just one battles per turn

[Phoenix-D]

As it is now you can invade several planets with just one big fleet in one turn, without having an advanced plan. With just one battle/turn/fleet you have to divide your fleet and develope an advanced battle plan before the invasion to achieve the same result. "

One turn = one month. It's not unreasonable for a fleet capable of moving that far to hit several targets in a month.

Keep in mind that computers can process a LOT of numbers quickly, thus allowing rules in computer games that would bog down a board wargame.

Phoenix-D

[Skulky]

Pheonix, SJ makes a good point, if the defender makes it hard on you it can be difficult to wrap up (highest theoretical # at 12, realistically more like 3-5) planets then thats good for him, if he leaves them undefended what does he expect.

[President_Elect_Shang]

What I think you are missing KlausD (I too am a big board game fan) is that most board games started (and copied) the one per turn rule because they assumed movement (of non-mechanized units) as a factor. We are talking about ships that are moving at x% of c here. It is not unreasonable for a fleet moving at x% of c to travel to a planet, turn it into glass and move on. If any part of SE should be limited to one battle per turn it should be when a fleet engages in a ground invasion. Now that would be difficult to code in a game I would think.

[Phoenix-D]

"We are talking about ships that are moving at x% of c here. It is not unreasonable for a fleet moving at x% of c to travel to a planet, turn it into glass and move on."

Just to nitpick- *I* am moving at x% of C. It's a low %, but still.

Anyway, SE4 ships don't go FTL. However they are capable of crossing an entire system in one month at max tech, and that is FAST.

Phoenix-D

[kalthalior]

As a old-school strategy boardgamer myself, I have seen a lot of different systems utilized. Some games are one attack/turn, some have different movement phases/impulses where attacks can take place, etc. However, a space game should "feel" different than a ground game IMO. There aren't any "zones of control" to prevent an opponent from moving past you in most space games, nor are there terrain features costing you additional movement points. Apples and oranges to compare the two in my estimation.

[DocShane]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
As it is now you can invade several planets with just one big fleet in one turn, without having an advanced plan. With just one battle/turn/fleet you have to divide your fleet and develope an advanced battle plan before the invasion to achieve the same result. "

One turn = one month. It's not unreasonable for a fleet capable of moving that far to hit several targets in a month.

I cut my teeth as a child on classic board games, namely Starship Troopers, Advanced Squad Leader, Imperium Romanum, and Star Fleet Battles to name 4 of my Favorites. Most of these games assume turns Lasting seconds or minutes. Only one attack could reasonably be accomplished within that period.

Originally posted by kalthalior:
As a old-school strategy boardgamer myself, I have seen a lot of different systems utilized. Some games are one attack/turn, some have different movement phases/impulses where attacks can take place, etc. However, a space game should "feel" different than a ground game IMO. There aren't any "zones of control" to prevent an opponent from moving past you in most space games, nor are there terrain features costing you additional movement points. Apples and oranges to compare the two in my estimation.

I agree. SEIV, however, does utilize "zones of control" with the "Sentry" option. Blackholes cause usage of additional movement points. There are "terrain features" in SEIV that affect combat as well, such as storms. I think that individual battles could benefit from line of sight and even individual firing windows for weapons, borrowing from Star Fleet Battles. This would be cool to add to the present game and create what I would consider an even more satisfying combat experience. That is left for SEV, or at least I hope.

[klausD]

There have been some comments about the "realism" of invading/nuking several planets per turn/month. Of course I can imagine a world/universe where this is possible. But IMO this is not really the question. The point for me is not the simulation of a pseudo-realistic universe. The point is to create a game which has more challenging core-rules than SE has yet. With challenging I mean rules which force me to make more and advanced tactical and strategic decisions.

Of course the game is good as it is now, but it has also its failures and its far from beeing perfect. My post was intended to show up one of these problems. I know there are a lot of people which are content with the core-rules of the SE series. Thats fully ok for me. I am not the guy who wants to put my opinion on everyones "head" (are these words correct? Dont exactly know because I am Austrian )

I would wish Aaron would rework some of the basics of the core rules of SE5. And he should also be aware of some of the excellent board game systems out there. Why inventing an oval wheel when there is already a round one existing?

Things I like (and would not like to have changed) in SE are:

-The adaptibility of many game areas (modding)
-extensive design of war-ships
-tactical ship combat

Things I would like to have changed
-planetary combat
-units (fighters, drones, ground units etc.) as such. I liked the system of SE3 more, with fixed stats of units. It was simpler and had the same flair
-supply should be a resource (like organics)
-just one battle per turn/fleet
-simpler diplomatic model (one of reasons the AI dont work good is that the diplo model is not really thought out very good. There are too many choices which dont have much impact in the game)
-people which operate facilities
-better immigration rules
-more and more dangerous internal problems (rebels, pirates, dangerous technologies etc.) to force the player to have internal security fleets and units.

Ok thats a few of the changes I would suggest.
KlausD