"Fighting Space Battles in 3D" Topic
37 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Storage and Transport Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board Back to the Dioramas Message Board Back to the Spaceship Gaming Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Science Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleESLO Terrain explains about their range of modular buildings.
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
SBminisguy | 27 Apr 2017 2:25 p.m. PST |
since the ships all use some kind of simple flight stand, why not instead go the Wings of Glory route using clear plastic rods and connecting pieces? That way you could just about use all your existing bases, maybe you'd have to weight the bases on larger ships, and have an easy way to portray relative "altitude" in space…as long as you just have "up" that is, since you could have ships below the ecliptic/plane of combat and that gets hard to show without using a complicated custom flight stick. Here's how the Wings of Glory game does it, and it counts altitude separation as another distance factor.
Here's what some very large figures look like using thicker plastic rods:
|
John Treadaway | 27 Apr 2017 2:40 p.m. PST |
Sure Balls
linkI used clear, two part Christmas tree decoration balls in the latest iteration. Various sizes are available. They are much clearer than these old balls – crystal clear, in fact. John T |
Extra Crispy | 27 Apr 2017 3:37 p.m. PST |
I found some 1" diameter bead boxes that were round and could screw together to form taller columns at Michael's in the bead storage aisle. |
Allen57 | 27 Apr 2017 4:47 p.m. PST |
You would need awfully large ornament balls for the ships in Catherines post. Clear plastic cubes can be made by cutting plexiglass available from DIY stores and glueing the panels together. There is a special cement for this. I really like the idea of different elevations and orientations of ships to one and other. I recall a scene in one of the Star trek TV shows in which a ship which Jean Luc Picard was either commanding or a passenger was under attack by several Klingon ships. The old Enterprise commanded by Will Reichert came out of warp at right angles to the Klngons flew through their formation and blew them away. It was nice to see the 3 dimensional view. Johm T, What did you use for bases for the clear balls? |
MacrossMartin | 27 Apr 2017 7:10 p.m. PST |
Allen, if I recall John's article on how he mad those, from many years past, the supports for the balls are the tops of cola bottles, turned upside-down! Having tried to simulate 3D in various ways for space combat, I'm inclined to ask – what is your motive for attempting to reproduce the third dimension? The more I have examined this aspect of space gaming, the more I've concluded it is much more work to simulate than it rewards in the gaming experience. Unless the tactics and style of warfare require ships to stack up upon each other, does it really do much harm to abstract space into two dimensions? And if you do stack 'em up, how high do you go? Given the infinite nature of space, you could, arguably, get pretty tall stacks… maybe dangerously tall, in terms of preserving one's miniatures! I'm inclined to prefer to keep my minis low on the table, and, if 'altitude' is represented, let it be done with counters or dials. These allow potentially infinite variation, without precariously tall stands, or piles of boxes. Having said that, I must confess to experimenting with at least one 'stackable' system for starship combat, because, in the source material, the ships do actually form 'walls' rather than 'lines' of battle:
Yep, Legend of Galactic Heroes. This is a universe that presents a very different style of starship warfare, tactically-speaking, with each ship's firepower concentrated forward, and forming lofty walls of squadrons – thousands of them! My solution (for what it is) is to use plastic domino-like counters, stood on their edge, and thick enough for two or three additional counters to be stacked on top. But, this is still a potentially risky formation; one good sneeze or a slamming door can bring a fleet toppling down! I'm considering magnetising the counters, or perhaps, adapting Lego bricks to the task… but really, until we develop antigravium paint, I suspect enjoyably playable 3D combat will remain the windmill all starship commanders tilt at. |
Daricles | 27 Apr 2017 7:39 p.m. PST |
I agree with MacrossMartin. In my opinion, 3D gaming belongs in computer simulations and not in tabletop gaming. If you have to have a 3D game, then have the tabletop represent an arbitrary neutral plane indicating each ship's x and y axis position and track the z axis with counters or dials and come up with play aids to quickly calculate ship to ship ranges. That's probably a pretty good representation of what a ship's targeting displays would look like. If you are going to bother with three dimensions then you should take the extra step of tracking ship attitudes (pitch and yaw) like John's system does. Otherwise, if you are abstracting that out you may as well just abstract all the way down to 2D. |
emckinney | 27 Apr 2017 8:46 p.m. PST |
John, I'm very impressed by how clean a cut you were able to get on those soda bottles. Is the tutorial up somewhere? If not, can you offer tips? What's the base that they're attached to? |
Mako11 | 27 Apr 2017 9:47 p.m. PST |
The Topgun Dogfight Flight Stands will work, and are far less obtrusive than plastic balls, or cubes, in my personal opinion:
They telescope from 7" – 22" in height, have swiveling magnetic heads, and can hold even the Titanium diecast metal spaceships and spacefighters from the Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica ranges. 4" and 5" clear, hex bases are available for sale.
Obviously, they work very well with aircraft, grav tanks and VTOLs, dropships, dragons, and many other flying things too. They're also good for supporting clouds, for 3-D aerial "terrain" as well, if desired. E-mail me at: topgungrav AT yahoo {d0t) c o m if you want more info, and details.
|
Lion in the Stars | 28 Apr 2017 1:33 a.m. PST |
If you have to have a 3D game, then have the tabletop represent an arbitrary neutral plane indicating each ship's x and y axis position and track the z axis with counters or dials and come up with play aids to quickly calculate ship to ship ranges.That's probably a pretty good representation of what a ship's targeting displays would look like. If you are going to bother with three dimensions then you should take the extra step of tracking ship attitudes (pitch and yaw) like John's system does. Otherwise, if you are abstracting that out you may as well just abstract all the way down to 2D. That's what Attack Vector Tactical and Squadron Strike do. AV:T is basically a single-ship dueling game, Squadron Strike seems to max out at about 12 ships. I think you're high if you want to run more ships than that in 3d without computer support! While AV:T doesn't support custom ship design (the design mechanics there actually require calculus), Squadron Strike has an Excel spreadsheet to handle ship design and control-sheet creation. I honestly expect that the real-world starship tactical display will look a lot like the AVID, the game assistant that shows where another ship is relative to your own ship. |
John Treadaway | 28 Apr 2017 1:46 a.m. PST |
@ emckinney Those ones are actually pre manufactured domes but quite expensive ones from EMA ( ema-models.co.uk ) The coke bottle trick no longer works: back in the Jurassic period when I built the original balls from coke bottles, 1.5 litre plastic bottles like that came with a round base end and a coloured 'cup' which was hot glued into it so that they would stand upright on the shelf in the store. I used to pop that off, clean up the glue and voila. Nowadays, all soft drink bottles have 'knuckles' moulded onto the end (an easier manufacturing option, I would guess) which stops this trick working. So I moved over to ABS balls which were neither very clear (just because they were quite thick) nor very cost effective. I replaced them with clear balls from another company about ten years ago when I did the same rules ide (mentioned here link though I can see that the ship sheets no longer load) for my Babylon 5 game (I haven't got any pictures of those to hand, though). The balls from this new source come from a couple of inches across right up to about 8 inches in diameter. They come in two parts which snap together and a 'hanging tab' which can be removed easily with some snips. link If I go this route again, this is what I'll use though – as others have said – my brain's getting a little too old for full, 3D space games! John T |
TheBeast | 28 Apr 2017 4:56 a.m. PST |
I personally fear the discussion on the complexity of 3D has really gone OT. This has been discussed and discussed. Now, I've tried Ad Astra games, and plenty of players love 'em. I've used the AVID, I was told successfully, and find it uninspiring. I'm assuming rules at least as simple as SSB and it's square grid. Now, think of a cube grid. Instead of worrying about boxes, consider gridding 3D space. Take some rectangular (don't have to be square) frames, you might be surprised what 'trash' wood, metal, or plastic you can find, and string a square grid for each. Then you stack, with spacers, until your square grids form a cubic grid. The result doesn't have to have as many levels as there are squares in the grids (DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SQUARE) but enough to feel right. When I say string, that's the verb. Fishing mono seemed to be strong enough, taught enough, and had the added advantage of coming in 'florescent' if you were considering black light in your box… *tuneless whistling* Tricky bits is putting 'stands' on the ships (or squadrons, as that seems where you're headed), and the fact that you usually have to lift each stand out of the box to move. The light-weight, cheap plastic ships I used I just melted bent pins into, hooked the ships on string intersections, and I was able to use two rods, or one rod 'at an angle', to move the ships straight across some times. Not elegant, but for the very simple 'Battle Pass' rules I worked up, worked for some solitaire games I did, back when I actually finished things, occasionally. Doug Edit: John, I well remember those bottles; I had a mad scheme to save up enough to make a raft with the bottoms pointed upward. I thought it would look like a sheet of bubbles. Broke my heart when they changed designs before I'd collected enough. |
Tim White | 28 Apr 2017 9:09 a.m. PST |
If I'm going to play 3d I'm going to use Squadron Strike. The box minis, tilt blocks and altitude markers are great. Never managed to pull this off with minis – got close but going totally inverted is a problem. The bigger problem is convincing my group to play with 3d – and then if the agree in a moment of weakness, remembering how to play well enough to teach them… and thus back to 2d with Starmada… |
Tim White | 28 Apr 2017 1:22 p.m. PST |
Okay, sounds cool. Its the pitching and yawing that cause most of the headaches anyways! -Tim |
(Phil Dutre) | 28 Apr 2017 2:18 p.m. PST |
It's all bogus anyway. If you would conduct space combat in full 3d without gravity or aerodynamics, then why would you have spaceships that take their design from naval battleships? Spherical spaceships are the way to go – orientation independent. |
Zephyr1 | 28 Apr 2017 2:41 p.m. PST |
There are clear plastic boxes for displaying dolls & other stuff. The ones you might be looking for are thin flexible plastic that you can cut with scissors (not the thicker $$$ acrylic.) They are also available in different sizes. |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Apr 2017 5:27 p.m. PST |
Forgot to mention what Zephyr did in my last post: Display boxes may be cheaper than custom work. |
(Phil Dutre) | 29 Apr 2017 4:43 a.m. PST |
We have usded transparant round lego bricks to make flightstands. Works only for smaller models, though. More pics: link
|
Allen57 | 29 Apr 2017 7:07 a.m. PST |
I am not a fan of 3D combat games (aircraft, spaceship, frogmen, or submarines) but do like the visual effect of different elevation/depth when all models are not on the same plane. The biggest problem with clear balls/boxes/telescoping rods is that they are very distracting. In my starship and air combat games I use a variety of different height flight stands (rods of different lengths) to break up the flat earth look. Submarines and frogmen seem to need a bit more depth variation but even then you can get away without 3D. |
(Phil Dutre) | 29 Apr 2017 9:06 a.m. PST |
The problem will solve itelf when drones are small and cheap enough such that they can serve as wargaming models. |
Rudysnelson | 29 Apr 2017 9:44 a.m. PST |
I agree with the opinion that flight stand indicating three or four levels may be the easiest to gain popular support. We used it with our space race concept. Maps may be another issue. I have seen big hexes, squares and none gridded maps tried. |
TheBeast | 29 Apr 2017 12:48 p.m. PST |
Ohh, Phil, they are! However, not so stable as to be proof against some LARPer or Cosplayer walking by and flicking turbulence with their capes. ;->= Doug |
Ottoathome | 29 Apr 2017 4:00 p.m. PST |
This is really a non-problem when you think about it. While there ARE no space battles in reality to recreate there are plenty to hypothesize, however regardless it always will be a two dimensional game and no need be taken of three dimensions. Because of the essential mechanisms of the game, either moving or firing, are always two dimensions. 1) Where the ship that wishes to move is, and where it wants to be and 2) Where the ship that wishes to fire and where its target is" are always straight line of sight. It doesn't matter what the angle from us, star ships will likely have all around fire or can change their attitude ridiculously easily so that all you are concerned with is simple old distance. This can easily be determined by a simple 100 or so lines of computer code to plot an imaginary Cartesian plane from a central point, 0,0,0, and the distance moved or fire calculated almost instantaneously through the computer to render a solution of the range or move (regardless of where it actually is in the imaginary Cartesian plane, and the starting and ending locations. This will yield a distance, and intervening points or blockages such as worlds or large asteroids can be within that plane. So there is no real need to try and reproduce a three dimensional plane as we would be within the star-ships themselves, and would not see it as standing outside of the game. You can put the actual models on stands or telescoping pointers or whatever you wish, but the essential calculations can all be done in the computer to tell you you hit with at that range a 5 or a 6 or whatever. This may not be as aesthetically pleasing as a grand display but it's considerably easier, and probably more realistic. You might as well just line up the ships on their damage cards. As for scale, our models and the distances on the table top are so out of proportion to what they would be like in real space as to make our mini games seem to be in scale to a few microns. |
Ottoathome | 29 Apr 2017 5:54 p.m. PST |
|
Lion in the Stars | 29 Apr 2017 11:45 p.m. PST |
I am not a fan of 3D combat games (aircraft, spaceship, frogmen, or submarines) but do like the visual effect of different elevation/depth when all models are not on the same plane. The biggest problem with clear balls/boxes/telescoping rods is that they are very distracting. In my starship and air combat games I use a variety of different height flight stands (rods of different lengths) to break up the flat earth look. Submarines and frogmen seem to need a bit more depth variation but even then you can get away without 3D.
Begging your pardon, but submarine games do need 3d, even though the 3rd dimension is very skinny (maybe 4x the length of the biggest subs in use, and I'd do depth as model scale). Performance changes with depth (gotta go deep to go fast and stay quiet), and you can have environmental effects that change with depth (thermocline layers). But that can be defined as fairly limited and generic depth bands. This is really a non-problem when you think about it. While there ARE no space battles in reality to recreate there are plenty to hypothesize, however regardless it always will be a two dimensional game and no need be taken of three dimensions. Because of the essential mechanisms of the game, either moving or firing, are always two dimensions. 1) Where the ship that wishes to move is, and where it wants to be and 2) Where the ship that wishes to fire and where its target is" are always straight line of sight. It doesn't matter what the angle from us, star ships will likely have all around fire or can change their attitude ridiculously easily so that all you are concerned with is simple old distance. Might be able to change attitude easily and point guns in nearly any direction, but your thrust only goes one direction. So you may well need to point your stern at the ship you're trying to shoot at, if you're also trying to run away from them. Or point your broadside at your target, if you're trying to make a 90deg vector change. I think you can download the Squadron Strike intro rules for free, which show just how… interesting maneuvering in 3d can end up. Pretty cool, I recommend trying it once. Buy yourself a snack bag of Skittles or M&Ms, you get to eat some munchies as the ship moves. |
chironex | 02 May 2017 4:13 p.m. PST |
No, we do not. You're going to have to come up with another plan. One-foot cubes are not commonly manufactured anywhere. If you pay a plastic sheet supplier, they may cut square sheets for you that can fit together with tabs to make a cube. Otherwise you will have to search for other shapes in the field of plastic display cases for models and collectables. Or perhaps a shelf-set arrangement with clear shelves as big as the play area. |
wminsing | 03 May 2017 5:54 a.m. PST |
Because of the essential mechanisms of the game, either moving or firing, are always two dimensions. 1) Where the ship that wishes to move is, and where it wants to be and 2) Where the ship that wishes to fire and where its target is" are always straight line of sight. It doesn't matter what the angle from us, star ships will likely have all around fire or can change their attitude ridiculously easily so that all you are concerned with is simple old distance. Neither of these are true. The first because your ship isn't a point; it's a vector in 3D space. The second because you are ignoring that weapons have limited arcs and ships will have different defenses in different directions. -Will |
Lion in the Stars | 06 May 2017 2:06 a.m. PST |
Litko makes "Fleet Movement Stands" (but they're only 3" across the flats): link You could probably special-order a larger version of those, however. As far as spaceship design goes, I expect them to look something like WW2 bombers, turrets sticking out all over the place. At least dorsal and ventral turrets, and I'd probably go for flank turrets, too, if the guns had elevation/depression issues. |
Marc the plastics fan | 16 May 2017 11:55 p.m. PST |
Aircraft benefit from 3D – climbing, diving and performance at varying altitudes are all factors. Not sure if space needs any of that. Far more interesting to play vector movement rather than cinematic |
Zephyr1 | 17 May 2017 2:56 p.m. PST |
Ball turrets on pylons have quite a large field of fire… ;-) From above, for net search terms, look for "plastic folding display cases" (it should bring up some, but ignore the high markup prices. Look at the dif sizes for what you need, then try to find the manufacturer or brand they bought from in bulk.) |
|