2,751 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

hundvig wrote:

Ummm...if I'm reading the original post correctly, a 1/4 weapon would be 2/5 the SU of a 1/1 weapon, not 1/4.  Similarly, a 1/2 weapon would be 2/3 the SU of a standard gun.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  Ironchicken seems to have allowed for the advantage of getting a strong early hit.

Well, that will teach me to read more carefully next time...

Yes, that would work fine. smile

Go to forum: Starmada

2,752 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Miniatures)

FlakMagnet wrote:

I
I'm thinking MAYBE that 1:3000 scale models would do, though I'm not
dead-set on that size.

I wouldn't go any smaller than 1:2400 (the scale of the Iron Stars minis)... but that's me. smile

I've considered doing something similar to what you're thinking; the biggest problem is what to do about the keel -- flat bottoms in space just don't look right.

Go to forum: Miniatures

2,753 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ironchicken wrote:

I would like to use weapons with a ROF <1 per turn

Keeping mathermatical i would consider a formula of ROF expressed as a fraction adding 1 to the numerator and denominator.

I think it's reasonable, although I personally would only allow a 1/2 weapon... anything more than that and you're getting a bit cheesy.

Consider that under this system, a 1/4 weapon could be 4x as powerful for the same cost and space -- and if I can fire a bunch of them in turn 1, it's doubtful my enemy will be around to fire back during my "recharge" time...

Go to forum: Starmada

2,754 Reply by mj12games

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

RiflemanIII wrote:

Given that the Sulaco already already has three rather different types of weapons (Disabling Particle beams, Railguns, Long-Range ASAT missiles), what would be the best way to simulate a vessel having weapons that aren't  usable against spacecraft?

Some good ideas have been posted here... so I don't want to seem like I'm dismissing them, but I have to wonder:

Is there a point in simulating weapons that aren't usable against spacecraft in a space-combat game? wink

I would think it enough to set aside a few SUs and call it "ground ordnance" or something -- no need to come up with stats for something that can't be used in the game...

Go to forum: Starmada

2,755 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Discussion)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

I'd be only too happy to help. I've got a zero tolerance policy on spammers on other forums, as well as a one-step programme as well...:D

I'd be happy to accept the help... but not sure what it would entail... :?:

Go to forum: Discussion

2,756 Reply by mj12games

(2 replies, posted in Game Design)

Despite Kevin's "advice", I continue to plunk along... smile

As someone (Bill James?) has already developed the Defensive Efficiency Rating (DER), which is the ratio of outs recorded to balls in play, I thought a better way to express the number I'm looking for would be as a positional DER, the sum of which would equal the team value.

However, that means determining who is primarily responsible for recording each out made by a team. This estimated fielding chance (EFC) can be estimated as follows:

Catcher = (PO-Team SO)/2+A
First Base = Team Fielding Outs minus all other EFCs
Second Base = PO/3+A
Outfielders = PO+A
P, 2B, SS = PO/2+A

Using these numbers, we end up with the following splits since 1901:

P = 8%
C = 4%
1B = 10%
2B = 18%
3B = 11%
SS = 19%
LF = 10%
CF = 12%
RF = 9%

This "feels" right... as the left side of the defense is weighted slightly over the right side, and about 2/3 of outs originate in the infield.

Anyway, then continue as before; divide EFC by the team's BIP to get the positional DER. The sum of these numbers will then equal the team's overall DER.

For example, in 2005, the White Sox looked like this:

P (Various) = .053
C (Pierzynski) = .016
1B (Konerko) = .084
2B (Iguchi) = .123
3B (Crede) = .088
SS (Uribe) = .134
LF (Podsednik) = .074
CF (Rowand) = .091
RF (Dye) = .072

TOTAL = .734

With this modification, Jeter becomes the 13th-best SS last year, with our "Gold Glove" winners remaining in Minnesota and St. Louis.

Go to forum: Game Design

2,757 Topic by mj12games

(2 replies, posted in Game Design)

So, the longer my White Sox' slump lasts, the more I seek diversion in "fictional" baseball -- namely, my ever-in-progress game.

Right now, I'm trying to work out a relatively simple defensive value that can be determined from easily-available historical stats, but is still somewhat normalized to the era. So far, I've gotten as far as setting team values by position. Let me explain:

First, you need to determine the number of "balls in play" (BIP) the team allowed. This is done by adding IPx3-SO and H-HR (i.e., the number of outs, minus strikeouts, plus the number of hits, minus home runs). Set this aside.

Next, determine the number of fielding chances for each position. In seven of nine cases, this is the traditional PO+A+E; however, there are two exceptions:

First Base = PO+A+E minus the assists total for the team's 2B, 3B, and SS
Catcher = PO+A+E minus the strikeout total for the team

Now, divide each position's chances by the BIP determined above.

As an example, let's take the 1906 Chicago Cubs (with Tinker, Evars, and Chance):

BIP = 4,469
Infield Assists = 1,212 (excluding 1B)

1B (Frank Chance)
PO = 1567
A = 91
E = 18

PO+A+E = 1,676 - 1,212 = 464

Divide this by the BIP and you get .104

2B (Johnny Evars)
PO = 351
A = 446
E = 44

PO+A+E = 841, divided by BIP = .188

SS (Joe Tinker)
PO = 308
A = 504
E = 48

PO+A+E = 860, divided by BIP = .192

Obviously, these numbers mean little by themselves; however, comparing them to the rest of the teams during the year, you find that the sum for Tinker-Evars-Chance (.484) is tops in either league, although not by much (Cleveland comes in at .480, while the St. Louis Browns are right behind at .479). Individually, Tinker (SS) is 8th, Evars (2B) 5th, and Chance (1B) 2nd. Clearly, the the sum was greater than the parts...

For another example, consider Derek Jeter. A lot has been made recently about him being the worst starting shortstop in the majors... by the numbers. Yet, he won a Gold Glove in 2005 (and 2004). What do these numbers say?

Well, in 2005, the Yanks had 4,638 BIP, and 776 chances at SS (assuming for the moment that the vast majority of them were from Jeter). This gives a defensive rating of .167-- good for 12th in the major leagues. So Jeter appears to be an average fielder. Not the worst, to be sure, but neither was he Gold-Glove caliber. (Who was? According to my numbers, the Minnesota Twins' defensive rating of .174 was tops in the AL -- but since several players split time there, it's hard to say whether any of them were the "best".)

I don't consider this a flaw, as it's generally accepted that the GGs are awarded on reputation rather than performance... but it's interesting, nonetheless. Any thoughts?

Go to forum: Game Design

2,758 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Rory wrote:

For instance, my Britsh have blue sails, thanks to the frequency of their equipment. The Russians I was planning on putting more in the red/orange end of the spectrum.

Now THIS is really cool!

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,759 Reply by mj12games

(9 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

For what it's worth, I really do like your original roundel, Rory... when you first presented it, I missed the whole "conjunction" thing and thought of it in terms of relative orbits, which is why I thought the Sun should be at the center.

However, on the surface, the idea of a roundel doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- it was adopted by the RAF, which was itself an amalgamation of the RFC (Army) and RNAS (Navy)... but was originally used by the RFC. In other words, there's no historical precendent for the naval service to use such a thing.

On the other hand -- the reason the roundel was developed is that it is impossible (or impractical) to fly a flag from an airplane... the same is true for ether-ships, so I suppose they would have to come up with some way of denoting their nationality right on the hull... so a roundel makes sense from that perspective.

I guess I'm saying do what you think looks cool for your own ships... and it's likely we'll do some work on our end (input appreciated) to decide what the various nations do "officially" to identify themselves. Right now, I've had Dugan put the flags right on the hulls (in the Iron Stars rulebook, the naval ensign is clearly visible on most of the British designs); but in thinking about it, there may be a need for more obvious markings in the darkness of space.

One possibility is to take a cue from WW1 tanks, and paint vertical stripes on the hull...

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/jpegs_new/thumbs/mk5_bw_small.jpg

So, the Brits might do a white-red-white scheme, while the USA might be red-white-blue, and the French blue-white-red...

Just an idea. I still like Rory's roundel... wink

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,760 Reply by mj12games

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

The drone costs are +30 to OR/DR. I assume you meant 40?

Odd... my working document says +20 to OR/DR. But I see that the published book has +30... :?:

Anyway, yes-- go with +40.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,761 Reply by mj12games

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

The sundrone is the amalgamation of two seperate technologies--the Sunburst and the Drone. The Sundrone acts like a normal drone (launches in End Phase, moves and attacks in the Fighter Phase), but may only be launched in groups of three or less. Their main difference is how they attack. In the Fighter Phase, the sundrone may move into a hex and then decide to activate its Sunburst. It does NOT scatter, and creates a size 1 explosion in the hex.

Actually, I like it. And I wouldn't necessarily limit them to groups of 3 or less -- adn specify that the size of the explosion is equal to the number of drones in the group at the time of detonation.

Finally, I'd keep the space equal to that of normal drones, but increase the OR/DR mods to +30 -- the ability to "auto hit" counters the missing "halves shields" capability, but the ability to leave behind an explosion is quite useful.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,762 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Rory wrote:

So what are the propellors on the back? I propose that Aether screws are not terribly effective when close to a planetary mass. If they were, there would be no need for cavorite to get the ships up into space. Those propellors are on the back are for maneuvering when in the atmosphere.

Although not in print yet, I do have some musings on the whole sail/screw thing.

Frankly, I don't see Cavorite as being even remotely useful once in space -- with the shutters described in FMITM, you can only affect the degree to which the gravity of the Earth and/or Moon affects your ship. In order to maneuver (and fight) you need much more control than that. So, Cavorite is merely used to get things into orbit. Once there, the ether is used to get around.

Basically, my assumption has been that the ether does not interact with matter under normal circumstances. It merely provides for the transmission of light. However, provide the right EM "charge" to something (say, a screw) and it can be used to "push" against the ether. This can only be done in the vacuum of space, however, as an atmosphere prevents this charge from being maintained.

(This also explains why a ship only retains half its speed as momentum-- the same charge that allows the screws to be effective also provides "drag"...)

What about the sails, you ask? Well, I haven't quite decided. They are provided with the same "charge" applied to the screws, but whether they merely add to a ship's speed (a la solar sails) or are used as rudders has yet to be determined.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,763 Reply by mj12games

(9 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Wet monkeys of the world, unite! Rory has joined the Forum! wink

Rory wrote:

http://homepage.mac.com/rorymh/Ensign_of_the_Royal_Aether_Fleet.gif

Much of the logic for it is smiliar to the traditional RAF. The Roundrel is colored gold/blue/white to represent the Sun/Earth/Moon in a very Kubrikian alignment.

Hey, I really like this!

Although, shouldn't the middle be the yellow (Sun) and the outer be the white (Moon)?

Also, what if the background were black? Sort of the opposite of the wet navy ensign (white) and to represent space?

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,764 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Discussion)

Okay, I've set up a MUCH simpler mod that will e-mail new posts to the Yahoo! group... one that opens no security holes whatsoever (I hope. smile)

Go to forum: Discussion

2,765 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Starmada X)

Transplanted from the Fighter Issue discussion:

VALKYRIE
Combat Rating 37
Hull 2
Engines 6
Shields 2
Weapons:
Anti-Fighter Battery [Range 6, To-Hit 4+, 3/1/1, Repeating]
ABx2
Special:
Electronic Warfare System

So, the idea is simple: it takes 2.4 flights (on average) to kill this baby outright. (Assuming a single flight takes 6 shots, 2 will hit and 1.67 will penetrate, resulting in 0.83 hull hits). In response, this ship (or one of its buddies in formation) can kill TWO FLIGHTS -- each of the weapons dishes out six hits per turn at short range.

Thus, if you've got 15 fighter flights (total of 750 points), I can have 20 of these things... you can concentrate on (and expect to kill) 6-7 of them in the first turn, but then my remaining 13-14 can expect to kill at least 26 fighter flights in response -- provided, of course, I have positioned them appropriately. Even at medium range, I'll still kill 13 of your flights... leaving the odds most definitely in my favor.

I'm sure I'm missing something (as it's past midnight in the Rockies), and my tactics suck, so in practice I'd probably mess it up, but on paper these things would make quite a nice counter to fighter-heavy opponents.

Go to forum: Starmada X

2,766 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Starmada X)

jimbeau wrote:
Chewie Class    (258)

The only quibble I have is that it's a tad expensive for a dedicated fighter-killer... but at the same time, the spinal mounts mean that it's still very nasty against enemy ships. All in all, a pretty well-rounded design.

Go to forum: Starmada X

2,767 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Starmada X)

Ironchicken wrote:
Caliope Class    63 points

Like it!

I'll take 8 of these and a dozen of my Valkyries... big_smile

Go to forum: Starmada X

2,768 Reply by mj12games

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Okay, first off, most of the ways that have been suggested may not work.

Then again, they may work.. I certainly don't want an anti-fighter solution that is guaranteed to work every time -- then what's the point of playing? wink

I don't disagree that fighters can be devastating in the right circumstances -- but I do disagree that there's nothing that can be done to counter them.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,769 Reply by mj12games

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ironchicken wrote:

Oh and Dan, your Valkrye has only AB guns. Isnt that a big weakness for an anti-fighter ship? a single A-F gun or an ACE and BDF setup would seem more sensible.

Indeed, if you were expecting the Vals to operate independently. I'm thinking of formations of 3-4 at a time... they should be able to provide cover for one another; and more importantly, for the bigger ships in the fleet.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,770 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Discussion)

Wow... that was even worse than I had thought.

We've done a complete re-install, but who knows? It would appear that the problem occurred because we were allowing file uploads to the forum -- so obviously, for the time being, that won't be permitted.

sad

Go to forum: Discussion

2,771 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Discussion)

Nahuris wrote:

When I tried to come in from the front end, thought the www.mj12games.com link, I got hit with a re-direct that took me to a screen saying that we had been hacked, and a whole bunch of anti-Israel messages.

Yeah, the FAQ was hacked to the point that it had to be removed. So far, so good on the forum side, but I'm still looking around to see what might be here that shouldn't...

Go to forum: Discussion

2,772 Reply by mj12games

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

@cricket: Some players (read: me) don't like fighters period ... I don't like the fact that someone can just use fighters to win a battle without even trying.

I think we've established that there are many ways to ensure that someone can't just use fighters to win a battle...

I think, however, that your last post, with the Area Effect weapon, would be an excellent idea.

As do I. wink

And I re-propose the anti-fighter shields. Something you can use to make fighters lives a hell of a lot harder.

Like PDS? big_smile

You're paying (Combat Rating-wise) the same as you would for shields 3, and getting the same effectiveness against other ships, but denying fighters one of their biggest advantages.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,773 Reply by mj12games

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

Taltos wrote:

But there is no way around it, and no matter how many little fighter killers you make they will not all have range and the gang hits the first ship which goes *poof* (ample evidence of hull 10 ship in one turn so I can believe it)

There are SEVERAL ways around the dominance of fighters -- and I'm quite taken with my lastest option. You take a fleet that relies too heavily on fighters, I'll take one that has a bunch of Valkyries for fighter defense, and I bet I'll win.

The thing about fighters is that no matter how fast they are, they have to close within one hex to cause damage -- and as long as I've covered all viable targets with anti-fighter escorts, they will pay for whatever havoc they cause.

I don't understand -- someone (don't remember who) said "Gosh but fighters are powerful; how can we counter them?" We as a group have come up with MANY different options, yet statements like "there's no way around it" continue to be made...

:?:

and so on down the line. AND any ships that turn their guns on the fighters are NOT targeting enemy hulls and become free targets themselves. (note: we play without all fighters deployed, but they launch darn fast when they want to...)

So? The ships turning their guns on the fighters are SUPPOSED to do that... they aren't meant to target enemy hulls. I've shown how a 37-point ship can take out TWO 50-point fighter fights EACH TURN. How is that not effective, regardless of whether all of them get range every turn?

Apparently, I wish I kept my yap shut too... I just thought it worth mentioning that I who had been a "hold the line" supporter have waffled. I do think they are somewhat under-pointed - but I will not house rule that major a change.

I will now fade back into the background.

Why? This has been a great discussion... big_smile

It reminds me of the time (many many years ago) when I got into an argument with Brian and Dave about the apparent over-costing of cloaking devices. They claimed that the things were worthless -- and it led to several excellent gaming sessions where we tried different tactics on what was the most effective use for cloaks.

For the record, the consensus was that I was right... smile Cloaked battleships make no sense at all... nor does a fleet of entirely cloaked vessels -- which was how they had been used in our group until that point. Inevitably, someone's going to fail their cloaking roll, and the other side pounces, with the vulnerable ship without support. Instead, cloaks make perfect sense on cruiser-sized or smaller hulls, used as "outriders" to a main fleet. Give the other side some non-cloaked ships to hold his attention, and then turn off the cloaking device(s) at some convenient time...

The point is, these (sometimes contentious) discussions bring out the creativity in the Starmada player base. Why would I want that to stop?

Go to forum: Starmada

2,774 Topic by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Discussion)

For some reason, several of the m2f files (the thing that allows us to send e-mail to the Yahoo! group) went missing, causing the forum to crash. I have reinstalled the proper files, and everything looks fine now.

Go to forum: Discussion

2,775 Reply by mj12games

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

A couple other random thoughts before bed (finally):

1) Area effect weapons. It's been tossed around before, and I don't have a problem with them in principle. They would need to have a modifier of around 3-4, but they would play havoc with full-strength fighter flights.

2) One thing that has always irked me was seeing 6 or more flights stacked in a target's blind spot. Two possibilities come to mind:

2a) No more than three (two?) friendly flights can be in a single hex;

2b) Require fighters to end their movement immediately upon entering a hex adjacent to their intended target -- i.e., no fair sliding behind a ship.

Neither of these would seriously undermine their effectiveness when used in moderation, but would (in theory) significantly reduce the benefits of a fighter horde.

Go to forum: Starmada