3,151

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

Vitruvian Man wrote:

Speaking of Transporters... can anyone tell me what the rules for them were?  I looked in X and the Compendium, but they aren't in there.  I'd like to use them for my Star Trek games.

They were called "teleporters" and worked like this:

Some sci-fi settings have “teleporters” or “transporters”; machines that are able to move people from one place to another without actually traveling through the space in between. These items can have a significant impact on combat by allowing a starship to move marines onto an enemy ship.

Each teleporter allows one “attack” against an enemy starship within five hexes during the Combat Phase. In order to do so, roll one die; if the result is greater than the sum of the distance to the target plus the target's shield rating, the teleport is successful and the target ship has an attacking marine squad on board. Obviously, one marine squad must also be removed from the attacking ship.

For example, a starship with three teleporters is attempting to move marines onto an enemy ship three hexes away. The target has a current shield rating of 2; the sum of the range and shields is 5. This means a roll of 6 is necessary for a successful teleport. Three dice are rolled (one per teleporter), coming up 2, 3, and 6. Therefore, one marine squad is moved from the attacking ship to the target ship.

A starship may not make more teleport rolls than it has marine squads remaining; e.g., if a ship has 10 teleporters, but only 4 marine squads left, it may only make up to 4 teleport rolls.

Security teams may be teleported in the same way as marine squads.

3,152

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

Bill Su wrote:

From a power-gaming point of view, why would anyone ever design a weapon with a ROF other than 3?  The space cost, and hence offensive rating, is only double that of ROF 1.  It seems to me that the limitation of only targeting one ship with the three shots is not worth anywhere near a 33% discount (cost of 3 ROF 1 weapons is 3*(1+1) *rest_of_weapon_cost = 6*rest_of_weapon_cost, but 1 ROF 3 weapon is 1* (3+1)*rest_of_weapon_cost = 4*rest_of_weapon_cost, which is 33% less).

True -- from a relative perspective, ROF 3 is more "efficient" than PEN or DMG of 3, when compared to the base values of 1. However, from an absolute perspective, ROF is more expensive than either PEN or DMG. The (ROF+1) is in there because a weapon with a high rate of fire is more effective against fighters than one with a high PEN or DMG.

When it comes to ship-to-ship damage potential, a ship with five ROF-3 weapons is the same as one with five DMG-3 weapons, all other things being equal. However, the ROF-3 ship will pay 33% more for its weapons, because it can more effectively combat fighters than the DMG-3 ship.

On the other hand, for simulation purposes, how does one build a general weapon with a recharge or cool-down time?  In other words, how does one build a weapon with a ROF of 1/2?  (The anime-style spinal mount is a special case of this idea, but cannot be customized the way standard weapons can.)

This hasn't been done officially, but you should get reasonably balanced results by using 1.5 as the ROF multiplier for a weapon that can fire every other turn.






------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/IMSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Community email addresses:
  Post message: mj12games@onelist.com
  Subscribe:    mj12games-subscribe@onelist.com
  Unsubscribe:  mj12games-unsubscribe@onelist.com
  List owner:   mj12games-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
  http://www.onelist.com/community/mj12games
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mj12games/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    mj12games-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

3,153

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

I designed a few ships, then made one with a spinal mount.  But no SM information about how it works, it is a weapon after all, shows up on the printable sheet.  I know, SMs are all the same except for range, but would be nice to display the To-Hit, PEN, DMG (undestroyed hull), and arcs, as well as the ranges which do vary, without having to refer back to the rules.

Perhaps. It should be a simple 'fix' to the spreadsheet to have it do such a thing.

Btw, what is the use of that hex display?  It doesn't even show what the arcs are.

The hex display is used for optional rules such as screens and directional shielding, or it can be used for home-grown vector movement.

Do Long Range Sensors work with Spinal Mounts?  I would think so, just want it confirmed.

Yes.

3,154

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

thedugan wrote:

Our women will like you,
as long as you bathe regular,
Oh hurry now, oh hurry,
we can't last too long,
They look hot in spandex,
and like it fairly often....

<chorus>
They say we taste like chicken,
They say we taste like chicken,
They say we taste like chicken,
..in sweet and sour sauce!
<chorus>

..wishing i had an MP3 of that to get the phrasing right...

You people are just disturbing sometimes... smile

3,155

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

Crazy8 wrote:

I worked out a ship design by hand that had 12 fighter bays and the math worked on paper.  I then tried to transfer that same design to the SXCA and it wouldn't recognize any number of Fighter Bays higher then 10.  Did I miss something in the rules that limits the amount of Fighter Bays a ship may have or is this just a limit on SXCA itself??  Thanks...

Nope, you didn't miss anything in the rules. The max of 10 is just an arbitrary limitation of the SXCA.

3,156

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Sorry to press you here, but if you have a large amount of troops you can use them to absorb crew casualties? Say, from the Yenpalo meson beams?

That would be correct.

I didn't say there wasn't a potential for abuse... smile

3,157

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

on p 33 of the Brigade book it says

"If a player chooses to lose troops as a result of a special equipment hit"

Yup. That's because I cut and pasted the terminology from another section. As I said before, the troops should only be sacrificed as a crew casualty, and not as a "Q" hit.

3,158

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

Vitruvian Man wrote:

Reading through the rules, I notice that there seems to be a trouble with troops.  The description states that they can be taken as a special equipment hit.

Actually, I don't have the book in front of me, but what it SHOULD say is that troops can be sacrificed to avoid a crew casualty hit, and NOT a special equipment hit.

This is only according to the description for Troops.  In the summery table on page 19, however, Troops are listed as not being able to be hit.  Obviously from my concern, I agree with this...

This is correct. Troops are not a viable 'Q' hit.

3,159

(3 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

The core rulebook had gunnery mods based off target size -- the smaller the vessel, the harder time D12 and D10 guns would have in hitting it.

Some folks didn't like this, so TMW offers the option of basing the same kind of mods off momentum.  D12 guns are really hurting when trying to target vessels with a momentum of 5 or higher (+2 to hit).

The original version of the game actually used BOTH sets of modifiers... but that was just too much. smile

I prefer the size-based mods myself... although it seems to me that the smaller ships would have higher speeds anyway, and therefore it should all wash out one way or the other, right?

3,160

(4 replies, posted in Discussion)

Just removed ANOTHER spammer and his posts from the forum.

I really don't want to have to shift to an approval system... sad

3,161

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

Bill Su wrote:

> Help!  The Starmada X:  Brigade book specifies that the CDSU
> Fengzi carries 6 flights of Wusheng-E fighters and 2 flights
> of Zhengsheng fighters.  However, I can't find where these
> fighters are defined!

That's because the fighters are not defined anywhere. Both are considered standard fighter flights in Starmada, although there are different minis for the two types.

3,162

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

jimbeau wrote:

Jim, the most current files are on page 8 and 9 of this thread. Thanks for the sticky! *mmmm...peanut butter*

did I miss something?  I got them from 8 and 9 smile

You know, now that there's an entire section of the forum for y'all to use, feel free to start new topics... wink

3,163

(0 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Since this appears to be something that ain't gonna go away... smile

I've moved the old "How about a new mech game" topic to its own section of the Forum. Have at it!

3,164

(27 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Go0gleplex wrote:

*just waits for someone to mention steam mecha again.* tongue

Uh... okay...

"Steam mecha"

smile

3,165

(27 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Go0gleplex wrote:

Seems that there would be need be three levels of combat to worry about.  Ground level, atmospheric, and Aether...

Not really.

In VBAM: Starmada, ground combat is handled abstractly -- I assume we'd do the same thing in the IS version. There may be an IS ground combat system in the future, but nothing definite...

3,166

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Here's the pic:

3,167

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Go0gleplex wrote:

Okay...

[size=150] WARDOGS![/size] it is.

You mean like this?

http://www.arenafan.com/graphics/teamlogos/colw.gif

3,168

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Go0gleplex wrote:

*nudge nudge*

You realize if you take away one letter, this says "nude nudge".

smile

3,169

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

thedugan wrote:
Go0gleplex wrote:

A.P.E. Corps

My favorite...of course, I suggested it....
:-)

And the one I'd have to veto, considering the name has essentially already been taken (Assault Corps, anyone? smile )

3,170

(27 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

mwaschak wrote:

Are we conquering entire nations with these vessels, or just fighting battles out in the stars? What do you want to see? What are you IS fans looking for?

I'm not going to veto any idea that people come up with, since I think a VBAM: IS product would kick BUTT... however... smile

The difficulty in conquering entire nations is that there's nothing to conquer... yet.

If we decide this is going to be a full-fledged campaign system, in the vein of VBAM: Starmada, then we need to have something out there to fight over. Right now, aside from national pride and the Kaiser-Freude Cluster of Earth-chasers, there's nothing.

That will change, soon, but then we need to move on in the timeline.

Matt... you out there? smile

3,171

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Justin Crough wrote:

In that respect, this Star-mecha game is starting out in a similar fashion.
I was having a bit of deja vu , is all.

Gotcha. You are correct. I just wanted to point out that the AC stuff is "new", and not a mod of Starmada.

Well, its just that before I had a playable version, then it seems Iwas
being hounded by people who wanted to play it, relentlessly, and
then....crickets.

Welcome to the happy go-lucky world of game design. smile

No pun intended.

Heh.

Well...it really is almost done...as far as my part is concerned.  Within
the next couple weeks I'll be presenting it to my company commander.
Apparently he's an old wargamer, with a fairly sizeable set of microarmor,
which I only discovered recently. I've managed to convince him to try it out
sometime soon.  His verdict and suggestions will mean a lot to me.

I can't WAIT to hear how that playtest goes. smile

As per Kevin's suggestion, I'd suggest Star Mecha focus on the detail of
piloting and running a big mech, or a few of them.  This is something AC
doesn't focus on, in favor of being able to pit several dozen per side, plus
light vehicle, fast air and infantry support.

I think it'll be just fine if they stick with where they are headed. After all, Starmada really can't run as many elements as AC can at one time (unless you count fighter flights).

I still say there's room for both (and my soon-to-be-renamed Warlords of Dimension X project... smile).

Might I suggest we move the conversation about AC back where it belongs and let these fine gentlemen get on with their Starmecha thing?

3,172

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Justin Crough wrote:

This is how Assault Corps started out...before it even had a name.

Actually, to be technically accurate, AC did not start out as a Starmada mod -- although this road has been tread before. AC started from a combination of two ideas I had: (1) using dice to simulate different sizes of vehicle, and (2) using the "half-die size plus armor" mechanic for to-hit rolls. The latter ended up getting jettisoned from AC since it didn't reflect the high accuracy of modern/sci-fi weapons, but did manage to show up in For the Masses and Iron Stars. The former, to my knowledge, has never been used anywhere...

I'm always a bit of a realism-nazi, but I still think AC is fast and playable, (mainly through Dan's efforts to reel in my more nitty gritty tendancies.)

I do what I can. I seem to reeling in a lot of people lately... wink

So far, no one has got back to me with a single playtest example since the latest update late summer.

Should I mention how many of MJ12's games were playtested to any significant degree by anyone outside the designer and his immediate circle?

A quick look at the forum stats puts the AC board just behind Starmada, Defiance, and Iron Stars; I'd say that qualifies as "interest" (much more so than a published game like, oh, I dunno, The Grid. smile )

So -- consider this an official request to keep working on AC.

At the same time, please continue the Starmecha thing as well... no reason to squelch one for the other. Frankly, there's been too much of the "Hey, why don't we use X to do Y?" lately ... half the fun of gaming is whipping up (and reading) new sets of mechanics. How many of us reguarly play more than a fraction of the games we own?

Besides, if I said one of you has to stop 'cause we can't have two somewhat similar games, Iron Stars would have ended up a Starmada clone. And Demian would have seen Defiance/Starslayer reduced to an ARES sci-fi mod.

What I would suggest, however, is that the Starmecha crowd give some serious thought to 'flavor' -- AC is very deliberately a generic game and would not benefit from such (just like Starmada or ARES). But other games (like Iron Stars or Defiance) can benefit a great deal from a solid background.

Just my $.02.

3,173

(150 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Go0gleplex wrote:

Dan,

It okay if I post a file to the player registry- beta rules for the hacked out rough of this mecha idea thing rather than trying to post it all here? :oops:

You can go ahead and post it here, there, or anywhere. smile

Seriously, as long as you zip it so there aren't several stray files floating around, there should be no problem posting it on the forum.

3,174

(3 replies, posted in News)

Well, I'm not quite ready to make it "public", but I will notify all of you about the latest and greatest development in MJ12-land:

Introducing the MJ12 eStore!

All your MJ12 buying habits can now be sated in one location... check it out:

mj12games.com/catalog

It's still in "beta" release, so to speak. Please let me know of any problems and/or bugs you may find.

Thanks! smile

3,175

(12 replies, posted in Game Design)

Taltos wrote:

Guess I don't see what the conflict there is, as far as maneuvering goes. I may not have been specific enough, the combat mechanic and the durability of the ships isn't what we were looking at.

No, I understood... and I'm glad that at least you'd be looking at expanding the combat mechanics. Space lasers and missiles are prolly gonna be more involved than a Vickers 7mm. wink

What I mean by "low tech" is the level of combat. In WW1, you had (essentially) one-on-one dogfights, which is perfectly reflected by AaD. While that's possible for a sci-fi setting, I'm more interested in swarms of fighters zooming in and out... which wouldn't work very well with the AaD mechanics.