3,176

(12 replies, posted in Game Design)

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> Jim and I had been tossing around ideas for the last week or two...
> we had been thinking in terms of starmada system inspiration
> for weapons and using elements of Aces at Dawn for maneuver...
> ==========
>
> I guess I'd have to see how you are thinking about implementing that.
> But if it's a direct port over from AaD, then my initial
> preference would be to not use that mechanic.

I would concur.

AaD works great for what it is -- World War I -- but it just "feels" too low-tech for a space fighter game.

3,177

(13 replies, posted in Defiance)

Demian Rose wrote:

Hmmm, maybe Dan can figure out what's up with the website.  Sorry for the annoyance...

Yeah... unfortunately, any website problems are Lulu's purview, not mine, so I can't fix it.

Very soon now, any problems we have with other vendors' web sites will be irrelevant... smile

3,178

(13 replies, posted in Defiance)

tnjrp wrote:

I don't actually think the printed edition is out yet. Apart from the print-on-demand version, obviously. Dan & Demian will correct me if need be...

Err... the POD version IS the printed edition.

The quality from Lulu has been consistently high -- just as good as our "traditional" print options.

So, for the time being anyway, all of our products are "in print". smile

3,179

(13 replies, posted in Defiance)

Liquid Violence wrote:

Or more importantly, getting it.

Is there anywere selling DVG over in old blighty, or am I restricted to the web store (which I cant get working at the mo anyway)?

Which web store are you referring to? smile

Anyway, I'm not aware of anyone selling Defiance outside of the US, but I can get you a copy reasonably cheaply...

hundvig wrote:

Of course back then the amount of space in a hull increased linearly as size increased, which isn't the case these days.  So a size 20 ship under the current rules is still using only 5% of its total SU for (say) AFBs, but the amount of actual spaces used has risen dramatically...which might make percentage-based systems less appealing on large hulls.  OTOH, you can also pack more other stuff (guns!) into a big hull these days, so all those percentage-based systems are affecting more gear as well.  It's an interesting balancing act.

True.

However, the best part about Starmada (IMHO) is that it doesn't matter! smile

Make all your special equipment cost 1 SU!

Reduce the space requirements of weapons by 99%!

In the end, the Combat Rating balances it all out...

CR: The Great Equalizer... smile

3,181

(0 replies, posted in Starmada)

beowulfjb@aol.com wrote:

> Hello everyone!

Hello!

> My Friends and I have been playing Starmada(Compendium) most
> Fridays and Sundays here in Jacksonville, Fla.  We play @
> Sanctuary Game Store.  I  have had success with my WW 2 naval
> style starships using Energy Lances as main armament,
> Blasters as secondary/casement weapons& laser cannons  as
> tertiary  AA weapons.  My ships can only fire all weapons in 
> the S or P arcs (="c" or "d" in SrmdX).  But It has been
> working very well;  my fleet wins most of the time.
> Any thoughts or ideas from other players? I  love this Game!!

> Steven Gilchrist
> Jacksonville, Fla.
> PS:  Here is one of these ships...


>     313 USS Florida Shield Rating  Movement Track 4 3 2 1   5
> 5 4 4 4 Special
>  Equipment  4 3 3 (3) 2 Anti-Fighter Batteries, Armor 
> Plating, Armored Gun Batteries, Electronic Warfare System,
> Long Range  Sensors, Overthrusters,
> Redundant Shielding, 5 Security  Forces  2 2 1 1 1  1 0     
> Weapons Range
> (S/M/L) To-
> Hit  [1] HEAVY GUNS (Energy Lances) 1-6 7-12 13-24 3+  FX3
> FX3 AX3 AX3       
> [2] Laser Cannons 1-4 5-8 9-16 3+  FX2 AX2          [3]
> Blasters 1-4 5-8 9-16
> 3+  FX4           Individualized Damage Chart (D6):
> Superstructure 4, Weapons 1, Shields 1  Tech Levels (+4):
> Engines +1, Shields +1, Weapons +1, Special Equipment +1

Err... the formatting's a little off, but I think I can interpret it... smile

Do you find that the +4 to TLs has a detrimental impact on the length of games? (i.e., some have suggested that up-gunned ships tend to lean towards "eggshells armed with sledgehammers"...)

3,182

(123 replies, posted in Starmada)

KDLadage wrote:

(PS: Dan, would you like me to make a non-fleet version of this to replace the current SXCA so that both tools use a common interface?)

Nah.

It's a great tool, but as has been noted, there are lots of SXCA-mods floating around that are still useful. So, I would hesitate to "replace" it anytime soon.

Besides, the beauty of your project is the fleet aspects... no reason to strip that away.

3,183

(123 replies, posted in Starmada)

Neil Harrison wrote:

> Can someone direct me to a link where I can download Starmada
> X: Shipyard? - looked in the files section but it doesn't
> seem to be there (or maybe I just missed it)

You didn't miss it. The file is hosted on the forum, not in the Yahoo! group.

Link below:

http://mj12games.com/forum/download.php?id=62

Taltos wrote:
Volunteer wrote:

1) Does anyone know the rationale for using a percentage when adding
point defense systems and anti-fighter batteries to a ship? This
means that a hull size one ship (where the those units would be 10
spaces each) has just as effective systems as a size 10 ship (where
they would be 190 spaces each). This doesn't quite make sense to me.

I'd have to leave that in the hands of our fearless leader.   lol

Frankly, because it was easier math in the pre-spreadsheet days (there's a lot in Starmada that can be attributed to the early days... smile ).

At the same time, when a piece of special equipment requires a percentage of the size, it is because I assume it would take more "stuff" to get the same effect on a size 10 ship than a size 1. For example, you need more AFB to cover the hull of a larger ship, or you need more ECM equipment to mask the signature of a larger ship, etc.

3,185

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

nimrodd wrote:

Actually, I think that this has been brought up as a Mod.  Dan would have to price it, but a "Tough" hull would only show up on the damage chart as a 1 & 4, as opposed to the 1, 3 & 5 that it currently is (or use Armor).

A "Weak" hull would show up on 1, 2, 4 & 5.

A ship with a "Tough" hull would multiply its hull size by 3, instead of 2 as stated in rule A.2.2.

A ship with a "Weak" hull uses a 1.5 multiplier.

3,186

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

hundvig wrote:

About the only spot where they're (IMO) clearly ahead of Starmada is the way their design system decouples structural integrity from ship size...Starmada makes it relatively difficult to build a large-but-fragile ship, or a small-but-tough one, in part because engine and screen mass are tied to hull size (and therefore hull integrity).

Actually, jack up your tech levels to +2 across the board, and you'll have a bunch of 'stuff' in a not-so-durable frame... smile

3,187

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

KDLadage wrote:

Hi! And welcome to the world of MJ12 Games! My name is David. Although I do not work for MJ12 or represent them in any way, I am a huge fan of Daniel Kast's work (he is the guy that wrote Starmada).

Gosh...  thanks for the kind words. smile

I'd add to this, but it seems as tho KDL has covered all the bases.

3,188

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

hundvig wrote:

...it's just that it makes you sound like someone who looked at the (badly outdated and overdue to be replaced) core FT rules way back when and haven't followed it since.

Well, you can count me in that group too... I wasn't aware changes had been made to FT...

But then, I've been busy... smile

3,189

(17 replies, posted in Game Design)

Taltos wrote:

I have gone this route on my own before, as you know, and it may be safest, cause you can avoid people looking for perfection for the favorite sport or avoiding it cause it isn't a sport they play.

Yup. Working on a reply to your e-mail right now... smile

Anyway, I think the general nature of the sport being simulated should be specified, even if in the end it doesn't matter. Thus, our 'league' might be a version of soccer, baseball, or whatever, in order to give it flavor. But I agree with those who have suggested that it should be possible to resolve a season in a single gaming session.

3,190

(17 replies, posted in Game Design)

rkhigdon wrote:

> Are these formulas of your own design, or formulas from (for
> eaxample) a Sabremetric-style source.  If they're your own
> I'd love to see them.

Obviously, I didn't come up with the idea -- there are many people who have tried the "cross-era" approach. But the formulae are all mine.

I may share them with you off-list... no sense scaring away the math-phobics. smile

3,191

(17 replies, posted in Game Design)

Moving this topic to "Game Design", since it appears we're leaving The Grid in the dust... smile

rkhigdon wrote:

> Well, I have a lot of thoughts.
>
> First, I love baseball games.  It's fantastic that you have a
> workable game.  That being said, it will have to be pretty
> good to compete with the plethora of excellent game already
> available. 
> Replay, APBA, Strat O Matic, Pursue the Penant, Statis Pro,
> and Extra Innings already compete for my Baseball play time.

That's why I'm going for the "players from all eras" angle... something a bit different when compared to the other entries in the genre.

But I also think that what we've got is pretty competitive in its own right.

> Second, I want a sports franchise type game.  I'm just not
> sure that Baseball is the right sport for it.

Well, okay then.

The obvious question at this point is:

Let's assume we decide we want to try a "franchise" game, where the main focus of the game is in-between "matches" and the off-season. Does it even MATTER what "sport" is being simulated?

i.e., would it suffice to give players offensive and defensive ratings and then use these to determine who wins/loses a given match?

3,192

(17 replies, posted in Game Design)

Taltos wrote:

It has potential... but also opens the door for everyone to argue about eras and whether a player's skills would translate....

Well, I could post the formulae I'm using to "convert" stats from era to era... but then the entire membership of this group would probably desert... smile

3,193

(17 replies, posted in Game Design)

Well, I've been thinking more and more about the "franchise game", and on a parallel track I've been working again on my baseball game -- for somewhat obvious reasons... (Go White Sox!)

I think I've gotten the "tactical" game to a workable stage, and I thought of an excellent idea (at least to me... smile ) for the "strategic" level.

Basically, we'd run a league, in which you could draft ANY PLAYER from ANY ERA of major league baseball. I've worked out a system where the average player's stats from a given year are adjusted to match the average player from 2000-2004, and then all the players in that given year are modified accordingly (for example, in real life, Babe Ruth hit 54 home runs in 1920 -- adjusted to a 162-game schedule with modern stats, he would hit 85).

Here's the fun part -- when a player is drafted, he begins with the capabilities of his rookie year. Then, at the end of each year, his performance "shifts" randomly; for example:

Roll -- Effect
1 -- Back one year
2 -- Stays the same
3 -- Ahead one year
4 -- Ahead one year
5 -- Ahead two years
6 -- Ahead three years

Thus, if we roll a 5 for the Babe, in the next season he would perform as he did in 1922, skipping 1921's performance entirely. If at the end of the next season we rolled a 1, then he would shift to 1921's performance.

In this way, while you have a general idea of how a player will perform over the course of his career, and on average he'll last as long as he did in real life, from year to year his impact will be unknown.

In the absence of "create your own player" rules (which could be done, as well), I think this would be an excellent way to move from season to season...

Also, at the end of each season, several more historical players would become available, again each at his rookie level of play.

Does this even remotely spark anyone's interest?

3,194

(2 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Gunslinger wrote:

Could someone post the link to the Ship Design Spreadsheet please?

In case anyone else has difficulty, it can be found here:

http://www.mj12games.com/ironstars/issb.xlt

3,195

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

What about the fourteen-inning game? The commentators over here on Five were getting slightly pissed off because they missed their trains...:D

Ah, so what. On this side of the pond, we missed breakfast... smile

3,196

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

Okay, so baseball isn't quite as stupid anymore.

Go Go White Sox. smile

3,197

(18 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Gunslinger wrote:

I was wondering if anyone had developed any additional rules for terrestrial combat, such as elevation, ramming, ground batteries, ships, bombing, etc.

God, there's that ramming thing again... wink

Seriously, I've got to find that reference that talks about ramming as being totally over-hyped as a tactic in wargaming -- it rarely, if EVER happened on purpose in "real life".

Anyway, Kevin had done some elevation rules when we were toying with an Aeronef expansion to Grand Fleets... and we're hoping to have some rudimetary bombing rules in the next book for IS. Otherwise, ground batteries and naval ships would likely be very easily represented using the existing IS mechanics.

Also, I think fighters would be a bit different on Earth than FACs in space.  Most likely lighter armed with maybe one gun and the rest machine guns.  Or with bombs and torpedos.

Err... that's kinda what the FACs in TMW are, right? Lightly-armed with MGs and torps...

The idea of fighters in the atmosphere would have to be worked out in the "fluff" first -- we've pretty much established that Cavorite would be unwieldy for levitation-type purposes...

3,198

(18 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

thedugan wrote:

I think Dan is distracted with 'Aces at Dawn', so I'll chime in like my opinion means something. :-)

Not really. big_smile

I mean, "not really" in that I'm not distracted by AaD -- that's Jim's baby.

I think that you could use Iron Stars for the Aeronef set just fine as is, I'm wondering if you couldn't use the 'Aces at Dawn' demo rules for aircraft, with some house rules to wedge it all together....I've only glanced at the rules - but the period is the same.

The "problem" with Aeronef (if you can call it a problem; I like the game just fine, actually) is that it's abstract when compared to IS. Therefore, the question is not what to add to IS in order to play Aeronef, but what to add to the 'nef game stats in order to make them playable in IS.

I intend to bring IS down into the atmosphere in the near future... whether or not it will be directly translatable to Aeronef-type craft or something totally different I haven't decided yet.

Oh, and I doubt very seriously if AaD could be made to squish in to a game of IS -- the two engines are very different, and are of a completely different scale.  i.e., an experienced player would be hard-pressed to run more than 3-4 planes in AaD, while a game of IS could include dozens of FACs.

3,199

(5 replies, posted in Aces at Dawn)

Dan and his friend Jim have been really getting into World War One air combat lately and Dan found this great set of rules called Aces at Dawn.

Dan, being the good gamer he is, stayed up all night long copying the card decks from his rulebook front to back, cutting them out, and putting them in card protectors. Unfortunately, he only had so many protectors and most of them were protecting his Magic: the Gathering™ cards. So he took a bunch of cards out of their protectors, among them the first edition Black Lotus, and put them on the table next to his Diet Coke.

The cat then jumped up onto the table, looked directly at the Black Lotus and knocked over the Diet Coke, soaking the cards completely. Not only did Dan lose an entire night's sleep, but he's also out $1200 to replace his Black Lotus.

Jim went over the next day with his beautifully-painted aircraft and four sets of shiny new Aces at Dawn Maneuver Cards. Dan, having gotten no sleep and completely distracted by "The Lotus Incident", lost every game.

Don't be a loser like Dan, pick up your pre-printed Aces at Dawn Maneuver Cards today! They are an easy, low cost alternative to burning up your printer ink and staying up late cutting out cards.

Included in this deal are two complete sets of cards, one for you and one for a friend.

http://www.mj12games.com/aces/1102.html

Andrew Brian Gross wrote:

>
> Subject pretty much says it all...

I dunno... Jim? Noel?