No FTL combat (unless two ships are in the same hyperspace bubble)
I'm particularly interested in both Fred's and Exhack's proposals in regards to FTL combat. With them, we could probably create a new combat mechanic where pursuing ships try to drag down the runner. However, instead of requiring one other ship, what if it took more than one pursuer to 'drag them out' of the FTL bubble? One extra ship in the bubble slows the running ship down, another slows it down further, and so forth until it is pulled out of FTL proper.
The running ship would have to contend with being attacked from behind and being dragged down into the muck like a football player being tackled by the entire opposing team. The runner could maneuver to avoid this as well. It seems to have potential, but would need to be very well developed as to be both fun and balanced for both the runners and pursuers.
Removal of CDD/CFS type FTL (make things fold-only)
I'm not entirely sure about this, as CDD and CFS are very much ingrained into SARP and help define what it is. However, I do support dissociating CDD and CFS from one another, as per Fred's suggestion. This in particular should be handled carefully and over a period of time since it is so heavily ingrained in SARP.
Removal of Anti-FTL, at least temporarily
Though at first it appeared quite appealing to do so, Nashoba has a very valid point. I cannot remember what the name of the theory was, but it was inline with what Nash said; the bigger the space, the more forces necessary to protect it all. Interdiction currently allows for us to have much smaller forces protect large ranges. Eliminating it entirely would create just as many problems, if not more, than the problems we have now.
Instead, I suggest we modify behavior of the interdiction system. First, as Five and Toshiro suggested, is that Anti-FTL should not be projected as beams. It makes things much more complex and gives us a whole new can of worms to deal with. Not only that, but I believe Anti-FTL should be limited to cumbersome facilities and specialized ships. It would create another interesting gameplay mechanic where the attackers and defenders have priority targets/objectives which need to be attacked and defended respectively.
The second proposition I have for interdiction systems is to directly alter how they influence ships. Instead of ships running into them and being pulled out of FTL, what if the Anti-FTL and gravitational sources such as planets and stars deflected ships? The gravitational fields of interdiction would make it difficult for the spatial anomaly used by the FTL drive to continue in a straight path in a stable manner. Much like providing resistance against ship movement. It would make ships pitch or yaw away instead of outright being dragged out; ships only get dragged out of FTL if they go against the 'pressure' provided by the interdiction systems. It would mean that in order to come into a system, ships have to drop into STL and approach on a normal vector, thereby helping to eliminate deep penetrations. Lines of interdiction would turn away and deflect ships and would perhaps even turn them back, which would then have to drop out of FTL and find holes in the gap or try to sneak by.
Another way of implementing this same gameplay mechanic is to simply have a navigation system update that automatically steered the ship away from fields of interdiction and gravitational pulls. It would then be up to the person in charge of the ship to pull out or investigate. If the ship runs into a solid wall/line of interdiction, the ship would turn itself around to avoid getting dragged out into STL.
It looks like a simple and robust work around so far, and would encourage ships using STL to circumvent the Anti-FTL or to close into combat ranges.
Removal/update of all FTL weaponry
I believe FTL weapons should be mostly eliminated, especially if the above suggestions become implemented. The FTL weapons themselves provide another point of complexity that we need to contend with and factor into our games. Sometimes, we forget about this, and let it slip by. As soon as someone uses the often overlooked rules, like say in a PvP, other players may find it as a gamebreaker and a flashpoint of anger.
Create rules for combat accuracy to allow for misses?
I do believe that should be up to the GM, but perhaps some guidelines should be set? On that, I am not sure, as even guidelines can quickly go askew.
However, we could try limiting the range of our weapons. In Babylon 5, even directed energy weapons such as plasma and lasers were affected by bloom; even though there was noting in space to provide resistance against them, there was also nothing keeping the energy weapons cohesive at longer ranges. Projectile weapons on the other hand, have an effectively unlimited range, but are slower to hit the target.
Perhaps we could try goofing our targeting computers a little? Not even Luke liked his and preferred to eyeball/ESP it.
I admit I am more uncertain about this topic than others.
Make 1 light-second (300,000 kilometers) the maximum engagement range for all ship combat
As mentioned by Fred, in-character/universe motivations to encourage close range combat should be given. As Uso stated, we could try limiting our ranges based on what our ships can already do, however, we should also try to modify some things to make the things more uniform, eliminating outliers.
Convert all STL speeds to acceleration in meters per second squared
This, I am uncertain with as well. It presents us with very interesting possibilities in regards to gameplay, but what of complexity? Bottom line, things need to be kept simple and easy to understand so that new players or prospective players are not discouraged from joining and participating. I will try and constructively comment later as I wrap my mind about it.
Create explicit PVP rules
Again, I believe things should be kept simple and bare bones. The idea of listing out all the assets of each contender before the match starts as a rule sounds very good, and will help to assuage any hurt feelings; it is inevitable that someone will loose and come out feeling sore, as everyone wants to win. Because of this, rules that are laid down should merely ensure the fight is fair unless both participants agree on it not being so, and that the person who looses the engagement has bitterness reduced. A third party moderator could come in handy.
Put the Army in StarArmy
-Remove CDDs and FTL weapons
-Change to acceleration instead of top speed and set the value at something that would require hours-days to get from planet to planet in system.
-Nerf weapons hardcore so starships can’t gib planets, removal of near light speed rail guns, massive anti-matter bombs, starship shields that can survive within a star, ect, but keep the DR system in place so ships can take less damage before being destroyed.
Result: With interdiction, hyperspace, and slow speeds starships now have to enter a system and move towards a planet over the course of hours and generally have to follow a set course so they can drop stuff into orbit without destroying the payload. Because other ships move slowly and there is a lot of space to cover it will be difficult to make an interception. This means you can still have your stealth on planet missions but much more importantly anti-orbit lasers and missiles become survivable, cities can be protected with shields reasonably, and units on the ground with anti-orbit weapons become a huge threat to starships.
Now having space dominance doesn’t mean you can destroy a planet at will, nor does it mean you have free reign to lob destruction down on a planet because the planet can easily field more weapons than your small ship. To support ground forces starships would have to stay at extreme distance where they can avoid laser and missile fire. Ground forces become necessary and far more important than starships if you want to attack a planet.
I absolutely agree with Uso on this matter, save for the elimination of CDD perhaps. The combined efforts of both the orbiting ships and the ground troops become more important; ground troops must eliminated anti-orbital batteries, while orbital ships must provide fire support for ground troops. The hardcore Nerf of weapons would greatly help us as well; as things are, a power level over 9000 means nothing to us. It's baby's play, and prospective players can find this outright overwhelming and incomprehensible, if not completely baffling in terms of logic.
In addition to this though, I suggest adding in a new DR tier. As things are now, it seems there is a gap between the current Armor Scale and Ship scale. We have infantry lumped into the same damage rating category as fighters, tanks and mechs/frames, which seems quite a disparity. It seems most unusual when the front glacis plate of a tank has a foot and a half or more of armor, while a PA may have only a few inches in comparison of armor OF THE SAME EXACT COMPOSITION, yet still be so very close to one another in terms of health. Compare Nepleslia's Hostile to any of our current frames. There is a very minor gap separating them.
I recommend either putting Power Armor and similar scaled devices/vehicles into their own category, perhaps calling it "Light Armor" and larger vehicles into a category of "Heavy Armor". It should be a simple renaming and slipping in of a new tier. No major changes are necessary, save for minor alterations of damage ratings. To maintain balance and an enjoyable time here, things in the "Heavy Armor" category should also have joints, treads, and so on be more vulnerable to fire from "Light Armor". Meanwhile, the "Heavy Armor" would be primarily used for fire support of "Light Armor" and be very vulnerable in closer quarters to PA and other small opponents due various factors much like tanks vs infantry today.
In addition, this same change would allow for weapons such as Rocket Launchers to actually play a bigger role. Right now, a rocket to the face does as much, or less than a shoulder mounted weapon, and a little bit more than an armor scale assault rifle. It would make anit-armor roles more important, and stress tactics and strategy more, as upright fights against tanks and frames would be more difficult. With more danger around every corner, things would get more exciting in my opinion.
After all, how many of you have had fun blowing up vehicles with a launcher or other? Here, a single rocket to the face won't even down a PA's shields, and isn't much better than an assault rifle.
