Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game» Forums » General

Subject: Should Capital Ships get their own game? Where does this game go next? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
William Smith
United States
Unspecified
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am becoming more and more convinced that the scale reduction necessary for something like Star Destroyers, etc. will make them silly and unworkable for this game.

As it seems that they have clearly reached the EU(expanded universe) catalog of fighters and have nearly exhausted the standard Episode 4-6 movie-inspired models, should FFG...
Poll
Which direction next for FFG?
Make a new game with a different scale based on capital ship combat(with tiny fighter squadrons in support)?
Continue as they are and add more and more EU stuff.
Expand the line with prequel ships(Star Wars: Episodes 1-3).
Make a ground-based Star Wars combat wargame.
      178 answers
Poll created by PKDuke
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gustavo Alves
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
my opinion:

Nooo...ooooope
yeeees
meh
nah
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keoki Young
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My two credits:

I'd like to see X-Wing continue with more repaints and EU ships.

I'd also like to see a separate but compatible game called Jedi Starfighter with Clone Wars ships. In my opinion, tournaments should keep the ships/pilots separate for thematic reasons, though maybe upgrades could be usable across the board. And certain ships, such as Slave I, could be reprinted for Jedi Starfighter with some different upgrades/pilots (Jango Fett, anyone?). Hopefully such a reprint would have a different paint job so it wouldn't be too painful for an X-Wing only player to buy it. Many would anyway just to get the upgrades.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Taylor
United States
Venice
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PKDuke wrote:
I am becoming more and more convinced that the scale reduction necessary for something like Star Destroyers, etc. will make them silly and unworkable for this game.


First, why would it be 'silly and unworkable'? I can't see NOT shrinking the scale as being anything but 'silly and unworkable' (I need to buy a new cell phone so I can take my turn in X-Wing).

After all the scale is ALREADY shrunk and simplified with just X-Wings and TIE Fighters (X-Wings can have 3 photon torpedoes but I can't have that in the game).

Second, there's already a Star Wars Capital ship combat game (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24627/star-wars-miniature...) AND there's already a Star Wars ground combat game wargame (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11229/star-wars-miniature...) so why would we need another one?

So other than the question "Do you want Prequel ships" (which I double dog dare you to ask by itself) then the question doesn't make any sense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cauldronofevil wrote:
First, why would it be 'silly and unworkable'? I can't see NOT shrinking the scale as being anything but 'silly and unworkable' (I need to buy a new cell phone so I can take my turn in X-Wing).


The level of abstraction necessary to make this work is completely unworkable unless you throw all suspension of disbelief out the window.

Quote:
After all the scale is ALREADY shrunk and simplified with just X-Wings and TIE Fighters (X-Wings can have 3 photon torpedoes but I can't have that in the game).


It's a matter of degree. X-wing is at the level of individual fighters. Games with 3-8 fighters per side take about an hour. A single Star Destroyer carries significantly more than that by itself (72 TIEs according to Wookiepedia, not sure if that's canon or not).

So, a single Star Destroyer and it's fighters versus... say a couple Nebulon-Bs and a Corvette and their fighters. You're talking about a game that's going to take, at minimum, several full-days to resolve.

Quote:
Second, there's already a Star Wars Capital ship combat game (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24627/star-wars-miniature...) AND there's already a Star Wars ground combat game wargame (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11229/star-wars-miniature...) so why would we need another one?


You know, there were Star Wars games before FFG and WotC. There was already a Starfighter combat game before X-wing: Star Wars: Star Warriors, so why was there a need for X-wing? There was already a miniatures battle game before WotC made theirs: Star Wars Miniatures Battles and I think we're on the third RPG system now, for Star Wars.

On the WotC miniatures games in particular:

Starship Battles sucked. Sorry. There it is. There's definitely room for a good system to replace it.

Star Wars Miniatures was better, but as different as it was from the West End Game, there is room to make another game dealing with ground combat that is also different. One obvious possibility would be to reduce the scale and have a more vehicle/squad focused game rather than a character focused one.

There's also the fact that neither of these two games is currently being supported in any way, whatsoever.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Smith
United States
Unspecified
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RedShark92 wrote:
cauldronofevil wrote:
First, why would it be 'silly and unworkable'? I can't see NOT shrinking the scale as being anything but 'silly and unworkable' (I need to buy a new cell phone so I can take my turn in X-Wing).


The level of abstraction necessary to make this work is completely unworkable unless you throw all suspension of disbelief out the window.

Quote:
After all the scale is ALREADY shrunk and simplified with just X-Wings and TIE Fighters (X-Wings can have 3 photon torpedoes but I can't have that in the game).


It's a matter of degree. X-wing is at the level of individual fighters. Games with 3-8 fighters per side take about an hour. A single Star Destroyer carries significantly more than that by itself (72 TIEs according to Wookiepedia, not sure if that's canon or not).

So, a single Star Destroyer and it's fighters versus... say a couple Nebulon-Bs and a Corvette and their fighters. You're talking about a game that's going to take, at minimum, several full-days to resolve.

Quote:
Second, there's already a Star Wars Capital ship combat game (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24627/star-wars-miniature...) AND there's already a Star Wars ground combat game wargame (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11229/star-wars-miniature...) so why would we need another one?


You know, there were Star Wars games before FFG and WotC. There was already a Starfighter combat game before X-wing: Star Wars: Star Warriors, so why was there a need for X-wing? There was already a miniatures battle game before WotC made theirs: Star Wars Miniatures Battles and I think we're on the third RPG system now, for Star Wars.

On the WotC miniatures games in particular:

Starship Battles sucked. Sorry. There it is. There's definitely room for a good system to replace it.

Star Wars Miniatures was better, but as different as it was from the West End Game, there is room to make another game dealing with ground combat that is also different. One obvious possibility would be to reduce the scale and have a more vehicle/squad focused game rather than a character focused one.

There's also the fact that neither of these two games is currently being supported in any way, whatsoever.

Thanks for your extensive response...your were spot on and saved me typing all of the above
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Taylor
United States
Venice
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RedShark92 wrote:
The level of abstraction necessary to make this work is completely unworkable unless you throw all suspension of disbelief out the window.


And yet, Attack Wing seems to be doing pretty well with that level of abstraction.

So, no, it really isn't unworkable.

RedShark92 wrote:
It's a matter of degree. X-wing is at the level of individual fighters. Games with 3-8 fighters per side take about an hour. A single Star Destroyer carries significantly more than that by itself (72 TIEs according to Wookiepedia, not sure if that's canon or not).


Right, so you can't have 72 TIE Fighters on a Star Destroyer any more than you can have 3 photon torpedoes on an X-Wing. But that doesn't mean you can't have *some* level of abstraction that works. Personally I don't think it's that good an idea, but the idea that's its not possible is ridiculous.

RedShark92 wrote:
So, a single Star Destroyer and it's fighters versus... say a couple Nebulon-Bs and a Corvette and their fighters. You're talking about a game that's going to take, at minimum, several full-days to resolve.


Have you played Attack Wing? MUCH larger ships and MUCH more of them. It does not take days to play.

RedShark92 wrote:
There was already a Starfighter combat game before X-wing: Star Wars: Star Warriors, so why was there a need for X-wing?


Apples and Oranges. Star Warriors (a terrific game) was a cardboard-chit game. Not a miniature game. I know, I have plenty of Micro Machines X-Wings and tried it and it doesn't work.

RedShark92 wrote:
.... and I think we're on the third RPG system now, for Star Wars.


Nope, I believe the latest would be the EIGTH.

On the WotC miniatures games in particular:

RedShark92 wrote:
Starship Battles sucked. Sorry. There it is. There's definitely room for a good system to replace it.


Agreed (though there are plenty of good fixes for it). So if you want a Capital Ship system, go ahead and do it. Adapt X-Wing, Attack Wing or Full Thrust or whatever you want. There's still no reason for FFG to do one. For those who want it, it's already out there.

RedShark92 wrote:
Star Wars Miniatures was better, but as different as it was from the West End Game, there is room to make another game dealing with ground combat that is also different. One obvious possibility would be to reduce the scale and have a more vehicle/squad focused game rather than a character focused one.


Yes, there is 'room' - meaning that it's possible. But WHY? If you want a miniature game for Star Wars you can use Micro Machines or Star Wars Miniatures and there are plenty of choices is a wide variety of scales for you if you want it.

For FFG to do it would take money, time and resources away from doing something NEW and INTERESTING to do something, that's already been done and already out there for those who aren't too lazy to do it.

RedShark92 wrote:
There's also the fact that neither of these two games is currently being supported in any way, whatsoever.


LOL! Really? Well, I'm playing Star Wars miniatures tonight (and also Assault on Hoth (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3548/assault-on-hoth-the-...) using Micro Machine miniatures or maybe Starship Battles with the Off the Grid (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/683565/off-the-grid-tabltop-...) and Command Deck (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/524164/star-wars-starship-ba...) variants because I want to play the Invasion of Naboo Battle in space.

And since this is the age of the 'internet', it really seems like nothing is EVER not supported. whistle

So I guess, my question to you is, are these games you REALLY want to play or games you ONLY want to play if they are spoon-fed to you?

JMO

PS: There is still a fairly active Yahoo Group supporting the West End Games Star Wars Miniature Battles game as well.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Taylor
United States
Venice
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PKDuke wrote:
Thanks for your extensive response...your were spot on and saved me typing all of the above


And yet, your post is just as large as if you did!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse Catron
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I want to vote for each except prequel ships as those aren't really Star Wars in my mind.

Scaled down Star Destroyers in a tactical fighter game is ridiculous unless its a playmat with some interactive elements like Turbolasers and shield generators IMO
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cauldronofevil wrote:
And yet, Attack Wing seems to be doing pretty well with that level of abstraction.


I must have missed the part in Attack Wing where there are hundreds of fighters flying alongside the ships.

The point isn't that Starships can't be handled in a table-top game. Of course they can. It's been done all over the place.

Quote:
So, no, it really isn't unworkable.


I suspect we're talking at odds here. What I (and the OP, as far as I know) are saying is unworkable is to take X-wing as it is now and add a Star Destroyer to it.

I maintain that that is unworkable. You will either end up with:

A system that tries to replicate the Star Destroyer accurately, relative to the fighters already produced. This will end up an unplayable mess of a game that will take days to resolve.

A system that 'nerfs' the Star Destroyer in some way to prevent the above? You're no longer accurately representing the Star Destroyer relative to the smaller ships, so what's the point?

You can argue that the single proton torpedo is a similar nerf and you're rright, but once again, it's a matter of scale. The level of nerfing needed to achieve the above is significantly more than that slight reduction in ordnance.

You seem to be arguing a different point, that was not claimed by him or by me.

RedShark92 wrote:
Quote:
It's a matter of degree. X-wing is at the level of individual fighters. Games with 3-8 fighters per side take about an hour. A single Star Destroyer carries significantly more than that by itself (72 TIEs according to Wookiepedia, not sure if that's canon or not).


Right, so you can't have 72 TIE Fighters on a Star Destroyer any more than you can have 3 photon torpedoes on an X-Wing. But that doesn't mean you can't have *some* level of abstraction that works. Personally I don't think it's that good an idea, but the idea that's its not possible is ridiculous.


It is possible to do it, Starship Battles did it. It's just not possible to do it in a way that's satisfying, IMO, which is what I detailed above.

RedShark92 wrote:
So, a single Star Destroyer and it's fighters versus... say a couple Nebulon-Bs and a Corvette and their fighters. You're talking about a game that's going to take, at minimum, several full-days to resolve.


Have you played Attack Wing? MUCH larger ships and MUCH more of them. It does not take days to play. [/q]

No, but I don't think that's relevant. This isn't the point I'm arguing against.

FWIW, I have played:

Babylon 5 Wars
Full Thrust
Starmada

And a few others I'm forgetting. All of these handle ships and fighters together, but they do it by showing the big ships at roughly the same level X-wing uses for Fighters (give or take, B5Wars is much heavier than the other two, for instance), which is also what Attack Wing does, and then abstracts the hell out of fighters.

Taking something that shows *fighters* in the level that X-wing does and then trying to mimic a Star Destroyer at that scale will not work in any reasonable way. Again, see above.

RedShark92 wrote:
Quote:
.... and I think we're on the third RPG system now, for Star Wars.


Nope, I believe the latest would be the EIGTH.


OK, so there's room to have even more, multiple, successive games out there. This just makes the point I was trying to make *more* effectively.

Quote:
Agreed (though there are plenty of good fixes for it). So if you want a Capital Ship system, go ahead and do it. Adapt X-Wing, Attack Wing or Full Thrust or whatever you want. There's still no reason for FFG to do one. For those who want it, it's already out there.


The reason FFG would do one is because they can sell it. Also, I'm very much into doing what you describe: Taking a generic system and making it what I want it to be. From what you're saying, you probably are, too.

But you know what? Most gamers aren't. They don't want to do that work, or maybe they only want something that's "official", or several other reasons.

Quote:
Yes, there is 'room' - meaning that it's possible. But WHY? If you want a miniature game for Star Wars you can use Micro Machines or Star Wars Miniatures and there are plenty of choices is a wide variety of scales for you if you want it.


See above.

Quote:
LOL! Really? \


Yes, really. Good for you that you're doing that. I'm of the same mind you are with that sort of thing. Most gamers are not and even for the ones who are, at this point, they're also no longer easily accessible at a retail level. This is an important factor.

There also can be no supported play/tournament options for this sort of thing. That's not important to me, but it is important to a lot of people, so yes, IMO, there IS a point.

Quote:
PS: There is still a fairly active Yahoo Group supporting the West End Games Star Wars Miniature Battles game as well.


I'm in that group, even though I don't really play the WEG game. I do have a copy but it wasn't quite what I wanted, so I've delved into a number of generic/free systems instead.

Quote:
So I guess, my question to you is, are these games you REALLY want to play or games you ONLY want to play if they are spoon-fed to you?


And there's no need to be insulting about it. I'm not a "spoon-fed" kinda guy, but I'd certainly never say this about the people that do want something 'official'. Who am I to judge their motivations and desires?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Eding
United States
Toledo
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RedShark92 wrote:
cauldronofevil wrote:
First, why would it be 'silly and unworkable'? I can't see NOT shrinking the scale as being anything but 'silly and unworkable' (I need to buy a new cell phone so I can take my turn in X-Wing).


The level of abstraction necessary to make this work is completely unworkable unless you throw all suspension of disbelief out the window.


Guys.

We're playing a game on a tabletop about space ships that shoot at each other. Based on a movie from the 70s. Who took their inspiration from WW2 fighter planes.



All in all, I trust FFG. If they are going to support the new cinematic gameplay mode with new Capital ships, I'm looking forward to what they make!
6 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Taylor
United States
Venice
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RedShark92 wrote:
I must have missed the part in Attack Wing where there are hundreds of fighters flying alongside the ships.


You didn’t play in the last Organized Play event? They gave away squads of fighters for both the Federation and the Dominion factors. In EXACTLY the same level of abstraction that we’re talking about.

RedShark92 wrote:
I maintain that that is unworkable.

A system that tries to replicate the Star Destroyer accurately, relative to the fighters already produced. This will end up an unplayable mess of a game that will take days to resolve.


I agree. It’s a stupid idea to even think of the term “accurately” in relation to Star Wars.

(Just a joke — more on this idea later)

RedShark92 wrote:
A system that 'nerfs' the Star Destroyer in some way to prevent the above? You're no longer accurately representing the Star Destroyer relative to the smaller ships, so what's the point?


You mean something like this? http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/885991/rules-capital-ship-ru...

For some people, this will do perfectly fine.

RedShark92 wrote:
You seem to be arguing a different point, that was not claimed by him or by me.


Okay, well just for clarity, I’m responding to the idea of “Should FFG do this?” and my response is (respectfully) “No, it’s already easily available to those who want it, so it would stupid for them to do”. That’s all.

RedShark92 wrote:
It is possible to do it, Starship Battles did it. It's just not possible to do it in a way that's satisfying, IMO, which is what I detailed above.


Aha! That’s EXACTLY my point. My biggest reason for responding to this post is that very occasionally, FFG will actually listen to something like this (Exhibit A: Teenyprise) and the result will be something expensive to produce that no one will really want. Even those who SAID they wanted it….will find out that it’s not *quite* what they had in mind and then won’t buy it. Or buy it on the cheap on the internet.

The net result will be draining FFG’s resources which they could use to produce something that people DO want.

Like what? Campaign books for X-Wing. Mission Books. More Aces type stuff (by the way, another thing that should be on your poll is ‘Don’t do any of the EU stuff – stick to the original Star Wars and do stuff just for that’), Card packs without ships, Terrain Rules, Death Star Trench Playset, Battlestar Galactica: Attack Wing (or maybe even a PLAYABLE Battlestar Galactica Board game!), Decent Play Mats, Hex-based Alternate Rules, etc., etc., etc.

In other words it’s the ‘satisfying’ way that is so specific to you personally (and every other gamer) that makes it a bad business decision and a question that just muddles useful discussions about X-Wing.

All I’m saying is that since you have a particular idea of what would be “satisfying” go build it with the plentiful pieces that are already there! (No disrespect intended).

RedShark92 wrote:
Have you played Attack Wing? MUCH larger ships and MUCH more of them. It does not take days to play.
No, but I don't think that's relevant. This isn't the point I'm arguing against.


I’m not trying to be dense, but you DID ask the question “Why don’t they build a capital ship game?” My response is only “They already did! Why are you asking?”.

And if Attack Wing isn’t satisfying to you as a Cpaital Ship game — then why would you want them to build ANOTHER one that won’t be satisfying to you?

RedShark92 wrote:
OK, so there's room to have even more, multiple, successive games out there. This just makes the point I was trying to make *more* effectively.


Maybe. But I think it makes the point that it’s a big waste of time. I’m certainly not buying it. And according to the game store owner I know, not many others are either – as opposed to Imperial Aces which sold out the first day! I didn’t even get one!

RedShark92 wrote:
The reason FFG would do one is because they can sell it.


I just don’t really think so – not for the amount of money it would take to produce. And not as much as if they kept supporting X-Wing instead of branching off into TWO new game systems!

RedShark92 wrote:
Also, I'm very much into doing what you describe: Taking a generic system and making it what I want it to be. From what you're saying, you probably are, too.

But you know what? Most gamers aren't. They don't want to do that work, or maybe they only want something that's "official", or several other reasons.


Yes I am. http://boardgamegeek.com/article/14889866#14889866

RedShark92 wrote:
Most gamers are not and even for the ones who are, at this point, they're also no longer easily accessible at a retail level. This is an important factor.

There also can be no supported play/tournament options for this sort of thing. That's not important to me, but it is important to a lot of people, so yes, IMO, there IS a point.


No, actually I really don’t think it’s an important factor. The difference between buying something on eBay and buying it in a store are minimal. Not the same, but minimal enough that not being able to buy it retail cannot remotely be considered “important”.

RedShark92 wrote:
Quote:
So I guess, my question to you is, are these games you REALLY want to play or games you ONLY want to play if they are spoon-fed to you?


And there's no need to be insulting about it. I'm not a "spoon-fed" kinda guy, but I'd certainly never say this about the people that do want something 'official'.


I’m not meant to be insulting about it and I apologize if it comes out that way.

But I truly do think it’s a valid point. There just probably isn’t a way that *doesn’t* sound insulting to say “You want it? Stop whining about it and go do it!”

RedShark92 wrote:
Who am I to judge their motivations and desires?


You are God’s Chosen One. Chosen to carry a brain around. Therefore with great power comes the great responsibility to point to that FFG has FINITE resources.

Remember that I’m not going to buy a Capital Ship games OR a Ground Forces Star Wars game. I already have them if I want them.

And while I know it’s a generalization, I think it’s fair to point out that the gamers that must have it “official” and are too …..non-motivated….to build it themselves to THEIR SATIFACTION are also not likely to have the kind of disposable income necessary to support the huge investment a new Capital Ship game or a new Ground Forces game would take.

I’m sure the numbers are out there — I’d Google it, but I don’t really care if it never happens.

How much would it take to build these games? How much money would they have to charge to make it profitable? Which of the DOZENS of possible scales would “SATISFY” the most customers?

Now once you have those figures, wouldn’t the smarter business decision be – stick with X-Wing! People like it and want more of it!

I’m just sayin….


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Taylor
United States
Venice
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeximusMaximus wrote:
Guys.

We're playing a game on a tabletop about space ships that shoot at each other. Based on a movie from the 70s. Who took their inspiration from WW2 fighter planes.


Amen! And I DO hope that this isn't coming out as a 'heated' debate. I think it's a stupid question - but if really thought the poster was stupid I wouldn't respond to it!

I've been on the internet long enough to have learned that by now!

He's obviously thought about it, but I don't think he's taken it to its logical conclusion. That's all. JMO
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leo Zappa
United States
Aliquippa
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why WOULDN'T someone want a separate, capital-ship scaled Star Wars game, using the Flight Path system, a la Star Trek Attack Wing? Who WOULDN'T want to pit Imperial Star Destroyers against Mon Calamari cruisers, with stands of starfighters darting in between the big ships? How could this be anything but awesome? I don't even understand the debate, to be quite honest.

12 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryce K. Nielsen
United States
Elk Ridge
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dungeons & Dragons: Attack Wing was teased at GAMA, and it looks like in addition to Dragons, there are going to be ground troops. I really hope FFG takes a cue from this and gives us Snowspeeders, AT-ATs, Troopers, speeder bikes, AT-STs, hell even Ewoks!

-shnar
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cauldronofevil wrote:
RedShark92 wrote:
The level of abstraction necessary to make this work is completely unworkable unless you throw all suspension of disbelief out the window.


And yet, Attack Wing seems to be doing pretty well with that level of abstraction.

So, no, it really isn't unworkable.

RedShark92 wrote:
It's a matter of degree. X-wing is at the level of individual fighters. Games with 3-8 fighters per side take about an hour. A single Star Destroyer carries significantly more than that by itself (72 TIEs according to Wookiepedia, not sure if that's canon or not).


Right, so you can't have 72 TIE Fighters on a Star Destroyer any more than you can have 3 photon torpedoes on an X-Wing. But that doesn't mean you can't have *some* level of abstraction that works. Personally I don't think it's that good an idea, but the idea that's its not possible is ridiculous.

RedShark92 wrote:
So, a single Star Destroyer and it's fighters versus... say a couple Nebulon-Bs and a Corvette and their fighters. You're talking about a game that's going to take, at minimum, several full-days to resolve.


Have you played Attack Wing? MUCH larger ships and MUCH more of them. It does not take days to play.

RedShark92 wrote:
There was already a Starfighter combat game before X-wing: Star Wars: Star Warriors, so why was there a need for X-wing?


Apples and Oranges. Star Warriors (a terrific game) was a cardboard-chit game. Not a miniature game. I know, I have plenty of Micro Machines X-Wings and tried it and it doesn't work.

RedShark92 wrote:
.... and I think we're on the third RPG system now, for Star Wars.


Nope, I believe the latest would be the EIGTH.

On the WotC miniatures games in particular:

RedShark92 wrote:
Starship Battles sucked. Sorry. There it is. There's definitely room for a good system to replace it.


Agreed (though there are plenty of good fixes for it). So if you want a Capital Ship system, go ahead and do it. Adapt X-Wing, Attack Wing or Full Thrust or whatever you want. There's still no reason for FFG to do one. For those who want it, it's already out there.

RedShark92 wrote:
Star Wars Miniatures was better, but as different as it was from the West End Game, there is room to make another game dealing with ground combat that is also different. One obvious possibility would be to reduce the scale and have a more vehicle/squad focused game rather than a character focused one.


Yes, there is 'room' - meaning that it's possible. But WHY? If you want a miniature game for Star Wars you can use Micro Machines or Star Wars Miniatures and there are plenty of choices is a wide variety of scales for you if you want it.

For FFG to do it would take money, time and resources away from doing something NEW and INTERESTING to do something, that's already been done and already out there for those who aren't too lazy to do it.

RedShark92 wrote:
There's also the fact that neither of these two games is currently being supported in any way, whatsoever.


LOL! Really? Well, I'm playing Star Wars miniatures tonight (and also Assault on Hoth (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3548/assault-on-hoth-the-...) using Micro Machine miniatures or maybe Starship Battles with the Off the Grid (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/683565/off-the-grid-tabltop-...) and Command Deck (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/524164/star-wars-starship-ba...) variants because I want to play the Invasion of Naboo Battle in space.

And since this is the age of the 'internet', it really seems like nothing is EVER not supported. whistle

So I guess, my question to you is, are these games you REALLY want to play or games you ONLY want to play if they are spoon-fed to you?

JMO

PS: There is still a fairly active Yahoo Group supporting the West End Games Star Wars Miniature Battles game as well.


Their PROTON Torpedoes, and an X-wing has a 3 torpedo magazine per launcher for a total of six.
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
X-Wing is marketed as a dog-fighting combat miniatures game between individual strike craft. The CR-90, Transport, or other "Huge" ships FFG is adding to the game is a bonus, not a feature, and I don't think it would help the game by continually serving bigger and bigger ships.

People love Star Destroyers, I know I do! But X-Wing isn't the place for them.

And honestly I don't think the FlightPath model works well for Capital ships. Even in Attack Wing I wondered why my ships couldn't utilize all the fire points these capital ships are brimming with. Why is my firing arc restricted to the 90 front when the films have these ships shooting in all directions?

The point of FlightPath is position, maneuver, and shooting. The first two shouldn't matter that much in a capital level fight.

Now, I do see FFG going further and further into fighters and different kinds of fighters in the future. Does this mean they might run the well dry for starfighters? Maybe, but it's clear they listen to the community if they're pushing a CR90 miniature a time after the community had created their own to put into the game. And maybe community sentiment will help guide where X-Wing goes?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cletus Van Damme

Illinois
msg tools
mbmbmb
cauldronofevil wrote:


LOL! Really? Well, I'm playing Star Wars miniatures tonight (and also Assault on Hoth (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3548/assault-on-hoth-the-...) using Micro Machine miniatures or maybe Starship Battles with the Off the Grid (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/683565/off-the-grid-tabltop-...) and Command Deck (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/524164/star-wars-starship-ba...) variants because I want to play the Invasion of Naboo Battle in space.

And since this is the age of the 'internet', it really seems like nothing is EVER not supported. whistle

So I guess, my question to you is, are these games you REALLY want to play or games you ONLY want to play if they are spoon-fed to you?

JMO

PS: There is still a fairly active Yahoo Group supporting the West End Games Star Wars Miniature Battles game as well.


I want a game that is good to be made by a company I know is good. "LOL go ebay some terrible quality, out of print starship battles ships or micromachines and make up some rules i guess!" is a pretty horrible substitute. Hope this helps!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, responding point-by-point isn't working. It's clear from some of your responses that you're not quite understanding the points I'm trying to make. I will take some credit for that. In addition to that, we have two different questions/discussions going on that are getting mingled and muddled, which is not helping.

Here is my attempt to clarify the discussion:

The first question is: Does a reasonably accurate Star Destroyer fit into the X-wing system, as it stands?

The second is: If not, what could they do instead?

I think the answer to the first question is 'no'. Note that this is a different question from could the Flightpath system be used for a Capital Ship game. The answer to that is clearly yes, as it's been done.

The reason I think the answer is no is because if you take the existing X-wing system (including its focus on individual fighters) and add a Star Destroyer to it, you are going to end up with a severely nerfed Star Destroyer or a system that will take an inordinately long time to resolve.

Considering all of your responses to this point are along the lines of "they do it in Attack Wing" means you've not quite understood what I'm trying to get across.

Consider it this way: X-wing will have the Blockade Runner added to it soon. Now consider the addition of a Star Destroyer in the same manner. That is what I'm talking about.

This is not what I'm talking about:

cauldronofevil wrote:
RedShark92 wrote:
I must have missed the part in Attack Wing where there are hundreds of fighters flying alongside the ships.


You didn’t play in the last Organized Play event? They gave away squads of fighters for both the Federation and the Dominion factors. In EXACTLY the same level of abstraction that we’re talking about.


If they released something that is a "squadron of fighters" then (as above) it is not what I'm talking about. That is similar or equivalent to something already done in any number of systems and is something I've already said I'm perfectly fine with.

As to the possible 'ideas' of what FFG could do instead? I think you're overreacting about the actual possibility of any of these happening. As far as I can tell, this was intended to be a fun discussion, not a proposal to FFG.

Along those lines, though and legitimate reasons why they could or should do any of these?

An actual ship-scale game (a la Attack Wing)? Yes, we have Starship Battles (which sucked), we have Starmada, Full Thrust and all of those, but what we don't have is nice models to use in such a game that are readily available. Rules issues aside, the SSB models were not great.

This alone is a legitimate reason for why such a game could be produced.

For a ground game? Yes, we have two 25-30mm Squad-based games that already exist. However, neither of these are readily available any more either. Even if they were - you can make a case for a good smaller scale game (15mm or thereabouts) which has not been done before.

Last point:

Quote:
No, actually I really don’t think it’s an important factor. The difference between buying something on eBay and buying it in a store are minimal. Not the same, but minimal enough that not being able to buy it retail cannot remotely be considered “important”.


On this, maybe that's true for you. It is not true for most people. I spent quite a bit of time and effort buying WotC Star Wars miniatures (the ground game) to use for ground combat games and it was notably more effort to collect what I wanted like that than it would have been if they were readily available at retail, sold in packages intended to be used in that type of game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott S
msg tools
I'm completely fine with a Star Destroyer on par of scale as shown in Rogue Squadron 2. Massively out of scale, sure, but that isn't a big deal to me. I would've thought the Tantive IV preview would show how it would be possible to scale up a Star Destroyer, but some are free to ignore it.

I think a Star Destroyer with 6+ Hull Sections and a ton of Hard Points would be fun to go against. Some can't get over some of the "canon" facts, so they don't want it. That's okay. Just don't disparage those that are willing to let things slide to have a really cool ship.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phil Lewis
United States
Evans
Georgia
flag msg tools
“Whatever you do, He will make good of it. But not the good He had prepared for you if you had obeyed Him.” Perelandra, C.S. Lewis
badge
"He died not for men, but for each man. If each man had been the only man made, He would have done no less.” Perelandra, C.S. Lewis
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It might be fun to make a game with capital ships, like A&A War at Sea.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeximusMaximus wrote:
We're playing a game on a tabletop about space ships that shoot at each other. Based on a movie from the 70s. Who took their inspiration from WW2 fighter planes.



OK, so what if they made a Star Destroyer that the Millennium Falcon could successfully engage and defeat? Would that be OK because we're "playing a game on a tabletop about space ships that shoot at each other. Based on a movie from the 70s. Who took their inspiration from WW2 fighter planes"?

Before I go on, I know your comment was not entirely serious, but if the answer to the above is "no" then you do have a line where your suspension of disbelief is broken in this game and it is a valid point. whistle

Quote:
All in all, I trust FFG. If they are going to support the new cinematic gameplay mode with new Capital ships, I'm looking forward to what they make!


I can see a viable way to fit in small ships like the Corvette and Transport. I think ships in that size range are probably the limit without severely retweaking the system, nerfing the bigger ships, or having excessively long play-times.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sithborg wrote:
I think a Star Destroyer with 6+ Hull Sections and a ton of Hard Points would be fun to go against. Some can't get over some of the "canon" facts, so they don't want it. That's okay. Just don't disparage those that are willing to let things slide to have a really cool ship.


I don't think I was disparaging anyone. I'm saying I don't think it would work and I would find it unsatisfying. If you would enjoy it, then great and more power to you!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Taylor
United States
Venice
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RedShark92 wrote:
I think the answer to the first question is 'no'. Note that this is a different question from could the Flightpath system be used for a Capital Ship game.


Well, I think the ONLY way it could work is to 'nerf' the Star Destroyer or play a different game. I guess I'll have to agree to agree with you.

Though the implication seems to be "X-Wing is successful so FFG MUST have a game with Star Destroyers in it!". Which I don't agree with at all.

SSB (modified) with Star Destroyers is a fine, fun game. So we don't really need another one at all.

The question by Leo is not "Who wouldn't want one?" it's "Who would want ANOTHER one?".

In other words, if modified SSB doesn't work for, and a nerfed Star Destroyer doesn't work for you, and Attack Wing modified for X-Wing doesn't work for you (and you could easily modify SSB this way), then what makes you think FFG can make a game that will work for you?

RedShark92 wrote:
As to the possible 'ideas' of what FFG could do instead? I think you're overreacting about the actual possibility of any of these happening. As far as I can tell, this was intended to be a fun discussion, not a proposal to FFG.


I'm not saying it's not fun!

But I think it's definitely counter-productive to say that FFG should abandoned it's golden goose - a game they can't even keep up with the demand for - to chase some OTHER TWO games that are not likely to succeed (based on the EXACT SAME two other games before it!).

Along those lines, though and legitimate reasons why they could or should do any of these?

RedShark92 wrote:
An actual ship-scale game (a la Attack Wing)? Yes, we have Starship Battles (which sucked), we have Starmada, Full Thrust and all of those, but what we don't have is nice models to use in such a game that are readily available. Rules issues aside, the SSB models were not great.

This alone is a legitimate reason for why such a game could be produced.


I'm not debating whether it COULD (as in is possible), I'm debating over whether it's a good idea as a business or a good idea as in something that people want. I don't think it's either.

Of course, it's easy to type on the internet "I WANT! I WANT! I WANT!", but I think realistically it's quite another thing for a company to actually do it. And I think discussions based on reality are more interesting and productive than not.

I want non-random pre-painted miniatures in every historical, fantastic and science fiction genre imaginable and I want them at no more than $1 apiece. whistle

That's not a fun discussion IMHO.

RedShark92 wrote:
For a ground game? Yes, we have two 25-30mm Squad-based games that already exist. However, neither of these are readily available any more either.


That's what I find suspect. How is something on eBay NOT readily available?

RedShark92 wrote:
Even if they were - you can make a case for a good smaller scale game (15mm or thereabouts) which has not been done before.


That's a valid case in the sense that at least it's something that hasn't been done before.

But I wouldn't buy it - I could easily make that out of Micro Machines (and have in the case of Assault on Hoth) if I wanted it.

I think that despite what people say on the internet, that's true for them as well.

For the same reason that 15mm miniatures don't do as well as 25mm-30mm miniatures. There's SMALL percentage that like them and prefer them, but it's VERY small.

RedShark92 wrote:
On this, maybe that's true for you. It is not true for most people. I spent quite a bit of time and effort buying WotC Star Wars miniatures (the ground game) to use for ground combat games and it was notably more effort to collect what I wanted like that than it would have been if they were readily available at retail, sold in packages intended to be used in that type of game.


YMMV. But remember you couldn't even "collect what you wanted" when they WERE available in stores. It was STILL a blind buy.

I suggest that the "notably more effort" is EXACTLY the same effort needed to get "what you wanted" that you'd have to make if they were still in the stores tomorrow.

By the way, I DO want a generic ground combat system. Definitely 25mm and definitely with the universality of "Flight Path"! Like a "Memoire '44" for miniatures! I'd be all over that!

But not for Star Wars! We've already got that!


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Reil
United States
Barre
Vermont
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is probably my last post on this topic. I think we've probably said nearly everything we can say.

cauldronofevil wrote:
RedShark92 wrote:
I think the answer to the first question is 'no'. Note that this is a different question from could the Flightpath system be used for a Capital Ship game.


Well, I think the ONLY way it could work is to 'nerf' the Star Destroyer or play a different game. I guess I'll have to agree to agree with you.


Well, that's something.

Quote:
Though the implication seems to be "X-Wing is successful so FFG MUST have a game with Star Destroyers in it!". Which I don't agree with at all.


No, that's not the implication. The other stuff is all hypothetical and intended to be a fun discussion, not an actual suggestion to FFG about what they should or shouldn't do.

Quote:
SSB (modified) with Star Destroyers is a fine, fun game. So we don't really need another one at all.


We disagree.

Quote:
The question by Leo is not "Who wouldn't want one?" it's "Who would want ANOTHER one?".


Except that I don't think there is one now. SSB was a complete failure, IMO. A few mods can't fix that. It's not even salvageable for the minis only as the minis aren't that great either.

Quote:
In other words, if modified SSB doesn't work for, and a nerfed Star Destroyer doesn't work for you, and Attack Wing modified for X-Wing doesn't work for you (and you could easily modify SSB this way), then what makes you think FFG can make a game that will work for you?


Because even if they don't, a line of quality miniatures can be used in systems I do like. Lastly, Attack Wing is not relevant if I want Star Wars and not Star Trek.

Quote:
But I think it's definitely counter-productive to say that FFG should abandoned it's golden goose - a game they can't even keep up with the demand for - to chase some OTHER TWO games that are not likely to succeed (based on the EXACT SAME two other games before it!).


It's all hypothetical. This is a discussion, not a proposal to FFG. It seems your only part in this part of the discussion is to tell other people they're wrong to want what they want.

Quote:
That's what I find suspect. How is something on eBay NOT readily available?


At this point it seems like you're intentionally missing the point of what I'm trying to say. Available, yes, but that's not the same as "readily available". Putting in the level of effort I had to do to complete the collection I have would not be necessary for something that was readily available.

Quote:
But I wouldn't buy it - I could easily make that out of Micro Machines (and have in the case of Assault on Hoth) if I wanted it.


MM are not a consistent scale and many elements are missing.

Quote:
YMMV. But remember you couldn't even "collect what you wanted" when they WERE available in stores. It was STILL a blind buy.


Ding, ding, ding. This is a big part of my point. Even if FFG were to make a 25-30mm scale game, if they made one that was designed and packaged for this type of play it IS better than what was done before.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.