Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Greetings,

I have been working on a ship combat game where all combatants are based on similar tech levels and I have a question for you guys. This is regards to shooting and range. I am curious to your preferences and what you see as the Plus and Minus of each option.

1. Ship profiles would have range bands of 6 inches, 12 inches, or 18 inches. All ships would have the same range bands. However, each ship may have different numbers of firepower dice in those bands. This seems similar to how Spartan games does it.

2. Ship profiles would have a unique weapon profile that would include a range. Therefore, each ship could have a unique property. The weapon itself would provide a set amount of firepower dice.

perhaps it is half or one and half dozen of another, but i would like your thoughts on the matter?

I like option 1. Though I might prefer a couple more bands. You can still do unique weapon properties with a system like that. Without knowing the specifics of your system(s), here's a super generic version of what I imagine:

here i'm calling your bands: 6 inches, 12 inches and 18 inches "Short Range" Medium Range" and "Long Range" respectively.

Ship A
Cannon W: At long range, this can re-roll misses.
Short Range Power: 6
Medium Range Power: 8
Long Range Power: 8

Cannon X: This weapon can only fire every other turn.
Short Range Power: 8
Medium Range Power: 8
Long Range Power: 8

Ship B
Cannon Y: If this weapon destroys an enemy ship, fire it again.
Short Range Power: 12
Medium Range Power: 8
Long Range Power: 4

Cannon Z: This weapon fires at every target you have line of sight to.
Short Range Power: 6
Medium Range Power: 4
Long Range Power: 2

Using the set bands gives you an easy understand template across every unit. You don't need to worry about measuring different ranges every time so the the planning tree players go through is simplified. This actually leaves more room, not less for making ship/weapon properties unique.

Having individual weapon range profiles requires greater book keeping and should probably be avoided unless it somehow supports the game design. Is there a reason why you would need profiles that depart from your standard range bands? Do your range bands work with the movement ranges of the ships? Are their tactical reasons to have weapons with shorter ranges?

Chongara's examples are a great illustration of how to distinguish weapons between bands and add special rules.

Range bands it is.

That was the direction I was leaning, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something.

I kind of prefer 2, as it's cleaner and less hair-splitty.

But then, I liked BFG, and that's how BFG does it.

I also like 2 bands, but 3 gives more granularity for, say weapons that are ineffective or only effective at close range. Really, it all just boils down to implementation.

Also there might be a secondary, or anti air band?

A ship might have a primary battery that can fire 3 bands or even only able to hit in 2/3 due to velocity and nature.
Secondry might be rapid fire but only range 1 for its secondary battery.

And a second set for anti air.
Some may pack longer range weaponry
Others only range band one self defence guns vs heavy anti air cannons like a duel purpose 5 inch gun.

So a ship can have several weapons but all are rang banded and no unique ranges. 2 sets of ranges only.

One able to hammer capital ships
Second represents point defence vs fighters etc.

Yes, I will have a separate stat for point defense against aircraft, torps, and other similar attacks.

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, I will have a separate stat for point defense against aircraft, torps, and other similar attacks.

Hmm , you said you prefered two bands, 3 could be solely for battleship grade and long range weaponry on the largest class of warships or specialist ones like long range missiles. As a balance they can be far less or not fuction in band one.

Sounds good way, you can have specialist AA ships, as escorts for capitals, and such who make use of extra ranges. Allows some degree of both niche and genralist ships.

Have you looked at how Star Wars Armada does range bands? Basically, all ships have an armament made up of Red, Blue and Black dice. Red dice are weaker than the others, but usable out to range 3. Blue dice are accurate, and usable to range 2. Black dice cause the most damage, and are usable at range 1. I think that it's an interesting way of handling it, because while models all get stronger at close range, they don't get stronger evenly.

IMO, locking firepower to range is a poor design decision. A matrix of 3 strengths and 3 ranges giving only 3 possibilities wastes most of the potential available.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Have you looked at how Star Wars Armada does range bands? Basically, all ships have an armament made up of Red, Blue and Black dice. Red dice are weaker than the others, but usable out to range 3. Blue dice are accurate, and usable to range 2. Black dice cause the most damage, and are usable at range 1. I think that it's an interesting way of handling it, because while models all get stronger at close range, they don't get stronger evenly.

Yeah. Different colored dice are also used in Planetfall by Spartan. Frankly I'm not fan of different color dice/specialty dice of any kind. I'm a bit of a grognard that way.

I was planning the following range bands:
1. Point Defense (Contact only)
2. Short Range- 6 inches
3. Mid-range- 12 inches
4. Long range- 18 inches

However, I can also see a case being made for Point-Blank (2 inches or less) and Extreme Range (24 inches) for particularly large guns.

To put it in perspective, the average speed of vessels (in inches) would vary between 9-12 for light craft, 6-8 for mediums, and 4-5 for heavies. Therefore, mid-range would be just a little bit or about equal to the fastest light craft. Giving it a 1:1 ratio. I am unsure if this is the right amount.

So you're doing biplane / triplane combat?

If it's naval combat, range >>> move.

No room for different velocity guns, different accuracy and specialisation.

Ie accurate long range guns, rapid fire closer range guns.

Ships need a various abilities. One a expert AA, generalists, long range and short

A fleet the can be composed of a wide area of abilities, strengths, weakness, gives a wide tactical array of options for player.

Dreadnoughts could have duel purpose guns, you choose a shooting profile AA or secondry fire vs ships.

Some could be ineffective in range band one but hit hard in band 3.

Lots of depth to variety

By definition, a Dreadnought is an anti-battleship battleship, armed only with long range heavy guns. Minimal close in weapons. In BFG, it'd be long range lances oñ the sides and front, with a small battery turret top.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
So you're doing biplane / triplane combat?

If it's naval combat, range >>> move.

Well, it is a naval game, just not a Historical one.....

I want to make sure that maneuver is important in this game, hence the near 1:1 ratio for shooting/moving. However, I am open to making it go as high as 2:1 ratio if playtesting makes sense.

Also, I don't want to add unneeded complexity as it will all ready be complex enough with guns, torpedoes, mines, aircraft, etc.

How will your game differ from BattleFleet Gothic?

On the original question, I think general range bands are better than individual bands for specific guns. The argument for individual bands is that it allows for lots more detail and individuality to be given to for units and their weaponry. The argument against individual bands is that it produces a core strategy of picking an exact optimum range for your weaponry compared to your enemy’s and manoeuvring to fight at that range as often as possible. So you realise your medium band is out to 12”, while your opponent’s medium band is to 10”, so you spend the game trying to keep 11 or 12” from your enemy.

It’s a core strategy in Battletech, for instance, and while it’s certainly not broken as a game mechanic, it is pretty goofy. It’s very common to see players assessing in their head what range best suits their weapons compared to their enemy, and then spend as many hexes as possible exactly that many hexes away.

Universal range bands, on the other hand, mean you still get a game of manoeuvre based around optimising your range advantage, you might want to maintain medium range while your opponent wants short range, but it is at a much more generalised level, the kind of level a naval commander is more likely to think in.

*****

On the question of how many range brackets, well I think that depends on how much of the game’s focus is on optimising engagement ranges. If it is that absolute core strategy of the game, to which everything else is peripheral, then 5 bands would be reasonable. But if it is just one element of many important strategies, then I suspect any more than three bands would start to get overly complex. But like most things, you never really know until you’ve had a few playtests.

Individual range bands just create another headache to deal with in game balance, leave them for RPG and simulations.