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 mj12games
True I had'nt thought about that aspect, so what does that make the crew of a 'Bender'..
Benders?
Don't call them that within earshot...
We need to decide whether Rich's idea of a "contact" marker is best, or if subs/benders/whatever are taken off the board entirely.
Or, should the things be abstracted even further?
Nice! I like it..
Guess noone liked my names :cry: I am so hust *sniff*
Through Bender is kinda nice I suppose, if I can keep a straight face as I say it.
Maybe it's worthy of a poll...
Anyway, "Bender" is just the sort of name the troops would cook up, what with the innuendo and all.
If the hit misses, the crew cook time is reduced by -1 regardless of the charge damage multiplier if the Bender is in the AOE.
"Crew cook time"?
Needed Tech:
AetherScope, Super-aetheric screens, Radiation Shields, Heat Sinks?
Don't forget "depth charges".
:wink:
Instead of blowing up, can we have the risk of crew casualties adding up? Some kind of poisoning, be it radiation, heat, etc etc..........
Really, it would stress the horrific side effects of crude technology.
Done.
For me, a sub that can't perform the equivalent of "diving" (ie becoming hard to hit without special weapons, and having restricted attack options) or "surfacing" isn't really a sub. Part of that requirement should include some kind of time limit on how long you can stay under
That can be arranged.
I agree with the special weapons part... some type of area effect weapon ("depth charge"?) that is less accurate than normal weapons (and therefore undesireable against non-submerged targets) but that can be used to saturate the area of a contact marker.
Further, the accuracy of guns is affected by the ether-cloak thing, restricting submerged ships to using torpedoes...
Finally, the longer the ship remains submerged, the more likely it is to overheat or blow up or something; this can be based on the size of the ship, thus encouraging the VS/S subs over L/VL ones.
Now, is that a Starblazers-to-Iron Stars port you're talking about, or a Starmada-to-Iron Stars, or what?
A Starblazers-to-Iron Stars port was what I was thinking.
*Gasp* a fan???? or warmaster???? I'm crushed!
Now Jim... I can be a fan of Warmaster and of FtM. Just like I'm sure there are Starmada players who still enjoy seeing what other starship combat games are up to (although I have to wonder why they bother... 
)
And yes, I've checked the Fanatic site. They only sell the box set. I just want a rulebook.
You can now vote for Defiance to receive the gamer's choice award for Origins 2006. If you feel it's deserving (and I know you do), then go to:
Woo!
I voted!
I like Ike!
Being a big fan of Warmaster, I'd still like to track down a rulebook for completeness' sake... little help?
Wow... some good discussion here.
My two pence is that there's really no way I can justify ships that literally "submerge" into the ether -- but I want something more tangible than just black paint and hiding between asteroids; heck, any ship should be able to do that, right?
So, my thinking had been that "subs" in IS would be more like cloaking devices in Starmada than actual wet-navy submersibles. Consider...
We've already established that the ether, while normally unable to affect matter, can be energized to provide a substance against which propellers/sails can push. What if it can also be used to bend light around an object?
I agree that VS and S hulls are more suitable to "subs"; but I don't want to strictly limit them in such a fashion. It should be a simple matter to set up the mechanics so that larger vessels are less efficient/effective at "submerging", thus encouraging small submarines -- but if you want an ether version of the Japanese I-30, you can build it.
I forget, has anyone done a Starmada-Starblazers port? Somebody over on SCN was asking...
Ooh... someone's talking Starmada on SCN?
Yaay!
Anyway, I'm not aware of any conversions for Starmada, but I'd been thinking about one for IS...
I've never had a problem with it Dan. Though in a choice between more guns and the babbage...
Well, and that's the root of my question. Right now, the Babbage Engine only takes up the same space (roughly) as a single d8/x2 primary gun.
Is that enough for the tradeoff? Ultimately, the CR multiplier is the key for game balance, but I think the space should make sense as well...
So... there had been some talk in the past about "submarines" being a good addition to Iron Stars.
What do people think?
How might they work?
What would be the techno-babble explanation for same?
I've talked to Scott over at SZO, and he'd like to publish a review of Iron Stars... anyone interested in writing one up, that would include an interview with me?
So...maybe it works. The Baltimore Gun Club might be a valid IS organization, and if they are, the inheritors of Barbican and Marston would undoubtedly be involved with the US ethership program. And the BGC really, REALLY likes things that go boom.
Well, the Americans are the next big power to insert into IS. There's no reason we can't include the BGC as an organization without specifically saying that Verne's story is canonical.
So, does the cost/CR of the thing make sense? Or should it be more expensive?
OTOH, the Hale and Congreve rockets were both British innovations originally, weren't they?
Indeed.
In official publications, we will likely limit Fire Arrows to the Soviet/Chinese bloc -- but there's no practical game reason to restrict them from being mounted on other ships, or in conjunction with other types of rocket.
Isn't the x3 a holdover from the period when hull hits were a 1/3 chance rather than 1/2? First printing of Starmada: X, wasn't it?
Riiiight... I think. I don't have any copies of that first printing lying around...
But it makes more sense to keep it at x2, since the pre-X Starmada rules had a 50% chance of a hull hit.
Now, we just need to update the Construction assisstant to handle this calculations.....LOL
I don't want to do that until the thing becomes "official"... but that may be happening soon...
Happy Birthday Dan (saw the 35 years and 4 days remark on the other thread....LOL)
I just turned 36 in April, so yeah... we are grognards.
Thanks! Does this mean I have to grumble a lot and talk about the way things used to be, back when D&D had only 2 editions and GW actively supported games like Blood Bowl?
Hull 9 with 4 spinal mounts
It only has 2 other weapons... small range 6 rotary guns, one on either side, for fighter defense.I use it as a stand-off artillery unit in a fleet. I even designed figs for the ship.
Now, you know you can't say things like this without giving us pictures...
A ship with 4 engines would have a turn cost and turn delay of
[snip]
This makes turning a bit more expensive but the fact the ships have free drift moves compensates.
Ahh... so you're basing the turn cost/delay on both the thrust rating AND the current speed?
Sorry I've been quiet the last few days...been up in P-town at the hospital.
Congrats!
How long before the little one is playing Starmada?
And of course, we get a square route in there.....LOL
Of course... would you expect anything else from me?
Fire Arrows and Hale Rockets in the same fleet? Is that legit? I thought that was an either-or choice.
There's no rule against it, although it makes sense to only allow one type of rocket per fleet...
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
