Counterstrike

[Jeffr0]

Most hexes will have only one or two counters in them.... Some might have bunches. Once a corp dominates a planet's economy, you just need one marker (maybe a see-through colored Pente piece) to establish ownership.

For the ones that have bunches of counters... have a planetary "Battle Board." This would be an index card size (maybe bigger) and would have room for all the opposing sides' counters plus additional stats.

Maybe at the most intense point in the game, you'll have 3 or 4 "Battle Boards" laid out for a subsector sized area. To help with the visualization, use one color to mark a hex as being expanded out.... Then lay the extra boards out to the side of the map more or less in a similar relation as the systems on the map.

If the hexes are big enough that they can hold 2 counters side by side... plus maybe see some other data on it (a few key values in the corners plus the system name), then this might work.

(I don't partitularly like the layout I've seen for Imperium and FFW. Look's like it'd be hard on the eyes!)

Just guessing on this...!


Edit: In terms of game size... I imagine a battle over a single subsector would correspond to a mini-game (like the Ogre Mk III command post scenario.) A two subsector game would be a more advanced game (like the Mk V scenario) and a sector sized game (or bigger) would be a 4 hour Axis and Allies type game.

 

[robject]

Now that, Jeffr0, is thinking. Good show. The battle board idea is superb... and in fact, the 3x5 card is a perfect size for that... and in fact again, there won't be but a handful of these battlezones. Yowza, that's good thinking.

AND... hey... that works on so many different levels: that serves for tradewar buildings as well as military conquest... oh my goodness, you've just solved two problems at the same time...

Also, good thinking about time scale and map scale. A sector is huge... too huge for most games.

--

By the bye, the sample map and tradewar counter sheet I used are here:

http://home.comcast.net/~downport/rules/Regina.png
http://home.comcast.net/~downport/rules/sheet.png

Red is corporate, blue is pirate, and green is patrol.

I am planning to take the new, pretty, feature-laden sector generation code from whatshisname and blend in my stuff. Until then, I'm stuck with my old script.

--

I've noticed in Counterstrike that giving trade modifiers for the presence of an X-Boat route tends to make nearly all worlds along the X-Boat route extremely lucrative, to the point where a large line would not want to trade off the route at all, except in extraordinary circumstances.

In fact, a 3-tier system grows out of the X-Boat bonus: the biggest company (Tukera) takes the X-Boat route worlds; a smaller company (Oberlindes) takes the endpoints of the X-Boat route and worlds near the XB worlds; finally, the tramp freighters pick at the scraps, which are slim pickings indeed.

 

[BeRKA]

The counter sheet looks really nice, except for one thing. The patrol cruisers looks skewed.

I know, it is my fault...

Maybe they would look a bit better if they were produced as 2 inch counters and then shrunk using a good image editing tool. (I guess You produced these using the 1 inch setting.)

I will also try to correct this in the generator, but right now I don't know how...

For offices, etc. maybe I should make a 'building rendering machine'? What do You think?

When it comes to hex sizes, I agree that the hexes needs to be big enough for at least two counters next to each other, with some system data still visible.

Btw, have You seen the latest icons I've added?

Cheers
/BeRKA

 

[robject]

I didn't even notice the Patrol skew. It doesn't look skewed at all on print, by the way.

Yeah, those are 1" counters. When I went to print them, I first shrunk them to 0.75" with Paint Shop Pro (wonderful, wonderful program...). I may try to shrink them to 0.5", but maybe they're unreadable at that size.

As far as buildings go...

-- I assume you've generalized your perl script by now --

...you could add buildings, but I can get by with obscure military icons. No pressure. I can see this kind of thing get out of hand fairly quickly. Of course, some might say you've already gotten out of hand, you productivity maniac.

I was sort of wishing there were some automatic way to generate a sheet like that. An interface to your script that fed it different stats for each column. Have to think about that more, it sounds messy. As it is, I simply overlap the next set onto the previous set, which works well enough.

A full-fledged counter set would require same-color-sets for the different players, plus the military units. Assuming four players, that's maybe four tradewar sheets and four military sheets -- or can I get away with less?

Hex sizes. Sigh. They might have to be 2". I guess that's okay -- that's an 11x17 for a subsector.

 

[Jeffr0]

BTW, this is a very cool toy:

http://www.zho.berka.com/rules/war/ship_counter.shtml

Sweet!

 

[BeRKA]

Ooh, I see that You posted this at "StarFleetGames" as well. Thank You for spreading the word.

 

[Jeffr0]

I've been so wanting to check up on my Spiff fighter squadron today, but I can't because your site's down BeRKA....



(Hmm... Maybe he's setting up his counter machines to make whole sheets at a time....

)

 

[BeRKA]

I blame the Norwegians. Telenor had a broken fibre in the south of Sweden causing lots of trouble. My site was down for 12 hours.

It is working now, and there are 5 new icons.

 

[BeRKA]

From one of the icons I added (Classic_Invaders) I got a new idea about the "Interstellar War" game.

The players don't have to be on opposite sides in the game. They can be on the same side and fighting an automated enemy. The players can start as a captain of a ship, and if they perform well enough they will get promoted to commander of a task force, and if they still perform well enough the get promoted to commander of a squadron, and then if they still perform well enough the get promoted to an admiral of a fleet section, etc...

Finally, the player will control a big fleet, and then he might start a civil war...

Think Olav hault-Plankwell of First Frontier War.

http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw/libdata/ALPHABET/C/civilwar.htm

This game could be called the "Navy Career Game".

/BeRKA

 

[Jeffr0]

I found this article while trolling the web for Striker info...

Combined Strategic-Tactical Gaming

http://www.kentaurus.com/strattac.htm

Could be relevant to some of the ideas we've kicked around...

 

[robject]

This is great stuff, Jefferwhatsis. I'm absorbing it now. I've heard Settlers of Catan has elements of this.

Okay, so it seems that the author is suggesting that a simple overgame (strategic?), puncutated by occasional tactical resolutions, makes for a good balance. He also likes double-blind games. Counterstrike could be double-blind, if counters are upside-down, assuming the owning player can remember what his units are... that means (1) a very small number of counters in play at any one time, or (2) stand-up units like in Stratego, which is hard to do with counters, or perhaps (3) an ID number on the board, which represents one of the player's forces, and a corresponding allocation of ships at the player's side. Or something else I haven't thought of.

 

[Jeffr0]

Did you see where he'd played two entire Imperium campaign? Nutso! I've seen other people criticize Imperium for rewarding the loser, but this guy likes it because "one can play many wars... before the overall outcome is certain." Hmmm.

Here's a key bit:

"My interest in two-level games that combine strategic and tactical games relates to the interest in design-a-thing games in that all along I had wanted to see how the designs influenced the large-scale outcome. If they really combine strategic and tactical, with the operational level missing, then the lower level is, as I said to Warren, two levels below the upper level."

I don't quite understand it, but I know that I want in a game exactly what he's describing. I want the 'gearheading' side of the game system to have both tactical & strategic consequences-- while still being playable.

Elsewhere on his site he reviews a magazine called the Vindicator:

"Metagaming games, (and indeed all the science fiction boardgames of the period) are often remembered with an unusual combination of fondness and derision. Vindicator's goal, as the publisher says in the opening editorial, is to 'vindicate' these games, and in that goal it is largely successful."

http://www.kentaurus.com/m3vinrev.htm

I haven't been able to find any info on the publisher Michael T. Friend, though. I presume the magazine is defunct. I'd be curious to know why Metagaming microgames (which include Ogre) would be considered so significant....

 

[robject]

Okay, can you elaborate on what an 'overgame' is?

I understand how gearheading effects strategy and tactics: Trillion Credit Squadron showed us hints of that. As tech and population varies, so varies the fleet. I would not attempt to put that into a wargame, beyond providing conversion rules into the game.

How to avoid information overload? How to keep it simple?

Why would a Tradewar be fun? What makes battles fun?

Space battles are fun in moderation -- not too many. Probably, the fewer the better. Putting them in context is a nice idea too. Resolving some battles via very-high-level rules is a good idea.

So when would you want to break a battle down into a smaller component game? What are the choices? And how does one compensate the loser? Do losers get any sympathy or mercy at all? I wouldn't think so, but I'm not sure.

 

[Jeffr0]

An overgame is a high level game that provides a framework for a series of tactical engagements.

Tactical games that are played without overgames are unrealistic for several reasons. There is no consequence for 'wasting' materiel when there is no overgame. Tactics that could never work long term in a real campaign get applied. Designs get optimized for a single mission when in 'reality' each side would field more multi-purpose units. And so on...


Overgame Examples--

ADB's Campaign Designer's Handbook contains notes on how to build an overgame for Star Fleet Battles.

Combat Operations provides a fair outline for running an overgame for Battletech.

CAR WARS provided an overgame initially through continuing characters, but later groups developed a "corporate approach" to the game that became the norm.

I presume Trillion Credit Squadron provides the overgame for High Guard. I do not know of any overgame rules for Striker, though the rules do include some notes to help you along in that direction.


>> How to avoid information overload? How to keep it simple?

Victory Conditions. Morale. At some point, World War II (or whatever) is effectively over and there's no need to play out any more of the tactical engagements.

Also... Ogre is about as complex a tactical game as I could handle in a real campaign. As I've tried to articulate in the past... a 'deep' microgame is (in my estimation) the key to making a playable overgame.

 

[hcobb]

How often do you see different players at the different levels?

For example in the PBeM Imperium game I'm starting up, there are two players playing the overgame by controlling the empires and multiple players handling fleets, with a speed of jump limit on comm traffic between them.

 

[Jeffr0]

Not often. You rarely see double-blind and communications-lag as it is.

If the fleet commanders are restricted in the orders they can give (Striker style) then you'd just about have as close to the real thing as you can get. You really couldn't call that a game anymore-- it'd be a simulation.

The most important 'player' for a game like that would be the Historian. Putting all of the pieces together after the dust settles and identifying the key "if only" moments would be the most interesting thing. (If only Fleet Alpha had disobeyed they're orders at this point, then the entire war could have been won in that turn.)

That's the thing that makes reading real history so nerve wracking...

 

[Jeffr0]

Here's my sketch for "Book 2" Counterstrike Lite:

My system game board is inspired by the Book 1 Combat System and the Book 2 planetary templates. Planets have a set of concentric rings around them wide enough for a counter. (This will provide a compromise between being either totally abstract or totally hex-based-tactical.) Planets will be connected by lanes. Counters in transit between planets will have an ETA marker beside them. A chart on the game board will indicate the distances in game turns between planets as they change each turn.

Combat is resolved in two phases each turn. Players first secretly declare movement orders and computer program selection for each of their units. (The shorthand for software used in Mayday should make these orders fairly dense and quick to record.) Next, movement is resolved. Then targets are selected and declared in secret. Then combat is resolved.

Book 2 will provide the design system and record sheets. The counters will be large enough to track damage on them. The key here is to be able to tell at a glance how a force is doing without having to look on another record sheet. The damage tracks will line up on each slice of 'pie' on a set of concentric circles. (This idea was inspired by [read: stolen from] FASA's Last Starfighter game.) In addition to damage tracks for computer, engine, jump drive, and weapons, there will be a 'hull' damage track that can impact all the other systems when enough of it is marked off. (This is called the 'sweep' effect.) Likewise, enough power plant hits will impact engine, weapon, and jump capability.

Weapons will have a to-hit modifier for each range and also a bonus (or penalty) on the damage table for each range. As usual, regular lasers get an extra bonus to-hit and pulse-lasers get an extra bonus on damage.

The damage table will typically have small amounts of hull hits in the lower ranges... and increase in critical hits and damage amounts as it gets into the upper ranges. This models the penetration ratings for each weapon. (Pulse lasers +1, Missiles +4.)

Depending on the range to the target, Missiles will have an ETA to impact for their target. Each turn a die is rolled to determine how much the missile has closed. The roll is modified by computer rating and g-rating. This will model the lag in firing and impact that we see in Mayday and also leave an element of surprise in the combat resolution. Some missiles will run out of fuel, others will arrive earlier than expected. Some missiles will be fired at lower speeds in order get them to mass up and overwhelm the target's defenses.

 

[robject]

Yowza, sounds like you have a drop-in lower-level combat setting for High Guard...

 

[Jeffr0]

I haven't seen Highguard yet-- I'm not allowed to until I've fully digested the rudiments of Book II and Striker.

I wonder to what extent I've reinvented to wheel....

Book II has build times for all the designs... and of course class A ports make ships and class B ports make small craft. I believe Trillion Credit Squadron has rules for taxation.

The only thing I lack is repair rules... and a simple system for resolving where the ships show up when they come out of jump. (That last one's a flame war waiting to happen, though.) Maybe in addition to the planetary distances table, there could be a masking table that explains the jump exits to neighboring systems....

Some elements of double blind movement can be simulated by using envelopes and fleet markers for the counters that are in transit. (Some of the envelopes could be empty.)

With this it should be possible to make a fairly short micro-game that allows for combat between two star systems or even two Pocket Empires. The Gas-Giants, Ports, and Planets will all have tactical and strategic significance-- and the combat will retain much of the flavor of Book II.

 

[The Oz]

Have you ever seen the old SPI wargame "BattleFleet Mars"? It works in much the way you are describing, covering interplanetary war on a strategic and tactical scale.

It's one of my favorite games.