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
Director of First Edition
By MidnightLich (Charlie Plaine)
 - Director of First Edition
 -  
Prophet
#574895
Hello all and welcome to another edition of your Friday question. One of the topics that frequently comes up is battle, and how it fits into First Edition. Every few years, a new round of discussions kick off and bring up some strong feelings about this aspect of the game. Recently, there's a good discussion going on about tactics and internally, we're constantly looking to see how we can work on this aspect of our beloved game.

So today, I'd like to start some discussion about how ship battle fits into the game as a whole. First, I thought I'd give you some helpful links about the rules of ship battle as they are now:

Rulebook: Ship Battle
Rulebook: Damage and Repairs
Glossary: Battle Bridge Side Deck
Glossary: Damage

Here is a very brief, simplified, and high-level summary of how ship battle works in 1E as of today:
A player can attack another player's ship, another player's facility, or a [Self] dilemma. There are affiliation based rules that prevent some attacks. Beginning an attack requires a staffed ship with a personnel with Leadership or OFFICER aboard. Any involved player may respond with cards that affect the battle. Compare the attacker's total WEAPONS to the defender's SHIELDS; if higher, target is damaged. Damage is either rotation damage or based on tactics (if using a Battle Bridge Side Deck).
(Don't @ me, I told you it was simple and high level!)

With that in mind, today we want to know about your thoughts on ship battle. What should the role of ship battle be in First Edition? Do you want it to be a huge piece of the game? Not a part at all? Somewhere in between? I've set up a poll with a few high-level options, so please vote for the one closest to your thoughts. But, because there is so much nuance involved, I'd love to read your thoughts as replies after you vote.

Thank you for reading! I hope you all have a wonderful weekend, and I can't wait to read your thoughts on this topic.

-crp
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#574900
I hesitated between "Something all players need to be aware of and prepared for" and
"An incidental part of the game, the seizing of an opportunity", because both ring true for me.
Ultimately, I think it should be an incidental thing, that should always be at the backs of our minds... pretty much how it is, exactly, right now. Tactics can make it detailed; Rotation makes it more of a model. Both have merits that I like to be able to choose from. While more and different tactics are (optionally) welcome, I believe the fundamentals of both systems are great. Add to it. Don't mess with it.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#574904
Feels like this should have been multiple choice. It's a thing you should be aware and prepared for, because it's a valid path to victory, and that path is "My honorable Klingons just removed the Federation dogs from the face of the galaxy in the name of Kahless".
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#574907
My understanding of the question is that it's ordered from biggest role to smallest role, and you should answer the highest one you agree with. ('least, that's how I saw it.)
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#574909
I did something all players need to be prepared for.

1. I think interaction is at the core of any game, and ship battles are the most visible and visceral way of showing that.

2. I think the biggest negative about it is how you have been able to lock opponents out of the game.

3. If we are including things like [Self] , then the percentage of episodes where the heroes don't get into a fight of some kind is smaller.

4. In a perfect world, I'd like to see battle as a way to actively delay your opponent. Fly over, battle, both people lose a personnel or two to damage, and maybe you buy yourself time.

5. I do like the idea of battle being a viable path to victory against the Borg only, because they are meant to be the true, un-nuanced evil of the franchise.

6. With a heightened way to prepare for battle, to be that includes more defensive ways as well. Just as any deck should in theory stock ways to deal with events and interrupts, there should be counters that people should consider playing to stop battle.

7. All battles should always have a risk of a cost, even ones where you cleanly win. THis is the biggest sin of the 2E battle system IMO, where if I lost a battle I started (which is almost impossible) I virtually never pay a cost for it. (Except the card used to start the battle is "wasted")
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#574910
One of the things I always liked about the Star Wars CCG battle system was the concept of attrition. The idea that even if you go in with overwhelming force, you'll still more likely than not take some casualties along the way. The degree of attrition varied from battle to battle, and some characters and star ships (usually the main/ big ones) had immunity to attrition, but being able to still inflict damage even in a losing battle could make the difference in a game, especially if you wanted to set up a counter attack on your turn.

Now, I know SWCCG isn't STCCG, and battle is much more centric to winning that game than it generally is (and really, should be, IMO) to this one, but, like @boromirofborg said, the lack of downside risk in battle is a weakness of STCCG, and I agree with him on that point.

The good news is I think it's solvable through Design.

Maybe something like this:
[Tac] Generic Attrition Tactic (working title)
Attack +X
Defense +Y
Hit: [Down] [Flip]
Direct Hit: [Down] [Flip] [Flip] [Flip]
Otherwise: [Down] and opponent may [Flip] one of your ships attacking target ship.
Casualties: randomly kills one personnel (on a Nor, one personnel at site of opponent's choice)
Range -1 Weapons -1 Shields -1 Hull -25%
You could then build that concept out, make specific affiliations better at it (e.g., higher bonuses, inflict more casualties), etc.

That way, if I'm playing a solver, and I'm worried about getting wrecked by battle, I can play some defense and have my opponent think twice about taking me on just because he has weapons of 8 and I have shields of 7.

Thoughts?
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#574913
In principle, I am a big fan of attrition as a mechanic.

(I have never played SWCCG, but I just like things that help you recover from a loss. I am also a fan of cards that let you siphon points from your opponent's mission completions, or that clause on Add Distinctiveness that only kicks in if you're losing. Catch-up mechanics are good for business!)

[CENSORED FURTHER COMMENTS ABOUT PROJECT [CENSORED] but Armus knows what I'm talking about]
User avatar
 
By SudenKapala (Suden Käpälä)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#574922
SWCCG...attrition
I agree with some things said. As long as we don't make it NEARLY as complicated as SWCCG. As my festering and much-professed hate for the cheaply and badly written new Disney episodes paradoxally signifies, I deeply love Star Wars. I collect SWCCG cards. I wanted to love the game! I did!! But its (granted: logical) emphasis on battle, and the difficult and abstract ways in which it was implemented, consistently proved a big turn-off for me. :(

I hope (and trust) this will not be mirrored in 1eSTCCG.

Calculating and numbers in SWCCG took way too much stage time for my taste. The ease and simplicity of Rotation Damage were perfectly suited to my taste, and Tactics made it just about as "complicated" and time-consuming as I feel is the-maximum-but-still-fun. As I said elsewhere, please expand on that (more, different, e.g. location-influenced tactics), but don't deepen the complexity of tactics. Nor lengthen their in-game time consumption!

@BCSWowbagger, in the other topic, disagreed with (some of?) my sentiments. To be truthful, I didn't understand all of his argument. (My bad.) But since I'm not dumb, by default I at least respect his experience.

So, while not sure whether this reply correctly builds on his 'feedback' to my other post, I'll try to add some nuance to my opinions [Down]

If there is a way to replace default (and/or do away with rotational) damage with one system of using tactics cards, and still using the BBSD economy / seeded Doorway card with another system of Tactics... somehow, I might become a believer.

My point is, I am too much a 1e-conservative to condone doing away with the BB doorway OR throwing out the simpler/easier way of battling WITHOUT using the seed slot. I want to preserve that duality for battle itself. That feeling is paramount.

But conversely, I also think (and have not said before) that tactics are, to me, a more fun way of having/assigning/suffering damage.

IOW (for I'm unsure whether I am using/writing clear enough English today, to get my point across):

If we choose to change the rules so that everybody needs to stock tactics and use them for (default) damage (when not seeding BB), and somehow this is only marginally worse than seeding the doorway (which -- as implied -- should have some advantage, but not TOO much), I think I can get behind that.

Sorry if my second language is off, today (or any day).
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#574931
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:07 pm My understanding of the question is that it's ordered from biggest role to smallest role, and you should answer the highest one you agree with. ('least, that's how I saw it.)
Welp, time to change the vote. :)

To the attrition point - it's worth noting that SW approaches the win condition very differently than ST. SW is a territory control game - you win by holding locations (and beating up stray characters who got left alone to score big wins, IIRC :) ). But other than some incidental game text, I don't think there's any reason for characters to actually hang around locations, is there? Not like Luke and Leia go solve Hoth. ;)

* SW was always a very occasional game for me, so I apologize in advance if they added a robust mission system when I wasn't looking. Last I saw the meta was very "build up force, surprise attack for big attacks".

Contrary-wise, over here we have the opposite issue - there's plenty of things to do at a mission, but no need to control it. Once you've Studied That Protonebula, there's pretty much no reason for either player to try and maintain a force there.

And I don't think attrition does what we want/need - ST battle is already costly because those are draws, plays, and turns that aren't clearing dilemmas and solving missions. In SW you get closer to winning by winning a battle. In ST winning a battle doesn't progress you towards winning. It doesn't even cost your opponent points. What battle does is give an alternate path to people losing the speed solve race. The phaser equivalent of throwing a stick in the spokes, let us say.

Attrition makes battle cost *more*, and right now I'm not at all convinced that battle needs to cost more.
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#574936
AllenGould wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 11:15 am
BCSWowbagger wrote: Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:07 pm My understanding of the question is that it's ordered from biggest role to smallest role, and you should answer the highest one you agree with. ('least, that's how I saw it.)
To the attrition point - it's worth noting that SW approaches the win condition very differently than ST. SW is a territory control game - you win by holding locations (and beating up stray characters who got left alone to score big wins, IIRC :) ). But other than some incidental game text, I don't think there's any reason for characters to actually hang around locations, is there? Not like Luke and Leia go solve Hoth. ;)
There's very good reasons to "Hang around" locations: Force drains. You put out some guys, and either your opponent comes and fights or you force drain and make them lose cards. And since losing cards is bad in a game where you lose by having your deck run out, there's a lot of incentive to both control locations and prevent your opponent from controlling locations.

And the way that battle and attrition tie to control of locations and force drains is one of the things that makes that game great. I maintain it's still the single most elegant game mechanic I've ever seen.

And yes, I understand that as somebody who *doesn't* want battle to be the dominant aspect of the game (plenty of other CCGs that do that if that's what you want), it may be counter-intuitive to be calling for a mechanic from a battle-centered game that enhances and expands battle. However, done correctly I think it can be a great way to support non-battling affiliations who just want to go do their Science-y and Diplomacy-y stuff. Think Kor and one ship holding off the Jem'Hadar attack force so the rest of the Klingons can escape. Why should being able to do a tactical retreat like that *not* be a defense against an aggressive opponent? There's gotta be a way to make a card for that, right? Just one example, I'm sure there are others, but I don't think an attrition component to battle in Trek would necessarily make Trek more battle-focused, or to the extent that it does, it should allow a non-aggressive player have more options for defense and counter-attack such that SOME risk is introduced to the aggressive player. I've seen too many instances of "I have Weapons 35, your Outpost is hit. I have Weapons 35 again, your outpost is gone" and there not being shit else a player can do. That's not fun. It's not exciting, and it's not even really Trek... where's the consequences for such blatant aggression against a peaceful opponent?

There's room to play here... I think we should explore it.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#574938
@Armus

I agree with attrition as a form of defense. And, honestly, I would say if you look at a lot of the episodes, it's the threat of attrition that holds off a lot of battles. (As in enemy of the week would be more likely to attack if the Federation ships weren't strong enough to hurt them back.)

Attrition is an ongoing theme of Voyager (well, like all Voyager themes, until it's dropped randomly with no fanfare.)

Attrition would also really fit the flavor of the Maquis and the Bajorans, who managed to keep the Cardassians and Federation from completing missions by attrition, essentially.

I've also made the radical suggestion of a BBSD that has the downside of ignoring hull damage - with the idea of we rarely see ships and facilities being destroyed, but we do see all the time of a ship being forced to break off from their mission by being wounded, losing some crew, and having to go repair.


I dislike the lockout of blowing up facilities, but love the idea of being able to delay a win by a turn or two by fighting a losing battle.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
Community Contributor
#574951
Armus wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 1:39 pm There's very good reasons to "Hang around" locations: Force drains. You put out some guys, and either your opponent comes and fights or you force drain and make them lose cards. And since losing cards is bad in a game where you lose by having your deck run out, there's a lot of incentive to both control locations and prevent your opponent from controlling locations.
Yeah, I had tried writing that post 2-3 times and managed to completely bungle the final result (and even contradicted myself in the paragraph, which is why I'm not quoting it ;) ). Lemme try again - SW doesn't give Luke/Leia a reason to go to a place and do something (no "solve the mission" equivalent) - you're *only* there as part of a force drain/occupying force. (And the battle mechanics IIRC *super* discourage leaving a single person at a location.)

(Aside: I 100% agree that the force drain mechanic is one of the most elegant concepts devised in the CCG space. But it's certainly not a one-size-fits-all mechanic.)

And to your point about Kor's Last Stand, I'm all on board for there being cards and abilities that let you pull such stunts. But that speed deck should be paying the costs to turn a rout into a stalemate - the game shouldn't be enforcing that as a built-in effect, because War's battle flows directly into win conditions, and ours doesn't.

Now, if we want to make blowing up ships worth non-bonus points (so it *does* count as a direct path to victory), then we can talk attrition... ;)
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#574955
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.).

By the same token, if I play a battle deck against you, there's no guarantee I'll actually be able to battle you. If you end up dodging me and grabbing the victory, we might not have had a single battle, but battle was still a major component of the strategy (just as the threat of battle can be a major component of a plot or storyline even if it never comes to fruition).

Since Discovery is really just The Michael Burnham[…]

So with the new version of The Final Frontier , i[…]

FIRST pair? You got more cooking? I am hoping t[…]

Card Page Glitches

So, it's seeming on some sets that the cards on th[…]