KenFox | 04 Apr 2004 6:37 a.m. PST |
In air games, altitude matters because of gravity and atmosphere. What does 3D do for space combat? It seems like it complicates the game without adding any strategy. The reason I'm asking is because I just looked at "Attack Vector: Tactical" from Ad Astra Games. They make a big deal about realism. ( link ) Is realism worth $55 USD? |
Derek H | 04 Apr 2004 6:55 a.m. PST |
For up to three ships it makes no difference at all as they are just points on a plane. |
Scurvy | 04 Apr 2004 7:20 a.m. PST |
I like my space dreadnorts to fight galaxy crushing battles with WW1 naval tactics and with multi coloured death beams. (that make WABOOM noises in vacume). Their prodigious fleets Wallowing along through space not unlike a pack of pregnent hyper whales. Admirals watching the battle through viewports in the bridge (located not in the centre of the ship) While crews of space vixens man the apartment block sized ships guns in skintight spacesuits with airtanks the size of beer cans. Realisim be dammed I says. You dont get space vixens for a start let alone anything else with a realistic game so whats the point in playing one of those. |
Revenant | 04 Apr 2004 8:36 a.m. PST |
I've looked at the game on their web site. While no single part seems overly complicated, the sum of all the various "realistic" parts seems to make for a very boring, overblown game. In short, it looks like work, instead of play. I also like big, splashy space battles, and don't mind them being 2D, or without vector movement. And $55 dollars is a bit on the steep side for a game I'll probably never get anyone else to play. Ad Astra has gone to great pains to stress that their game is realistic. In fact, they're pretty pompous about it (why would anyone play anything else, unless your a childish simpleton who foolishly believes movie space combat is "kewl"). Of course, they are arrogant enough to believe that they know EXACTLY what real space combat, with all attendant technologies, will look like in 300 years. Obviously, no one has even the slightest inkling what that will look like, not even the self-professed "geniuses" at Ad Astra games. No thanks. I'm sticking with Starmada, thank you very much. Rev |
nvdoyle | 04 Apr 2004 8:58 a.m. PST |
To add a bit of, ah, calm to this, AV:T is aimed at a very specific market of space gamers. Some people like the challenge of trying to a) figure out what might actually work and b) what sort of tactics/operations/strategies might be used given such a context. Ad Astra is hardly 'arrogant' or claim to 'know EXACTLY' what future space combat will be like. Nor do they accuse anyone of being a 'childish simpleton'. They are extrapolating reasonable, realistic technologies from present-day known principles (well, barring FTL...). If that's not your particular cup of tea, *chill* *out* and don't buy the game. There's no need to compound any perceived immaturity by adding your own. Starmada and FT are great games in their own right, and they're not really trying to accomplish the same thing as AV:T. I think their solutions to the 3-D 'problems' is really rather elegant, and their work has added to the total enjoyment of the hobby as a whole. Possibly the most fascinating bit to come out of what they've done is in the 'Stealth Doesn't Work' part of the available teaser pages. Kind of a bummer for 'subs in space' fans like me, but I like knowing more; I'll still keep my 'subs in space' feel for Starmada, and such. |
Inari7 | 04 Apr 2004 9:15 a.m. PST |
It sounds like this game is aimed at the Star Fleet Battles type person. I am more of a full Thrust type person. I wish the price was about 1/2 of what it is, I would like to read the rules....Doug |
Revenant | 04 Apr 2004 9:31 a.m. PST |
Sorry, but many of them are arrogant, as they pursue the "One True Space Combat Game". It is a very small niche market within a very small niche market that they seek, and I wish them well. Unfortunately, I don't think the world has been screaming for this type of game, contrary to what some of the True-Believers think. Rev |
CPT Jake | 04 Apr 2004 9:42 a.m. PST |
It seems there is a bunch of injection molded plastic pieces. I bet they really raise the cost of making this game. |
Bran Mak Morn | 04 Apr 2004 10:23 a.m. PST |
dmchodge: "For up to three ships it makes no difference at all as they are just points on a plane." Not correct as ships are not points in space but vectors in space (you have to take into account their direction both for facing and velocity) with out-of-plane components. Anyway, I think 2D space combat games (for example Full Thrust) are entertaining enough and don't need the added complications of a 3D vector space. |
Hundvig | 04 Apr 2004 10:31 a.m. PST |
Cripes, you guys are harsh today. While I'll admit that Starmada, Full Thrust, and Battlefleet Gothic are more my cup of tea, this looks like a decent addition to the "realistic physics" end of the rules spectrum. A little expensive, maybe. Probably doesn't play all that fast either, but that's not always a bad thing, and it's hard to do true 3D inertial movement without things bogging down a bit. I'm sure there are some people who will love the game, but that won't stop the rest of us from pushing our minis around and making "whoosh-zoom" noises. :) I can't shake the nagging sensation that I was involved in the early playtesting of this one...looks awfully familiar somehow. Rich |
Space Monkey | 04 Apr 2004 10:34 a.m. PST |
I've always liked the 'idea' of 3D movement but it does seem complicated for what you gain. I've been interested in this game since I first heard about it but the ad copy DOES sound arrogant to me (reminds me of the outlook of the old Phoenix Command stuff) and the price is WAY beyond what I'm going to pay to satisfy my curiosity. Unless... as suggested above, there is some sort of physical element? Besides paper... Are there plastic miniatures in the game? I like the design on the cover.
|
Space Monkey | 04 Apr 2004 10:47 a.m. PST |
Nope, looked closer at the site. The plastic bits are various angled trays to hold the cardboard-box ship displays and display 'altitude' and 'orientation'. Interesting, I can see where the money went... I'm seeing the price as more reasonable maybe... you would need to to be able to display that information considering the focus. I'm not seeing the toy value, the entertainment... It comes off as a exercise by a bunch of graduate students incapable of 'suspension of disbelief'. I want my sparkly green death beams and tentacled alien fascists. Looks like it would work good for Traveller. |
Mutant Q | 04 Apr 2004 11:18 a.m. PST |
I agree with Hundvig... you guys are being overly nasty. Well, two can play at this game. Chances are none of you haven't played the game, you don't know just how "complex" is or isn't. I have, and I can tell you that it's nowhere as "chunky" as you're making it out to be. AV: T is best suited as a "duel" game while games like FT, Starmada, and others are better suited for large-scale fleets. As for the players being "incapable of 'suspension of disbelief'," I'm sorry but there is suspension of disbelief and there is flushing reality right down the crapper. Isn't "science" one of the operative words of the term "science fiction?" Personally I blame the general dumbing down of science fiction by no-talent hacks like Roddenberry and Lucas and the knuckle-dragging sci-fi fans (and knuckle dragging gamers if GW players are any indication) that will allow the genre to be defined this way because they are too ignorant to appreciate actual science. As for me, I want my science fiction to be “hard,” and Attack Vector is welcome antidote to brainless tripe like SFB and Battlefleet Gothic.
|
Revenant | 04 Apr 2004 11:24 a.m. PST |
Well, enjoy playing it with the 20 other people who'll be picking it up, then. It's that brand of arrogance I was talking about, and is just one thing that will limit the appeal of the game. Rev |
Mutant Q | 04 Apr 2004 11:42 a.m. PST |
"It's that brand of arrogance I was talking about, and is just one thing that will limit the appeal of the game." So in order to appeal to the market, we have to lower standards to appeal to the lowest common denominator? Well, that speaks volumes about the attitudes of the gaming public. |
Derek H | 04 Apr 2004 11:51 a.m. PST |
You don't need 3D vector movement to model a duel between two spaceships. 1D vector movement will do fine for that. |
altfritz | 04 Apr 2004 11:52 a.m. PST |
I don't know how "competently" designed the rules are but the add text doesn't make any logical sense: "...is the first - and possibly only - game..." Considering they are referring to a game that is only just being released then *if* it is the first game of it's kind then it must also be the "only" game of it's kind as well. Unless they are trying to say that no one will ever be able to design a better one. |
Dewbakuk | 04 Apr 2004 2:23 p.m. PST |
Personaly, I don't think 3D is needed for space combat. Height and gravity are important in airplane combat but not in space combat. The enemy ships height or angle is irrelevant when you can just roll your ship to bring any fixed guns into line. 3D movement could add some tactical options but I think those would be lost in a game. In a computer game it would give you more options as you can only see so far, as can your opponent. In a wargame, you can see all the ships so I doubt any real tactical advantage can be achieved.
|
Autochton | 04 Apr 2004 2:28 p.m. PST |
Maybe they're trying to say they can't see anyone else bothering? Anyway, if wating scientific realism is arrogant, sign me up. I'm a hardcore combat flightsimmer, of the sort who thinks Il-2 is kinda arcade-ish. :) Apart from the fact that I am no fan of heavy systems for wargaming, AV:T sounds like something I might like... -A. |
TheStarRanger | 04 Apr 2004 2:36 p.m. PST |
Ouch, people read a couple paragraphs and they think they know everything. On the price, Ken can tell you where every penny goes in the list price and how he has to price it the way he does to keep from loosing money. He has done more research on this thany you can imagine. Yes it strives for realistic, or as realistic as we can predict at this time. Again, a lot of time and research was spent on this. Is 3D worth it? Well even with ship duels, 3D has much more of a factor than I first though. If you think ship duels are only a 1D battle, play it and open your eyes. It is not a fast game, it is not a fleet game, but Ken has done some wonderful things in making 3D playable and at a speed I never thought possible. He did the math so you don't have to. Kids actually do better learning the game because they don't have to un-learn as much. It is not for everyone, but there are more people looking for this type of game than I realized. If you want to bash it, fine, I just will respect your opinions more once you have played it. |
hurcheon | 04 Apr 2004 2:48 p.m. PST |
Vector 3 from SPI, a system used also in the Universe RPG and Battlefleet Mars strategy game was "true 3D" though the thrust was simplified. Shooting Stars from Yaqunito had a simplified 3D element. Both had momentum, though Yaquinto;s version was more fun to play, partly though the components |
Derek H | 04 Apr 2004 3:04 p.m. PST |
"Is 3D worth it? Well even with ship duels, 3D has much more of a factor than I first though. If you think ship duels are only a 1D battle, play it and open your eyes." Two ship duels can always be modelled with just one dimension. And any vectors applied to those ships or anything fired from those ships have only one relevant dimension. Any other dimensions you care to model are just an unnecessary waste of time. |
Derek H | 04 Apr 2004 3:05 p.m. PST |
Unless you have weapons with restricted arcs of fire that is. |
Gaming Solutions Inc | 04 Apr 2004 3:07 p.m. PST |
Hello, First off, the intent was most emphatically *not* arrogance, but to emphasize the uniqueness of the product's design. There may be other titles out there that do similar things as "Attack Vector" does, but this is the only one we have run across. (If you know of other 3d vector-movement space combat games, we'd really like to hear about them.) We did not mean to imply that “Attack Vector” is the Ultimate in Space Wargaming, imperfectible and never to be surpassed in the future of Man. This would never be the intent of the designer himself, who has demonstrated great willingness to incorporate changes and suggestions from playtesters as the system has progressed from concept to what he is offering now. Secondly, and there was a brief mention of this earlier, but we'd like to emphasize it. There is a technical difference between games and simulators. Both may be used for education and entertainment, but games are not necessarily intended to produce or reproduce outcomes from a historical context, or follow real-world conditions. “Full Thrust” is a game. “Warhammer:40,000” is a game. “Advanced Squad Leader” is a simulator, as are “Harpoon” and “Attack Vector”. Simulators are intended to accomplish very different objectives than games, and tend to appeal to different groups. While there may be some cross-appeal, they will not satisfy or please everyone. If you are deeply in love with the system used in “Battlefleet: Gothic,” then you will likely not appreciate what “Attack Vector” offers. (As to the high price of the game, “Attack Vector” is all of $5 different than the BF:G starter box, and has no additional requirement for $30 battleship miniatures.) “Attack Vector” is a work of hard science fiction, which is one reason why it has the public endorsement of hard SF authors (Dr. Pournelle and David Weber, in this instance.) It does not attract interest from all gamers, nor necessarily should it. There are occasions where one wants to visualize epic space battles in the tradition of "RoboTech" and "Star Wars", with massed fleets of wet navy-inspired ships pounding each other into small pieces and swarms of fighters tearing into their opponents. There are other occasions where one wonders how movement and combat in the Newtonian universe, without all the wondertech goodies and unobtainium armor plate, would work and might be fought; “Attack Vector” does an admirable job of teaching this. |
Jakar Nilson | 04 Apr 2004 3:19 p.m. PST |
Wo down all you 1D players... 1D is nothing but a straight line, what everybody plays is 2D (a surface)... As for strategy in 3D, one needs to put only one example: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan... |
AndrewGPaul | 04 Apr 2004 3:38 p.m. PST |
unless the game you're playing tracks the facing of the ships, then in a one-on-one duel, only the range between the ships matters, so you could play it on a ruler. Thus, 1D. |
Mike Zebrowski | 04 Apr 2004 4:10 p.m. PST |
I met Ken Burnside (the game's author) and played a 2 on 2 battle of AV last night at OddCon (in Madison, Wisconsin). If Ken, or the other people involved in creating AV, come off as arrogent, it is because they have the science to back them up. Every number in the game has a solid basis in science. The AV ads and website do stress that AV is rather unique in the market place. It is not another WW2 air combat, submarine, or naval combat game spray painted with some SF chrome. It is the only game that I know of that is designed from the ground up to take into account all aspects of space combat from how much space the crew will need to how much heat is generated from the reactors and weapons, and what to do with it. It is a game where you can win a battle, but still lose as you don't have enough food, oxygen, and/or fuel to get back to base. (Or your crew was exposed to enough rads of radiation from a nuke to kill them in a few weeks from radiation posioning.) To answer the orginal question: 3-D adds a large amount of tactical depth to game play. A ship is a three dimensional object, so the armor is not uniform all around the ship. It tends to be heaviest on the nose and thins out as it approaches the engines in back. Also, the various systems are not uniformly distributed around the ship. Cargo and quaters tend to take up the front half when reactors, batteries, and heat sinks tend to take up the sides and back half. Ships manuver in the game to try and expose their opponent's weak armor while keeping their heaviest armor pointed at the other guy. This is rather trival to do in a 1 on 1 game with only direct-fire weapons (ie lasers); however, once mass-based weapons are added into the equation, it gets more difficult. Mass-based weapons (and nukes) do a heck of a lot more damage than a laser. However, they are slower and more difficult to hit with. A common tactic to use mass based weapons to influence your opponent to perform a manuver that will expose a weaker part of his armor. Remember, the only way to change directions to turn the entire ship so that the main engine can thrust in the proper direction. This means that a ship changing direction, will have to expose its weaker armor to an opponent. In a multi-ship battle, the tactical picture becomes more complex as a ship will have to chose which opponent to expose himself to. The rules for 3-D movement are rather trivial to learn and use; however, thinking in 3-D is much more difficult. At this point, almost everyone reading this is going, "Thinking in 3-D is trivial". It is a major blow to one's ego to claim to be able to think in 3-D and then sit down to play AV and have a hard time grasping the 3-D concepts. Plotting a 3-D vector change in a frictionless environment is not a trivial mental feat. It takes experience. Mike Z
|
Mike Zebrowski | 04 Apr 2004 4:20 p.m. PST |
To answer the second question: "Is realism worth $55? " I would say yes. I am also putting my money where my mouth is. I have 4 copies pre-ordered. The game is at the printers and the latest word is that they will ship at the end of the month. The real value in the game box is the full color play aids. They are printed on heavy card stock and laminated. Ken posted elsewhere on the web that the cost to make the components yourself would be around $85. (He speaks from experience as he has had to make many a playtest copy over the years.) Mike Z
|
Nyrath | 04 Apr 2004 6:04 p.m. PST |
I too am putting my money where my mouth is, with 2 copies pre-ordered. And yes: the game has a remarkably clever and easy way of doing three-dimensional firing arcs. I didn't think that 3-D vector movement could be done short of a computer game, but AV:T pulled it off. Before I had tried for years to develop it myself and failed utterly. The point it, AV:T doesn't just manage to do 3-D vector, it makes it *easy*. No, you are not going to be doing any hundred starship mega-battles, but it can mange six to ten ship battles without taking all night. Much the same as Star Fleet Battles. There is a lot of tactical options as well. Orienting your ship, timing your barrages, managing waste heat, and suckering your opponent into the engagement envelope of your missile barrage. I found the playtest battle reports to be most entertaining: link |
FredKiesche | 04 Apr 2004 6:11 p.m. PST |
Greetings: I played Attack Vector for the first time yesterday. I had heard about the game when Ken first started designing it, through my membership in the CONSIM-SF List on Yahoo. I ordered the playtest version (at that point, called Delta V), but due to personal committments, never really had a chance to look at it. One person who has been doing a lot of demos of the game got in touch with me as he was going to be at Mepacon (Scranton, PA) this weekend and wanted to know if I was interested in learning the game. As I had time (I'm currently unemployed, so I've got a lot more time than I did a year ago!), I said yes. Within 20 minutes after arriving at the convention, I understood the game mechanics and we were into our first game. I played a few more scenarios during the day, and also helped out with the demos, explaining the game to other folks. We probably had about 20 demos over the course of the day, and several people said they were going to buy the game. As for cost, what does a typical game go for these days? Is it complete? Do you need to buy add-ons? What Ad Astra provides is a game with nice laminated play aids, beautiful cardboard "miniatures" that you fold into the rectangular ships, nifty plastic pieces that show you altitude, orientation, etc. You don't **need** to buy anything else. Ad Astra makes extras available--for example, a felt battlemat (but you could easily make one of your own). This isn't a game where you're going to endlessly shell out money because some marketing yutz feels that it's time for a new variant on current miniatures. The rules appear well-written, and the game has been pretty heavily picked over by a lot of folks (in addition to CONSIM SF-L there are three Yahoo groups devoted to the development of the game, about 120 people on the biggest list). As for battles in 3D: I've played (over the years) games like Triplanetary (GDW), StarForce and others from SPI, various air combat games, many tactical SF games. This game has good mechanics and gives you a good feel for the 3D aspect. Furthermore, it's an important part of the game. Your tactics are driven by "facing" in three dimensions. Talk to a real fighter pilot. They are trained to use three dimensions. This game will get you thinking about how to use space instead of just a flat map. A note about playability/complexity. Yes, the game is complex. But a lot of that is "behind the scenes". Like I said, I had not read the rules before yesterday. I was playing within 20 minutes. We had one on one games, three people games, even a six-person game going. Tons of fun! My copy is on order. Heck, in my financially deprived state, I'm consider ordering more copies, as well as turning my miniatures table (currently used for Modern Armor) into a board of AV. Good stuff, IMHO. |
KenFox | 04 Apr 2004 6:25 p.m. PST |
[For what it's worth, I don't want to compare games. I'm only interested in what realism adds to space games.] Mike Zebrowski: That makes sense, but does the "Z" dimension create new tactical problems above and beyond "X" and "Y"? Clearly a 2D ship can have different armour values, critical areas, weapon arcs, etc. GSI Staffmonkey: A space game that ignores gravity can not possibly be a simulator. Battles will be fought in orbit, not in deep space. Adding a good gravity mechanic to a 2D game would make a much better simulator than 3D without gravity. (I'm not sure if "AV: T" ignores gravity, but the demos and web site didn't have any mention that I saw.)
|
Revenant | 04 Apr 2004 7:22 p.m. PST |
Wow, after Mr. Siefert put out the call to arms on the Ad Astra message board, here come many of the Zealots from that board telling us how many they have on order. Very surprising. Send in the shills.... Rev |
Martimer | 04 Apr 2004 7:24 p.m. PST |
I think part of the 'problem' here is that Attack Vector are designed and intended for the 'historical' crowd where game play time is sacrificed for accuracy as opposed to the 'gamer' crowd where accuracy is sacrificed for game play speed. Both gamers and historians are valid in their own viewpoints. My guess is that this game will not appeal to the casual gamer who just wants a fast game or to the gamer who wants to manage vast fleets on the gaming table. If you have ever wanted to get into the cockpit of a fighter and duke it out, then this might be your game - even though the focus is not really fighters, but larger ships. Personally I will play either games or simulations depending on my mood. I have played an older incarnation of the Attack Vector rules and really liked the level of detail. I pre-ordered and am looking forward to getting to play the game again. |
Gaming Solutions Inc | 04 Apr 2004 7:32 p.m. PST |
KenFox wrote: "Battles will be fought in orbit, not in deep space." Why do you believe this? If you want to predicate your assumptions that all trade and traffic will be centered around planets, and that tracking and intercepting a man-made object moving through open space is impossible, then this might be true, but there are conditions in the "real world" and in the Attack Vector environments that would belie your claim. If for no other reason, you wouldn't want to have naval engagements anywhere near inhabited planets for the simple reason that an "oops" with a starship or nuclear warhead can have rather traumatic effects on the biosphere. As to your comment regarding gravity, orbital mechanics do not work fast enough to create a resonable effect in almost any tactical game. (If it does, I would really like to know what is so important about that particular orbit around a point singularity.) If you wanted to simulate combat while attempting an entry path, there might be a reason to briefly discuss a gravity model, but even then, movement would be almost entirely constrained by physics to a carefully defined curve, negating any decision-making on behalf of the players involved. Keep in mind the differences between Newtonian and "SciFi/Fantasy Television" physics, and simply because other space games you have experience with utilize grossly overstated gravity effects means that they all should.
|
wminsing | 04 Apr 2004 7:32 p.m. PST |
KenFox: "deep space" could just as easily mean somewhere between Earth and the Moon; just becuase it's in a solar system doesn't mean that it's in orbit or effected by a planet's gravity. Also, on the time and distance scale of a typical space engagement (and espcially for Attack Vector) gravity would have little to no effect on the battle. -Will |
goneaway | 04 Apr 2004 7:40 p.m. PST |
Well I will not be buying the game (No Interest) but I am surprised by the tone and intensity of this thread. Lighten up people! You don't like the appeal or cost of the game - don't buy it. Just like GW it's a choice not a heresy. It's a game (sorry guys but simulations run for personal satisfaction and not for professional purposes are just games too.) No one (well virtual people maybe are the exception) is going to die from/over this. Except from the heart attacks you guys are going to have from this series of exchanges... Gracias, Glenn.
|
Privateer4hire | 04 Apr 2004 8:06 p.m. PST |
Well, I put my money where my mouth was and lost a quarter. I dread seeing that piece of change again when it returns. Sorry, this was just too easy. Oh, and for those wondering. Flash Gordon would be the winner in a fight between him and Tarzan. Hey, I wonder if a game that pitted 1930s superheroes against each other would be more tactically accurate in 3D... |
John Leahy | 04 Apr 2004 8:24 p.m. PST |
Hi. The 3d system does sound interesting. Yeah, I like the battle in Wrath of Khan. :-) I would use my 1/1600 scale Trek ships. Are the ships designed for use the only ones you can use? Or is there a design it yourself system included? Catching on in 20 minutes sounds pretty good. Is this normal? I would have to here a bunch of good things about it to drop 55 bucks. Doesn't mean I won't but that is a chunk of change. Thanks, John |
Lukash | 04 Apr 2004 8:31 p.m. PST |
My only question is, who is David Weber, and why should I care if he said "Wow?" |
AlFubar | 04 Apr 2004 8:31 p.m. PST |
I'm kind of surprised at the people jumping all over Attack Vector: Tactical, all but sight-unseen - not to mention unplayed. A couple of thoughts: 1) There's a definite market for hard SF, so presumably a market for hard-SF gaming as well. If that's not your interest, just play something else. 2) Entirely apart from "realism," elements like vector movement and 3-D might have the virtue for some players of being *different* - a type of interaction between ships that just doesn't happen with conventional movement in a 2-D frame. Ships slewing about in 3-D space can be its own justification, as much as any game is. -- Rick Robinso |
Privateer4hire | 04 Apr 2004 8:55 p.m. PST |
David Weber has written a bunch of sci-fi (I'm guessing his Honor Harrington series--a spaceborne version of Horatio Hornblower is the most popular) and also has a background in games creation---I think he was the major mind behind StarFire which was a strategic hex and counter spaceship fleet game IIRC. If he's awed by either realism or complexity, I'd say that's probably impressive. |
Mike Zebrowski | 04 Apr 2004 9:25 p.m. PST |
KenFox : Here is an example of last nights combat: I was approaching Ship A and B. Both started in my front arc. As we got closer, A stayed in my front arc, while B drifted into my front-up arc. In both cases, the ships would be hitting my forward armor. However, I could not shoot at Ship B as my forward weapons didn't cover front-up. As we passed, I shot at ship A and Ship B flew over me. I did a back flip in order to keep both ships in my front armor section. At the end of my pivot, Ship B was in my front-down arc, which my weapons did cover. At all times, both ships could only hit my front armor, however, I could not shoot at one ship as it was out of arc. In a 2D game, it would be unheard of to have a target in front of your ship and not being able to shoot it. In a 2D game, the ships would have passed on the left and right, which would have caused me to expose a weak side. In a 3D game, I was able to do a well-timed backflip and keep my weaker armor away from the other ships. One of the interesting things about AV is that it is already integrated at the Solar System level. AdAstra is republishing Rocket Flight as an Attack Vector product. On the system map, you can perform intercepts and then play out the resulting battle. With the detection range of ships and their speeds, battles will be fought in deep space. Revenant: A shill is defined as : "One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle." If you believe that people are here posing as satified customers, then please present some proof. Otherwise, please stop with the personal attacks. I posted the number of copies that I pre-ordered as an indication of how much I believe that AV is a good value for its price point. Frito Butterbuns: David Weber is the author of the Honor Harrington novels, which have been on the NY Times best sellers list and is in the process of being made into a mini-series. Additionally, his story, Mutineer's Moon, is being made into an animated series. (David Weber was also the Guest of Honor this weekend at OddCon). Ken has shown David Weber the game at a previous convention and Mr Weber gave Ken permission to quote him. Mike Z
|
Phoenix | 04 Apr 2004 10:07 p.m. PST |
As an example of arrogance surrounding this game: A gamer holding a game of AV came up to my game at a convention and openly questioned why someone would play a game about powered armor infantry and large robots (GW 40k). In fact, he stood there and start this long schpeel about how this or that was impossible, how ground pressure was a serious factor, why lasers are short ranged, etc. It was without provocation. He just appeared, said he was holding an AV game, and asked what game we were setting up for. We responded with the game name and scenario and the guy started in. For that reason, I will not ever think about this game. He had no right to show up and say anything of the sort. |
Phoenix | 04 Apr 2004 10:11 p.m. PST |
|
Typhoon | 04 Apr 2004 10:21 p.m. PST |
Reading about it on the web page and looking at the downloads makes the game look intriguing but I want to know more about how it plays before I spend money on it. I'd also like to know if it is playable off the hex maps. I prefer table top to hex maps. I will have to see this game in action. |
Mike Zebrowski | 04 Apr 2004 10:48 p.m. PST |
Phoenix: What convention was that at? Do you remember the jerk's name? Right now, the game isn't even out, so there is a limited number of people who have copies. Demo people (both official and un-official) bad mouthing other games need to be removed from the gene-pool. (I've been doing demos, both official and unofficial for over a decade now, so bad demo people is a pet peeve of mine.) It isn't specific to AV. Every game has its pool of zealots that will bad-mouth other games. Personally, I like powered armor and giant robots. Mike Z
|
JamesSterrett | 04 Apr 2004 11:01 p.m. PST |
I'm the demo guy who taught Fred - and as Mike is asking: Who was this guy, Phoenix? I'm in complete agreement with you: he had no business coming to your game and trash-talking it. I do think it took a bit longer than 20 minutes for Fred to be fully comfortable with the basics of the game - but equally, he blew my ship apart in one of the battles that day. :) The impact of 3D is quite significant, even in two ship battles. As in a 2D battle, the ships have limited firing arcs and stronger/weaker armor areas. Now, however, you have more of them. It's easy to wind up in situation where it is tactically inopportune to pass your enemy to the right or to the left - but over or under aren't so bad. This becomes especially noticeable when dealing with kinetic weapons. In a 2D plane, you can essentially evade incoming kinetics in two directions: left and right, along an axis perpendicular to thier incoming vector; the interception of the ship by the weapons will occur somewhere along a line determined by their relative velocities. In a 3D plane, you add another axis in which to dodge, squaring the area the firing platform has to deal with, because you've gone from a line of interception to a plane of interception. |
JamesSterrett | 04 Apr 2004 11:02 p.m. PST |
Argh, "In a 3D plane" should read "In 3D".... editing, editing. :) |
AdAstraGames | 04 Apr 2004 11:13 p.m. PST |
Phoenix: First -- I was going to avoid replying to this thread. Anything I say here can (and inevitably will) be taken the wrong way. That being said... If you'll accept it, please take my apologies for the actions of whomever it was who approached you. I specifically put a note in the demo kit that says "Do NOT, under any circumstances, talk crap about someone's game of choice." It doesn't always get read...or followed. (And it's something that happens to everyone. I have had people tell me my favorite game was hopeless or broken without provocation....and I've gotten into lots of discussions about broken game scales and silly rules over the years.) What does 3-D add? More than can be described in words. Mike tried...and I was playing there beside him, and his description makes some sense to me, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to someone else. Revenant: Play the game. Have fun with it. Or don't. If you have a beef with the game, tell me what it is so I can fix it. Playability: When everyone at the table knows how to play, the game design is built to speed play -- all the decision making is simultaneous. Every player is constantly engaged in the game. Sometimes barking needs to be done to curb table talk... Suitability to Purpose: It is best played with 1-2 ships per player; while there's been a lot of thought into making sure your record keeping and decision loop is kept clean, there IS still a lot of data on a ship. It does handle large numbers of players well due to the simultaneous decision loop. It will NOT do 27 ships per side, be done in 2 hours. Full Thrust does that already, and I can't do that better than GZG does. It does not do "Well, I want to fly the Millennium Falcon against the Enterprise." pickup fight. Again, generic space battles is something that's already done more than well enough by other games (Voidstriker II, Starmada, Full Thrust). There is currently no "design your own ship" system, though I'm working on ways to develop software to do this (if nothing else, it frees up MY time). |
borrible | 05 Apr 2004 12:15 a.m. PST |
@AdAstraGames: For me the situation is this: I have to pay 60 $ to a prescription Order. What do I have: A computer generated cover of a rule system and a short text telling me the inventor/writer of the these rules like their system above others. Ah... yes there is a little bit about 3D movement and 'realistic' space combat. Sorry Sir,but that is not enough to get my money. If I would know some hard facts about the rule book(number of pages,binding etc) and perhaps a demo version of the rules I could be interested,but then again 60$ is much for a little bit of fiction. When you advertise at probably the biggest wargaming site on the net,you should be prepared to answer questions before they are asked.Not everyone here knew you nor the quality of your products before.
|