You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Marauder
Any further thoughts on this cricket? I think having 15 minute turns is actually a blessing for implementing aircraft. How was air handled in GF1 and what are the implications of AA values being WAY higher for WWII ships?
Another thought was that in GF2 torps automatically penetrate. This is probably okay for WWI, but for WWII its probably going to cause problems given all the torpedo bombers and the fact that many battleships had significant torpedo belts.
-Tim
Okay updated with 12 SSDs total. That pretty much covers my mini selection for the Kriegsmarine.
I'm using models from Dust Tactics.
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=123&enmi=Dust%20Tactics
They come assembled and primed/base-coated. They look not bad as is but if you want you can easily paint them up from there.
-Tim
Bruce,
I think with the automated SSD generation that I added to your worksheet it would be easy enough to peal off all the SSDs - even for the Queen Elizabeths! You'd probably want them for playing anyways.
It would be great if we could consolidate as much of the WWII ships as we can and post them in the files section. That way those who wanted to do WWII action could just jump right in. And of course if Daniel wanted to do up a WWII supplement he'd have a big head start 
Wow, that's quite the website.
I think I'm going to have to pick a year for each class of ship and go with what they had in that particular year. I think what I might also do is for Tirpitz and Prinz Eugen is have them set at a rather late year as this will help to distinguish them more from the Bismarck and Hipper class which I'll set at 1940.
I tried to hunt down destroyer hull thicknesses and the closest thing I could find was that the Fletcher class had 0.75" belt and 0.5" deck. That's probably not far off just what minimum steel hull any ship uses. In game terms you really need at least 1" of plate before you get any benefit.
-Tim
Okay, well I guess we are done then!
Note that the formatted ship output can handle a fair number of weapons/torps without having to be custom formatted. All the right number of check boxes should appear and for the most part weapon arcs/hits only show up if you actually have a weapon there! If you don't have a weapon, delete its name and set number of weapons to 0 etc (on the worksheet).
-Tim
I would think most destroyers are effectively unarmoured. Btw, the german G7A T1 had a range of 15300yds (8 in game terms). In 1939 it used a different engine and the range was a 7
Cheers
Bruce
Hey, thanks didn't know that. So do you figure from 1940 onwards range 8?
Updated with 8 ships. I have to say I like how the differences in stats play out here.
The only thing I had some uncertainty on was the armour ratings for the destroyers. I couldn't find any technical data on how thick their armour was - I assumed 1" for belt and deck to give a 7-6-7 as I felt they deserved better than 6-6-6 (which is what the TB's will get).
Next I'll do Tirpitz, Prinz Eugen, Nurnberg, Atlantis and T27 (all WaS minis). I should probably also distinguish between a late and early Scharnhorst too.
-Tim
Bruce,
Here's the file with modifications. The only thing I can think of adding to it would be a page with the drake notation (but I'm not even sure the exact format for that has been decided upon for GF2) and possibly the gun data as a drop down list. However, I'd need Daniel to provide me with an unprotected list so I could cut and paste it in.
-Tim
Bruce,
I arrived at those stats just putting in the armour thicknesses and AA guns I found in Wikipedia/Osprey books. That was 320mm for belt and 120mm for the deck. Am I inputting the wrong numbers?
-Tim
Thanks, I figured it out a bit later. I've done some modifications to your sheet and I'll repost it when I'm done. Mostly doing it so that I can output it in the format of the rulebook.
As for size, are the +2 and -2 from the previous version? I think you can only get +1 or -1 now.
-Tim
Okay, this is my first ship, and of course to start off the Kriegsmarine what could be better than the Bismarck?:
First - does that look right? I wasn't exactly sure which tonnage to use - that's for 41,900t - fully loaded was much higher at 50,500t.
Boy the AA scores get pretty high for the WWII ships don't they!
I will updated that file regularly until I get the German Navy done.
-Tim
I'm thinking this would work for air assets, as well.
Yes, I think it would - especially for land-based aircraft - with carrier-based possibly having more than one sortie, or perhaps just a better way of controlling "when they show up".
-Tim
I believe you are correct in regards to subs engaging during a surface battle (as it would have been difficult to distinguish your own ships), but there was certainly lots of escort vs. subs during convoy raiding.
I realize its not really required for historic surface action scenarios - but it sure would be fun in pick-up games.
One way subs could be modeled is just as a "one shot" resource. You have them off the table, and then at some point you are allowed to bring them on to attack - rules for allowable placement based on enemy anti-sub ships would be key. If it survives that, then it takes its torp shots and disappears. Its much easier than tracking hidden movement for the whole game and constantly having to check for sonar etc.
Sorry for the thread necromancy!
Bruce, for the AA and LG what are the different "types" in your sheet? Also I think your "Size target modifier" might be a hold over from the previous version.
-Tim
I'd buy GF2 and a WWII supplement in a heart beat if the WWII supplement had some rules for Air and Subs. I'm looking more for playability than real world simulation. I've gone through about 3 different WWII systems now and they are all just not quite there for me. Either too complicated or just missing something...
-Tim
I don't own everything but what I do have is in PDF.
I think d10's should be reserved for games where you aren't rolling heaps of dice at one time. d6 is fine for starmada because you are rolling lots of dice most of the time. Given the amount of work that would have to be done to "redo" all the ship building equations I don't think its worth it.
I do like d10 for some games though - Defiance for example!
-Tim
Your assumed answers look pretty good to me Sam. I think terror aoe weapons should cause 2 tests otherwise they would be no better than a rather weak aoe weapon that rarely kills and mostly just forces single tests.
Maybe you can answer something for me? For cdw's is the "range" measured from the base of the model or the centre? What about vehicle cdw's?
-Tim
Any progress? Our group is leaning towards using Defiance in a campaign. This would sure make things a lot easier!
One idea I've always been fond of was allowing AFBs to fire in "reactive mode". When a flight of seekers, strikers, boarders, or fighters move into a hex adjacent to the ship, the player may allocate a number of dice up to equal to the number of batteries present against the flight of drones or fighters. Any losses taken by the flight are taken into account before the flights make their attack. AFBs used for reactive fire may not be used for any other purpose, and the ship may only roll a total number of dice equal to its number of AFBs in the course of a single turn.
I like this idea and would make AFB's much more useful than they are now.
Okay, well I was soundly out-numbered on that fire arc thing 
One more thought - is there really a need to have 2 ships on the same page? I know its nice if you are running two ships of the same class, but its forcing you to squish things in a bit. I know most printers these days can easily print 2 pages on 1 if you wanted to double up anyways.
Other than that they look pretty fantastic. I swear half the fun of SFB was the SSDs. You could go over them for hours. Well anyway, I did.
-Tim
Looks really good guys. My only comment would be that the hex diagram for firing arc looks a bit busy right there on the ship. I'd be more tempted to list the arcs as per Starmada letter codes (e.g. AB for photons) and then have the firing arcs illustrated to the side (not unlike SFB SSDs).
Marauder wrote:I can see coming up with a cost getting quite complicated and/or subjective.
That is true. I personally am not really interested in designing a bunch of new ships and plan to stick to ships published for the Star Fleet universe, so I only have to get my torpedo internally consistent. As I said, what I really want is for the package to be approximately equivalent to the current Super Bolt + Weak Torpedo, so I can just change the stats and not worry about repointing the ships.
Anyone else is free to take my ideas and make more generic SU modifiers
You know the thing is, once you start getting into ship design with all the funky spreadsheets people have made up its really really very easy. The points get calculated for you automatically... But, I get your point.
Right now the cost of the plasma is equal to the cost of the bolt portion (since that follows regular starmada rules) - with the seeker thrown in for free.
I'll try coming up with the "launcher" cost and see if I can't come up with some dual mode weapons that have similar costs to the current configuration. I don't really have a feel for the cost of "Diminishing" though.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Marauder
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.