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

Star Trek: Attack Wing» Forums » General

Subject: General, non-concequential whining with a tinge of excitment. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Joshua Love
United States
Clarkston
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First, let me say that I am just randomly saying this stuff. More because I want to be more active with BGG, and another because I really enjoy me some Star Trek.

Second, I want to express my excitement for this game. I was in the middle of wanting X-Wing when this was announced, so I am holding off until this is released to see which to get. I love both universes, but would rather get a Trek based game due to the larger ship-to-ship style that I am hoping Attack Wing will cater to.

However, I am really saddened that Star Trek keeps having re-hashes of their Heroclix line models (Star Fleet Captains). I know it's to save some money, but Star Trek has some fantastic looking ships that would do well to revamp. I don't mind the (what I conciser cheesy) Heroclix models for that line of game, but this strikes me as a more serious "gamers" game. I understand many here have expressed some of the same concerns, so I am hoping that more of these concerns will be said so WizKids pays some attention. Hopefully. I just feel like it's lazy to not try to make the game higher quality. Based on the success of X-wing, would it not be worth it?
I would hate for X-Wing to win the day solely based on the higher quality components if the games are otherwise similar.

Again, I am truly excited for this release. Just some thoughts I suppose..
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leigh Caple
United Kingdom
Nottingham
Notts.
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I tend to agree....the quality of the Millenium Falcon in particular blew us away and I wold love to see some Star Trek ships like this. I'm expecting that not to be the case however!

Also the photos I've seen seem to use really cheesy 1st season images (Pichard's uniform in particular) which lets this down for me. The painted effect on the Star Wars stuff FFG is putting out is great and would be great on the Star Trek stuff too.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Love
United States
Clarkston
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Indeed, the cheesy screenshots kind of seem to show more of the halfheartedness that seems to plague this release... I hope they are only demo card place keepers rather than release material. But I fear that hope is for naught.
I agree about the Falcon. I almost picked it up just to have the model on my desk! Still though, I conciser myself to be a fairly good painter and I suppose I wouldn't mind repainting them. I understand that it IS FFG, and thus having higher quality components, but yeah... Seems like WizKids could put a little more effort in said areas...
I hope the rules/game are good though, which I personally have confidence in.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
...still bothers me how inaccurate the Excelsior miniature is for WizKids. The excelsior never had a fantail structure like that in any of it's depictions. When you compare it to how high-detailed, accurate, and proportionally correct all the FFG minis are, it makes the idea of purchasing AW expansions less of getting eye-candy as well and more about having a game component.

If WizKids won't re-sculpt the minis for this release, I hope they'll at least choose a material that is easy to modify.

I guess it would be too much to hope for in wanting the minis to be more like the old FASA releases? Those looked fantastic and I lament being an active gamer too late to have acquired some.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua Love
United States
Clarkston
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It should be more about getting new game components, but still... Would be nice to have really nice models though. I just hope they make up for it in some way by having nice cards/rulers/tokens. WizKids isn't exactly known for their quality cardboard bits...
I'll second the FASA models!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert R
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Who's "Pichard"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan Francis
Australia
Maryborough
Queensland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He meant "Pilchard" obviously whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leigh Caple
United Kingdom
Nottingham
Notts.
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kinkykone wrote:
He meant "Pilchard" obviously whistle


Yep, old fish breath himself!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert R
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh. I prefer Khirke. Or Jaenwhey myself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davey Jones
Netherlands
Leusden
Utrecht
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kinkykone wrote:
He meant "Pilchard" obviously whistle


john luke pickerd i think his name was...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Harvey
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
The thing that kinda annoys me about this in general is that the Star Wars ships are not dog fighting vessels, not one bit - They are giant galactic spaceships which can sometimes hold upwards of one thousand people.

So why are they wizzing around like one manned x-wings! It just wreaks of laziness tbh
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davey Jones
Netherlands
Leusden
Utrecht
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tooooon wrote:
The thing that kinda annoys me about this in general is that the Star Wars ships are not dog fighting vessels, not one bit - They are giant galactic spaceships which can sometimes hold upwards of one thousand people.

So why are they wizzing around like one manned x-wings! It just wreaks of laziness tbh


yeah that is my concern as well, but we haven't actually seen the templates yet.
they might have changed them for this game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tooooon wrote:
The thing that kinda annoys me about this in general is that the Star Wars ships are not dog fighting vessels, not one bit - They are giant galactic spaceships which can sometimes hold upwards of one thousand people.

So why are they wizzing around like one manned x-wings! It just wreaks of laziness tbh

Have you seen any Star Trek? The ships whizz around like one-man fighters in slow motion.

The word is "reeks", speaking of laziness.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Jackman
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tooooon wrote:
The thing that kinda annoys me about this in general is that the Star Wars ships are not dog fighting vessels, not one bit - They are giant galactic spaceships which can sometimes hold upwards of one thousand people.

So why are they wizzing around like one manned x-wings! It just wreaks of laziness tbh


Yep - Star Trek combat is much more ship-of-the-line style, but I dont see why the X-wing system couldn't accommodate that. less ability to turn on a dime would got lot of the way to making this happen.

Plus, there are a few ships that are indeed rather fast and maneuverable. The Defiant and Voyager weren't slouches.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Saan wrote:
Tooooon wrote:
The thing that kinda annoys me about this in general is that the Star Wars ships are not dog fighting vessels, not one bit - They are giant galactic spaceships which can sometimes hold upwards of one thousand people.

So why are they wizzing around like one manned x-wings!


Yep - Star Trek combat is much more ship-of-the-line style, but I dont see why the X-wing system couldn't accommodate that.


I really don't get these concerns at all.

For starters, since Star Trek spanned such a long period under so many different creative forces (and with such varying special effects technology available) they've never actually been consistent in how ship to ship combat works.

In the Original Series ships clearly have the character of naval vessels, perhaps mostly inspired by WWII vessels as a result of Roddenberry's service. By the time we get to Wrath of Kahn, that director embraces more of an age of sail, Horatio Hornblower style multiple broadsides at close range type of combat. Since this movie is so iconic that's what many of a certain generation (*ahem*) remember most fondly of Star Trek combat. Starting with the Next Generation, and continuing through the later movies, combat becomes progressively more "zippy", with the massive ships indeed flying and banking like fighters in massive furballs, only with 360' firing arcs, and completely abandoning both the long range and broadside styles of combat shown earlier.

So for starters one question you'll have to ask is which era/style of Star Trek is WizKids basing this game on, and how much do you like that? I'm a big fan of Wrath of Kahn, but honestly I could be happy with any of these depiction's so long as it does feel like capital ship combat.

Now as for the bones of the X-Wing system not being well suited to a capital ship game - that's just silly. Many naval games, from age of sail, through WWII use template driven movement. The distinguishing factors from a dogfighting style game will be:

- What are the limitations on movement? How agile are big ships compared to small ships? I would expect to see a greater range than we've seen in X-Wing so far and I wouldn't be surprised to see no Kroigan turns at all (Unless perhaps it's a Kirk ability to exploit 'three dimensional combat thinking').

- How are firing arcs represented? Fighters usually can only fire in front of them, but large ships often employ many turrets (phaser strips, technobabble, etc.) which allow them to both engage multiple targets and fire in directions different than their direction of movement.

- How survivable are they, and how do they take damage? Fighters can take a small amount of damage, but they tend to die quick. I expect a game with capital ships to have progressive damage which slowly degrades a ships capabilities, perhaps with damage control as an action so you have to decide wether to fucus on dealing damage or repairing yourself.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davey Jones
Netherlands
Leusden
Utrecht
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
apparently you do:
Quote:

I could be happy with any of these depiction's so long as it does feel like capital ship combat.


having ships racing around the table as in x-wing is not going to feel like capital ship combat.

i don't see how it possibly could.

also it makes absolutely no sense for that to happen.
in those small snub fighters the g-forces are already stretching credulity as well as lips, ears, noses and assorted tentacle-like appendages.

in order for a 200 meter ship to pass another 200 meter ship in the same timespan as a 6 meter ship passing another it would have to fly about 34 times as fast.

if we assume an x-wing flies 200mph, the star trek ships would be pulling almost 9 G's going in a straight line.
then it still has to turn...

now i am sure star trek is full of technobabble to justify exactly that.
nevertheless this kind of action is never going to 'feel' like capital ship action to me.



anyways nobody is saying the x-wing system cannot do the job, just that it won't if they take it 1:1 without adjusting the templates at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a silly comparison. Why would the maneuvers have to take the same time in a ST game? We could be talking about the better part of a minute instead of split-seconds.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davey Jones
Netherlands
Leusden
Utrecht
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
you can call it what you want, but the action of placing the template and moving the mini doesn't change, and neither does the way it feels unless they change the templates.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
[q="DaveyJones6911"]apparently you do:
Quote:

I could be happy with any of these depiction's so long as it does feel like capital ship combat.


I think you've completely missed my point.

In most later Star Trek, the capital ships *do* in fact swoop with the agility and grace of a fighter. I don't much care for it but there you have it. It's still Star Trek and it still *feels* like capital ship instead of fighter to fighter combat because:
- Small ships (Defiant) *are* dramatically more agile than big ships (Enterprise D), and even small ships don't do very much barrel rolling or Immelman-ing
- Ships have firing arcs with many side firing weapons
- Ships take damage incrementally in a way that impacts their systems

All that said, the movement templates can very well be used for more traditional depiction of Earth naval style combat - because dozens of naval miniatures games use them just fine! The X-Wing templates are very generic, just a 90, 45 and straight as varying lengths, the longets being about six inches. How is it that games of ponderous ships in the ocean can use templates of the same basic shape and roughly the same sizes? Of course it's by varying the time scale. In a situation where the units move slower, but also accrue damage slower it makes perfect sense to scale down the time slice to the point where interesting choices are made at a reasonably engaging rate.

Or to put it another way - your micro badges label you a fan of both Wings of Glory and Sails of Glory. Both of those games use movement templates that follow almost the same paths at basically the same scale (one card/unit-base size). Yet they manage to have appropriate gameplay by changing the time scale. At the same time Wings of Glory and X-Wing both capture the same high speed dogfighting feel - with move templates of radically different sizes...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Davey Jones
Netherlands
Leusden
Utrecht
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
adorablerocket wrote:
[q="DaveyJones6911"]apparently you do:
Quote:

I could be happy with any of these depiction's so long as it does feel like capital ship combat.


I think you've completely missed my point.

In most later Star Trek, the capital ships *do* in fact swoop with the agility and grace of a fighter. I don't much care for it but there you have it. It's still Star Trek and it still *feels* like capital ship instead of fighter to fighter combat because:
- Small ships (Defiant) *are* dramatically more agile than big ships (Enterprise D), and even small ships don't do very much barrel rolling or Immelman-ing
- Ships have firing arcs with many side firing weapons
- Ships take damage incrementally in a way that impacts their systems

All that said, the movement templates can very well be used for more traditional depiction of Earth naval style combat - because dozens of naval miniatures games use them just fine! The X-Wing templates are very generic, just a 90, 45 and straight as varying lengths, the longets being about six inches. How is it that games of ponderous ships in the ocean can use templates of the same basic shape and roughly the same sizes? Of course it's by varying the time scale. In a situation where the units move slower, but also accrue damage slower it makes perfect sense to scale down the time slice to the point where interesting choices are made at a reasonably engaging rate.

Or to put it another way - your micro badges label you a fan of both Wings of Glory and Sails of Glory. Both of those games use movement templates that follow almost the same paths at basically the same scale (one card/unit-base size). Yet they manage to have appropriate gameplay by changing the time scale. At the same time Wings of Glory and X-Wing both capture the same high speed dogfighting feel - with move templates of radically different sizes...



well wings of glory is dogfighting, and sails of glory is not out yet.
though indeed i am exited about it, i haven't dug trough the rulebook yet.

the thing about Wings is that you have to use 3 cards each turn, which
would represent flight at about 120mph.
they vary the feel of it in the WW2 version by having you play 1 card
1 turn ahead.
you chose the card to use next turn, and resolve the one chosen the previous turn.

since x-wing is already 1 move per turn, i don't see what you could do with the time scale.
allow more actions to be taken aside from moving each turn?
resolve fire along the entire arc of the move instead of just the end position somehow?



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bwian, just
United States
Longmont
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaveyJones6911 wrote:
having ships racing around the table as in x-wing is not going to feel like capital ship combat.

i don't see how it possibly could.

The designer commented on this already, including a video clip at http://boardgamegeek.com/article/11712102#11712102 . Not exactly two lines of battle trading broadsides.

DaveyJones6911 wrote:
also it makes absolutely no sense for that to happen.
in those small snub fighters the g-forces are already stretching credulity as well as lips, ears, noses and assorted tentacle-like appendages.

in order for a 200 meter ship to pass another 200 meter ship in the same timespan as a 6 meter ship passing another it would have to fly about 34 times as fast.

if we assume an x-wing flies 200mph, the star trek ships would be pulling almost 9 G's going in a straight line.
then it still has to turn...

now i am sure star trek is full of technobabble to justify exactly that.
nevertheless this kind of action is never going to 'feel' like capital ship action to me.

Um, yeah. Star Trek has technobabble to justify exactly that. I couldn't find a G-limit specification at http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Inertial_damper, but I suspect that's just a natural caution on the part of the writers. What you don't specify can't be used against you later...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Harvey
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:

Have you seen any Star Trek? The ships whizz around like one-man fighters in slow motion.

The word is "reeks", speaking of laziness.
Sir, I have seen all of TNG, Voyager, and the some of the sickening thing known as "Deep Space Nine" and "Enterprise", so to answer your patronizing comment, indeed I have - And I still respectfully disagree with you.

And I'm not sure whats worse, you correcting a spelling mistake on a Board Gaming forum, or you classing it as laziness that it was spelt incorrectly.

Anyways, the point is the pace and context - Battles in Star Wars are fast paced, heart pounding, lazers flying everywhere, edge of your seat combat, which is captured beautifully with X-Wing Miniatures.

Star Trek combat is a LOT more slow paced, focusing on targeting certain parts of the ship, and using slow and careful strategy rather than simply dodging around at breakneck speeds with heart in your mouth action - And this is enjoyable as well! But looking at the pictures, of which it shows the X-Wing templates by the looks of things in the background, it just doesn't suit it or work well.

Like I said, I LOVE X-Wing Miniatures, I just don't think that making a Star Trek version of it, which is practically what this is, suits the feeling of Star Trek in this, my humble opinion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
United States
Vista
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tooooon wrote:
The thing that kinda annoys me about this in general is that the Star Wars ships are not dog fighting vessels, not one bit - They are giant galactic spaceships which can sometimes hold upwards of one thousand people.

So why are they wizzing around like one manned x-wings! It just wreaks of laziness tbh

Are you sure you didn't mean to type, "Star Trek" in your first sentence? I do not like Star Wars at all but I know that the fights are really dog fights with single pilot ships.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Harvey
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Yes, meant that to be Star Trek - My bad!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O B
United States
Mountainview
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Tooooon wrote:

Star Trek combat is a LOT more slow paced, focusing on targeting certain parts of the ship, and using slow and careful strategy rather than simply dodging around at breakneck speeds with heart in your mouth action - And this is enjoyable as well! But looking at the pictures, of which it shows the X-Wing templates by the looks of things in the background, it just doesn't suit it or work well.


Again, this seems baseless.

Slow and careful strategy is accomplished by:
Quote:
- Small ships (Defiant) *are* dramatically more agile than big ships (Enterprise D), and even small ships don't do very much barrel rolling or Immelman-ing
- Ships have firing arcs with many side firing weapons
- Ships take damage incrementally in a way that impacts their systems


And as for the X-Wing templates not suiting it... again why is it that many of the most hardcore Naval warship games of the dreadnaught and WWII era use templates that are basically identical?
 
 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.