Infinite Dark - Design Blog 6 - Logic, Vision and Toys
Added 2020-05-03 08:33:46 +0000 UTCI came across this excellent interview with naval analyst and sci-fi enthusiast Chris Weuve about common sci-fi tropes in space combat and what they get right and wrong:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/09/28/aircraft-carriers-in-space/
It's a great summary of my dichotomy. On the one hand, I want the game to have that "hard SF" feel to it that would make it sit well in the Horizon Wars setting. And I want it to stand out as a concept from other pulp settings.
On the other hand, I also want people to be able to use their existing spaceship collections and to buy minis from manufacturers who are already invested in the more pulp-y settings. Also, I want it to be a fun game rather than a patient fight of long-distance assassination.
Of course, this is partly why the setting is Era 4, not Era 2 or 3. Eras 2 and 3 are firmly in the realm of the conceivably possible, and my early plans for space combat in this period were abandoned because the kind of patient, super long-distance hunting described by Weuve was exactly the nature of space combat in these eras and it was pretty dull and boiled down to who had the better sensors.
In Era 4, though, we're firmly into the realm of "probably impossible". This gives me a little more leeway in ship design, movement and fire.
But Era 4 makes space fighters less logical, and carriers even less so. So should I treat them like mechs in HW (improbable but fun)?
Comments
I read another article along similar lines which emphasized the "submarines in space" angle to the extent that realistic spaceships wouldn't waste space or mass on things like decorative walls or carpets.
Precinct Omega
2020-05-04 14:09:23 +0000 UTCInteresting article. I like the way he groups the different approaches into "submarines in space", "dreadnoughts in space" and "airplanes in space". I've always felt that the submarines in space felt more realistic than the other two (not sure why), but I prefer the airplanes in space approach. Mostly because of the smaller size of the ships and the ability to focus on individual pilots and specific ship loadouts. Perhaps there is a fourth historical approach that hasn't been widely used before, or even not using naval history as a model?
Jonathan Lupton
2020-05-03 19:18:22 +0000 UTCMore coherent thoughts after I've read the article (and sorted zillions of GW bits). You've already got two handwave technologies: FTL and antigrav. 'Probably impossible' isn't that big of a deal, and the mechs *are* pretty cool. So are fighters. It might be worth having the trade-off between fighters and drones be like some of the tradeoffs in ZD between synthetic and organic units? I'd stick with the flexibility of PFMAD/d12 resolution/design system being what sets ID apart. Take a peek at the Slag! rules I sent you, they've got some observations on the relationship between low, mid, and high tech levels that *might* be helpful. Era 2, 3, and 4 could have significant jumps in capability, including tactical use of FTL, fuel limits, fighters, etc.
Noah Doyle
2020-05-03 19:04:39 +0000 UTC
