3,001

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

If you go to the Starmada Compendium FAQs, you'll see that both have their costs listed.

IIRC, AECM takes up 10% and has a modifier of x2, Slave ECM has a modifier of x1.2, and takes up the same space as normal ECM

Thats right, isn't it Dan?

Indeed.

3,002

(34 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

jygro wrote:

Aircraft disks: I like the aircraft disks.  I'm not sure why exactly they have a disk number. For a moment, I thought you had gone collectable! :)You haven't gone collectable have you?

Err... no... ?

Seriously, it depends on what you mean by "collectible". I'm certainly not advocating randomly-packed sets or anything (although it may be an option-- i.e., by a set of six random disks at a discount or something, just so that I can clear out the stock... ). But I am planning on a set of 100 planes for the initial release -- and I'm hoping people will like the disks so much that they hafta get'em all!

The only problem that I have in this section is the activation markers.  I'm not sure that many games these days have this kind of "chit-in-a-cup" system anymore, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

Well, another option is to use the ARES/Defiance system of cards for activation order...

Flight Groups:  Every game that I played for dogfights had each player 'flying' a single plane (and with 8+ players, the skies were full of planes!) so I am a bit wary about how flight groups work. This might be a personal taste more than anything, but IMO why would pilots in a flight group not split up to attack separate juicy targets and then use common sense the 'next' turn and chase after a second juicy target which might require 1 or 2 planes in the group to dive and the others remain at their current altitude?

This game is meant to involve each player flying as many as a dozen or so planes; it's not a "dogfight" game by any means. Because of this, I wanted to keep the number of markers on the table to a minimum -- restricting flight groups to a single altitude and a single maneuver is my way of doing that.

Turn rating:  I'm sure that the "no carry over" rule is for ease of play, but if something has a high turn number and a low MP, it might never turn!  Perhaps allow half of forward movement to carry over and a box on the aircraft data sheet for recording purposes (either 0 or half MP of a plane's turn rating carry over, always rounding down).

I've made sure that no plane will be in the position of being unable to turn. (obviously, many planes are unable to do a tight turn, and only a select few can do a half-loop)

Tailing:  When I first read it, I thought it stated that one tailing plane got to take a free attack EACH time your opponent moved any plane!  I was like sweet Jesbus that's deadly, but after rereading it, it isn't as bad as I had thought.  Why only one plane tailing it however?  Perhaps a little too rough if I can get a full squadron behind a plane.

I wanted to keep the game moving... but in theory I have no objection to letting multiple planes use the tailing advantage.

Stacking:  What happens if I try a tight turn, fail and end my movement in a space already occupied by a second plane.  Is there a collision or as a pilot, I take some evasive maneuver (suffering some penalty)?

Nothing so drastic -- I'd just make the moving plane stop when it makes contact with the non-moving one.

Firing and Altitude: I can understand that since altitude levels are so large in the game that there isn't any firing between them.

There can be an optional rule, I suppose.

Critical Hits:  Where are the rules for critical hits?  There is nothing finer then ripping a plane to shreads and laughing as the climb and level flight speed has sunk below the minimum movement required.  Thus the only way the plane can legally fly is to dive slowly to its death!

These are the bare-bones rules -- I'm open to suggestions for more stuff...

Power Dive:  Allowing a plane to power dive lowering its altitude by 2, but not without a price.

I wanted to add both the power dive and "zoom climb".

3,003

(34 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

Apropos of not much, I suppose, but here's the Polikarpov I-16 -- cute little bugger, ain't it?

smile

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/ishak_106.png

3,004

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Indy wrote:

Anyway, whatever is decided I'm glad to see there is ongoing discussion aimed at improvements to the game.  Why stick with the same old thing when you can refine it with improvements?  :wink:  (Or are you still driving a Model A?)

No, dude... Model T is the wave of the future! smile

3,005

(0 replies, posted in Starmada)

> Can Drones attack fighters?  That is , if a stack of drones
> is next to  a
> stack of hostile    fighters, can they roll a dice, and on a
> 5  or 6, destroy a
> fighter.  (Any drones that attack would be used up, and 
> removed from play)

Yes, drones may attack fighters.

> Can Drones attack Battle Satellites?   Would they attack them
> as  a ship
> without antifighter batteries, each drone destroying one
> BattleSat on a  roll of 4, 5, or 6?  (Any drones which
> attacks would be used up, and  removed from play)

Yes, this is correct.

> Can Drones attack launched Marine Boarding Pods?  This would
> be done  the same as attacking fighters (?)

Yes, they can.

> Can Battle Satellites screen (rule F.6) in the same way as fighters?

> Can Battle Satellites make "kamikaze" attacks (E.5.3)? 
> This would be especially useful if the ship controlling some 
> BattleSats has only one hull left, shields are down, etc...

No, Batsats may not screen or kamikaze.

3,006

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Uncle_Joe wrote:

So, whats left is whether or not some of the effects of the changed formula are problems or not. But the basic problem can be corrected by adding 1 to each P and D and dividing the mess by 2 at the end, although I believe that will still result in cheaper weapons across the board for good or bad.

Actually, I don't think it will... as mentioned earlier, the average weapon under this new system will cost 83% of the average weapon under the current system, with the biggest changes in the most powerful (and therefore rarest) weapons.

Now, Starmada X was the first time that the number of weapons was not included in the defensive rating (e.g., in the past, it was (Hull + # of Weapons) x Shield Factor). IMHO, putting this back into the formula would be a better solution than complicating the weapon calculation.

3,007

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

KDLadage wrote:

No... go back and look at the chart. ROF 1 weapons would cost the same as they do now in the game. ROF 2 weapons would cost 33% more than they do now in the game. And ROF 3 weapons would cost 50% more than they do now in the game.

Of course, you are right. Duh.

What I was actually trying to say was that an increase in any of the three stats changes the final value in the same way, proportionally speaking.

i.e., start with a 1/1/1 weapon, for a value of 2. Increase any of these to 2, and the value becomes 4...

The whole point (at least for me) was to ensure that an increase in ROF resulted in a proportionally larger change in the final value.

3,008

(34 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

Go0gleplex wrote:

The initial read through is...WOW!

Glad you like it so far... smile

The only thing that gives me the heebies a bit is the movement and activation system...but that's more a personal dislike for markers and chits than anything.

Can you be more specific? From the reference to markers it sounds like you're concerned with the activation system, but you also say "movement". Is there something about the way planes move that you disagree with (or is unclear)?

The combat system promises to be pretty straight forward and bloody.

That was the idea...

The plane cards are easily followed.  And the button markers can double as stylish accessories at wargaming conventions.  Your entire airforce worn on your hat.  lol

Indeed. I've got several buttons already finished, and they are tres chic...

big_smile

3,009

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Uncle_Joe wrote:

They are anywhere where the cost of adding 1 weapon is the same as adding multiple weaposn with the same 'firepower'. For example, why use a 2/1/1 weapon when 2x 1/1/1 weapons are the same cost? The same applies to 3/1/1 weapons. Those are the easier to pick out, but there are others. For example, a 3/1/3 costs the same amount as 3x 1/1/3 weapons.

Ah, see... now you're getting into a completely different area. My concern was fixing the formula so that adding a higher ROF was proportionally more expensive than a higher PEN or DMG. That problem has been solved.

What you're talking about is something else, and not something that I'm convinced is a problem. With the damage track set up as it is, there's absolutely no difference between a 3/1/1 weapon and three 1/1/1 weapons -- so why shouldn't they cost the same?

3,010

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Uncle_Joe wrote:

And its very close the mark, but still leaves 'sticking points' as you can see by looking at andyskinner's post of the comparison. Its a far superior formula to the original, but my opinion was that if I was going to go in and 'fix' it, might as well fix it right for all the combos rather than still having various configurations that are still superior or inferior.

Can you give me a specific example of a "sticking point"?

3,011

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Nahuris wrote:

I was looking at the latest chart, and the rof 2 weapons only cost 25% more than in the book method of factoring, and the rof 3 weapons only 50% more.... but it leaves the one fact out, that a ship with rof 3 weapons is more vulnerable to return fire over ships with multiple rof 1 weapons......

Not exactly true.

The ship with multiple ROF-1 weapons is going to lose weapons faster than the one with fewer ROF-3 weapons, since weapons will show up more often on the damage chart.

3,012

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

Dan, your solution does this to the numbers

Is that what you wanted?

Or did I make yet another idiotic mistake in the points formula?

No, that's what I wanted. And considering that on average it's going to result in weapons 83% of their existing values, it's a decent compromise.

3,013

(11 replies, posted in ARES)

tabascojunkie wrote:

So in your example above, if one model in said unit takes damage then he will only fail his morale check on a 10 or better, right? Even though he himself has a morale of 1 on his card he still takes his check at the current unit rating of 9, right?

Yes, you are correct.

The idea was that there is confidence in numbers... and that figures with higher morale values can exist in smaller units (and thus give more tactical flexibility).

3,014

(34 replies, posted in Spitting Fire)

So, here's the playtest version of the rules, plus two fighters, the Spitfire and Bf 109.

Rip 'em apart. smile

http://www.mj12games.com/spfire.zip

3,015

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

KDLadage wrote:

I think if a solution is to be found, the fiurst thing that needs to happen is to simply raise the level of impact that ROF has on the formula. Once that is done, I think you could just about leave it alone. IN other words, what I am suggesting is this:

2RPD

This actually has no effect whatsoever, except to double the cost of every weapon.

For example, a 1/1/1 weapon costs 2.

A 3/1/1 weapon costs 6. But then so does a 1/3/1 and a 1/1/3.

3,016

(44 replies, posted in Starmada)

Nahuris wrote:

Actually, the fighters have been working themselves in game very nicely. I have noticed though, that carriers are expensive. Due to the cost of the fighters, the carriers end up with far larger values than an equal sized capital ship built for pure combat.

A wrinkle in the point formula that I think has a great side effect; namely, of making dedicated carriers more cost-effective than ships with fighter bays stuck on willy-nilly.

3,017

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

God, but I'm stupid...

Okay, so the problem has been that, although the intent of adding +1 to R was to make it more expensive than P and D, the result was to make increases to P and D proportionally more expensive.

For example, a 1/1/1 weapon costs 2; increasing R to 3 makes the value 4 (a 100% increase). But increasing either P or D to 3 makes the value 6 (a 200% increase).

Considering this, the answer has been staring me in the face-- just add +1 to P and D, and divide the final product by 2.

Thus, a 1/1/1 weapon still costs 2 (1 x 2 x 2 / 2).

However, making R 3 results in 6 (a 200% increase), while making either P or D 3 results in 4 (a 100% increase).

Duh. I am so dense sometimes.

Any potential problems with this?

3,018

(11 replies, posted in ARES)

BrotherAdso wrote:

I've played ARES a good deal, and I was always under the impression that the tests for being wounded but not killed, having fear cast upon you, etc were all taken on the individual model's morale number.  The total unit morale was useful only for tests when a single member of the unit dies and the others have to test, or similar circumstances.

You had it right, in that tests are taken on the figure's morale value; however, you had it wrong in that the figure's morale value is based on the unit as a whole; from the ARES rulebook:

All of the figures in a unit (see Units, below) have the same morale score; this is determined by the sum of the morale ratings of the figures in the unit. For example, a unit made up of 6 foot soldiers with a morale of 1 and a morale 3 knight would have an overall score of 9 (6 x 1 + 3).

So yes, I guess you've been doing it wrong... smile

3,019

(20 replies, posted in Wardogs)

themattcurtis wrote:

I'm STUCK on the Russo-Japanese War,  and I would love to see ground combat in the IS universe with advanced alloy mechs powered by reverse-engineered martian kit (or steam) slugging it out on the banks of the Yalu River  big_smile

Somewhat off-topic, but have you seen the anime "Raimuiro Senkitan"?

From the AnimeNewsNetwork:

Around the the 37th year of the Meiji Era (1904) in the midst of the Russo-Japanese war, the small Japanese army, in need of assistance, uses its special flying (thanks to a benevolent demon) ship, the Amanohara, to attack Russia's major base at Port Arthur (Lushun). Umakai Shintaro, a Russian diplomat originally from Japan, defects and goes to Sapporo to teach at a girls academy. However, that girls academy is not typical - it is on board the Amanohara, and the five girls Shintaro teaches are known as the Raimu Unit - girls with the ability to summon powerful beings to fight for them. Shintaro eventually becomes their teacher and general in battle, and so the six embark on a weird and excessively erotic journey, as Shintaro helps the girls overcome their weaknesses, become stronger for the final stand at Lushun, and also understand the motives of the "Russian Spiritual Corps" that assist the opponent, which, unfortunately, has one member whom Shintaro knew well....

It's not exactly "mecha", and there's prolly more fan service than you'd really want (or maybe you do smile ), but it's the right time frame...

3,020

(11 replies, posted in ARES)

tabascojunkie wrote:

I've yet to play anything but it just seems like the vast majority of models would spend their time being shaken, based on the highest morale rating I noticed in the army lists at a 5.

From anyone that's played a bit, how does this usually play out? Lots of rally actions?

It actually doesn't work out to be that intrusive. Several models at any given time will be shaken once the battle has been joined, but it's hardly a "vast majority".

And I know that some game mechanics or concepts are borrowed from historicals or another game the designer might like or something. Is this how this detail came about or did you come up with this one yourself Cricket? I'm not complaining or knockin' it, just curious.

As far as I know, the morale system in ARES is unique. smile

3,021

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Thought I'd create a separate topic for this, since it seems to have taken over the Shipyard topic... big_smile

Anyway, I agree with those who believe there should be a 'tweak' -- for a game as mathematically-based as Starmada to have such a glaring hole in its formulae is unthinkable.

However, I'm not sold on the idea that the fix should be complicated-- which is why I haven't said anything official on the matter.

Suggestions are still welcomed.

3,022

(10 replies, posted in Defiance)

Brother Jim wrote:

The new version still prints the page numbers next to the binding !!

Umm... all you have to do is start printing on page 2 (page 1 of the actual text).

All of our PDF products are formatted in this way, and yes, all are password protected.

3,023

(11 replies, posted in Discussion)

mwaschak wrote:

We are moving on up from our current house to our new home in May!

Woo-hoo!

It's in Denver, right? smile

3,024

(14 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

hundvig wrote:

Looks good.  Do we have an ETA yet?

Initial plan was end of March. Now I'm thinking early April is more appropriate.

3,025

(11 replies, posted in Discussion)

nimrodd wrote:

Congrats!

Now where did you move?  Was it to Texas, or am I thinking of someone else?

Nope, just moving 20 miles south of my current apartment (in Denver).