"Space Fleet gaming" Topic
36 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.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Spaceship Gaming Message Board
Areas of InterestScience Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleAnother preview of this 12mm scale sci-fi line.
Featured Workbench ArticleExploring picture generation using artificial intelligence.
Current Poll
|
Scottjm | 12 Jan 2018 4:38 p.m. PST |
Looking for a set of rules that encourage fleet tactics. Most spaceship games I see quickly degrade into a free-for-all brawl where one sides ships are all mixed in with the other sides ships. I'm looking for a set of rules that encourages each sides ships to stick together and work as a unit/squadron/battlegroup etc. Something that can handle up to say 20 ships a side. Suggestions? |
DOUGKL | 12 Jan 2018 5:30 p.m. PST |
No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy. H. Nelson That being said you may want to look at Full Thrust. Although I think it is the players and not the rules. |
Akalabeth | 12 Jan 2018 5:38 p.m. PST |
Out of Print but Fleet Action or Turning Point (Fleet Action 2) focused on squadrons and fleet battles. link |
Parzival | 12 Jan 2018 7:19 p.m. PST |
I concur with DOUGKL. Maintaining effective fleet formations is the realm of tactics, which are the player's role in a game. Almost any set of rules will favor good cohesive planning and use of a fleet, if the player will pay close attention and act accordingly. (Though a different command level, I've noticed and others have demonstrated that actual fighter combat tactics are indeed effective in X-Wing; Google "Thatch weave." The game doesn't call for them at all, but they work!) It's not unlike Real Life (TM); weapons and vehicles don't come with built in functions that automatically force them into favorable formations and maneuvering. The militaries of the world have had to work these out through study and experience. Think about it like football. You don't *have* to have an effective formation or solid plays or place the most effective people in the correct position. The rules don't require that. But if you want to win the game instead of just having a chaotic scramble for the ball, you'd better develop them all! I suspect what you really need is effective after-action discussions as to what worked in the battle and what did not, especially if one player demonstrates solid formation tactics. That should open eyes up to the possibilities. |
Oldgrumbler | 12 Jan 2018 9:16 p.m. PST |
I am looking for a set & favor Colonial Battlefleet & Talon. The 2nd is a GMT board game but I see no reason it can't be played with miniatures. No set seems to encourage fleet tactics, I have not looked at Turning Point. Attack & Accelerate breaks your fleet into 4 movement groups. That is the most I have seen. But while naval games often do not address fleet tactics line ahead still is a winner in most of them. |
phssthpok | 12 Jan 2018 9:33 p.m. PST |
War Rocket simple, fast and bloody! |
Toaster | 13 Jan 2018 1:05 a.m. PST |
Full thrust favors holding your fleet in a tight group to maximize firepower but doesn't reward any fancy tactics. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a player try for a pincer movement only to have his opponent turn into one end of the pincer and defeat it in detail before moving on to the other half. Colonial Battlefleet on the other hand has much more maneuver due to shorter effective ranges and really allows creative tactics. The pincer movement can work, so can a fast unit attempting a flank run just to draw your opponents escorts out of position before reforming your fleet quicker then they can to hit them hard. I haven't gone over about 12 ships a side but it should be doable at 20, having multiples of the same class of ship will really help prevent you getting lost in your own fleet though running 20 different classes of ship would definitely slow things down. Also there are graphical SSDs (inspired by FT) on the Steel Dreadnaught forum that allow 9 ships per page instead of the 3 you get from the excel builder defiantly a help with large fleets. But as others have said it's all down to the players really. Robert |
MajorB | 13 Jan 2018 4:51 a.m. PST |
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a player try for a pincer movement only to have his opponent turn into one end of the pincer and defeat it in detail before moving on to the other half. Makes perfect sense. It's called the strategy of interior lines. Splitting your force in the face of the enemy is rarely if ever a good idea. |
Dynaman8789 | 13 Jan 2018 11:42 a.m. PST |
Really depends, if ships are vulnerable in one direction then splitting the fleet to attack from both sides could be a good idea. I don't remember if FT had that. StarFire does but the games I remember playing ended up being missile boats blasting each other at long range. |
MajorB | 13 Jan 2018 12:00 p.m. PST |
if ships are vulnerable in one direction then splitting the fleet to attack from both sides could be a good idea. Why would you design a ship with such an obvious weakness? |
Akalabeth | 13 Jan 2018 12:38 p.m. PST |
As I mentioned, in Fleet Action ships operate in squadrons, they actually need to maintain formation//certain distance. Turning point is FA2 but the quality took a nosedive. Also where FA has 4 books, TP only has the one. FA is specifically Babylon 5 though Another possibility might be the Star Blazers fleet battle system. I don't know that ships are encouraged to stick together but I do not that Destroyers operate as squadrons. I also disagree with everyone saying that "it's the players not the game". Games encourage behaviours. If in a game players just go into a melee its usually because they want to win and that's how they do it. If winning means staying in formation, then players will do that also. It should be noted that most of the games recommended in other people's posts do not in any way fit the OP's criteria. In fact I would go so far as to say that in some cases, like Full Thrust, it is the complete opposite of what he wants |
Toaster | 13 Jan 2018 12:41 p.m. PST |
Colonial Battlefleet ships have 6 shield facings but shield recharge is limited to enough to bring on shield from zero to full in a single turn so hitting them from multiple sides can leave them with weak points in future turns as they spread their recharge, this and limited weapons arcs can make multi direction attacks a valid tactic. Robert |
tbeard1999 | 13 Jan 2018 1:17 p.m. PST |
The original Starfire and Starfire II were great spaceship games and wasa designed with large fleets in minds. It also has an engaging system to design/build your own ships. Weapons and systems get better – and different – as tech levels increase. A ship's stats in Starfire will fit on a single line of notebook paper. Its systems are listed like this (a low tech example): SSSAAALHMHIIPIHI S is shields; A is armor, L is laser; H is hull; M is missile, I is engine, P is point defense etc. In general, damage is taken left to right by marking off systems. Some weapons ignore shields or armor; some penetrate deeply and so on. Starfire handles traditional "surface" fleets – battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc. Starfire II adds carriers (which work approximately like their WW2 counterparts). David Weber was a big fan and rewrote the system in Starfire 2nd edition. I'd get it for the d10 based combat charts (the original used 2d6). Later versions cluttered up a very elegant game. If you can find the old versions, though, you won't be sorry. Starfire I and II:
Starfire 2nd:
|
Scottjm | 13 Jan 2018 1:43 p.m. PST |
As the OP, I'd say that Akalabeth is right on the money. If the system doesn't encourage or even force players to maintain a cohesive unit, then players will invariably just wander in every direction. I'm looking for something that encourages players to stay together or even provides bonuses if they do. After action discussions may be good and all, but if I'm bringing a game out to the club, people simply don't have the time on even inclination to sit down and have a lengthy discussion ahead of time. |
Dynaman8789 | 13 Jan 2018 4:21 p.m. PST |
>Why would you design a ship with such an obvious weakness? In starfire the engine out keeps sensors from working to the rear of the ship. |
TheBeast | 13 Jan 2018 4:53 p.m. PST |
Vanilla Full Thrust II did the same thing; wasn't 'to one side.' A squadron or fleet MAY be deployed more strongly to one side, and would seem to have the same effect. If the perceived threat were greater to one side, especially if 'screening', such a deployment would seem possible. Doug |
Andrew Walters | 14 Jan 2018 12:28 a.m. PST |
Here's a though I've been kicking around that I'd love to hear responses to. I suspect because of the subject matter space combat games tend to be simulation flavored, instead of abstract, stylized, the result is that games either have a rule that ordains that you have to maintain certain formations, or it becomes "dogfighting with battleships". There's nothing wrong with dogfighting with battleships, but if you were looking for a fleet action you might not get the itch scratched. I haven't played or even read half the games out there, maybe there's something great I haven't discovered, but I wonder if we don't need something like The Sword And The Flame or DBA/HotT for space combat. A simple game that isn't focused on record sheets and mechanics as much as creating a narrative , a ten-thousand-foot-view of the clash of fleets. I think such a thing might be missing from our otherwise spectacular set of choices for spaceship rules. |
Ed the Two Hour Wargames guy | 14 Jan 2018 8:21 a.m. PST |
|
emckinney | 14 Jan 2018 2:10 p.m. PST |
Games with different defences on different facings and with significant firing arcs tend to encourage fleet tactics by encouraging mutual support. Full Thrust has firing arcs, but omni-directional defenses. Starfire has no firing arcs other than no fire to the rear and omni-directional defenses. I'll be lambasted for this, but Star Wars: Armada does a good job on a lot of things. Unfortunately, it doesn't handle large numbers of ships as well as other games, and it is fairly expensive. You do get fascinating interactions among different types of ships and a very good system for fighter squadons. |
Akalabeth | 15 Jan 2018 12:02 p.m. PST |
5150 Star Navy does have ships fly in squadrons, they have to remain within a certain distance from one another. I don't know how the gameplay goes as I've never given it a go. It's supposed to be able to handle a lot of ships, the game suggests it can have 40 ships per side in a reasonable amount of time. |
TeknoMerk | 16 Jan 2018 8:34 a.m. PST |
To the OP question: I think that squadron combat is more tactics than a particular rule set. The real force multiplier is a group of ships covering each other's weaknesses (as best as possible) and using their strengths to wear down the enemy ships. For example, there is a difference when each ship fights one-to-one versus escort ships covering their larger ships against fighters, missiles, etc. I think the rules would get too fiddly to add modifiers for group actions versus individual ships. I like the flexibility and simplicity of the current rule sets that allow you to experience both tactics with the appropriate risks/rewards without extra, specific modifier cases. |
Parzival | 16 Jan 2018 10:39 a.m. PST |
Someone mentioned "dogfights in space," and that got me thinking. In reality, that is *exactly* what actual space combat would end up being. After all, spaced is a three-dimensional environment. No, due to physics, you wouldn't actually get cinematic banking turns and all that Hollywood rubbish, but you also wouldn't get big slow ships presenting broadsides or vulnerable keels to the enemy, either. Most ships would probably be designed so that weapons systems cover a broad, nearly spherical arc of fire, if not on movable turrets that can travel across the hull to optimum firing positions. But even if fixed in place, all one has to do to bring weapons to bear is roll the ship in place; a spaceship doesn't need to change either it's heading nor its direction of movement to target anything in a 360 degree sphere around it; it only needs to roll, pitch or yaw, or some minimal combination of these, to bring turrets to bear. Ponderous maneuvering about and wet Navy formations make zero sense in space; they don't apply to the capabilities of the ships, the actual relative speeds involved, or the three dimensional nature of the environment. The result would be a form of dogfight, even for "capital" ships, involving the best ways of getting in range, hitting hard, and working to support your fleet members. Thus, a "wingman" type of grand dogfight is far more applicable than anything else. Though even that's not true, because the tactics we all think of for that are based on aircraft, which do not behave any more like spacecraft than wet Navy ships do. Rather than all that, when (God forbid) actual space warfare takes place, entirely new approaches will have to be established in both tactics and strategy, considering not only the 360 degree combat environment, but also considerations as orbital mechanics, gravitational acceleration, delta-v, etc., etc.. If specific formations are indeed viable for such a battlefield environment, those will naturally arise as experience and ingenuity point to them. But I submit to you that the desire for formation operations expressed here is actually a subconscious bias towards familiar forms of warfare (in particular, wet Navy tactics), that while potentially enjoyable for gaming, aren't actually relevant to the reality of space. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it just may be that the loose, wild dogfight is in fact the natural combat situation for the setting, far more than "maintaining the battle line" or other notions. |
Akalabeth | 16 Jan 2018 10:45 a.m. PST |
The guy wants people to suggest games to play that fit the criteria, why is that such a hard concept for people? The concept of being helpful not telling someone that he's wrong to want a certain type of game |
Oldgrumbler | 16 Jan 2018 10:54 a.m. PST |
Read the Lost Fleet series & that may create a desire for formation tactics. If you have a game system where shields are weakened & take time to recharge, then that creates an opening for formation tactics. Arrange your fleet to provide concentrated or sequential fire at the same set of shields to cause penetrating damage. But the obvious defense, simply rotating the target ship to expose other shields, is not allowed in most games. The basic fact that a space ship does not need to be facing in the direction of its movement is not modeled in most games. |
Parzival | 16 Jan 2018 4:51 p.m. PST |
I'm bringing up an interesting point of discussion related to the OP. I rather thought at this point the possible contenders with pre-determined formation rules had already been covered. I, and others, contend that formations may well simply be the natural result of smart play with almost any rule system. But I will add that one might look for Battleshift by Thane Morgan (Thane's Games), which uses a bigger metagame approach that treats formations groups as an overall unit, with the nature of the formation's shape determining the combat results. Last I looked at it, it was still in the development stage (and being discussed here), but I think he did eventually release a final version. Assuming he still has it available, I expect GIYF. And, of course, if you want to get close to what space combat would really be like, Attack Vector from Ad Astra games is probably the best choice. No formations in it, as such, but it goes full bore 3D, Newtonian movement, which could show how formations might (or might not) actually develop. |
Akalabeth | 16 Jan 2018 5:18 p.m. PST |
OP asks for a game that can handle 20 ships per side and Parzival suggests Attack Vector: Tactical. Which is one of the slowest-playing games on the market with a huge game consisting of at most 3 or 4 ships per side. No, you will absolutely not learn about formations or fleet combat from what is commonly played as a dueling game. I, and others, contend that formations may well simply be the natural result of smart play with almost any rule system. Except reality is the complete opposite. Where most games are actually optimally played by putting 100% of your ships into the same hex. Only arbitrary rules (see SFB firing limits), AoE weapons (when widespread) or the use of miniatures prevents people from doing this. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 16 Jan 2018 5:56 p.m. PST |
Space warfare will be as Parzival says…and most rules today are just space opera. Real space combat will be long range exchange of fast area effect weapons such as nukes. Zero G means like in the old video game of Astroids, a ship could fire easily in any direction despite movement vector. Big armored spacecraft would be no better off than the out of date naval battleship, if it gets too big, no matter how well armoured a nuke will take it out and it won't matter which way it faces. Everything is going to be swarms of RPV missile launchers/gun platforms. As even today, if it can be seen or detected, it will be dead. |
Parzival | 16 Jan 2018 8:41 p.m. PST |
OP asks for a game that can handle 20 ships per side and Parzival suggests Attack Vector: Tactical. Which is one of the slowest-playing games on the market with a huge game consisting of at most 3 or 4 ships per side. Geez, Akalabeth. I clearly offered an example of a game that fits the OP with Battleshift, but you ignored that recommendation entirely. My offer of Ad Astra's Attack Vector was to give an example of a game that attempts to simulate a possible reality, as my post clearly stated. I am more than aware it's a ship's duel, I just used it as an example of how space combat would potentially really take place, from which one can derive assumptions regarding what, if any, "formations" would affect space combat on a grand scale. Rather thought that in context that was quite clear. Except reality is the complete opposite. Where most games are actually optimally played by putting 100% of your ships into the same hex. That's not reality, that's a game detail dependent on the assumed volume of space represented by a hex. If a game assumes that a single hex is a relatively low volume of space, then one couldn't put one's ships all into the same hex any more than two solid chunks of matter can share the same exact space. Furthermore, with explosive attacks (which would likely be the space version of shrapnel shells intended to release kinetic impacts in a broad volume), one really wouldn't want to leave one's entire fleet in a tiny volume area for attack. A wider dispersal of forces would actually be more viable as a protection against catastrophic results. Add the potential for collision to the mix, and a looser array of ships becomes even more important. So, given that all of those really aren't unrealistic considerations to apply to a game, I don't know what your point is with your statement. Are you referring to specific games, either that have been mentioned in this thread or are on the market? Most games I'm aware of either only allow such stacking because they are strategic level games, not tactical, or specifically prohibit ships from sharing the same hex or location as a rule convention. (X-Wing is an exception, but X-Wing is hardly realistic or in the OP, except as an example of a game where actual combat formation flying does indeed function well, as I stated earlier.) In fact, I think actual space combat will be on the order of shots made from exceedingly great distances, whether by beam weapon, kinetic shell, or most likely guided missile, timed to hit a target's assumed relative future position based on knowledge of its current location and delta-v. The combat might even begin at distances measured in lightseconds, lightminutes, or even lighthours. I cannot fathom how someone would apply such considerations to a tabletop game. I also think it would involve a very wide-open, loose array of ships (The Lost Fleet novels not withstanding, which really only have close order ship to ship combat because of specific range limitations the author wrote into the ship's most powerful weapons. Great books, though!) By the way, I *do* think that my own system, GOBS, does favor smart formation arrays, despite not having any firing arcs, vulnerable ship areas, or formation requirements. Yes, you can play it as a big hairy furball, but proper attention to ship location, movement and working as a cohesive fleet will mostly likely win the day. (Interestingly, a broad V formation to surround the enemy and increase firepower brought to bear has advantages, mimicking of all things an inverted cone tactic suggested in E. E. Smith's Lensman novels. I did not intentionally design either into the game.) I did not mention it earlier because it doesn't offer the required formations the OP expects, though players could easily develop their own "Rules of the Fleet," as it were, to establish formation guidelines of their own, if they prove tactically viable. In any case, it certainly can handle the required number of ships, which is on the tiny side for a GOBS fleet. |
Oldgrumbler | 16 Jan 2018 10:09 p.m. PST |
Space Opera is the way to go. Reality is a nuke armed Missile. |
Akalabeth | 17 Jan 2018 10:53 a.m. PST |
Geez, Akalabeth. I clearly offered an example of a game that fits the OP with Battleshift, Yes bravo, Battleshift and GOBs (with your listed caveats) are good examples of games that can handle a larger number of ships and the former goes by formations. These are both helpful examples. |
Russ Lockwood | 17 Jan 2018 2:38 p.m. PST |
matter of taste, I think. The real issue for rules running fleets of spaceships is the granularity of what each ship is supposed to represent and the gaming time you expect to use. If you want Star Fleet Battles granularity, then you're not going to run a dozen ships by yourself in an evening. If you use Hyperspace Hack, you can run a game with close to 400 ships as one TMPer wrote, but you lose all sense of individual weapons…but then again, you won't have to color in weapon, system, and other boxes like in Full Thrust, StarFire, SFB, or the Babylon 5 rules. I suspect somewhere between SFB and HH lies the happy medium, where players can run a squadron of a half dozen ships in a couple hours. I, too, enjoyed the Lost Fleet series, even if I didn't quite understand Geary's actual movement of various ship formations. It was enough to know he could pivot the fleet this way and that while the Syndics "froze" their formations and attack vectors. For a game where you are the Admiral, it's almost as if a stand would have multiple ships, or a unit with multiple stands of individually-mounted ships that would stick together, with some sort of combined firepower and defense. No idea how you can get an elegant (i.e. simple!) 3D effect in there to represent xyz maneuverings at time 123. Somehow the typical die in the back of a stand never quite looks right…or maybe an adjustable antenna like we used way back when on 1/72 WWI aircraft, but then again, how to perform such gyrations with multiple ships remains a physical mystery to me. Holograms will solve it! :) |
Aotrs Commander | 19 Jan 2018 7:22 a.m. PST |
Accelerate and Attack! very much encourages this and is also pretty much in the requested ship-count number range. AccAtt accomplished this as you divide your fleet into squadrons (i.e. firing groups (or the "real world" units), during which fire is alternated between sides). Aside from a hard-cap on maximum size (i.e., not allowing you to put your whole fleet into one firing group to abuse the alternations), the re-organisation of your groups can be done in battle (when you have the iniative). (It also has you break your fleet into four groups for move alternations, but while these often correlate to the squadrons, the "move group" unit is a meta-game construct and has no relation to the "real" units, it's just a convenient way of allowing alternating movement – promoting tactical considerations.) There is no reqirement for units in the same squadron to be in formation or even near each other (you could have two ships in the same squadron at opposite ends of the table, for instance). However, because of the need to concentrate a squadron's fire for best effect (since fire is not simultaneous), you want your ships typically close enough together they can shoot at the same target at least. Further, as point-defense systems have a range, a fleet that wishes to not be overwhelmed by missile attacks – like real-world naval vessels – is going to want to position to cover each other. Furthermore, the opposite problem of clustering of everything into one point is discouraged by multiple-target-attack weapons and by "proximity spread," which basically means that vessels too close together may get the overkill damage when one of them is destroyed. So there is some pressure both organically pushing you into a formation and at the same time, not clustering into a single point in space. AccAtt also has the advantage that it is explicitly designed for you to make your own fleets (and – obviously – thus use any models you like!) and to be able to broadly model pretty much any genre[2]. _____________________________________________ While you can sometimes get a bit of a cluster-frack (especially if you do a show game with a hundred starship on the board to show off..!) in the round of the first pass…
…more often, you end up with something more like this.
(Apologies for the low picture quality; most of the pictures I have are from conventions, where we have 2-3 times the typical evening game's fleets. (These are too.) But because they ARE convention games and we are there more to talk to people than play a game (or remember to take photos aside from at the startm middle and end!) most of the pictures from the eight years since I took those (I now have a vastly better camera, for one!) are closer to the former than the these are!) It also VERY much depends on the compositions of the fleets involved and how they fight. A fleet with low manerouvability but very powerful mid-range weapons and very solid defences requires completely different approaches to a fleet with high speed and short range weapons to one with average manouvreability, primarily forward-facing weapons but in very high concetrations, for example. _____________________________________________ That said, AccAtt requires a but more investment of time than, say Full Thrust to play; aside from the mechanics (which I like to think are not too hard, being buckets o' D20 – but from my proof readers, you are going to have to read them thoroughly first…!), the tactical element and decision making is considerably more demanding, and it will very likely take you several games to start to get a handle on that. I can talk about AccAtt all day, so if anyone has any questions…! _____________________________________________ AttAcc is availabe on wargames vault here: link and if you are so inclined to have a nosey, the enhancement pack is free and contains stuff like the QR sheets and markers, which should help you to have some idea of what it is like. link _____________________________________________
[1]But if you were willing to nick Full Thrust's, you could pribably even do that, since the Maneouvre Factor/Thrust values with regard to turning are both clock-face related. [2]As it happens, I was deeply amused when I read the Lost Fleet books, since AccAtt plays in a not-disimilar fashion (and I could even exactly model all the weapon types from the rules without any kind of effort) – really, the only exception is that AccAtt is not a fully inertial movement system[1], and (like a lot of games – e.g. Full Thrust), the third dimension is abtractly ignored. |
Scottjm | 19 Jan 2018 4:49 p.m. PST |
I hadn't heard of Accelerate and Attack. I've played SFB and B5Wars and I still play Federation Commander and War Rocket. This may be what I'm looking for. |
Aotrs Commander | 19 Jan 2018 6:39 p.m. PST |
Perhaps not that surprising you haven't heard of it – AccAtt has only been actually released since late August last year. (Though it has been in development steadily since 2002!) If you do decide to go for it (or even if you don't!), if you have questions/comments, you should be able to get hold of me through the contact publisher feature on Wargames Vault (since TMP doesn't have a PM system open to everyone). |
Oldgrumbler | 19 Jan 2018 7:35 p.m. PST |
I have it. Haven't played it but it is intelligently written. I am a novice at this (done plenty of navals) so I plan to start with a dumber set (CB). |
Aotrs Commander | 20 Jan 2018 7:51 a.m. PST |
@Oldgrumbler I have it. Haven't played it but it is intelligently written. Thanks! I did try my best. UshCha took most of a year to cold-read/idiot proof it and it made HUGE amounts of difference to the readability. I am a novice at this (done plenty of navals) so I plan to start with a dumber set (CB). Ha! That's a fair cop! At the earlier stages, I did have an iea to have a "starter set" which just had the rules for the fleets in and some of the rules (what got classified as intermediate/advanced/optional) omitted… But I realised that did not, in fact really change the fact you still basically have to read the rules through regardless! (In AccAtt's defence, it has a lot of rules which are much harder to explain than to actually play! (And it is, I think, like a lot of things, easier to pick up if taught. Sadly, tutorial videoes and whatnot are beyond my abilities and hardware[1].) The very first playtest, I always hold up as a good example, as by the end of the session, the players were basically playing it without my help. It's changed a little bit from then, but at the basic level, not significantly.) I can still recommend Full Thrust as a good "dumber" (sic) set – it's AccAtt's spiritual ancestor, i,e, what I played (and heavily tinkered with!) before finally deciding to write my own – but it depends on what you want, really. (Fun fact – the NAC fleet(or at least my slightly modified version of them) were the initial rules-design average starting point when I started working on them.) [1]But if anyone is in the very narrow category of being in the UK and at (probably) Partizan/Other Partizan/Worlds shows this year, I'm hoping to try and make more of a push on it this year than last year – where I only managed to do one game for the show at the weekend of the release! |
|