2,801 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

BeowulfJB wrote:

The subject of plunging fire has been discussed.  The heavy guns on most World War One battleships had only a maximum elevation of only up to 20 degrees.

Thanks for the info!

However, elevation data is available for all guns listed in the Grand Fleets rulebook, and was used to determine whether the gun was or was not capable of plunging fire.

Obviously, we can't be completely accurate without test-firing every weapon at range (which would be fun... smile), but I am confident that we have accounted for the facts you present...

Go to forum: Grand Fleets

2,802 Reply by mj12games

(65 replies, posted in Starmada)

Okay...

What if we allowed weapons with a DMG value of 1/2?

Since PEN and DMG are ignored when attacking fighters, each successful to-hit die would still destroy one fighter... but against ships, the weapon's usefulness would be limited.

e.g., a weapon has ROF 3, PEN 2, DMG 1/2, for a cost of 3. Against fighters, it is still as effective as the current 3/1/1, but against a ship, it would work as follows:

Three dice are rolled (assume 4+ to hit), resulting in 3, 4, and 5.
Two hits x PEN 2 = four dice are rolled (assuming shields 3): 1, 1, 3, 4.
Two penetrating hits x DMG 1/2 = one die is rolled for damage.

All fractional damage points are discarded.

This would give some VERY cheap anti-fighter weapons...

As far as Tyrel's idea of giving ships an initiative value during the Fighter Phase, I can buy into that, but I would make it a separate "system".

Go to forum: Starmada

2,803 Reply by mj12games

(65 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

A 2+ damage weapon should kill a heavy fighter.  You don't "roll" damage against a fighter since it doesn't have a damage track.

An interesting conundrum, here...

Section 5.3.3 wrote:

Any to-hit die that hits a fighter flight automatically destroys one fighter; no penetration or damage rolls are necessary. Thus, weapons with PEN>1 and/or DMG>1 waste these capabilities when attacking fighters.

So, the first sentence implies that one hit=one kill; but obviously heavy fighters take two hits to kill. At the same time, the second sentence states that DMG 2+ has no effect on fighters.

Hmm...

Go to forum: Starmada

2,804 Reply by mj12games

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

hundvig wrote:

But Teleporters are gone now, aren't they?  In part *because* of that problem.

Indeed. And I have no interest in bringing them back "officially". I just wanted to let the original poster know how they had been handled when they did exist. smile

Go to forum: Starmada

2,805 Reply by mj12games

(33 replies, posted in Starmada)

Didn't we come up with a list of equipment that was "immune" to tech level?

Go to forum: Starmada

2,806 Reply by mj12games

(65 replies, posted in Starmada)

You know, we did have an "active" fighter defense in the Compendium... the Fighter Defense Network (FDN). Anyone think it might be worth ressurrecting?

Go to forum: Starmada

2,807 Reply by mj12games

(33 replies, posted in Starmada)

Nahuris wrote:

I hate replying to myself, but I was looking at something. I tried it the way that Dan put in earlier, and realized that the point cost of the hanger on the carrier changed depending on the tech level of the ship it was carrying.....  that didn't seem entirely right.... so I looked for a way that would be more even, based on the carrier.... and that would keep the actual hanger space used about the same.... even if special equipment had improved costs due to higher tech levels......

Hangars would have to be a piece of equipment that is not affected by tech level.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,808 Reply by mj12games

(65 replies, posted in Starmada)

Nahuris wrote:

I was emailing a friend while working on this, and we found that the following are some ways of dealing with fighters.... and if anyone else has ideas, please put them in too !!!

All good ideas...

For myself, I find that in the absence of fighter cover, the best option is to have escorts with dedicated fighter-killer weapons (short range, high ROF and to-hit values). I doubt you'll be able to avoid taking at least one turn's worth of damage from opposing fighters, but you'll make it an expensive proposition for the enemy.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,809 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> I don't know that I entirely agree with this.
> If someone wants to field a lone battleship or battlescruiser
> they should be allowed to do so, without any artificial restrictions.
> However, there should also be a reason to take the smaller
> ships as well. In my opinion the strategy of what is fielded
> by a player should be dictated more by play style and rule mechanics.

I don't think anyone is (well, I'm not smile) talking about completely eliminating player choice; after all, the combat rating will continue to be the final arbiter of a balanced force.

However, I think fleet composition guidelines would go a long way towards providing additional flavor to the game...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,810 Reply by mj12games

(21 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

hundvig wrote:

No idea exactly how to fix that, if it even needs to be fixed, though.  The game plays all right, it just doesn't simulate "wet navy" realities (ie the fragility of small ships) quite right IMO.

Hmm... let me muse upon this for a while...

I may have a "solution"... smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,811 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Rory Hinnen wrote:

> I'm certainly not in favor of that. Seeing as MJ12 doesn't
> have an interest in selling miniatures,

Sssh... don't tell Brigade that!

big_smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,812 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

hundvig wrote:

I'd be okay with a bit more structure to fleet selection, but the rather rigid "ratio" system in BFG would be going a little too far IMO.
[...]
But yes, forcing players to field some escort craft for their battleships would be nice.

I was considering a "pyramid scheme", in which a fleet must include more ships at each size class than it has in the next level up... i.e.,

I've got one V.Large ship, so I have to have at least two Large ships.
I've got two Large ships, so I have to have at least three Medium ships.
I've got three Medium ships, so I have to have at least four Small ships.
I've got four Small ships, so I have to have at least five V.Small ships.

Thus, to put just one V.Large ship on the table, I have to have at least 14 other ships out as well...

...eek...

Maybe that's too harsh...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,813 Reply by mj12games

(13 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Rory Hinnen wrote:
cricket wrote:

> > The question will be whether such a thing will also be
> useful against projectiles (guns, torps) or need to be in
> combination with traditional armour...

> I would like to vote in favor of combination.
>
> In fact, I imagine most energy screens would be pretty energy
> intensive. I'd suggest that it has to protect against an area
> that is considerably larger than the hull of the ship
> (assuming that the shield is "projected" from the ship). So
> the energy costs could be very high, and perhaps rise as a
> power function based on hull size.

Well, although the idea has come up, I'm not sure I'm in favor of introducing energy allocation to Iron Stars just yet... *BUT* smile

If we were to consider such a thing, I would start by recommending the SU cost for a shield generator be based on the hull size. As a start, let's say:

HULL^0.555 x 10

For example, a size 3 ship would pay 18 SUs per generator, while a size 30 ship would pay 66.

Why?

Well, the "x10" is in there so that a size 1 ship with normal BAV and BTR can put one on -- and then have no space left for anything else.

As far as the ^0.555, that's due to some computations I've done to determine ship displacement and length...

After analysis of Jane's, I found that (on average) the displacement of a ship is related to its length on a ^0.222 basis; i.e., LENGTH = DISP^0.222/0.17. Since I've been using a ^1.25 exponent to determine displacement from hull points, that means deriving length from hull points requires a ^0.2775 (that's 1.25 x 0.222). Finally, when you've got length, you can determine the surface area of a sphere by squaring it; 0.2775 x 2 = 0.555. (Note that coefficients--like pi--in this exercise are ignored, since they would affect all values linearly...)

Thoughts? Headaches? smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,814 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Rory Hinnen wrote:

> I'm going to bring up another game system now, forgive me.

BLASPHEMER!

wink

> In Battlefleet Gothic, one of the strengths of the game (in my
> opinion) is the fleet composition system. They just provide a
> loose system that says, "if you want the big ship, you have
> to pad your force with some small ships". I think IS could
> benefit from something like that.

Oddly enough, this is where my thinking had been going as well...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,815 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

wminsing wrote:

In that case maybe we should just fix Britain's fleet as a reference point and scale everyone else around them?

That would be the easiest thing to do, yes.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,816 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

frigatesfan wrote:

If using spotting in a battle with lots of ships milling around, you spot your target at the end of one turn, but in the following movement phase, several other potential targets come into range. Now, your lit target is further away from many other potential targets, that you must attack at double range.

Indeed. While I can see why this would be frustrating, as has been said-- nighttime battles should be confusing and chaotic.

Starshells would certainly solve the problem, but I haven't picked up that expansion yet.

If I post the starshell rules here, will you promise to go out and buy the expansion? big_smile

Southern Front wrote:

Star Shells: In the darkness of space, any chance to shed some light on your enemies is worth taking. With the star shells rule, players may sacrifice some of their firepower in the hopes of providing more illumination on the battlefield.

Star shells are fired in the End Phase; this may only be done by a ship's primary or secondary batteries, and only if the appropriate battery did not fire during the previous Combat Phase. Choose a target spot on the board, and make an attack against this spot as normal (obviously, no armour value applies). The resulting number of "hits" (if any) determines the size of the area illuminated:

Number 
of Hits     Radius
1          1”
2-3        2”
4-6        3”
7-10       4”
11 or more 5”

Place an appropriate template with its center at the specified point on the board. Any ship within this template is treated as if it had been illuminated by searchlights (see The Merchant War, p.14).

All existing star shell templates are removed at the beginning of the End Phase, before new star shells are fired.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,817 Reply by mj12games

(65 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

Yeah, they won't slow the game down as is.. no one will use them.
[...]
As is, AFB is close enough to useless to be worthless, IMO.

Well then, don't use it... the more for the rest of us. I include AFB on every design. wink

Honestly, I wouldn't advocate for a system that shoots before fighters can attack -- this would remove the one advantage fighters have over ships (move and attack in their own phase).

Go to forum: Starmada

2,818 Reply by mj12games

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

Thanks for the information.  But, does a Q hit damage only one teleporter, or 1D6 teleporters?  Because if it's one for one, then they're too cheap as Q hits.

The rules as they had been written do not say anything on the subject, indicating that it is one teleporter per Q hit.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,819 Reply by mj12games

(65 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

We're trying a house rule on Anti-Fighter Batteries: they roll to hit, needing 6+ to do one point of damage, before the attacking fighters roll to hit.  The number of dice you get is equal to your undamaged hull.  Any fighters that are destroyed do not get to make the attack.

Oddly, people are trying to change light/machine guns in Iron Stars to work more like AFB, while you're making AFB work more like light/machine guns. smile

I've always liked the AFB rules in Starmada; they provide a slight deterrent to fighter attacks, but don't slow down the game in the least. I would be loathe to tinker with them myself...

Go to forum: Starmada

2,820 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

wminsing wrote:

If we do use the GDP to help determine fleet sizes I'd suggest having GDP determine a total 'tonnage ratio', not points.

That's sorta my thinking... but even this is getting too specific for what I had in mind.

I was simply trying to find a reliable and somewhat "realistic" way of ranking the relative sizes of standing fleets.

For example, if Britain has a higher modified GDP than France, then Britain's ether fleet should be larger than France's. I'm not trying to create a campaign system...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,821 Reply by mj12games

(33 replies, posted in Starmada)

Taltos wrote:

Interesting contrast there. I have always pictured a "battle rider" as a carrier for non-hyper frigates, destroyers, or larger - that is carrying and deploying warships.

Not sure what you would call the other end, which is I think what Nahuris was trying to convey, was a troop ship loaded with combat forces and small non-hyper but durable ships designed to deliver discreet combat units from the troop ship to a planet's surface.

Nope... the original post is specifically talking about a ship. A small one, but a ship nonetheless; it makes no mention of troops.

Go to forum: Starmada

2,822 Reply by mj12games

(21 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Speed and maneuverability are not the same thing.

I could be wrong......

No, you're not wrong... but there's (currently) no gauge of a ship's maneuverability; momentum is all we've got.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,823 Reply by mj12games

(13 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

And does this, ahem, "defence" also work against Martian heat rays?

Maybe...

smile

Seriously... with "energy weapons" like Heat Rays and LPs, it's inevitable that someone (something?) will devise a shield-like defense.

The question will be whether such a thing will also be useful against projectiles (guns, torps) or need to be in combination with traditional armour...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,824 Topic by mj12games

(2 replies, posted in Discussion)

Title says it all.

Aren't y'all proud of me?

smile

Go to forum: Discussion

2,825 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

While I know that FACs can be annoying, and understand the desire to have defenses against them, I'm not sure either of the ideas presented here solve more problems than they raise.

There is no way to destroy fighters in Starmada before they get their attacks (aside from having your own fighters -- and the initiative smile). I don't see why IS should be any different.

Now, if I start playing a bunch of games in which I lose primarily due to the predations of FACs, I may change my mind... big_smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars