"Does 3D space combat add any strategy?" Topic

@AdAstragames: Well, having said that you still play Battletech and Warhammer despite their flaws is much better than slamming games without having played them. I will conceed that point and apologize.

Far too often I read someone's complaints about this game or that game and have it become apparent that they have spent little or no time playing the game. So, having read that you play these games does help me to adjust my opinion.

Yes, I agree with your idea about how to 'fix' the ranges in Battletech. It would work very nicely but would it not affect the people that use metal miniatures in hexless table-top play? I think that part of the reason for the strange ranges is based on the use of 1/285th, N scale, etc miniatures.

Back to your game; now that you have pointed out that you are not just slamming games without having played or playing them I will take a more serious look at "AV:T"because beyond the comments about other games I like what I see and read.

KenFox:

There's a lot of background and background thought on how we put the Ten Worlds setting together. The setting is consistent, and the types of space combat actions (and trade we do) is consistent with it.

Some of the thought underlying the setting is easy to explain in text. We do pack a lot of the underlying model into sidebars so the purchaser can check our math and our assumptions.

We give you our initial conditions, and say "If these are true, we can make an internally consistent set of extrapolations that combat will look like what we describe it to be."

Initial conditions change the combats considerably -- for example, if engine technologies preclude a variable mode high temp fusion torch (one that can shift between high thrust and high Isp), combat like Ten Worlds has will be impossible. It could be that we're wildly conservative on our lasers...though that one is easy to fix.

If you combine the two, you get something close to the abstract combat system in Transhuman Space, where ships can change velocity by one hex every two turns, and have weapons that go out to 700 hexes.

If our engine technology assumptions are too conservative -- and ships can do sustained burns of 0.1 g with thousands of km/sec of delta v in the tank, and the fusion torch can be scaled down to a missile, you get an environment radically different from mine - tactical maneuver becomes meaningless, and lasers are used to shoot down swarms of missiles, not to shoot other ships because the ships never get close to each other (combat looks somewhat like cruisers throwing cruise missiles at one another over the horizon.)

We cherry picked numbers that would make for an interesting game, and we tell you what the numbers are and why we picked 'em.

You may disagree with our initial conditions.

You may disagree with our extrapolations from those conditions.

You may not care about either of them.

You may decide it's too difficult. I don't claim it's a simple game -- I do claim that it's as simple as I can make it with 4 years of development, and that beyond simplicity, it has a lot of elegance to speed play. (The weasel wording is there because if I say "It's not simple", I'm afraid that people will jump up and down saying "Even the guy who wrote it says it's too hard to play!")

You may prefer galleon actions in space because it's easier to find opponents.

You may prefer Battle Fleet Gothic because the miniatures look cool.

All of them are valid reasons for the game to not be someone's favorite.

On the other hand, I hope that the discussion will convince readers here to look up the game at Origins and GenCon and other shows we demo at (like Games University on 1 May), or order a copy through GSI for their free shipping promo.

Typhoon:

I've never played hexless B-tech. (With my eyesight, I prefer hex maps - probably because of what I learned on first.)

Perhaps we should start a thread on "Tweaking Battletech Classic" so others interested in the topic can join in, rather than burying the discussion among 90-odd posts here?

AdAstraGames: Yep. I agree 100% with your approach -- I must have misinterpreted strong advocacy of your game as close mindedness about the future. Sorry.

Now all I need to decide is if "AV: T" is fun to play. :)

"For example, if you halved the movement rates of all Btech units (and halved the speeds needed to get a firing penalty based on target speed), and made hex sizes 100 meters, the weapon ranges and published kph movement rates actually match up; the map size gives you more maneuver room, and the tactical envelope changes. You also get weapon ranges that make sense -- an AC-5 actually hits out at about 1800 meters, comparable to a small calibre tank gun, MGs go to 300 meters, which is about what you'll get from a two man MG."

AdAstra, is that how you play Battletech? Very interesting, I'd like to hear how that played.

Apologies if this subject is in another thread now.

Variant BattleTech topic is up at:

TMP link

I still think the ad copy is a bit arrogant. Reading between the lines seems to put down ALL other space games. That just isn't necessary.
I've got degrees in science, I know that FT and others aren't exact. But they are fun...
Of course, I don't see Ad Astra making claims on fun.

From what I can see now the price is worth it for what you get. IF you'll play it more than once.

One question: The short example of targeting on the web site seems to average out to basically be a planar combat... meaning the 3D gets dropped and the result is the same? I would have expected an example that showed more of an effect. Maybe I read it wrong but that's how it looked to me.

venusboys3:

Which "ad copy" are you refering to? The only ad that seemed arrogant to me was the one posts here a few days ago. However, that wasn't an ad from AdAstra. It was an ad from an online game store that is trying to promote AV with a promotional offer.

The AV Flyer:
I don't understand what you mean by "average out to basically be a planar combat".

Shooting a bearing in 3D only takes a few more brain cells than a 2D game. The effect that 3D has on the game is trying to line up a shot when your target as several more degrees of freedom than in a 2D game.

Mike Z

Do I come off sounding like a ass most of the time? I don't mean to...
Re-perceived arrogance:
I was mostly referring to what I had read here but also a bit to what I saw on their site (referencing other games in a generalized way). Though I went there, for the first time in a while, after reading the posts here so maybe I was already set to be miffed... it looks like great work, and they are well earned in matters of pride.
Maybe it's the general attitude of Hard SF vs. Space Opera. Maybe I'm reacting to a PERCEIVED insult where there isn't one because of so many insults that have gone before.
It happens.
Like I said it reminds me of the Phoenix Command arguments I used to get into. Simulation vs. Game... neither is better or worse.

What I was referring to on the demo on the site was just that the example of how to determine firing arc - in the end, despite the elevation of the target, the result was averaged to a amber=0 elevation and the distance was also figured out to equal to the planar distance.
I'm not questioning the mechanics, just the fact that the example they chose to put up gave a 2D equivalent, which is funny given their selling point is simulation of 3D vector combat.
I've no doubt the rules work fine for more extreme elevations and differences do come into play.

I hope I get a chance to actually play the game at some point. I think a lot of the popularity of the game will hinge on getting some qualified demonstrators out into the field to show us how it works (hold our hands through the first couple games).

venusboy3:

Here's a puzzle for you:

You're an ad copy writer.

You have a space combat with game with 3-D phased vector movement, simultaneous decision making, numbers driven by accurate physics, and play speed of about 2-3 hours per game.

The most difficult math you ever have to do is multiply a 1 or 2 digit number by 4, compare the result to another number and know which one is bigger.

It's not Trek, Wars, B5 or "generic space combat that can be adapted". It really IS driven by the physics under the model, so it doesn't fit into most people's expectations of space combat.

Write me a blurb that DOESN'T make it sound painful to play.

Then compare to what I actually wrote, at:

link

Venusboys3:

Ah, I see what you mean. The math just happen to work out that way.

If you do the math, the actual bearing is 26.5 degrees with a distance of 6.7 hexes.

Actually, the distance is a bit long due to the nature of the hex grid, which is why it is rounded down.

As the targeting ship was nose up 30 degrees, the target ship was in the same relative plane.

SF vs. SF
I have to agree. SF fandom is extremely splintered.

Mike Z

venusboy3:

I think I know where your confusion on the flyer is.

The target is visible in the blue ring (30 degrees up from the plane). Your nose is also 30 degrees up from the plane.

The absolute reference frame has the target visible in A/B(blue-30).

Firing arcs move with the ship, so their reference frame is relative to the nose (and other markers on the ship) rather than the map. The ship-centric reference frame has it one window to the right of the nose...which, since the nose is up at 30 degrees means that the absolute reference frame maps to something that looks like it's on the horizontal, but isn't.

The example of ranges was chosen because my available space for that illustration was limited. I wanted an example that would put the target one window off the nose with the nose up at a 30 degree angle (since most people consider "nose pitched up AND 3-D firing arcs" to be a nightmare to figure out...) I wanted to avoid an altitude of 4, which can cause confusion with the constant we use.

Adjusting it to 5 out and 3 up would probably make a better example, and when I run out of these, I'll update it.

Ad Astra:
I don't think I EVER said that the ad copy made it sound 'painful' to play. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
I said that SOME of what I read, some of which was apparently not written by Ad Astra employees, sounded a bit arrogant in that it seemed to be dogging a bit on other games.
I've gone to the site, looked at the examples of play, it doesn't look painful at all if I was interested in that level of detail (which, sometimes, I am).

venusboy3:

My post got started before I saw your reply to Mike Z, and enough intemperate language has been in this thread that everyone's got oddball expectations on the level of discourse.

Please accept my apologies for any confusion the exchange may have caused...and if you see anything on my site that seems to be dogging other people's titles please do let me know so I can fix it.

If you're anywhere near Michigan, there will be demos of the game at PenguiCon, and demos at Games University in Anaheim on the 1st of May. We'll also be at Origins and GenCon. Likewise, ArchCon and the St. Louis area will have demos, and DragonCon in Georgia.

This is a game that, quite honestly, gets sold one demo at a time. While there's a lot of self-teach-tutorial material, the claims we make for it are...outlandish...enough that they get met with skepticism.

My standard demo is to put chocolates out on the map at differing altitides. Fly within a space of the chocolate, and you get to eat it. Fire weapons at a chocolate and do 10 points of damage to it, you get to eat it.

With only a limited amount of chocolate on the map, the sooner you kill everyone else off, the more there is for you. *grin*

This seems to work better at getting people to sit down and try the game than "Hey, wanna try my fully Nnewtonian pahsed movement 3-D space combat game with Real Physics (tm)?"

(You may be one of the people that the second pitch WOULD work on...but the first pitch sounds silly and fun.)

AdAstra:
"The most difficult math you ever have to do is multiply a 1 or 2 digit number by 4, compare the result to another number and know which one is bigger."

The above math is about 2nd or 3rd grade level. However, it isn't the most difficult math in the game.

Doing the calculations for seeking weapons involves calculating ratioes and percentage multiplication. That moves the math needed up to around the 5th or early 6th grade level.

Mike Z

Ad Astra:
Hey! DragonCon is nearly in my backyard. I will absolutely make sure to get in on a demo of this thing I know nothing about but have been arguing about anyway... I expect I will be suitably impressed...

Unfortunately DragonCon isn't till August though. Anything going on in Vegas over the summer?

I remember playing a demo of this game (with a different name) a couple years back at a oneshot 'SumerCon' (or something similar) hosted by the Last Square in Madison, WI. It made my brain hurt so I went back to demonstrating a Superfigs game. Later, the gentlemen who demonstrated the game came over to the Superfigs table and sang us all a nice little tune.

The gentlemen didn't come of as arrogant but he was quite eccentric. He did seem like a genuinely nice guy though.

To AdAstraGames, you may be smarter than I am but I've got a much nicer singing voice.

Singing? I sang? Oh dear.

(And you're still talking favorably?)

The game has streamlined quite a bit since KarlCon in 2002.

It still may make some brains hurt. Never claimed simple...but I do claim elegance.

SuperFigs was fun, though.

"It still may make some brains hurt. Never claimed simple...but I do claim elegance."

I can't dispute that claim. There did seem to be a lot of work put into the game outside of the modeling of the physical systems. Perhaps I could say the 'interface' to the model?

It should be noted that 20 years ago I would have loved the game. That is when my brain really worked. But 20 years of TV and reading at the comic book level has really dulled my senses. Burning out after writing my master's thesis may also have helped.

BTW, will you be demonstrating the game at Little Wars? Hope all goes well if you do. Also, if I happen to see the game on the self at the Last Square, I may just pick it up. Good to help support local non-singing talent. ;)

Well, so long as you don't get me categorized as "singing non-talent", which, as a vocal performer is thoroughly apt.

Karl and Bev have said they'd stock at least one since I did playtesting there for some of its development work, and they figure they can get me in for a demo or two.

The game has grown more streamlined as time has gone on, and my teaching methods have improved, even if my singing hasn't. :)

In fact, one of the major decisions on release date was that the game had gone a solid 6-7 months without a major rules rewrite.

When and where is Little Wars this year?

Little Wars is at:

Marriott's Lincolnshire Resort
Ten Marriott Drive, Lincolnshire, IL, 60069, USA

and it is this weekend – April 16-18

It is a little late, but you still may be able to get table to do some demo games.

The website for it is:
little-wars.com/index.html

Why the hell would anyone BITCH about someone producing a new Game REGARDLESS of what it's about!! We should be at a MINIMUM cheering because he is taking a high quality stab at making a "Realistic" Space game!

I LOVE Full Thrust. It does Fantasy Sci-Fi GREAT.

John Tuffley is the MAN.

That does not mean it is "Realistic"

I WAS debating ordering Attack Vector. I sure as hell will now, just to support an entrepeneur in a bold endeavor!

The rest of you can go back to bitching about every other game you do not like.

I just realized the original question that started this thread (before it jumped to a discussion of AV:T) was never really developed. So, my short stack of change worth...

The answer is "it depends", but at a tactical scale I'll argue the usual answer is "yes".

Consider for a moment a series of ballistic weapons - coilgun slugs, not maneuvering missiles. You know that on shooting, your opponent can dodge by going left or right but that's about it. So you need a nominal three packages of ballistics to ensure something hits - three guns, or three salvos. Add 3D, and you add at least two more just for up and down. Depending on the tightness of your arcs you might need more -- if you assume a total of 12 points of rotation about any axis then you need 13 ballistic packages just to ensure one goes the same place the target goes. Let's run this with just a touch more detail. Your ship can throw 12 packages. The other guy can dodge, and has three counter-ballistic weapons (not perfect, but decent probability of stopping a package). In 2D, you can put 4 packages in every option the other guy has, which means regardless of what he does he is going to get hit by one package. In 3D (12 point), at best he's going to have one place he can go and get nothing. Your mindset for use of your ballistics changes - in 2D the role is to cause damage, while in 3D it becomes "terrain". That is, you decide you want him to NOT stay where he is, and you don't really want him to go directly up or close to it. So... 3 packages each center, straight up, and the two points adjacent to up. He can stay put or go up and hope all three anti-ballistic weapons work, or he can go another way and you miss. But it's a decision point.

I'll run an equivalent example. I have played lots and lots of SFB. I have thought numerous times of the frustration of Tholian web. Largely, I think of how absurd it is that a line stretched in space prevents a ship from going over or under it.

On the other hand... if scale gets large enough, 3D doesn't really matter. If the time scale is so far that for all intents and purposes the weapons are omnidirectional, then my facing for armor and weapons is immaterial - and 2D is as good as 3D.

In general, 3D can have significant effects on tactics. Not much on strategy (grin). And it all depends on the scale and the technology.

kspencer: There were several discussions going in this thread so "answers" are kind of hard to spot, but Mike Zebrowski answered the 3D question basically the same as you.

My summary was: "I think 3D may eliminate the unrealistic divide and/or surround tactics of 2D space combat. That sounds interesting. The choice of weapon arcs vs. armour is easily done in 2D so that's not convincing."

I wish I could have made it to Penguicon -- there were going to be some AV: T demos there, right? Any other games or demos happening near south-east Michigan or do I have to wait for Origins?

KenFox

There was an AV:T demo at Penguicon -- bad time slot, bad location. It got 6 people at the wee hours of the night.

Next demo that I'm aware of being scheduled is at Games University in Anaheim, followed by Origins. There are some being set up in the Texas areas in stores.

As I'm in the final death slog on this project (to do list had 3 items!) and we're printing rulebooks inhouse, I'm a bit scatter brained on demos right now.

KenFox,

huh - thought I responded, but I see it's not appeared. So...

First - yes, I missed Mike's responses above. Ah well, great minds and all that (grin).

Second, regarding the armor and weapon arcs point. It's another aspect of the "unrealistic divide" of 2D, just less obvious. As an adjunct, the additional armor and weapons means that your acceleration is reduced due to increased mass, and your (perhaps) limited ammo space is going to be used faster - or if you've increased ammo for the additional weapons you've sacrificed food or air or such or again increased mass. And, of course, you might need more crew for those additional weapons. It all adds up both blatantly and subtly.

For the third question I see Ken's (AdAstraGames) already answered. I'm going to note that since he's in Wisconsin he tends to catch smaller cons in that area, so keep an eye out as once he gets some sleep he might schedule some of those as well.

Finally and as an adjunct - note please that I'm not saying a game _has_ to have 3d and all those ramifications. I'm just saying that these are reasons - legit ones - I've discovered to be applicable. But it's not worth making a game non-fun to include them.

- "What does 3D do for space combat? It seems like it
- complicates the game without adding any strategy."

I suspect quite a bit. My favorite fiction is Weber's stuff, and 2D just wouldn't work for playing space combat close to what he writes.

- "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?"

From what I saw on their site, you are getting quite a bit for the money. Based on what I saw there, I ponied up my money, and I haven't even seen a demo of it… though I must admit that David Weber's "Wow" pretty much sold me :- )

I'm coming a little late to the discussion, but…

I am a big proponent of 3d gaming for the visual impact. Even if you are playing a beer-and pretzels level of realism, a 3d environment just looks better, and especially with a fleet battle. And in a fleet battle 3d really does start to matter as you have additional "flanks" to approach the enemy from compared to 2d.

I've run a number of 3d Star Trek games using Full Thrust with a few tweaks and some flight stands from a now-OOP game, Moondragon. A few pics and some sample ships are available over at link . I haven't updated in forever, but if anyone is interested feel free to email me for more info.

The game was designed to be quick and deadly – more modelled after the "ships exploding everywhere" DS9 Dominion War scenarios than an SFB duel. But we tried to keep it responsible to the source material – and balanced for fun play. We use the same rules for ship combat in our Star Trek roleplaying games as well, and it makes for a good visual to have a 3-d representation of where everything is in relation to one another.

Anyhoo, take a look…

As to Attack Vector, I have played it and love it, and would recommend it. But for a big fleet game I recommend something a little more managable.

Mike Webb

Ooops.. Want more info, write at
michaelewebb@yahoo.com

Ooops.. Want more info, write at
michaelewebb@yahoo.com

BTW, the ship SSDs on the site are .pdfs, but are missing the extensions in the upload. Just d/l them and them and then open with Acrobat.