This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.

What do you think the role of ship battle in 1E should be?

A way to dominate/eliminate the opponent.
2
6%
A viable path to victory.
12
35%
Something all players need to be aware of and prepared for.
11
32%
An incidental part of the game, the seizing of an opportunity.
8
24%
It should be limited to battling against [Self] and uncontrolled cards.
No votes
0%
It shouldn't be a part of 1E.
1
3%
User avatar
 
By Smiley (Cristoffer Wiker)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#574966
My thoughts on this are that:
If we allow for 3 "Something all players need to be aware of and prepared for." it also needs to be 2 "A viable path to victory". Otherwise, it becomes half of 1 "A way to eliminate the opponent." This should never be the case! Ever! If it became a part of the other half of 1 "A way to dominate the opponent" that could be more of a better mechanic/meta/gameplay. Maybe not the most fun thing but it should exist decks like this they really need cards or an economy so that it doesn't become a cost you only have to pay once and then the opponent is so behind that he is the only one paying for it too keep up.
2E solved this quite nicely with the addition of Assault/Maneuver cards. They added a cost to engage in battle after the initial cost of deploying your fleet/army.

As the game is constructed now, the only viable solution seems to be 4"An incidental part of the game, the seizing of an opportunity. " 5
"It should be limited to battling against [Self] and uncontrolled cards."
For 6 "It shouldn't be a part of 1E" we would have to change pretty much of the rules and remove a bunch of cards from the eligible card pool as well. It could be done with a combination of 5 of course for less of an impact but still, some rules and cards would have to change/go.
The problem with 5 and 6 is that they make the game less interesting and less interactive. This is unfortunate and something most games move away from as they have a tendency to detract players. And moving the game towards 4 would require a lot of work as well to balance it at a good level. Actually much harden than allowing the 1-3 scenario (without the possibility to eliminate the enemy that is). And the 1-3 scenario still needs balancing in the form of a cost that now does not exist. And the cost of game flow each time a player's ship(s) get eliminated with a crew, really sets the game back, sometimes to the start of the game fo one player.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#574976
DISCO Rox No More wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:03 am
jjh wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 8:24 pm Me: [considers the percentage of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT episodes, along with the movies, that included "ship battle"]

My answer is based on that small percentage.
But to be an accurate Trek simulation, you can't just include the episodes that had ship battle, you've also got to include the percentage of episodes that had thethreat of ship battle, which was nevertheless avoided (due to clever evasion, diplomacy, technical solutions, deus ex machinas, etc.).
Also, episodes have a sample bias - it would show that statistically Federation ships with camera crews embedded tend not to get sent to the front lines as cannon fodder. (Esp. those named "Enterprise"). Not great representation for non-Fed engagements in particular on screen.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Conflicts seems to have quite the comprehensive list of all the various battles that have happened, on- and off- screen.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#574983
My thoughts:

The game has had "a way to dominate the opponent" as a possibility. It seems lately that design and rules have been trying to push it to just "an opportunity" because a path to victory is functionally the same anyway after a certain point of the game.

I do not agree that should happen. If my opponent can win by blitzing missions ( which I think we can all agree is ok), than I should be able to drop a bomb right into that machinery. If we nerf that too much we run the risk of distorting the proper (speed , control, midrange, combo) balance that a good ccg needs. I fully stopped playing 2e bc certain people took over design and basically killed 2 of those 4 and now the game is garbage.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#574985
Hoss-Drone wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 4:41 pm My thoughts:

The game has had "a way to dominate the opponent" as a possibility. It seems lately that design and rules have been trying to push it to just "an opportunity" because a path to victory is functionally the same anyway after a certain point of the game.

I do not agree that should happen. If my opponent can win by blitzing missions ( which I think we can all agree is ok), than I should be able to drop a bomb right into that machinery. If we nerf that too much we run the risk of distorting the proper (speed , control, midrange, combo) balance that a good ccg needs. I fully stopped playing 2e bc certain people took over design and basically killed 2 of those 4 and now the game is garbage.
I'd argue that 1e hasn't had a good midrange/ control deck since the IDIC:Power nerf of mid 2019. Tier One is either fuck you battle (generally, but not necessarily borg :borg: ) or drag race speed solver (generally, but not necessarily [OS] ), with not much in between.

If I'm building a deck for a big event, my list of deck choices is pretty short.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#574986
Armus wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 5:04 pm
Hoss-Drone wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 4:41 pm My thoughts:

The game has had "a way to dominate the opponent" as a possibility. It seems lately that design and rules have been trying to push it to just "an opportunity" because a path to victory is functionally the same anyway after a certain point of the game.

I do not agree that should happen. If my opponent can win by blitzing missions ( which I think we can all agree is ok), than I should be able to drop a bomb right into that machinery. If we nerf that too much we run the risk of distorting the proper (speed , control, midrange, combo) balance that a good ccg needs. I fully stopped playing 2e bc certain people took over design and basically killed 2 of those 4 and now the game is garbage.
I'd argue that 1e hasn't had a good midrange/ control deck since the IDIC:Power nerf of mid 2019. Tier One is either fuck you battle (generally, but not necessarily borg :borg: ) or drag race speed solver (generally, but not necessarily [OS] ), with not much in between.

If I'm building a deck for a big event, my list of deck choices is pretty short.
I'll subtly disagree. World's gave us, I think and example of each. I think that there are plenty of speed decks out there.and world's saw several two mission win versions. TNG Borg is imho an example of midrange as it doesn't blow your doors off but moves methodical and relies on some incidental defense and a couple moderate pushes to win. Aggro Borg, Kazon fleet, dominion slaughter occupy the control slot and James won worlds on combo.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575002
AllenGould wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:41 pm https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Conflicts seems to have quite the comprehensive list of all the various battles that have happened, on- and off- screen.
Maybe comprehensive for larger-scale battles, but it doesn't include smaller battles or skirmishes, which are both much more common and more in the domain of the game. Consider the first encounter the Enterprise had with the Borg in "Q Who," where several people died and the Enterprise was damaged and in need of repairs. That would be represented by a Borg ship card attacking a Fed ship card and tactics damage affecting the hull and killing personnel on board. But that's not large-scale enough for that list.
User avatar
 
By nobthehobbit (Daniel Pareja)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Moderator
#575004
If anything, those major conflicts are represented by Missions like Clash at Chin'toka.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575006
Too much of any one thing is bad for the game. If the game is only speed solving…it’s boring. If the game is only ship or personnel battling, it’s boring. I think there’s good balance now, IMO. Battle, in general, is a negative player experience, but it’s reasonable and appropriately difficult given cards like Defend Homeworld, strategema, To be or not to be. Battling SHOULD be risky, difficult, and win less than solving.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#575016
stressedoutatumc wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 7:39 am Too much of any one thing is bad for the game. If the game is only speed solving…it’s boring. If the game is only ship or personnel battling, it’s boring. I think there’s good balance now, IMO. Battle, in general, is a negative player experience, but it’s reasonable and appropriately difficult given cards like Defend Homeworld, strategema, To be or not to be. Battling SHOULD be risky, difficult, and win less than solving.
Here's the thing - battle already *is* more difficult than solve. All battle does is buy time. You still have to solve the missions and pass the dilemmas. Battle has to win *two* races - they need to disable the opponent before they win, and then they *also* have to get their missions done in the remainder of the time.

If the first part sounds easy, it's because the meta is often skewed so far to the speed race that no-one is prepared to defend themselves. That's a *them* problem. (The "lockout" is an OP problem, because why can't you concede and keep your points?)
User avatar
 
By winterflames (Derek Marlar)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#575018
I agree with Concession meaning 0-100 being stupid.

If I scored 60 points before the opponent blew up all my ships and facilities, leaving a single away team stranded on a planet, there is no reason I should have to watch the battle deck struggle through my dilemmas for the next 45 minutes and do nothing but draw and pass. But right now, if I want to keep my 60 points, I can't concede a game. I have to wait out the clock, but I can't do anything that looks like stalling because I could get the game called on me.

I should be able to concede, allowing my opponent an effective score of 100 points, but keep the 60 points I earned in this hypothetical game, reducing the differential to 40.

I definitely haven't experienced anything like this in a game against my own children recently, I don't know what you are talking about. He never successfully destroyed my Outpost. But I was seriously considering the implications.
User avatar
 
By stressedoutatumc (stressedoutatumc)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575092
AllenGould wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:40 am
stressedoutatumc wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 7:39 am Too much of any one thing is bad for the game. If the game is only speed solving…it’s boring. If the game is only ship or personnel battling, it’s boring. I think there’s good balance now, IMO. Battle, in general, is a negative player experience, but it’s reasonable and appropriately difficult given cards like Defend Homeworld, strategema, To be or not to be. Battling SHOULD be risky, difficult, and win less than solving.
Here's the thing - battle already *is* more difficult than solve. All battle does is buy time. You still have to solve the missions and pass the dilemmas. Battle has to win *two* races - they need to disable the opponent before they win, and then they *also* have to get their missions done in the remainder of the time.

If the first part sounds easy, it's because the meta is often skewed so far to the speed race that no-one is prepared to defend themselves. That's a *them* problem. (The "lockout" is an OP problem, because why can't you concede and keep your points?)
I totally agree. FWIW just to articulate better, I think the game is healthier without battle being easier or being a singular pathway to victory. Like, I'd hate to see a card that allowed to you win by just winning battles of any type.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#575302
The discussion of the Tribble deck summed up what I want out of Battle/tactics - a way to slow, harass, and interact with the opponent without shutting them down.

I want any deck with tactics to have a 95% chance of delaying the opponent from winning for a turn, and 50% chance of slowing the opponent for 5 turns, with the cost of it's making me use resources to slow them as well.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#576793
I had a number of thoughts on this when reading it a few weeks ago, but it took me a while to organize them and put them to paper. Apologies in advance for the long post.

1. On making ship battle a worthy part of the game, but not its focus. 1E is not a battle simulator, and winning the game requires solving at least some missions. Battle is thus a secondary strategy, stalling an opponent or depriving them of resources they need to solve missions, to give you the time you need to do the same. Easy lockouts are problematic (cf. the discussions in this thread, when first-turn outpost destruction, or getting >60 ATTACK in a few turns were realistic possibilities... some people managed to expand their power a bit too far in the universe.).

All this suggests to me that battle should have increasing marginal difficulty. Battling to stall an opponent should be easy; to damage a ship should be harder; to destroy a ship harder still; to destroy a facility quite difficult; and to destroy multiple facilities very difficult. Most any deck should be able to do the first of these; the last of these should only be possible with a fully dedicated deck, and at high risk.

Cards like pre-errata Hirogen Hunt were broken because they violated this principle, since it let you pump out ships at a constant rate. "Increasing marginal difficulty" would mean that getting your first ship is easy, but each additional ship should have ever greater cost.

A card like Spacedoor is (slightly) better; you can seed multiple Spacedoors, which looks like constant marginal difficulty; but because seed space is tightly constrained to 30 cards, the cost is indeed increasing. Imagine you already built a 30-card seed deck, and want to squeeze in a Spacedoor... OK, you find the least valuable of those 30 cards and swap it out. If you want to add a second Spacedoor, you swap out the second-least valuable of those original 30 cards (which was better than the first one you gave up), and so on. Each Spacedoor gets more and more painful to add. (A similar, but weaker analysis applies to reusing a Spacedoor by discarding cards from hand.)

Most CC cards get at this principle in a similar way, by being limited to one ship (e.g., Call for Reinforcements, Attention All Hands!) You can stack them together, with a Spacedoor to boot, but you are giving up more and more valuable seed cards for each one you add.

I think there is more design space to explore this theme in a more explicit way, for instance a card that lets you grab a ship, but the cost grows based on how many other ships (or WEAPONS?) you already have in play. Or where the cost is based on the difference between your fleet strength and your opponent's.

2. On whether battle is already over-represented in the game. jjh raises an excellent point that the percentage of Trek based on "ship battle" is rather small. This is an important consideration, and I'll respond in two ways.

First, if we define "ship battle" as attacking a ship with the intent of destroying it, I would agree. Yet using a ship's WEAPONS (or threatening to do so) in less violent ways shows up rather frequently... how many times does Picard or Janeway fire a warning shot, or limiting fire to disable weapons or engines, or to break a tractor beam, etc. DISCO Rox No More raised a similar point. This suggests that we might want to explore other ways ships WEAPONS and SHIELDS interact besides "battle with the intent of causing HULL damage and destruction."

Second, our perspective on the Trek universe is told almost wholly through a [Fed] lens. A show set in the same universe, but with [Kli] or [Kaz] protagonists, would almost certainly have much more battle in it. And our game allows, even encourages playing these sorts of factions (indeed, the main concern is that [Fed] has too many toys!).

Taken together with the first point, I suggest that we do more to differentiate battle based on the affiliation/faction involved. Why not design cards that would allow a [Fed] player to fire a "warning shot" (no HULL damage, but some kind of delay for the opponent). Or that let [Rom] players use battle as a strategic trap to lure the opponent into? (Nelvana Trap is a cool dilemma... what about something like that on a Tactic or Incident card, where an opponent initiating battle against your [Rom] ship would provide some kind of boon?)

Right now, there is very little difference between what engagements look like (each affiliation has their own "Tactic", but as has been pointed out they are reallllly similar and not even tactics in the proper sense of the word.) I think there are some cool ways to make battle distinctive based on who is involved.

3. On risk in war. Armus mentions attrition in SWCCG. I'm only superficially familiar with that game, but adding more randomness to battle -- and more risk even for the winning force -- is a great idea. Tactics are a first step in this direction, but the outcome of a battle is rarely in doubt, and the winner rarely suffers any loss at all. Adding more uncertainty to both is a great idea.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#576815
Rachmaninoff wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 6:10 pmOr that let [Rom] players use battle as a strategic trap to lure the opponent into? (Nelvana Trap is a cool dilemma... what about something like that on a Tactic or Incident card, where an opponent initiating battle against your [Rom] ship would provide some kind of boon?)
A sentence just crossed my mind that I don't have time to explore, but like enough to post here before I forget it:

Every [Tac] is an [Evt] played at the start of a battle.

(And there is a lot of design space we consider ordinary for [Evt] cards that we have never begun to touch for [Tac] .)

What if a tactic let draw 3 cards if I lose a ship during the upcoming battle? Or did the thing Rachmaninoff suggested where it lets me call in a reinforcement from my Engage Cloak?

Okay, crazy day, I now must leave the boards again. Hopefully will have more time by Monday!
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#577080
BCSWowbagger wrote: What if a tactic let draw 3 cards if I lose a ship during the upcoming battle? Or did the thing Rachmaninoff suggested where it lets me call in a reinforcement from my Engage Cloak?
Yep, that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of... more daring Tactics that add affiliation flavor and are worth packing even if you aren't playing a "battle deck". How does each affiliation approach and use battle in line with its culture and strategic aims?

Just spitballing some example...
  • A Romulan Nelvana Trap-like card that lets you bring in reinforcements if your opponent initiates battle against you (even a mini-Defend Homeworld)... is that vulnerable ship sitting there just by accident, or is a Romulan plot? A ploy to start a war?
  • Bajorans learned how to be resourceful and improvise during the Occupation; what about a Tactic that lets them download other Tactics or specific damage markers? Again, this could be "defensive" if we want to encourage broader use of the Battle Bridge without necessarily making battle a stronger primary strategy.
  • Klingons are prone to press for victory even to the point of sacrifice ("it IS a good day to die!")... what about a Maximum Firepower-like tactic that can beef up ATTACK, perhaps based on Honor personnel, with a huge DEFENSE penalty?
...and so on. Perhaps other card types work better for certain ideas... e.g., I could see a [Inc] that would let [Fed] initiate battle, but reduce any HULL damage to zero and cancel any "kills" from damage markers. To mimic all of the "fire but only disable their tractor beam" orders we see.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation

It started in mid-2013. At that time it became sta[…]