 February 6, 2011 - 10:18am | I've been reading all the posts here and from what I'm seeing the idea of this project while awesome in intent, (don't get me wrong here) seems to be to add a reality based spin on Knight Hawks. But here's my question, Are you targeting these rules for a specific type of gamer or for mass appeal? What I mean is are the Knight Hawks rules you are creating going to lean so far towards real science that they alienate the "I just wanna do the stuff I saw in (insert favorite sci-fi flick here)" crowd? If your goal is to appeal to the largest possible audience then you may need to consider that a majority of gamers, aren't overly interested in such things as how much thrust is required to achieve 1G or what is the correct thrust ratio I need to achieve a 30% port side turn, or how much mass will I displace adding a type 3 laser cannon to my 40 meter long ship, and how much power will it drain off of my power plant. Most of these gamers have been raised on popcorn science fiction and many of the younger ones get bored easy and will feel that the rules are too much like homework to want to play the game no matter how cool it may be. So I guess what I'm saying is is this project Knight Hawks space combat with a harder edge. or Knight Hawks big ships, big guns and plenty to shoot at fun? "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
 February 6, 2011 - 10:35am | For me the goal is both. I think we can make a system that has as much detail as you want but if you just want to get in there and start shooting, it can support that as well. Here's my thinking. You can make a fast, fun shoot 'em up game and be done. But trying to make it expandable reasonably may not be possible. That's what KH currently is. There are a lot of things in there that just don't stand up to scrutiny. If, on the other hand, you start with the nitty gritty detailed design and physics from the start, you have a system that can be put out at any level of detail. It's always easier to abstract things than figure out the abstraction later. That's is what I'd like to do with this project. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 February 6, 2011 - 12:49pm | I suspect that in the end we will be forced to abstract quite a bit in the area of mass and thrust in the mean time I dont think it will hurt to break our teeth on it a little bit also having a lot of optional rules wont hurt either- for fast play and learning we have a basic game but if you want increased levels of realism (what ever that is- increased levels of believable fantasy may be more accurate) we have these advanced rules: Good question though I know I'll be happier than a humma in slop with the flavor of David Weber's Honor Harrington Series that plays like KHs- and if I was truly commited to that then I'd have just sat home alone and wrote that. Instead I started a public project to get people talking and to pool ideas. Ultimately, I expect that a concensus will congeal around ideas that I'm not 100% in favor of but I'll still go with. I sort of expect that everyone will bring their personal bias to the table; for instance when Will gets around to posting here I expect his post to reflect a militancy that he's consistently showed in his material and posts- its not wrong just different from the next person. I suspect that the middle ground will be a fun game that someone like Terl Obar can settle for. Which will mean that we'll likely hash out a bunch of stuff then put it all down in a slightly abstract way that is easy to handle. So for now through some mud on the wall in the forums and lets talk out the issues involve and see if a concensus develops. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 February 6, 2011 - 1:48pm | I should mention that I am a fan of the Full Thrust batch of generic miniatures rules. They use vector movement, generic beam and missile weapons, and quickie-slickie construction rules. I haven't looked at them in a while, they fit very well for the Honor Harrington-style stuff. I'm pretty sure I even have a set of conversion rules for that setting. Another game that I liked in the past is Starfire, once developed by David Weber himself. Note that I speak of the '80s editions of the game. I understand there is a more recent, web-based version of the game, which has IMO exploded in complexity and detail. The movement is definitely not vector-based, but the combat is missile-heavy, and you can see where Weber developed his ideas. |
 February 11, 2011 - 5:39pm | I should mention that I am a fan of the Full Thrust. Another game that I liked in the past is Starfire. WOW, I have played these games way back when. I kinda liked the battles but didn't care for the empire details though. I did use some of the missile combat stuff in my SFKH. I got the torpedo toting fighter idea from this game also or is that fighter toting torpedo? I did like the beam weapon level system but I do not remember if there was much variety to them like KH. It just did not catch on with casual board gamers and that is who I think this target audience should be; however, there might have to be make it real then thin out the complexity. I am sure there can be formulas made that are almost or as simple as SF in the long run for the casual gamers. |
February 11, 2011 - 6:09pm | I think that what to me made classic Knight Hawks great back in the day was that there was an innocence about the rules. What I mean is that the rules were simple and for what they did they did it well enough. Its kind of like that famous line from the wizard of Oz "Ignore that man behind the curtain." If you looked too closely at the rules you started to see the flaws and inconsistancies in the rules, but if you never bothered to scrutinize the rules you found that they did the job they were intended to do. I think we've come to a point in gaming (probably because most of us have grown up) where we need our games to have a certain level of logic to them and sometimes we overthink things to the point that the game loses its magic (think Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 and its too many modifiers approach to most things) and compare that to AD 1/2 ability score + modifier approach to must things. I think with this project we have to walk that fine line between making the game fun for both the newbie, and the veteran or we might end up catering to one group and alienating the other. Maybe the way to go is to have a basic game and an Advanced game. The basic game could include already designed ships that are newbie friendly, and fast play rules, and the advanced game can factor in those made to simulate real or as close to real physics rules, that way everyone is happy. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
 February 17, 2011 - 6:34pm | Though I drive toward realism, my first and foremost goal is to keep it as simple as the original system. I believe this is possible and have been working towards it myself. The original KH was pure fudge, but I believe you can have the simplicity and the realism too. Just change some references to hex size and speed (which is non-mechanical fluff) and put a cap on hexes-per-turn and on MR, then I think you'll have a realistic movement system that covers vector and g-force without the crunch. (For the record, I hate crunch, which is why I hate KHV.) View my profile for a list of articles I have written, am writing, will write. "It's yo' mama!" —Wicket W. Warrick, Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi "That guy's wise." —Logray, Star Wars Ep.VI: Return of the Jedi Do You Wanna Date My Avatar? - Felicia Day (The Guild) |
