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
I just thought I'd say "Hello" from sunny Florida... I'm typing this message on the beach outside Tampa.
> I like having 30 hull; lotsa hit points is fun. 0nce I
> put on the weapons & equiptment that I wanted, I stopped. I
> must admit that my ships have not been attacked by fighters
> yet. If their AA should prove to be inadequate I can add
> "40 mm guns" which will probably be 3+, 3/1/1, range = 6. I
> would put them in "C" battery on the ship if needed...
This topic makes me laugh...
When I first designed Starmada, there was an arbitrary limit of 10 hull points. Gradually, this increased to 12, then 15, and finally 20. Now you're talking about 30!?! Sheesh... 
I had thought that the non-linear increase in SUs would alleviate this apparent urge on the part of players to have Ubernaughts, but I guess not...
Well, as they say, "Starmada's made for tweakin"!
> -----Original Message-----
> Somehow there has to be an engine differential, as well, no?
> I'd hate to see a ship with hull 20 and 3 engines tucking a 5
> hull/20 engine ship up under his arm and wandering off the table....
See, my intent was that the power for the "tow" is provided solely by the tractor beam -- thus, the strength of the beam is set at construction, and its size is related to its strength.
Thus, once I put a size 10 tractor on any ship, the size of that ship's engines is then irrelevant.
At least, that was my intent...
FWIW, for our games, we allow ships to start with one turn's worth of Fighters deployed. This still encourages Launch Bays while still giving Fighters some of their original ability to mass early. It also means that Carrier Fleets dont spend the first few turns 'wasting' time trying to back up or evade until they get everything in the air. Its just a time saver IMO.
Not a bad idea, actually...
When the US went after the Yamamoto they did so with 400+ planes. Only a small percentage of these aircraft even really used their ordinance. One of the main problems in the battle wasn't the enemy AA but air traffic control due to the number of aircraft.
And it still took like 8-10 hours to sink the thing, right?
At least, until it was salvaged and reconfigured as a spaceship several centuries later... 
How about bomber squads get one single shot with a range 6 "torpedo/bomb" that is 1/2/2.
[...]
On a side note, I would make bombers a movement 8 or 9, and have them use a specific "bomber bay" to signify the fact that they cost a little more, and are tactical weapons, not generic fighters...... IMO
There has been talk in the past about allowing fighters to be "designed" like ships -- i.e., give them 50 SUs or something and have at it...
Would that be worth pursuing?
That would only work if the tractoring ship was larger than or at least equal to the target in size.
If the tractoring ship is smaller than the target, then due to the mass differentials, the target ship would be slowed even less and the smaller ship would be dragged forward...
kinda like a 100# lady taking a great dane for a walk...who is walkin whom? *chuckle*
This is what can make it a bit complicated.
This is true if the tractor beam is like a physical "leash" -- but I'm presuming that the graviton-whatsits that make up a tractor beam have a "pull" based solely on the size of its generator, and independent of the ship upon which it is mounted.
We are asking why the decision was made to halve shields for fighters.
Because... ?
I really don't know. It just seemed right at the time, and gave fighters an advantage, making them important to the game.
I suppose you could justify it by saying that fighters can get up close to the target and find the "weak spots" in the shielding... but that doesn't make a lot of sense, really...
But what if there was a weapon special ability that could be added that would subtract from a ship's MP (for one turn). Thus a 'true' tractor beam could be designed with no hull damage and the 'new' special ability. There would have to be something the effect on the ability of the different ship sizes, but since there is already a breakdown for size with explosions, one could work from that.
Hmm... such a weapon/equipment could be based upon its "potential energy", so to speak. It could then counteract X number of MPs based upon the size of the target ship.
Example: A strength 20 tractor beam could reduce a size 5 ship's MPs by 4 (20 / 5 = 4) or a size 10 ship's MPs by 2.
For those who don't have the Compendium:
Suggested by Jerry Robinson
An Interdictor Field projects a false gravitational “well” that makes it
very difficult for Hyperspace engines to operate.Whenever an Interdictor is present, hyperspace rolls (see p.53) may
be affected by a “die cap”. This cap is dependent upon the distance
between the Interdictor and the starship making the hyperspace roll, as
well as the hull size of the Interdictor:Range
Size of Interdictor 1-3 4-9 10-15 16-25 26+
1-3 6 - - - -
4-9 5 6 - - -
10-15 4 5 6 - -
16-25 3 4 5 6 -
26+ 2 3 4 5 6If more than one Interdictor is present, only the lowest die cap
applies.A die cap causes all rolls equal to or above the appropriate number
to become zero. Thus, with a die cap of 4, any roll of 4, 5, or 6 would be
cancelled out.Hyperspace rolls on all sides are affected by the Interdictor; however,
the Field can be turned on or off during the End Phase.
The chart is all fudged up, but you get the idea.
Considering that 10% of SUs is the most any other piece of equipment takes up, I think jumping to 40% would be excessive... I suppose 20-25% would be okay.
Regardless, the more important aspect is how the IF affects Combat Rating.
Thanx. Thats the way I'd play it too, but I was just wondering if that was 'official' or not.
Related question:
Does EWS cancel the -1 for shooting at Fighters?
Officially, yes.
Whether or not this should be the case, I leave open to debate.
That said, we've uncovered a number of areas where its pretty easy to 'break' the system. So, we've come up with a series of guidelines to follow so that our games are fun, and not optimized. In some cases some things might not be statistically 'broken', but they dramatically reduce the fun quota of the game if used (or overused).
I think "we've uncovered a number of areas where its pretty easy to 'break' the system" may be stating the matter a bit too starkly, but the point is taken.
Starmada will never be the end-all be-all tournament system -- heck, the number of failed attempts I've made at "bring your own fleet" events at cons has shown me that. But then, that was never its intent -- it was intended to be a simple (but not simplistic) game of starship combat which has a basic core around which there are enough options to build whatever game you want to play. And I think we've got that.
Having said that, would it be worthwhile coming up with a standard "set" of equipment, options, and rules that make up a "tournament-legal" game of Starmada?
So, from what it appears, its better to have dedicated carriers than hybrid ships. Interesting way of getting there.
Heh... never thought of it that way, but it is an interesting side effect.
It might be more accurate to keep the fighters' OR and DR separate (rather than using the final CR of 50), but it's much easier to compute this way.
In the rules (particularly in the rules for customizing Fighters), it kind of implies that the CR is pretty much fixed for the Fighters (ie, Bombers cost 20% more or 60 and Assault is 40% more or 70 etc).
But when adding Fighters to a ship, the CR cost varies depending on the ship (the more divergent the Ocr and Dcr on the ship, the higher the Fighter cost for that ship). Is this a problem with the spreadsheets or is it intended that it costs more to put Fighters on some ships than others.
Yes and yes.
The base CR of fighters is fixed at 50, and is affected by whatever options you assign to them.
However, because fighters are considered an integral part of the ship, their cost is combined with that of their carrier by adding 50 (or whatever) to both the OR and DR of the ship before combining them.
For example, if a ship has an OR of 100 and a DR of 250, then its final CR is 158. If you add two fighter flights, then its OR becomes 200 and its DR 350, resulting in a final CR of 265.
Majestic Twelve Games would like to announce that our online store is now ready for business! Check it out at:
www.mj12games.com/catalog/
In addition, we'd like to further announce that we are now an authorized American distributor for Brigade Models' excellent line of wargaming miniatures.
Starting immediately, we will be selling Brigade Models' starter packs for the Universal Game of Starship Combat, Starmada X. In the coming months, we will be carrying many other products, including their exclusive Iron Stars miniatures.
To celebrate these developments, from now until February 12, shipping from our online catalog to any part of the world is just $2 per order -- just consider it our Groundhog's Day Special.
For more information on Starmada X, Iron Stars, and all our other products, please visit our web site at www.mj12games.com.
To quote..."the saving grace of Starmada is that it isn't quite as stupid as all the dumb rules in the later Star Fleet Battles......"
Oh, and why does Starmada need a "saving grace"? Is it really that bad?
Personally, I would love to see a Grav Well Generator...... basically, ships cannot hyperspace withing X distance of the ship with the generator.....
One guy that I spoke to in a chat room last night was talking that if he thinks the other fleet is "cheesy" then he just hyperspaces away, and as far as he is concerned...... it's a draw (never mind the question I asked him about his fleeing in the face of the enemy)
There use to be "Interdictor Fields"... I don't remember what happened to 'em.
The more important question here, tho, is in which chat room is Starmada discussed, and why haven't I been invited? :cry:
Hold an opponent still so they couldn't run.
Drag a ship into close range.
Keep a ship with screens in place so you could beat on a single approach.
Prevent a ship from hyper-jumping out of a battle.
Hyperjump out of a battle with a wounded comrade.
Keep an opponent from turning to bring weapon batteries to bear after you got in their blind spot.
That's what I thought.
If the intent is to have tractor beams to move other ships and/or keep other ships from moving, then I don't think they will ever "officially" become part of Starmada.
The issue is that they would be next to impossible to point-cost appropriately... since the only factors that would affect the tractor beams' use are ship size and thrust rating, ships of widely different capabilities would be affected in exactly the same way.
That way lies madness... :twisted:
Would having an EWS on your ship counteract the -1 to hit from your own ship (not the target) performing Evasive Maneuvers?
Presumably thats a yes, but many games dont allow you to cancel self-imposed penalties like that.
The way the rule is phrased, the answer would be "yes". However, I think it should be a "no".
Consider that one for the errata.
Can anyone direct me to any Starmada X rules for Tractor Beams?
What would you want tractor beam rules for?
Let me find out if I can get a bottle, and I'll ship it to you. (They sell it in a pub, so I am not sure if I can get it in a sealed bottle) (I've only seen it in a glass, so far......)
That'd be cool...
Ok, I noticed that the Starmada Rules state that things like security teams are added in groups of 5, ect. However, SXCA lets you add them individually. For my Kayeshi, I have used the individual adds, as almost all of their ships use the Alyssa class long range torpedoes (drones) with a few ships carrying Empress Class Heavy Torpedoes (range 18, 1/3/3 variable damage, expendible).
Is there a problem with only having 2 drones on a ship? Or do I have to put them in groups of 5 as per the book rules?
Rather than get drawn into a lengthy discussion on beer, I should probably answer the original question, huh?
Anyway, there's absolutely NO reason for the 5- or 10-pack limitations, other than I wasn't happy about the idea of letting players tack a lone mine onto a dreadnought with an extra SU.
If you want to add individual bits of equipment when the rules say they have to be added in groups, it won't break the game.
The SXCA used to limit your options to the 5- or 10- rule... I don't remember why I took that off... :?:
I had better get the beers and figs out then......LOL
May as well make Dan comfortable, and offer a game while he is here.
Very true. I believe that is one of the Rules of Life:
If you're going to violate Holy Writ, you'd better serve Guinness.
OK, question, does a weapon that does no hull damage still do crew damage?
If a weapon does no hull damage, then no hull boxes are ever crossed off. So I guess the answer is "no", unless the weapon has the "Extra Crew Casualties" ability.
Hey Dan, is the Auctions board locked or frozen or something? I was trying to post a notice about some LotR minis I just put up on ebay (for those folks who use 'em in Ares) and the message seems to have vanished into the void. Might explain why there've been no posts since June...
er... no. It should be working fine.
:?:
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.