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
Okay. So let's say that the next supplement should be a "genre-specific" sourcebook -- any suggestions?
Defiance! :wink:
Is this official permission to mess about in your backyard, Demian?
We missed 'Talk like a Pirate Day'.....that was the 19th.
:-)
Just because I let it pass without notice does not mean I "missed" it...
Depends...whose ships are you/we going to stat this time? I think you finished all the Brigade ones already, didn't you? Well, maybe not the Iron Stars ones...or does Tony have another big batch in the works?
Dunno that I'm looking to do someone else's ships -- I mean, we have the Brigade book, and as far as I know Cold Navy minis still ship with the Starmada data cards... so we've got mini support for the time being (although, the idea of a Full Thrust book might be too juicy to ignore forever... )
I was more wondering where the game should go from here -- and it seems like there's plenty of ideas about that...
> One could hold several design contests, and here's why:
>
> 1) The usefulness of counters. My friends and I play
> Starmada mostly with very very pretty (public-domain, now!)
> ship graphics culled from plug-ins for the computer game
> Escape Velocity, photoshopped for hexing and either printed
> off or moved on the computer screen.
Public domain, you say?
Where might one obtain these graphics?
> 2) The endless opportunities for new equipment. Though
> Starmada is excellent in terms of its balance between detail
> and ease of play/understanding, there are always those who
> want an appreciate more opportunities to crunch numbers of
> twiddle with more and more characterful ships.
True.
> 3) The possibilities of alternate rules. Does someone want
> to make, say, an extra-detailed fighter combat and design
> system? Let it be put in edited, black and white formulas
> here! How about a specialized rules variant for 'space
> submarine' style combat, dogfighting, or even simple
> alternates that push the existing game towards more
> cinematic, realistic, operatic etc. styles.
Okay. So let's say that the next supplement should be a "genre-specific" sourcebook -- any suggestions?
Well, it seems as though there's a clear need for some additional (minor) additions to the rules, but people clearly want to see more background material and ships...
Should we have another contest, like we did for Brigade, or what?
> My idea was add the different die type for the different crew ranks.
> All to-hit values and the like stay the same, but the
> difference for combat is:
> green crew: roll d4s
> regular crew: roll d6s
> Experienced crew: roll d8s
> Expert crew: roll d10s.
> How's that?
> ==========
>
> The downside I can see is that you're introducing different
> die types to a game that doesn't use dfferent die types.
True.
Also, with the expert crews this means they will hit 50% of the time at long range with a 5+ weapon. Yuck.
I'd always felt the best way to handle crews in Starmada would be in a manner similar to how Man O' War did-- with specific 'skills' or abilities that didn't necessarily run the gamut, but gave individual crews bonuses for particular actions.
See attached.
http://mj12games.com/forum/files/manowarcards_110.pdf
I was hoping that there was a simpler way to do it, but I needed someone elses opinion...:(
The way in which Starmada point costs are determined (multiplicative rather than additive, with that pesky square root involved) means that there is no reliable way to have 'swappable' components without re-computing the entire point cost for each configuration.
Sorry. 
> The biggest flaw of said background? The names. Somehow,
> despite the neat tounge-in-cheek manner of the narration, the
> cool storyline that slots into 'real' history in some ways,
> and even the heroic ideals of the opposing factions, having
> something called the Imperial Starmada battle the Donegal
> Alliance in the name of Mohjari or whatever seems a tad...off.
Huh... it never seemed 'off' to me, but then I'm likely too close to it to notice.
I will admit that the history developed after the factions-- so it was a case of trying to meld them all together as an afterthought.
> Ooh! Ooh! I'll comment!
>
> The detailed fighter sheet was truly excellent, and I have
> made some heavy use of it. The only problem? You're really
> designing 'mini-statships' rather than fighters, and the
> whole concept of fuel and range means one has to adopt a
> whole new set of rules to use it. However, both the idea and
> execution are quite cool.
Not to be purposefully dense, but how else would you handle it? In a way, you have to picture fighters as "mini-starships" in order to make sense of the construction process...
He might be talking about the VBAM/SX campaign diary I posted, but I can't say for certain
Bah.
And I thought I'd actually found a fan...
> In regards to the range of mines being 10 hexes, in our group
> this is more than appropriate. Mines are difficult to employ
> effectively against agile targets. For the most part, mines
> have been used to suppress/deny areas on the map where you
> don't want your enemy to move.
>
> We picture them as being small fighter sized vessels with a
> short duration booster on them to get them to their
> deployment location. Once there, they activate. In a way,
> they are a short ranged drone with an arming delay and a
> slightly larger warhead. It makes sense that they can move
> in any direction from the mining vessel. We do not envision
> them as a dead lump of explosive dumped out of the ship.
I like this interpretation of what mines are...
> One abuse of the mine rules (in Starmada at least) we've
> encountered is how many mines can you deploy at one time?
> This particularly was a problem with a stationary target
> (such as a star base) defending itself against mines. In one
> set point battle, one opponent designed a very expensive
> base, while the other opponent designed a fleet of small
> cloaking ships loaded with only mines. The ships cloaked
> into range, then appeared and deployed all their mines. The
> poor base (w/ shield 4's, PDS, armored everything, etc.)
> would of had over a 1000 dice rolled against it ... before
> that happened we all stopped and reflected on the rules.
Well, in theory, you could end up rolling 1000 dice of non-mine weapons against a stationary target, too... but I think it would be reasonable to limit the number of mines 'launched' in a turn to the number of undamaged hull points on the ship.
> Yeah, it get prohibitively expensive fast, unless you happen
> to have a very small hull and a very high TL for Special
> Equipment. However, in VBAM, this is quite possible --
> design 'escort corvettes' to do squadron duty with larger
> corvettes, and give them two PDS and minimal armament apiece
> -- mobile shield generators!
This all reminds me... nowhere in the rules does it explicitly say that you can have redundant systems; yet I see no reason to disallow them.
Should we write an official rule to address this?
> Not to argue with officialdom in any way, but perhaps if this
> is a rule that throws balance off a bit, allowing only ONE
> system to be reparied per Damage Control roll would be more
> reasonable. The larger ships, or less damaged ones with more
> Hull would still get more dice, and thus have a better chance
> of giving the rolling player a better selection of possible repairs.
>
> <shrug>
>
>
That's always an easy fix if you think the DC rules are too unbalancing... but I still believe that larger ships should get some advantage, even if only a slight one.
> I just recently purchased Starmada X in PDF format. I am
> *really* impressed with this game, and am hopeful that it
> will play as well as it reads.
Oh, it will...
> Anyway, one of my friends is scratch building some ships that are...
> light. They are structured kind of like the Eagle from Space 1999.
> Basically strut-based framework with a few modules like
> engine pods and gun turrets tacked on.
>
> What I'm wondering is if anyone has ideas on designing ships
> that are large, volume-wise, and thus can carry significant
> amounts of stuff (normal SU), but are ... well... fragile.
> What I'm wondering is if there is something that would allow
> you to reduce the amount of actual Hull boxes while retaining
> the Su, or something that makes the ship suffer extra hull
> damage whenever hits are taken.
The first thing that comes to mind is to up the tech levels so that you can fit more 'stuff' in a smaller frame.
But I've never really considered the possibility of 'fragile' ships -- perhaps that can be a disadvantage that is purchased during construction... hmm...
Maybe the reverse of armor plating; each time hull damage is suffered, roll a die. If the result is a 1 or 2, then an additional hull point is taken as further damage.
> Yeah, it does a bit -- it's also a bit powerful, to tell the
> truth. Taking ships out of the fight becomes almost as hard
> as taking them out of action, thus limiting your tactical
> option significantly. I'd suggest a piece of special
> equipment -- damage control teams. Like marines and security
> teams, they take up a set amount of space (say, 10 SUs each)
> and for each team, the player may make one roll on the DC
> table at the end of each turn. Thus, how effective the
> (powerful) ability to self-repair is depends on the amount a
> player is willing to invest in it, like extra armor or
> armored gun turrets.
'tis an idea...
> On an unrelated note, will we ever see more of the adventures
> of the Solar Federation? I thoroughly enjoyed the chronicles
> from the first few years...
If you're talking about the background in the basic Starmada rulebook (i.e., the non-Brigade version) then you and I are the only ones who like it, apparently...
On a vaguely related note, does anyone else find that Damage Control unbalances the game in favor of larger ships? We've tried using it a few times and found that big ships essentially shrug off non-hull damage with little difficulty, at least until they've been badly shot up. It's not totally game-breaking, but it is noticeable, especially with sever size disparities...strikeboats versus superdreads, that sort of thing.
I guess the intent there was twofold:
1) Larger ships should have more damage to repair;
2) Larger ships have more crew to spare for damage control.
So I think larger ships should get more DC rolls -- but maybe a linear 1:1 ratio is too much...
So... Starmada X is still selling strong, but it concerns me that we've seen nothing new for the game in a while. The problem is, I see little need for additional rules, and 'X' has plugged most of the holes. (That's the problem with being all flexible and customizeable... )
The question is: what do people want to see? What should be in the future for Starmada?
Basically, I always thought that the rules meant that you rolled one die per remaining hull pt. With EACH roll you get to pick ONE letter per group PER ROLL. For instance, a ship with 8 hull pts gets to roll 8 dice. Say they come up H,H,Ha,Eb,Sa,Q,Qb,H; you get to repair EITHER an engine pt OR a 'b' weapon (the Eb roll) AND another 'b' weapon (Qb), a shield pt (Sa roll) and 'a' weapon (Ha) and so forth.
My opponent was saying that while you roll 8 dice, you get to repair only ONE SINGLE system per turn regardless of how many dice you roll. In other words, you couldn't repair 2 engine pts, 2 'a' weapons and 1 'b' weapon within the same turn. It would be EITHER a single 'e', 'a' or 'b' hit per turn.
I just re-read the rules, and I can see why the differing interpretations would come up.
Anyway, you are right -- you may choose ONE type of damage to repair PER die rolled.
Game effects may be lost but it would provide redundancy, right?
If one gets destroyed the other is still there.
That is correct... but you have to pay "full price" for each unit.
I like mines, they add some interesting tactical variety to battles.
That said, I have to admit as many times as I have seen them used it never occurred to me until a recent battle that the range to launch them seems far too long.
10 hexes is longer than 1/2 the normal weapon ranges... is in the long range band of the 12 range and the medium of the 15.
I'm not sure I remember correctly, but I don't think the "launcing range" is factored into the weapon cost -- so you could reduce it to 6 hexes (or less) and get away with it...
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have been playing Starmada for the last week here in
> Jacksonville, Fla. I have had lots of fun designing ships.
> So far, my friends and I are using the Compendium rules. It
> seems easier for the new players. I have made Klingon type
> ships with 6 blasters and 4 strike missiles for my friends to use.
> They are speed 9 with Lv4 shields. The ships I uses are
> designed just as
> WW2 battleships and cruisers with Rail guns in FX2 or FX3 &
> Ax2 or AX3, etc.
> arcs for main turrets and Laser Cannons for the secondary
> weapons (PB&SB).
> Its been great!
Glad to hear it.
> I was wondering if its legal to place 2 Point defense
> systems on a ship?
> I designed a ship like that and gave it no shields (!) I
> have each PDS one on every other turn. This gives the ship
> the equivalent protection of Level
> 4 shields. While the first is on for a turn, the second
> recharges. It makes the ship resistant to Ion beams and
> particle beams also. And if any Marine boarding pods attempt
> to board, those rolling 1 to 4 don't bounce off, they are
> eliminated (I think that's how that would happen). The Ship
> printout looks funny because there are no shields. Its is a
> bit costly... But is this allowed?
Sure... why not?
Of course, in Starmada X, the benefit of having a second PDS is lost...
http://mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118
...the Starmada X Rulebook (non-Brigade version) is available as a POD book should you want it (although, to be honest, I'm not sure why you would want to skip out on the 70+ Brigade ship designs except for completeness...)
Anyway, I'm rather proud of the cover:
http://www.mj12games.com/graphics/starmadaxcover.png
Brigade has come out with a line of 6mm minis for the Pacific Federation (PacFed). A few questions:
1. Has anyone worked on the development of PacFed Starships for Starmada? (I am currently working on some designs, but am interested if anyone has.)
There have been no such plans to my knowledge.
2. Are there going to be a design and construction section for Assault Corps? If so, will it allow for futuristic weaponry and technology (i.e. adaptability to Brigade minis)?
But of course!
We have to finish the game first, obviously, but no MJ12 game would be complete without build-your-own rules...
I've attached the results as a PDF. (I made up fake ship charts, since it automates my calculations.) You'll see that while there is certainly variation, Light Guns "by the rules" seem a reasonable average.
http://mj12games.com/forum/download.php?id=40
[...]
Since you're getting strange results, though, off the top of my head, I'd probably halve the number of light guns that would otherwise be able to fire to range 3. This would represent, in some average ship, that while the 6 and 12 pounders might still fire this far, you probably are beyond the effective range of many 1,2, and 3 pounders.
Actually, the values of light guns are already an average of the 'real-world' capabilities... some of them, if modelled individually, would be able to fire even further than 3 hexes. Also note that the number of 3- and 6-pounders is 'halved' already -- in the sense that a 3-pounder is worth 0.7 LGs, while a 15-pounder is worth 1.3.
I'm gonna stick with my theory that the average gamer may simply underestimate the effectiveness of the lighter armament, especially when grouped in bunches like on the Russo-Japanese ships.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.