New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Semi-freeform nation building rules (PEACH)

    Hey, all. Another board I post on is gearing up for a big sci-fi play by post (signups are still open, by the by; see my thread in Recruitment if you're interested) and we're hammering out the rules we want to use. The games are mostly freeform, but we try to have a simple points-based rules system as a backstop in case of player disagreement.

    I'm trying to work up several options for the players to vote on in about a week. We've done enough of these that I see no reason to reinvent the wheel, so I'm drawing on what came before. Right now there are two major competing alternatives.

    This is the ruleset we used about twelve years ago (yes, we've been doing this awhile). It's the most rules-heavy one to date, and while I like it, several of the players have deemed it too complicated, mostly because it actually has unit stats. (Unfortunately that's the part I like, because it allows things like an objective determination of whether your uber-sensors are actually good enough to pierce my stealth systems, etc.)

    Meanwhile, the other major alternative that's been proposed is this, in use 2010-11. As you may notice, it's very long on nation building for the start, but the combat rules insomuch as they exist are essentially higher points total wins, which means there's no rules-based counterplay. If freeform etiquette holds, that's not an issue, but if it holds we don't need the rules in the first place.

    Right now I'm thinking of presenting both of those for the poll (I believe I'm presently the only one seriously working on rules) as well as a hybridized system with bare bones combat rules (fleets do 20% of their points weight in damage per turn, and the rules for retreating in the first link, to prevent someone who just has N+1 points over you from just rolling over you because greater points total) bolted onto the second present option, and also a compromise where only the specializations that affect roleplay (stealth, sensors, speed, jamming) are in play. I'd also like to clean up the first option a little, since I had at least one player loudly complain that 6k words was too much to bother with learning the game (when I know for a fact we're going to all write more than that, sometimes per post, when we get this thing going ).

    If anyone has any thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I'll update this post as I revise things.

    Update #1: Planetary assault rules. The 2008 ruleset, despite being rules-heavy, had no rules for taking territory because there was massive disagreement among the team that developed the rules. I've taken a stab at it in a way that makes taking a planet take time, but not an insurmountable amount, as well as resources.
    ===Laying a Siege===
    Tempting as it might be to simply shell planets into submission, Earth-like worlds are rare, and glassing them will seriously impact the interstellar economy and food supply, as well as deny you the industrial benefit of possessing the planet, and could invite moderator action. Warships may selectively bombard a planet (points in '''Bombardment''' are especially handy for this) to reduce its planetary defenses, but doing this while leaving infrastructure intact is a painstaking process. Every full production turn spent bombarding a planet lowers its garrison strength by the base attack value of the bombarding fleet (so a fleet with a total 100 base weight will reduce the planetary defenses by 20 points), but also lowers its category (and thus industrial output) by 1. A planet reduced to a category of 0 is effectively useless.
    ===Taking Territory===
    A planet is assumed to have garrison forces, be they reservist formations or militia, equal in power to ten times the planet's value - a class 1 colony has a garrison equal to 10 points, and a class 10 world has a garrison equal to 100 points. This may be enhanced by troops purchased with industrial points. In order to successfully take a planet without leaving pockets of resistance, troops equal to three times the power of the garrison must be landed. Given that, fully securing a planet takes a number of production turns equal to half its category rounded up.
    ===Population Assimilation===
    This is a matter for roleplay. Assimilation is an extremely subjective thing that does not lend itself to hard rules; an oppressed population might greet invaders as liberators or one that was well treated before and treated badly by the invaders might resent occupation for years. This will mostly be a moderator call. Until the population is ruled assimilated, the conqueror must continue to garrison the planet with regular troops, does not gain the use of free planetary militia, and the original owning power does not need to undergo an assimilation period if they take back the planet.
    Last edited by Renegade Paladin; 2020-10-11 at 03:20 PM.
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


  2. - Top - End - #2
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Semi-freeform nation building rules

    Update 2: Army management. I'm trying to keep this simple.
    ===Army Management===
    Note that unlike starships, troops do not require upkeep.

    ====Deployment====
    Ground troops must be deployed on the owning player's planets/space stations/other settlements costing planet points. Their location must be specified. Deployed troops reinforce the planetary garrison in defense, as detailed in the siege and invasion guidelines.

    ====Movement====
    The cost of ground troops includes troop transports sufficient to carry them. Troop ships do not contribute to combat, and may be generally assumed to remain behind a fleet until needed. Troop transports may not land on a planet defended by an enemy fleet.
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


  3. - Top - End - #3
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Semi-freeform nation building rules (PEACH)

    Update 3: The players have voted for the former system, but want to get rid of the Improved Offensives and Active Defense stats in order to cut down on math. (I don't get it, but whatever.) We're keeping only those specializations relevant to roleplay, which leads to the problem of needing to keep Sensors and Comms lest there be no counter for Stealth, etc. The draft of that is here, but what I'm mostly after is the Jamming stat I was basically forced to come up with as a counter to C3, which used to be countered by Active Defense.
    Jamming encompasses electronic countermeasures of all sorts, reducing enemy C3 effectiveness.

    • Abbreviation: J
    • Determining the Value: +J reduces enemy C3 effectiveness, forcing an enemy to have a greater fleetwide +C3 rating than your +J rating before they can gain specific details about your fleet.
    The problem I have with this is that it's only about a third of what Active Defenses used to do (as a refresher that was this):
    Active Defenses are a combination of advanced countermeasures that all conspire to avoid, soak, or deflect damage from your fleet. Higher levels make your ships able to ignore higher levels of enemy attack. Each point of +D lowers the damage your fleet takes by .25, equal to 2.5 points of enemy base attack. A player may choose to destroy points of +D in place of hitpoints, but these do not count towards Fleet Weight and do not provide a basic attack rating. Furthermore, enemies with levels of Improved Offensives can target hitpoints directly, removing the ability to trade +D for hitpoints in a pinch.

    Abbreviation: D
    Determining the Value: +N points of D soaks N x .25 points of damage per turn, allowing you to ignore it entirely. In some situations this may stop an enemy from being able to damage you with conventional attacks whatsoever. +D also reduces enemy C3 effectiveness, forcing an enemy to have a greater fleetwide +C3 rating than your +D rating before they can gain specific details about your fleet. Points of +D may be destroyed instead of hitpoints; no other special attribute may take the place of hitpoints.
    Attribute Interactions: D reduces damage you take from conventional attack, and is tallied fleetwide, not individually.
    Active Defenses did admittedly have the most going on in the original system, but it was also subject to negation by Improved Offensives and enemy Sensors and Comms. The idea was to avoid math (the -0.25 per point to incoming damage bit), so leaving that in to make it worth it is right out, especially with the hard counter to that aspect removed, and since it's not representing defenses anymore it wouldn't make much sense to trade jamming for HP. Any ideas?
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •