What’s beyond the scope of the initial rules?
First, let me start this blog post by saying that even this early, the amount of comments and excitement I’m seeing is incredibly gratifying. That said, however, while I’m trying to peek in now and then and respond to some specific comments made about these posts, I can’t possibly answer every question that comes up. Perhaps if Leviathans was the only thing I was working on I might have that time. As it is, I’m feeling pretty good that I’m able to make these blog posts once or twice a week in the midst of my work load.
What does all that mean? Please have patience. You’ve got some great questions and instead of jumping in every time to immediately answer them, with a few exceptions I’m going to hold off. Instead, through continued blog posts heading forward, not only will you see the development of this project, but you’ll hopefully get all of your questions answered. And answered in a way that is far more complete than any quick responses I might make to any given comments. Thanks!
Okay, now to the meat of this post. Right at the beginning I knew there were certain aspects of a “flying game” that I simply had to leave at the door. As with any game design you’ve got to figure what can you include and what should wait for a rules expansion or advanced rules.
With BattleTech I’ve had the joy (pain) of working on the advanced rulebooks of late, which has allowed me to delve into “rules expansions” to my heart’s content. Especially with Tactical Operations, I liked to joke “You can battle with your ‘Mechs, inside an aircraft carrier, while it’s sinking, and pick up some battle armor and throw it at the enemy while you’re at it.” Then again, it’s 25 years into BattleTech’s life and a very advanced rulebook, so I can get away with that.
For Leviathans we’re right at the beginning. So while the universe screams for fighter squadrons, aircraft carriers and full 3-dimensional rules, all of those are simply beyond the scope of the level of ‘difficulty’ we want the game to encompass at the beginning. However, unlike say BattleTech (which Jordan will tell you right out was a one-off game and its success surprised them, so every rules edition beyond that has been a plugin to a system never designed for expansion) I’m designing Leviathans from the get-go to be expandable into numerous different areas if it proves a success. Hopefully this will lesson the impact that rules expansions can often have on game balance and play.
Now I can hear the screams now. “No up and down?! But you’re flying?!” The problem is that either the inclusion of 3-dimensional rules are either too light so they hardly provide any feeling of that aspect (so why include them?) or they’re so complex that it takes the difficulty of the game to a higher level than every other aspect of the game.
Furthermore, for Leviathans, it’s not a game of dog fighting planes, but instead massive ships with giant guns, so they’re more “ponderous” than “agile.” So both the feel of the game and the need to ensure that the added complexity doesn’t make the game too difficult for a “out of the box, intro game play” aesthetic, made the decision easy.
Does that mean we’re ignoring the fact that they’re in the air? Of course not. Both fiction and art touch upon that aspect: the first story fiction piece we hope to have on the site in the near future deals directly with that concept, while the art for the ships shows that most of the side guns are tall and thin, with vertical slots that allow for raising and lowering the guns.
At the end of the day, of course, the true test of whether or not excluding the 3-dimensional element directly in the first box set worked or not is when its picked up and played. The game is very fun and enjoyable and still very much conveys a ‘flying’ feel without going that route. But of course, as noted above, I’m also designing the game from the ground up to have such expansions, so I’ve copious notes floating around on how to add that rules expansion down the road, in a way that’s very cool and will only take a fun game and make it even better.
See ya next duty shift!
Randall
Patience is a virtue, so I’m going to try and wait to see how the rules come out before giving them a full broadside. (I am in the 3D camp however; I do remember some quite successful and fun air combat games without 3D, the names escape at the moment)
Is Catalyst going to make an appearance at PAX?
To cope with all the response and fan inputs: why not a leviathans forum on this homepage? A forum software would also allow to have ideas and feedbacks in a more structured way rather than having individual comments on each blog entry.
We will be adding forums in the future…just not yet sure when yet.
please do not go 3d very few of the space ship games that i have played have got them and thay have been fine, the ones that have most of the time me and my friends have ended up just leaving them out of play . in general thay just make the game messy
@ El Grego: Perhaps you’re thinking of FASA’s old Crimson Skies? The rules played well without having 3d stuff.
I STRONGLY disagree about the absence of a third dimension.
I have played an older “Flying Ship” game that had a simple, effective system to represent the ships height from the ground.
These are “Flying” ships, to leave out the up/down aspect is unthinkable.
Most 3D games became over complex due to the fact that the combatants can be turned in any direction on any plane.
(Your jet fighter could be flying upside down when it approaches a target for example.)
For LEVIATHANS I would assume up is up & down is down, for these flying Tesla Ships.
So my assumption is if one is turned too far over, it would fall from the sky.
The up/down aspect would only have to cover height….the only other thing would be “facing” (borrowing from Battletech terms).
If the height rules are too watered down to be of much use or are overly complex , you might want to give them another go.
Hopefully you will find a happy middle ground.
Even with height rules “In mind”, their exclusion to the base product is a serious issue for me.
I do hope you reconsider.
I would think that most battles would take place at the same level anyway as no cmmander would willing expose his vessel to plunging fire (from above) or risk being raked from below where has little or no defensive weaponry. I’m fine with this game starting off as simply as possible and then expand to more advanced rules. Think of this initial rules offering as Leviathans version of BT’s Introductory Box Set. As Of-Monkeys posted over at CBT, there are a number of 3D games he ahs played, but only one that gets it right in his opinion. I don’t get 3D rules on what is basically a 2D playing surface anyway. Unless the bases for the minis can telescope up and down, it gets to being a tedious game of more paperwork and tracking of altitudes.
@Breakerchase:
Yes, that is one, the other being the first edition of GDW’s Blue Max. I had a lot of fun playing both games, even without altitude rules…
ive been thinking about this wound thay have used these ships as planes or as sea going ships of the day ? if the later then it was ships in a line pounding away at range if the first then why big ships? smaller lighter ships faster turning with one or two big guns wound be the order of the day
I like big ships…
I want a big ship game with a big ship feel, I have a written a cracking space ships game (no 3d) in which smaller ships simply could not have the weapons strong enough to hurt the big ships, my universe was biased to big ships which could carry impressive amounts of armour and weapons…I like big ships.
As to 3d rules, ‘Wings of War’ does a very good job using very simple pegs to indicate hieght. My clubs uses them in every game we play and when I run demo’s at shows we instruct players about it and they all like it. We have simplifed them some what ie you go up and down 1 peg at a time (except bomber that only go up 1 peg every 2 climbs) and keeping it that simple works well and retains the feeling of a 3d game.
I accept that captains would not want to expose areas (above or below) were they are not as heavly protected but just think that if you had some weapons mounted below pointing down and you got the hieght on another ship what damage you could inflict before the other ship rises to meet the attack…making the shooter rise to maintain the advantage until both ships hit their ceilings!
Having a ship that flies…those thoughts must have occured to the designers…I am really really looking forward to this game if only to get lots of the models and hope to like the rules to…
Good luck guys, let me know if you need any playtesters, I have 14 players at my disposal…
Best Regards
Madan
PS My game was called Fast Play Fleets:Star Trek published in Valkerie magazine and was followed up by FPF:Babylon5…it was fun for a while…
We’re always looking for more playtesters…big playtest will start again in another few days (if emergencies would ever get off my plate, of course). Feel free to email me at randall@catalystgamelabs.com and we can start the process for getting anyone on board for playtesting.
Thanks!
You know, I hear the people complaining about lack of Elevation, but I cannot help but think that we are still too early in the history of the Leviathans for a hide-bound Old Salt who is probably still trying to get his mind wrapped around flying Battleships to start thinking outside the box yet. I honestly expect that it will be a little while before someone goes “So…how high can we elevate the guns? I am going to bring us under her, and fire into her belly! Fire all guns as they bear!”
Remember, people, the biggest thing about Real World Militaries is that they are almost always slow to adapt tactics to a new technology. The nation that adapts first always has a dramatic lead for a time, until the other nations figure it out as well.
Leaving aside all the rationalisations we can come up with (we are gamers, and therefore have imagination to spare), I think there are three statements summing the altitude problem:
(1) It adds an element to tactics, and to the “feel” of the battle, that most players would cherish. If only for the fact that it distinguishes the “movie in the head” from any old wet navy dreadnought engagement.
(2) Altitude effects are easy to model in terms of game rules. To-hit-toll modifiers, armour reductions, different target areas presented, there’s a plethora of concepts, none of which have to deteriorate to overcomplication.
(3) The real problem is representing the vessels’ altitude on the tabletop.
Altitude markers take away the immediate visual cue, forcing players to visually zap back-and-forth across the table to see who’s higher than who.
Insertable pegs are clumsy, and may cause involuntary “course changes”.
Extendable antennae gimmicks are not widely available, and quite expensive.
So I think: if someone comes up with a practicable, visual way of representing altitude on the models, the rules should include its effects.
I have to ask though, if the rules for altitudes will be either “too light” or “too complex” then what place would they have in future installments?
Are you going for the complex route and need time to hash it out, or is there a middle ground that bears investigating but it would be impractical to add at this stage?
It’s a bit like heat in BattleTech (yay we can use BT without the C). Sure the quick-start rules gives us ‘Mech action, but without heat it’s really not quite the same. Altitude, it seems, has that same… quality that is an important part in the fictional universe, in the gameplay mechanics (it seems), and of course in establishing the feel.
If that’s not the definer of the game, and I’m not pretending it is, it could be the magic goo that makes it fly.
Will definitely wait and see. I wanted this when all I knew was “flying battleships” so I don’t know if this counts as reliable feedback hehe.