2,826 Reply by mj12games

(21 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

        0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10   11   12
VS      d10  d8   d8   d8   d6   d6   d6   d4   d4   d4   d4   d4   d4
Small   d10  d10  d10  d8   d8   d8   d6   d6   d6   d4   d4   d4   d4
Medium  d12  d12  d10  d10  d10  d8   d8   d8   d6   d6   d6   d4   d4
Large   d12  d12  d12  d12  d10  d10  d10  d8   d8   d8   d6   d6   d6
VL      d12  d12  d12  d12  d12  d12  d10  d10  d10  d8   d8   d8   d6

Okay... I think this is a better chart. It starts with the base target size modifiers, set according to each size class' BTR (e.g., Medium ships can be attacked without penalty by d8 guns, so the entry for the Medium BTR of 6 is "d8").

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,827 Reply by mj12games

(21 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> Yes, and I've thought that since the game first came out.
> Because of the way you do the damage track a small fast ship
> can sometimes take as many or more hits than a larger, slower ship.
> Because in the former there will be very few hull hits on the track.
> But I'm more used to Grand Fleets, where every hit is a hull hit.

There's actually a very good reason for doing it the way we do.

Right now, a very small ship (say, the Alpha DD) costs 5 points, while a very large ship (say, HMES Bantam) costs 166. This is a huge disparity, but not as much as if we had every hit be a hull hit-- right now, the smaller ships get a boost because they are less likely to be hit on the hull... take that away, and you get values of:

Alpha = 9 pts.
Bantam = 620 pts.

Or, 69 Alphas to the Bantam, as opposed to 33 AttB with the current system. Either way, the game would be balanced, but I like the current spread of point values as they are.

I envision the current system as a way to compensate for the fact that ship survivability is likely not linearly related to hull size -- in Grand Fleets, we do this by applying the 0.8 root during the hull points computation; in Starmada, it's done by increasing the number of SUs relative to hull size; and in Iron Stars, it's done by sliding the chance of hull damage.

Perhaps not perfect, but that's the rationale...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,828 Reply by mj12games

(21 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

hundvig wrote:

Historically, heavy guns had a hard time hitting small ships, but they tended to wreck them when they did connect.  In IS, they still have trouble hitting, but a single heavy shell hit is likely to just damage the engine room a bit.

This sounds like a separate concern to me... do you think small ships are too durable?

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,829 Reply by mj12games

(33 replies, posted in Starmada)

KDLadage wrote:

X+25% Dan? Really? I think in my calculations I sent to you I was estimating X+15% -- but I do not have the files with me, so if you could verify that I would appreciate it.

Just throwing a number out there... you don't expect me to be consistent from day to day, do you? smile

Go to forum: Starmada

2,830 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

I thought about offering it up as a seperate phase, but to me that just adds more steps to track as opposed to making a notation on the ship's sheet.  I was thinking of the earlier means just because it seemed to cut down on the number of dice rolls you'd have in a turn and it (rather than rolling for all those light guns and MGs, you'd have one toss for an FAC running the gauntlet) and it, too, would force FACs to weather flack before making their attack runs.

And therein lies the problem as I see it. By forcing FACs to "run the gauntlet",  we'd make MGs and Light Guns so much more effective in deterring attacks than they are right now.

I understand that's the point, but still... smile

Especially since we already have equipment that does exactly what you're talking about ... escorts with a couple mine factors each should do the trick.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,831 Topic by mj12games

(7 replies, posted in Discussion)

Rory Hinnen wrote:

> First off, Starmada, Iron Stars and Grand Fleets are great games.
> Thanks to all who put them together.

You're most welcome! smile

> Second, thank you so much for releasing your games as PDF
> files. The ability to print them out in the format I want
> goes a long way towards my enjoyment of the game. I just
> bought the supplements to Iron Stars, burned the pdfs to a cd
> and took it down to Kinkos. Bound all three rule sets into
> one book, recollated into a nice arrangement. I love this.

So does this mean that when we release the compendium of Iron Stars, bound in one book and nicely arranged, that you won't be buying a copy?

smile

Seriously-- the PDF system has worked out BEAUTIFULLY for us, especially now that we can do POD through Lulu.com. It means that those who want a professional-looking hardcopy can get one, while we sell a lot more units via the electronic delivery option.

> There are other games I like, but thier attitudes towards pdf
> and frankly, towards thier audience is enough to drive me away.

What sort of negative attitude can one have about PDF? It hasn't cut into sales for us at all -- quite the opposite, in fact.

Also, Rory, you failed to mention in your list of reasons to be thankful for MJ12 that we have kept the e-mail function of the listserv open for you wet monkey-types... big_smile

Go to forum: Discussion

2,832 Reply by mj12games

(21 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

wminsing wrote:

I use #1, actually pretty much the reasons hundvig listed- the implementation of #2 is 'off' as far as I'm concerned.  Going fast in a straight line doesn't really help you much- the guy's gunners will just compensate and still bracket you, it will just take longer.  It's the ability to zig-zag faster and change speed more quickly that makes smaller ships hard to hit.

Well, that's assuming that the ship is moving in a straight line, but the point is taken.

The reason I like #2 over #1 is that the latter gives the bonus to smaller ships even if they are sitting still and doing nothing. At least #2 requires some movement for protection.

What about a compromise? It really should be a combination of movement and size that affects gun accuracy... for example, in Grand Fleets we use BOTH as separate modifiers; but that's too much with IS's "half die" mechanic. But if we used both conditions to gain a single modifier, that might work:

    0-2  3-4  5-6  7-8  9-10
VL  d12  d12  d12  d10  d8
L   d12  d12  d10  d8   d6
M   d12  d10  d8   d6   d4
S   d10  d8   d6   d4   d4
VS  d8   d6   d4   d4   d4

Along the top is target momentum; along the side is target size. The result is the largest gun size that can attack without penalty; for each die size larger, there is a +1 penalty.

For example, the target is Small and has a momentum of 6, resulting in a d6 from the chart. If a d10 gun is firing at this target, there is a +2 penalty.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,833 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> Why not steal page out of Grand Fleets?
> Sorta...
> I believe the current turn sequence in Iron Stars is that
> FACs move AFTER all capital ships, but attack BEFORE all
> capital ships.
> How about inserting an additional phase in the turn sequence
> called, appropriately enough, the Anti-FAC Attack Phase?
> Kinda catchy, ain't it?
> smile
> This phase would represent ships allocating any light guns
> and machine guns to firing at FACs before the FACs attack.
> All normal mechanics for attacking FACs would be in effect,
> with the added caveat that any light guns or machine guns
> used for anti-FAC firing would not be available for firing
> during the capital ship firing phase.
> This keeps all of the mechanics consistent, and simply adds
> an additional combat phase. It also simulates FACs having to
> weather ship flack before attacking their target.

I like this better than Matt's proposal (sorry, Matt smile), because I'm worried about the over-effectiveness of light guns when used in a "passive" way like that... but I would also penalize ships if they wish to use some of their light or machine guns during the Anti-FAC Phase; perhaps a -1 to-hit?

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,834 Reply by mj12games

(33 replies, posted in Starmada)

Nahuris wrote:

Is there a way in Starmada to simulate a dropship?
I want to build a carrier to transport a few of these, but am not sure how to rate them.  Would I use a fighter bay for each one, or is there a way to simulate the fact that another ship carries them through hyperspace to the battle?

I believe the term "dropship" is traditionally used in sci-fi to refer to a ship that drops through an atmosphere and lands ground troops planetside... what you are referring to is more commonly called a "battle rider" or somesuch.

To simulate what you're talking about, it should be a simple matter to set aside X SUs on the carrier, where X is 25% more than the total SUs of the largest ship that can be carried.

For example, you want a Hangar (3), meaning it will carry a size 3 ship, a size 2 and a size 1, or 3 size 1 ships. A size 3 ship has 360 SUs, so the Hangar requires 450 SUs.

For Combat Rating purposes, the Hangar itself plays no role in the cost; it would be merely for "campaign" purposes, to allow you to have ships without hyperdrives involved in a battle.

Note that because of the way Starmada X determines SUs per hull size, it is very inefficient to use a large Hangar to house many smaller ships... it's much better to have 10x Hangar (1) than one Hangar (10).

Go to forum: Starmada

2,835 Reply by mj12games

(2 replies, posted in Discussion)

ussskip wrote:

I am looking for a good space battle game what are the pros and cons of these two systems?

That's a mighty good question. For me to pick one would be akin to choosing between children... wink

If you're looking for something that is more along the lines of traditional space opera-type combat, with the ability to customize ships and weapons to your heart's content, then Starmada is clearly the way to go.

On the other hand, if you're a Victorian/Edwardian Sci-Fi fan, who wants something different, then give Iron Stars a go. It's much more of a "set piece" game, with a fixed background and less chance for customization (although it still has room for personalization, as we've discovered lately with multiple unofficial fleets being churned out).

Of course, you could go with both, as many on this forum have done. smile

Go to forum: Discussion

2,836 Reply by mj12games

(21 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

hundvig wrote:

I'm curious, which do you use:

1) the hull size-vs-gun die type modifier chart?

2) the momentum-vs-gun die type modifier chart?

3) neither

I'm in the "two" camp myself, although I'm not entirely happy with it.  Is there a default "official" choice?

Can I ask why you're not entirely happy with it?

I'm with you, Rich. Although (1) is probably the default choice, I like (2) better... the reason smaller ships are harder to hit is because they are faster. However, if they are not using that speed, then they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,837 Reply by mj12games

(13 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:
hundvig wrote:

Say, empty FAC cradles *are* legit Q hits, right?  You don't *have* to take  out a loaded one?

that's kinda cheesin it, though, isn't it?

Perhaps-- but it's "legal" within the rules.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,838 Reply by mj12games

(13 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

frigatesfan wrote:

Pity there's no defense against lightning projectors.

Yet.


big_smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,839 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

hundvig wrote:

And  my dictionary says "martyr" translates as "pinyin" BTW.  What a nasty concept.  smile

I don't want to overlook the likely probability that I am wrong, but...

Isn't "pinyin" the method by which Chinese characters are transliterated into the Roman alphabet?

My source says "martyr" translates as liè shì...

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,840 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Also, according to Wikipedia's description, SYS was hardly a communist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yat_Sen

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,841 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Actually, Sun Yat-sen wanted a Republic.  Label is splashed all over historical descriptions.  And he was big on "the People" as he did have socialist leanings.  But I understand what yer saying -- the Sino-Soviet split could happen, I'll talk to you about what the heck they could end up arguing about.

No offense to the Maoists in our midst, but what Sun Yat-sen might have wanted is irrelevant to the situation as it stands in IS. The FRH needed a charismatic leader to seize power, and SYS gave them one... but their motivations were highly nationalistic ("China" vs. "the People"), and it wouldn't make sense for him to run counter to public sentiment.

SYS's desire for a communist state gives an excuse for an alliance with the Reds, and the FRH as a whole may tolerate it for the short term (just as the Nazis did with Stalin)-- but at some point there's going to be friction. And if SYS is more sympathetic to the commies than to his own party... lots of room for plot points there. smile

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,842 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Nice ship designs, but two nit-picky things:

themattcurtis wrote:

Hull: 24 (L/3)  HVP: 130

130 is the total VP value; "HVP" is the number after the size class. smile

It is a symbol of national pride for the People's Republic

Remember that the Chinese aren't commies in our timeline; they are actually closer to Fascists.

This will likely cause issues in their relationship with the Reds later on.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,843 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Rory Hinnen wrote:

> You don't think the Germans, with thier tiny access to the
> ocean and the need to sail past Britian to access the rest of
> the world, wouldn't see the ether as even more valuable than
> ocean transportation? The Kaiser was quite the lover of
> shiny/fast/cool.

No, actually, I do think the Germans would see the ether as a Godsend (thus the name of the asteroid cluster, Kaiser-Freude).

But the Germans also have the industrial capacity to follow up on that, as evidenced by their large surface fleet by the time WW1 comes around. My argument is that there aren't any non-naval nations in this period that would have the capacity to jump into the Space Race.

> Every little country that could, would see this as a chance
> to catch up with the big boys. Hungarian Ether Fleet?
> Belorus? I doubt that the Arabs could put aside thier tribal
> conflicts long enough to build an Ether navy, but perhaps
> under the guidance of Lawrence....

And maybe lots of little nations will try to throw up a ship or two... but the sizeable fleets will be limited to a select few nations -- and I suspect those select few include only the ones currently in the game, plus the USA and France. Maybe the Balkan League, maybe one or two more.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,844 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

wminsing wrote:

I don't recall much of my economics, but does't GDP measure consumer spending, local investment and goverment spending?

According to Wikipedia:

The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time.

The factors do help, but I still think it's a lot of work for something that could just as easily be done without any calculations at all, just level headed extrapolation.  I guess I'm not so much opposed as I am not grasping the necessity of locking into such a system.

Well, I'm not talking about locking it in, but using this as a guideline. As for a lot of work, well, I'd rather have our level-headed extrapolation based on some form of reality, even if it isn't perfect... wink

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,845 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Rory Hinnen wrote:
kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> > In my opinion it's not. At least not as the primary driver
> for ether
> > capability.
> > I think you need to look at a nation's existing military technology
> > (naval and land) during the time frame you're talking
> about. And then
> > factor in its GDP, which it would be using to buy ether
> capability if
> > it wasn't producing it itself.

> Something else to consider is that landlocked nations that
> might not have had the interest in a Navy will be quite
> interested in Ether fleets. It would be a means of equalizing
> thier standing with nations that had access to oceanic trade routes.

This point was mentioned when I was considering using Jane's (or Conway's) as a starting place for ether-fleet sizes... and it made sense then.

But after more research, I'm beginning to wonder...

Name a country that didn't have a sizeable fleet in WW1. Then tell me why that country should be a major player. The only one I can come up with is China; and they are a major player because we said so in the timeline, not because we have any historical reason for it.

It would seem that having a fleet was a necessary component of being a Power-- and that makes sense, considering a fleet was necessary for gaining (and keeping) colonies. Which itself was a prime reason for Germany's belligerence at the time -- she felt cut out of the colonial race due to her lack of a fleet and the stranglehold she felt from Britain.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,846 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

wminsing wrote:

I think a better approach would to be see what each nation sees as it's security needs and how it should meet them.

Indeed... but (a) I love objective statistics... smile and (2) I don't know that there's any available numbers on money collected by the Government of different countries.

Hopefully, something like the industrial and motivation factors listed above can accomplish what you're suggesting.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,847 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

wminsing wrote:

Actually, I'd pull Greece, have it be an ally and not a member and leave Romania in.  That way the League is closer to the White Russian sphere of influence (both geographically and politically).  Don't know what that does the GDP.

Makes it 50,860.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,848 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Thinking about this more... what if we apply some type of "industrial factor" to account for the variables involved in this exercise?

For example, a country that is completely industrialized and able to convert all of its GDP into materials useful for ether-fleet building would be x1, while a mostly agrarian economy that must trade for the stuff it needs might be at x1/4.

Another factor to consider, thinking back to Todd's post on the subject (which I can't find right now), is the motivation factor -- how important is it for the given country to be in space? Again, this can be between x1/4 and x1.

Thus, let's assume that the Brits are still recovering from the devestation of the Invasion, so they get an industrial factor of x3/4; however, they see the Space Race as vital to their continued existance, so their motivation is x1. This means their final economic value is 506,309 x 3/4 x 1 = 379,732.

On the other hand, the Germans are still recovering as well, but faster, so they get an industrial factor of x4/5; at the same time, the Space Race is seen as just an extension of the Kaiser's naval fascination, so their motivation is lower than Britain's, say again x4/5. Their final economic value becomes 151,892.

Or am I just being silly about this?

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,849 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Chinese weapons could include:
Torpedoes or Fire Rockets?
Decent Primary guns, but heavy on armor or speed?
I would like to incorporate boarders
Of course some FACs
No poison gas, as I see that as a European tactic
Keel Bomards? -- I don't think so

Why "Of course some FACs"? FACs imply trained crews, which I don't know if we can assume the Chinese would have... at least not yet. They don't have an organized military to draw upon.

But boarders most definitely. They might even be the ones to take it to the logical (?) extreme...

And while perhaps not Keel Bombards, it'd be interesting to see the Chinese experiment with BIG primaries.

Go to forum: Iron Stars

2,850 Reply by mj12games

(26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

And for the proposed Balkan League: 59,495 (includes Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia). Compare to Turkey's 40,588, and they can make life difficult...

If you exclude Romania, things are more even, as the Balkans come back down to 37,685.

Go to forum: Iron Stars