Post by spike on Feb 6, 2011 16:29:59 GMT -5
I was wondering if Duelling to win space battles could become an exploit. I want to stress that I love that you can capture a ship mano-a-mano; I love the space opera of that, I love what it says about the values of the society as well. And it still takes a fair amount of ship and skill resources to optimise for Duelling - you need to be able to close range, hold range, board, and survive enemy action long enough to win the duel. But I wonder if it could become an Exploit, i.e. too easy a way of defeating a superior ship. Probably there are all kinds of hidden balancing factors in their already?
By the way I am reading this right, Duelling means a single combat against the NPC Captain, after a forced boarding action places your Captain aboard the NPC ship right?
In the game world, how would opponents respond to a Captain who was unstoppable in single combat? Their options would be:
1. Avoid ship to ship combat with a Captain with a reputation as being very good at single combat. Avoid engaging, or break off after engagement.
2. Break the social rules and don't accept single combat. This might have bad reputational effects on the NPC Captain, so it's not done lightly.
3. Bargain to avoid defeat. This could include (in order of increasing cowardliness or desperation, and increasing reputational/morale damage to the NPC captain):
a. Offering the attacker any NPC cargo/items to preserve the NPC captain, ship and crew (maybe also offering information/rumours and/or money)
b. Offering the above, plus most or even all of the NPC crew, to preserve the NPC ship and captain
c. Offering anything, anything at all, to preserve the life of the NPC captain
The last 2 points got me thinking about the sanctions for breaking the rules of honour. Particularly if a player captain was ever forced down the road of surrendering, refusing single combat, or bargaining. There is already a concept of Surrender, what are the sanctions (Reputational etc) for Surrender?
For example, maybe Surrender, or these other types of unvalourous action, should give reductions in Military Rank. They might also reduce a Captain's ability to recruit crew, and to control his crew in a crisis. Crew want a captain who can defeat enemies, and definitely don't want a captain who might sacrifice them to save his own skin.
Going back to practical considerations - the governments of major factions would not want to lose a Capital Ship just because Bruce Lee snuck on board disguised in a stormtrooper suit. Even if they fully believe in the martial code of honour, (or are forced to appear to follow it), they can't take such risks. They would need to install extensive countermeasures such as a Captain's sanctuary inside the ship, elite bodyguards, and heavy Anti Boarding measures. Apart from Anti Boarding measures though, these still all violate the honour principle of single combat.
One "out" for the owners of capital ships and other valuable ships might be the presence of a Champion aboard the ship, who can fight on the Captain's behalf. This is the same "out" used by feudal kings to avoid the implications of their single-combat culture. Kingships, like capital ships, were too valuable to be allowed to change hands purely on the chance play of a single set of opposed blades.
Apologies for the stream-of-consciousness ramble.
By the way I am reading this right, Duelling means a single combat against the NPC Captain, after a forced boarding action places your Captain aboard the NPC ship right?
In the game world, how would opponents respond to a Captain who was unstoppable in single combat? Their options would be:
1. Avoid ship to ship combat with a Captain with a reputation as being very good at single combat. Avoid engaging, or break off after engagement.
2. Break the social rules and don't accept single combat. This might have bad reputational effects on the NPC Captain, so it's not done lightly.
3. Bargain to avoid defeat. This could include (in order of increasing cowardliness or desperation, and increasing reputational/morale damage to the NPC captain):
a. Offering the attacker any NPC cargo/items to preserve the NPC captain, ship and crew (maybe also offering information/rumours and/or money)
b. Offering the above, plus most or even all of the NPC crew, to preserve the NPC ship and captain
c. Offering anything, anything at all, to preserve the life of the NPC captain
The last 2 points got me thinking about the sanctions for breaking the rules of honour. Particularly if a player captain was ever forced down the road of surrendering, refusing single combat, or bargaining. There is already a concept of Surrender, what are the sanctions (Reputational etc) for Surrender?
For example, maybe Surrender, or these other types of unvalourous action, should give reductions in Military Rank. They might also reduce a Captain's ability to recruit crew, and to control his crew in a crisis. Crew want a captain who can defeat enemies, and definitely don't want a captain who might sacrifice them to save his own skin.
Going back to practical considerations - the governments of major factions would not want to lose a Capital Ship just because Bruce Lee snuck on board disguised in a stormtrooper suit. Even if they fully believe in the martial code of honour, (or are forced to appear to follow it), they can't take such risks. They would need to install extensive countermeasures such as a Captain's sanctuary inside the ship, elite bodyguards, and heavy Anti Boarding measures. Apart from Anti Boarding measures though, these still all violate the honour principle of single combat.
One "out" for the owners of capital ships and other valuable ships might be the presence of a Champion aboard the ship, who can fight on the Captain's behalf. This is the same "out" used by feudal kings to avoid the implications of their single-combat culture. Kingships, like capital ships, were too valuable to be allowed to change hands purely on the chance play of a single set of opposed blades.
Apologies for the stream-of-consciousness ramble.
