3,226

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Football (the game everyone else calls football, not your football where there is hardly any use of the foot (except, of course, for getting the 1 point conversion and punts)) is much simpler. Only the offside rule is complicated...:D

I thought so at one time, but I "get" the offsides rule now...

And I am a big fan o' the footy (go Liverpool!) but for the first time in a long time October baseball is meaningful on the south side of Chicago -- history says we won't win the World Series, but we should at least play the way we did to get this far...

*sigh*

Back to gaming, I guess...

3,227

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> Excuse my ignorance, but what is a sac bunt?
> ==========
>
> "Sac bunt" is short for sacrifice bunt.
> A sacrifice bunt occurs when the batter is attempting to move
> a base runner from first base to second base or second base
> to third base.
> The batter intentionally attempts to hit the ball very easily
> on the ground between the pitching mound and first base or
> the pitching mound and third base. The idea is to hit the
> ball in such a way as to leave the only option for the
> fielder fielding the ball to throw to first base to get the
> batter out, allowing any base runners to advance one base. In
> other words, "sacrificing" himself to advance the base runners.

Thanks, Kevin.

Now maybe you can explain the concept to the Sox...

3,228

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

jimbeau wrote:

Go 2006 Cubbies!

I knew I didn't like you.

tongue

3,229

(15 replies, posted in Discussion)

...is stupid.

My White Sox may come back and win the series, but they won't do it playing like they did tonight.

It'd be one thing if the Angels took it to us, but after the third they had nothing left -- yet we strand six runners, and screw up two sac bunt attempts.

Baseball is stupid.

3,230

(11 replies, posted in Discussion)

thedugan wrote:

But, I like wit, character and dialogue over the course of a movie AND 10,000 CGI soldiers in a set piece battle - is there a movie that fits that criterion that anyone knows about?

But of course, silly...

It was called "Attack of the Clones"!

smile

3,231

(3 replies, posted in Aces at Dawn)

Not having looked at the released version of the rules yet, some of the following thoughts may or may not apply.
I'd think there should be general gunfire mods, those possibly being:
Firing plane in target's rear (60 degree) arc: +0 Firing plane in target's side (120 degree) arc: -2 Firing plane in target's front (60 degree) arc: -1

The tailing benefit would then entitle a tailing plane to see the card's of the plane being tailed, and automatically win the initiative roll against the plane being tailed.
Just how you'd do this in a scenario with a lot of planes gets a little tougher, but a tailing plane should always be able to see how where the plane it is tailing is moving. I believe the pilots of planes in a tailing position could see both the rudder and elevators of the planes they were tailing.

Each maneuver card has an initiative number associated with it... so the easiest thing might be to allow a pilot who is tailing the ability to shift his initiative number up or down one after the cards have been revealed, depending upon whether he wants to move before or after his opponent.

Just a thought...

3,232

(3 replies, posted in Aces at Dawn)

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> Just a quick question on AaD.
> In the demo version there aren't many rules or effects for
> one aircraft tailing another. Are there additional rules in
> the released version for tailing, or do the demo rules have
> everything there is?

Er... I don't know.

Jim?

3,233

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

xombe wrote:

Geez I just noticed the list of products for Starmada on the mj12games site... does anyone have links to a photo or example of what these planets look like?   

Starmada Disks: Planets I

Starmada Disks: Explosions

Here...

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/explosions_790.pdf

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/planets_118.pdf

3,234

(3 replies, posted in News)

jimbeau wrote:

In August of 1914, the airplane had barely made its tenth anniversary, and had only just become a weapon of war. The Italians had used air power (if it could be called that) in North Africa in 1911, and Louis Blériot's famous trip across the English Channel was still a fresh memory.

Also, there is a demo version available for FREE, even... smile

http://www.mj12games.com/aces/acesdemo.pdf

3,235

(0 replies, posted in News)

In case you missed the announcement on the MJ12 home page, our products are now carried (in PDF form) at Wargaming Online:

http://www.wargamingonline.com/

3,236

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

xombe wrote:

But is there a list of changes for those of us that never saw the "old" versions? For example, if I see a ship record somewhere that doesn't say it is for X or not, how do I know if it is "X" friendly?

Well, the only major change between the two is the difference in damage charts: in the Compendium and earlier editions, the result of a damage roll was the same for all ships:

1-3 = Hull
4-5 = Weapon
6 = Shields

In X, we moved to the more detailed damage charts, e.g.:

1 = HQ
2 = EQ
3 = Ha
4 = Eb
5 = Hb
6 = S

The only other significant changes were in how weapons were defined; moving to the ROF/PEN/DMG splits and special effects as opposed to the more rigid weapon types in the Compendium.

3,237

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

xombe wrote:

Can someone explain the differences to a newbie?

I see a bunch of material in the Yahoo group "Starmada" folder and in the "StarmadaX" folder...is everything in the Starmada folder incompatible with StamadaX?

Can we make a folder for stuff that is non-version specific? (like maybe ship counters or scenarios?)

The differences are outlined in the update doc:

http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/update.pdf

I wouldn't say that the older versions are "incompatible" with Starmada X; but there does need to be some tweakin'...

3,238

(2 replies, posted in Discussion)

These are really cool!

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/dscf0296_158.jpg

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/dscf0295_211.jpg

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/dscf0294_391.jpg

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/dscf0293_181.jpg

http://mj12games.com/forum/files/dscf0292_162.jpg

3,239

(18 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Go0gleplex wrote:

Well, I finally got the Tiburon completed and painted.  Pictures can be found at the link. 

I've added pics of some of my other projects as well.  Nothing fancy since I've only been doing scratchbuilds for less than a year, but I'm learning. smile

Very nice!

Can I put some of these pics on the web site?

http://www.angelfire.com/or3/torion/flota_del_aether/

3,240

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

John Lerchey wrote:

> > > I've also not found anyplace to add fighters once fighter
> bays are
> > > included into ship design.  I'm sure I can do the math. wink  Just
> > > curious as to whether I'm missing something.
> > (end of quote)
> >
> > Not sure what you are asking... ?
>
> Me niether.  Let me try again.  *ahem*
>
> Is there something in the spreadsheet that will factor in the
> cost of fighters when I'm designing my ships?
>
> smile

Oh, okay.

Then, no.

smile

John Voysey wrote:
John Lerchey wrote:

> > Hi Starmada fans!
> >
> > I played my first Starmada game last night.  My buddy Tom
> and I each
> > designed a 1,100-ish point task force and went at it.  His fleet
> used
> > gzg NSL ships.  He made them slow (fastest ones other than hull 1
> > scouts were speed 4) with no shields, armor plating, and armored
> > weapons.  Most of his "guns" were "particle accelerators".  No
> frills
> > weapons that came in three classes, each with longer range and
> > increased damage ratings.  My fleet used brigade AmRep ships, done
> as
> > my religious fanatics - the Order of Man.  While he went for "brute
> > force sluggers", my ships were faster (average speed of 6),
> shielded,
> > ECM'd, and had no armor.  I used "laser" based weapons.  Similar to
> > his, but often with longer ranges, but less damage.  The "heavy x-
> ray
> > laser" halved shields, which was basicaly useless againts his space
> > tanks.  I also had a few missile destroyers (range 18, 4+, no range
> > mods, 2/1/1) which served me quite well.
> >
> > After we first designed out fleets, it struck us that they just had
> > too many guns for our tastes, so we agreed to change
> weapons tech to
> > -2, which made guns bigger, and fit our style better.
> >
> > My fleet suffered losses early, with my frigate screen
> getting wiped
> > out on turn 3, along with about half of my destroyers.  He lost a
> > couple of light scouts, and then I spent a lot of time
> hammering his
> > battle cruiser and heavy cruiser.  By the end of the game,
> my faster
> > ships were able to keep pace with his in reverse, and
> mostly out gun
> > him.  My ECM counted for a lot of missed shots, but OTOH, his armor
> > kept his ships around, seemingly forever.
> >
> > It was a great first game, and it won't be our last.
> >
> > Now, on to that pesky question...
> >
> > If I have a ship with Tachyon Detection and Ranging (TDAR), once I
> > achieve a lock on an enemy ship, do I lose the lock after the
> > following firing phase, or does the lock remain for as long as I
> want
> > it to? The rule is a little unclear.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John

> I *think* you lose the lock. However, I never use TDAR so I
> wouldn't know.

Thanks for the battle report, John... and thanks for answering the question, John. smile

Anyway, this is correct -- TDAR locks must be re-rolled each turn.

3,242

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

John Lerchey wrote:

> First off, thank you for verifying the spreadsheet issue.

I aim to please... wink

> I've also not found anyplace to add fighters once fighter
> bays are included into ship design.  I'm sure I can do the
> math. wink  Just curious as to whether I'm missing something.

Not sure what you are asking... ?

> As to the ship sizes/classes thing, I've seen enough posts to
> the effect of what you said - different hull points based on
> the kind of game that the players want to play - to FULLY
> support your decision not to include such a chart.  In hind
> sight, I think that adding one would actually detract from
> the flexibilit of the system.

I'm glad SOMEONE thinks I'm still in my right mind... big_smile

If you do want a "meta" classification system, there is the one provided in the Compendium (Sidebar, pp.20-23):

Compendium wrote:

Considering the huge variety of starships possible with the Starmada construction system, and the different priorities and strategies utilized by various players, it seems only right to present some way of categorizing ship designs so that easy comparisons can be made.

Please note that the terms used below are simply for metagame purposes; i.e., outside the “reality” of a game of Starmada. Players are welcome to come up with whatever naming systems seem appropriate for their fleets.

A starship's designation consists of a series of two or
three letters.

FIRST LETTER
Indicates the basic ship type:

Battleships (B) are the “big guns” of a fleet, and are typically designed for offensive activity. They do not walk softly, but they do carry a big stick. Battleships have Combat Ratings over 200.

Cruisers (C) are usually balanced equally in their offensive and defensive
capabilities, underscoring their versatility. Cruisers have Combat Ratings above 100.

Escorts (E) are hardly ever found on their own, as their main function is to provide additional protection for the rest of the fleet. Escort Combat Ratings are 100 or less.

Carriers (R) are those starships whose primary function is to provide fighter cover for the fleet. In this system, a ship is designated a “carrier” if the Combat Rating of its fighter flights is at least half that of the ship itself. For example, the Illustrious would be a carrier, since its fighters' Combat Rating (80) is more than half its own (62).

SECOND LETTER
This reflects the relative strength of the design within the starship type. “H” denotes a “heavy” or more powerful design, “L” is for “light” or less powerful ones, and a duplication of the first letter (e.g., “BB”, “EE”) would indicate that the ship is of an average strength for that type.

Type Combat Rating
BH 271+
BB 231-270
BL 201-230
CH 171-200
CC 131-170
CL 101-130
EH 71-100
EE 31-70
EL 1-30
RH 201+
RR 101-200
RL 1-100

THIRD LETTER
The third letter (if present) would give an indication of any special capabilities possessed by the starship.

K: The starship has a cloaking device.
R: The starship has fighter bays, but does not qualify for the “carrier” ship type.
S: System boat; i.e., the design has no hyperspace capability.
G: “Gun”; i.e., the starship has a spinal mount.
F: Fast; the starship has more movement points than are listed on the chart below:
Type MPs
BH 2
BB 3
BL 4
CH 5
CC 6
CL 7
EH 8
EE 9
EL 10
RH 3
RR 5
RL 7
M: The starship carries Marines for boarding actions.
W: Electronic warfare capabilities; the starship has ECM, EWS, LRS, Stealth
Generator, and/or TDAR.

It is important to note that these are listed in descending priority, and that a higher designation takes precedence over a lower one. For example, a
starship with both a Cloaking Device and Marines would list a “K” but not an “M”.

As an example, let us take a look at the Valiant. Its Combat Rating is 64, which places it in the Escort category. Further, it is within the average strength range for that type. Finally, it has Electronic Countermeasures,
which qualifies it as having electronic warfare capabilities. Therefore, the Valiant's designation would be “EEW”.

3,243

(4 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

PEGGY MATHEWS wrote:
dergrossest1 wrote:

> >I have opted to use GHQ's 1:2400 minis for my WWI battles. 
> The choice
> was easy for me since the GHQs are of jewel-like quality, the
> 1:6000s are just too small for my taste and there are no
> intermediate scale manufacturers which I could find. 
> Unfortunately, I am now wrestling with the space issues
> related to the large scale which I have chosen.
>
> >So, my question is, does anybody else play GFs in this scale?  If so,
> do you just use the table top conversion rules and forgo
> hexes altogether?  Or, do you just use a 2" per hex map and
> let the models spill into adjacent hexes?  Or, do you use
> giant hexes?  If you use giant hexes, how big are they and
> where did you get them?
>
> >Thanks.

> For me, I had the 1/2400 GHQ models before I had Grand
> Fleets, so I made it work.  Similarly I had the 2" hex cloth
> first, so.......  We just let them over-lap and stagger them
> a bit.  However, if I could easily get 3" hexes, I'd do that
> though the "Kitty Cats" would still overlap a bit I think.

I really think that's the best way to go. Although the overlap may on some level detract from the aesthetics, it really doesn't affect gameplay at all, except maybe at extremely close quarters.

3,244

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

kevinsmith67206 wrote:

> How about ship lists for existing miniatures lines?
> How about scenario books, set up similarly to what we did in
> Grand Fleets?
> How about campaign rules, set up similarly to what Matt and I
> were working on for Grand Fleets?

I'm not sure I'm up on where you and Matt were... care to give an update?

3,245

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

samuel i. ulmschneider wrote:

> In my little world, I use this scale:
>
> 1-2 CC or PB (Corvette, if Hyper-Capable or Patrol Boat if not.)
> 2-3 FF or SDB (Frigate or System Defense Boat)
> 4-7 DD, DDE, DDA, etc.  (Various types of Destroyers)
> 7-13 CA, CVE (Escort Carriers, Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers)
> 13-16: CAC, CV, CVF (Battlecruisers, Carriers, Fleet Carriers, etc.)
> 16-18: BB, DD, CVC (Battleships, Dreadnaughts, Command Carriers)
> 18-20: SDN, FL, CC (Superdreadnaught, Flagship, Central
> Command Ship, World-Ship, anything else humungoid.)

Hmm... at least your list equates dreadnought with battleship, rather than setting the latter as superior to the former... smile

3,246

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

John Lerchey wrote:

> I've started playing with the spreadshet, 'cause, like, "who
> wouldn't?" smile
>
> One thing that I'm not clear on is how much SU I'm using in
> any given design.  The SU for weapons is listed, but how do I
> know if I'm over?

That's what the pink box is for... it lists the number of SUs remaining. If it is in parentheses, that means it's negative (i.e., you've gone over the limit).

> Oh, another thing in general.  Hulls are listed simply by
> number of hull boxes.  That's fine and works well. Is there
> any general guideline for how to spec out various classes of
> ships?  Like, Frigates being 1 hull, Destroyers being 2-3,
> Cruisers being 3-5, or whatever.
>
> The sample ships give some guildance, but has anyone just
> made a chart? smile

If I had to make a list of the most-often questioned design choices, it would look like this:

1) Why only three batteries?

2) Why didn't you list size ranges for different ship types?

The reasons behind #2 are myriad, but here are the most important:

1) Because I don't like it. smile  I don't know how many arguments I've gotten into about whether a "frigate" should be larger or smaller than a "destroyer".  And if I see one more list that gives "dreadnought" as a type of "super-battleship" I'm gonna scream...

Frankly, ship types should be based on function, and vary between navies, rather than be fixed by the game designer according to size. But that's just my opinion.

2) Because of scale. Since there's no set decision on how big "big" is, it's entirely possible that whereas I think a "cruiser" is around 10 hull, someone else might like to have super-duper-sized ships running around, meaning cruisers are down around 3-4 hull.

In addition, as has been mentioned before, it is possible to "scale down" Starmada so that it is a starfighter game. In that case a "cruiser" would be off the chart, so to speak.

But none of this is preventing you from coming up with your own list for internal consistency... besides, the combat rating is the most important number, not hull size...

3,247

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

Okay... so let's start a new thread to discuss this.

First and foremost -- what is the technological situation re: starships in the Starslayer universe, Demian? Would the existing Starmada rules cover it, or do we need to make some changes/additions?

3,248

(2 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

bobslaughter wrote:

It's a sequel to WotW, from 1898....

I knew about this, but I always thought it was more modern -- I didn't realize it was written a year after the original story.

I'll have to check it out... although I suspect it won't jive with our current 'universe'.

3,249

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

samuel i. ulmschneider wrote:

> Look for a multipage formatted PDF with ship guide, sample
> factions, a few experimental rules, VBAM notes, and more.
>
> By Monday!  Clear out some space on the post baord for me ;-)
>
> -Sam
>
> A small free sample...
>
> Ranger-Class Light Cruiser
>     No one is really sure what keeps the Ranger class
> going: hope, mythology, duct tape, or pure ruggedness, but
> what is for sure is that none of the dozens of Rangers that
> litter the Confederacy will likely be retired soon.  The
> class was inaugurated early in the Confederate Rebellion, and
> underwent a significant revision twice after the war's end,
> producing the common Ranger-G General Cruiser and the less
> common Ranger-D Attack Cruiser variants.  The Ranger-G is a
> ubiquitous symbol of the Confederacy, plying the stars as an
> exploration vessel, military cruiser, and long-range scout
> all at once.
>     However, the Ranger remains a light cruiser, and one
> designed and built largely according to budgetary and
> industrial constraints by a fledgling Confederacy.  As such,
> her armament and shielding leave a bit to be desired, and her
> sublight drives are underpowered, using older, more easily
> serviced fuel-efficient engines.  However, a pair of proton
> turrets and guided Firefly missiles can still ensure that the
> Ranger gets respect on the battlefield, and her complement of
> 8-12 Colonial Tigershark or Thunderoll class fighters keeps
> her flexible.  Perhaps the most important aspect of the
> Ranger-G is her improved sensor suite, making her capable of
> mapping and tracing stable jump routes and conducting
> planetary surveys or scientific field work, and it is this
> flexibility that has made the Ranger such an important part
> of the Confederacy navy, which is always looking for ways to
> multitask it's overstretched resources.

I am officially holding my breath...

(insert blue emoticon here)

smile

3,250

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

John Lerchey wrote:

> Hi All!
>
> More items for the Starmada wishlist. smile
>
> Weapon modifiers:
>
> Extra Engine Damage - when this weapon causes damage, 1
> engine box is destroyed along with the normal damage.
>
> Extra Shield Damage - when this weapon causes damage, 1
> shield box is destroyed along with the normal damage.
>
> Extra Weapon Damage - when this weapon causes damage, 1
> weapon battery box is destroyed along with the normal damage
> (roll 1D6: 1,2 = a, 3,4 = b, 5,6 = c).
>
> That's it for now. smile

There's a reason we didn't include these to begin with... it's because the frequency of engine/shield/weapon hits varies according to the ship; and thus the effectiveness of such "extra damage" weapons would vary as well.

I could, however, allow a weapon that re-rolled engine/weapon/shield hits, and did additional damage if the re-roll also came up engine/weapon/shield...