at all on my part. :)
 
I humbly ask for you to forgive me for getting to exicted about the talkings of a miniature game ....
nothing to forgive, it's cool.

anyway, what bothered me about snapshot is how a character can take a great many actions during a turn while everyone else is frozen waiting for their turn. squad leader has callbacks and acq has interrupts, but this seems ham-handed to me. I wanted something simultaneous among a handful of actors so each could respond as the situation developed. so I thought of this.

no turns, no initiative, just the expenditure of action points one at a time equally by all characters. each action requires a certain number of action points. trained and/or more capable characters require fewer action points to perform a given action. for example, if it normally takes 3 action points to draw a sidearm, a character with high dexterity or high training requires only 2, and a character with both requires only 1.

example. during a shootout character one decides to run across a corridor. he needs 4 action points to do so. character two is trying to shoot one of several characters and is not focused on character one. one begins, and expends 1 action point. two notices this, and elects do drop whatever else he's doing and begin responding. next cycle, one expends another action point crossing the corridor, and two expends an action point orienting towards him. next cycle, one expends another action point crossing the corridor, and two expends an action point beginning to aim - he needs 2 total, and then another to shoot. next cycle one expends his last action point crossing the corridor, and two realizes he has no time to finish aiming and still get off a shot. as one expends the last action point crossing the corridor two stops spending action points on completing his aiming and instead expends an action point on an unaimed shot.
 
Last edited:
Ah, discussion begins :)

Er, does this mean the game design is over? - Guys?...


Nope, just a change of directions.

no turns, no initiative, just the expenditure of action points one at a time equally by all characters. each action requires a certain number of action points. trained and/or more capable characters require fewer action points to perform a given action. for example, if it normally takes 3 action points to draw a sidearm, a character with high dexterity or high training requires only 2, and a character with both requires only 1.
Sounds interesting.
Does everyone have the same number of action points to use each turn/sequence. Does training change speed of actions (ie how many Ap's) to do x skill/action?
And who goes first?

example. during a shootout character one decides to run across a corridor. he needs 4 action points to do so. character two is trying to shoot one of several characters and is not focused on character one. one begins, and expends 1 action point. two notices this, and elects do drop whatever else he's doing and begin responding. next cycle, one expends another action point crossing the corridor, and two expends an action point orienting towards him. next cycle, one expends another action point crossing the corridor, and two expends an action point beginning to aim - he needs 2 total, and then another to shoot. next cycle one expends his last action point crossing the corridor, and two realizes he has no time to finish aiming and still get off a shot. as one expends the last action point crossing the corridor two stops spending action points on completing his aiming and instead expends an action point on an unaimed shot.

Sounds like a RTS game. That has some difficulties to overcome in a physical world of people versus a computer run enviorment.

Who declares first what their first action is? Does everyone write down what they plan to do then expose them at the same time?
Lots of time in between waiting for each player to determine what they are doing on each action point. Not so bad if their is only 2 or 3 players/characters but can get very tedious if more cause lots of 'Ok now ch1 did this and ch2 now does what, next ch3 does what and so on.'

How many actions does a character get per turn? If all characters do not have the same number of action points available per turn, who goes first? (an example of a game that has dealt with this kind of issue, CarWars(T), dealing with speed and movement.

How many actions points can be expended in a turn?


Ok now for my comments and not necessarily the answers to anything.

In my role playing game, combat turns are 3 seconds.
Each player declares verbally what they are going to do (if any player starts abusing this then they write it down.)
There is a list of things that I have that shows about how long it takes to do something.
Skills are taken into consideration when determining who does what first.
Example say both characters are in a gun fight (this will be very general concept and not the full blown version)

Both declare that they are going to draw at the same time
Both have speed draw, ch1 has level 2 and ch2 has level 3
Both have high dex, ch1 15, ch2 14
Both have handgun combat with their pistol of choice that they are drawing (both have it level 4)
Basically considering skills and stats they are equal, How?
ch1 2+15+4=21
ch2 3+14+4=21
now they roll
High roll wins and gets to determine a to hit roll resolved and damage determined
Then next gets their roll and etc applying any mods for the damage
What if they tie. Both do the hit and damage at the same time

Depending on what type of dice is used, I will also allow full effect of damage to take place if the dice difference is very large on the quick draw roll
Also when being picky, type of holster, type of gun, weight of gun versus character str, enviorment (light, winds, dust), emotion of the character and more. This is extremely picky and only used when either requested by the player or the death of the character will make one of the players very upset. I don't use it all the mods if both players are good about it being roleplaying.

Back on point:
How much do you use for mods to determine who has the best advantage?
Space Marines (T) lastes version when you get done creating your armies basically it comes down to:
If you have certain type units and you have the highest point total, you will always win.
I don't like that kind of mod determination. I like a bit of flare, luck and sometimes the dice gods don't favor you today.

Dave Chase
 
I still use initiative (or in a tie, dexterity) to determine turn order (IIRC ACQ uses this method).

Point by point AP spending could work.

I have the number of action points determined by dexterity: 6AP/turn is standard for dex 5-8; if dex 3,4 -1; if dex 1,2 -2; if dex 9,10 +1; if dex 11,12 +2.
The number of action points available can be doubled therefore depending on dexterity. Other races/creatures may have a different standard based on species dexterity norms.

So just to get it straight in my head, what's happening with IP now?

PS. If you don't want my input, you're free to tell me to butt out. :)
 
I still use initiative (or in a tie, dexterity) to determine turn order (IIRC ACQ uses this method).

Point by point AP spending could work.

I have the number of action points determined by dexterity: 6AP/turn is standard for dex 5-8; if dex 3,4 -1; if dex 1,2 -2; if dex 9,10 +1; if dex 11,12 +2.
The number of action points available can be doubled therefore depending on dexterity. Other races/creatures may have a different standard based on species dexterity norms.

So just to get it straight in my head, what's happening with IP now?

PS. If you don't want my input, you're free to tell me to butt out. :)


Input, wanted and desired. :)

Basically, I think this thread will be focused mainly on
What could be done to improve Snapshot
Hashing around ideas of things that would be neat or desirable to have in a miniature game
And how one could adapt/change over from RPG to mini and back again with little work


Your dex to AP is a quick and easy way to determine how much one could do.
I have also seen in games where stats give you + or - that this is used to modify up or down a set AP value.

Neat idea all the same Icosahedron
 
I'm reading Twilight 2000 right now...

I kinda like the hesitations and "Coolness Under Fire" stuff-- In Car Wars, everyone has iron wills and 1/5th second reaction times.

In T2k, they use skill levels to determine who attacks first (compared to say, GURPS, where everything hinged on Basic Move to to determine move order within a one second turn.)
 
Not forgotten just been a bit busy

And distracted when here by some other thread.

I am re-reading Snapshot several times and thinking, taking some notes.

I think by this weekend I will have some questions, suggestions and comments for you all to digest and then respond to.

Have a good Thanksgiving day.

Dave Chase
 
Likes/Dislikes

What I like about snapshot:

1) All the characteristics are important.
2) Because of the way characteristics and weapons interact, you get a very wide variety of weapons.
3) It integrates perfectly with Traveller. In fact, I think it plays best using Book 1 character generation.
4) Differences in optimal ranges result in dynamic battles with some counters trying to get close and other counters trying to stay away.
4) Overwatch trumps action points.

What I don't like about Azhanti High Lightning:

1) Characteristics aren't as important...they effect "to hit", but unlike snapshot they don't effect "penetration". Also, they don't effect action points or wounds.
2) No wide variety of weapons...combat armor makes anything worse than a gauss rifle largely pointless.
3) Battles aren't as dynamic...no real reason not to just stand your ground and blaze away.
 
Back
Top