3,376 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

cricket wrote:

However, I believe the breakpoint was 30-degrees; i.e., any gun which was capable of elevating to 30 degrees or more was given the plunging fire capability.

It's also important to remember that plunging fire was not a tactical decision on the part of a gunnery officer (i.e., No one said, "Hey-- let's do plunging fire on that target!").

Rather, plunging was the natural result of long-ranged fire... as the shells had to be lobbed higher into the air in order to cross the distance, they would come down at an oblique angle; thus the restriction that plunging fire only happens at long range.

It is theoretically possible for a gun to elevate so that its shells plunge even at point-blank range... but I don't think this was ever done... smile

Go to forum: Grand Fleets

3,377 Reply by mj12games

(10 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Louie N wrote:

How was it determined if a gun and do plunging fire?
[...]
Is it elevation that determines this cabaility?  In which case I would be surpised the casemate guns could to this over the turret guns.

Is this a typo?

How is this so, I don't understand please help?  :?

Nope, no typo (as far as I'm aware).

Indeed, the gun's elevation was used as the determining factor in whether or not plunging fire was possible. However, I have lost the original data, and all I have now is the resulting "Yes/No" list for which guns can plunge and which cannot.

However, I believe the breakpoint was 30-degrees; i.e., any gun which was capable of elevating to 30 degrees or more was given the plunging fire capability.

Go to forum: Grand Fleets

3,378 Reply by mj12games

(16 replies, posted in News)

So, you've heard about the latest joint venture between Victory by Any Means Games and Majestic Twelve Games, but you don't yet play VBAM or Starmada? Or are you a proud owner of the PDF copies, but need an excuse to get hold of the printed books?

Well, fear not -- now you too can dominate the galaxy with Victory by Any Means, the modular game of strategic conquest, and Starmada, the Universal Game of Starship Combat.

For a limited time, order VBAM: Starmada, Starmada X: Brigade, and the VBAM Campaign Guide, and save 28% over buying the three separately.

Visit our web site for more information: www.mj12games.com

Go to forum: News

3,379 Reply by mj12games

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

Taltos wrote:

In a word...

yuck

I think this whole topic area is very universe specific...

Okay. I think I'm not expressing myself clearly enough.

I'm not trying to pin players down to particular sizes for their frigates, cruisers, battleships, etc. What I'm trying to do, in a meta-sense, is codify the groupings of ships that we've already established in various optional rules...

The more I think about it, the less I think this would represent a change in any sense of the word -- it would just be applying the breakpoints across the game.

Make sense?

Go to forum: Starmada

3,380 Reply by mj12games

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

But this is a great way to start making it "official" isn't it?  I mean ship size calsses aren't "official either, and Mass seems to be more official than even size at this point (I mean it IS in the SXCA)

Actually, the size classes are "official", in that the breakpoints have already been defined in a couple of optional rules... they just haven't been named yet.

Go to forum: Starmada

3,381 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in Discussion)

It seems as though the folks at e23 "get" us... smile

e23 wrote:

June 23, 2005: Miniatures From Beyond Space And Time!
No matter the where, no matter the when, Majestic Twelve Games has the miniatures game for it. Three new products just posted here on e23 proves it.

Space combat miniatures just got wilder with Victory by Any Means™: The Starmada™ Edition, a rules book that lets you convert a campaign from one game to the other . . . or even mix them!

If you like your dreadnaughts a little more low-tech, Grand Fleets is the game for you, a complete naval miniatures game covering the era 1894-1939, including zeppelins, airplanes, civilian vessels (Titanic, anyone?), and, of course, warships of every type and description.

And if good old-fashioned orc-mashing is more your style, then For The Masses: Fantasy Mass Combat System should be right up your alley, a complete fantasy miniatures wargame flexible enough to handle anything you can throw at it.

Go to forum: Discussion

3,382 Reply by mj12games

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

I'd rather see something that gives mass a use
[...]
How do we  work something like this into the mix?

Well, so far 'mass' is not an official Starmada value-- it's just a little piece o' fluff computed by the SXCA. I'm not sure it will ever become official, as player's perceptions of how big each hull point is will vary...

Go to forum: Starmada

3,383 Reply by mj12games

(7 replies, posted in News)

Just testing something out... don't mind me. smile

Go to forum: News

3,384 Reply by mj12games

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

mundungus wrote:

Full thrust has three categories:  escort, cruiser, and capital.  An interesting rule in the campaign system is that no more than 50% of the ships in your navy can be in the same category, neatly avoiding extreme "one giant superdreadnought" and "thousand points of hot, fusiony death" strategies.

Not a bad idea... assuming we're okay with cribbing from FT. smile

So, perhaps a "pyramid" scheme, in which there cannot be more ships from a particular size class than there are in any of the lower classes? e.g., if I've got 3 L ships, I have to have at least 3 each from the VS, S, and M classes?

It might also make ship nomenclature easier to deal with...

Go to forum: Starmada

3,385 Reply by mj12games

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

hundvig wrote:

Sounds feasible.  Maybe an optional rule making larger ships easier to hit, or something like that?  Was that what you were thinking?

Actually, that wasn't what I was thinking, but it's a good idea... smile

I just thought that since we'd already established the breakpoints (via a couple of optional rules), they should be codified in case the sizes become useful for other purposes -- such as, for example, size-based to-hit mods.

Go to forum: Starmada

3,386 Reply by mj12games

(7 replies, posted in News)

Chad Wilson wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mj12games@yahoogroups.com

> This whole set-up with the mailing list and the forums is
> simply not working out very well.

At the risk of re-opening a debate that frankly isn't up for debate, I'll say this:

The forum/e-mail integration thing is working exactly as advertised. I never said it would be able to make all people completely happy...

Right now, if someone wishes to keep up with the discussions via e-mail, they can do so either by subscribing directly through the forum, or by being a part of the Yahoo! group.

However, it is clear that anyone who wishes to be a full participant in these discussions is going to have to register for the forum.

I know this isn't the solution that makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, but it is the solution we're going with.

Go to forum: News

3,387 Topic by mj12games

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

In musing about the Starmada rules lately, I've wondered if it might not be a Good Idea to label each ship as being of one of five size classes:

Hull 1-3 = Very Small
Hull 4-8 = Small
Hull 9-15 = Medium
Hull 16-24 = Large
Hull 25-35 = Very Large

(Iron Stars players may recognize this distribution... smile )

The reason is that we could then provide this as part of the ship description (e.g., "Klaion-class BC, Hull 6 [S]"), which might make it easier to remember certain size-based rules, such as spinal mount ranges and expendable weapon costs.

Thoughts?

Go to forum: Starmada

3,388 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

Well, as I see it there are two interpretations and Den can only give one as a ruling so here is what I see

1) Stealth Gen effects apply to the range bands no matter what

2) stealth gen applies to the ROF rolls only no matter what

which is is oh captain my captain

jim

Sorry-- I'm not yet willing to issue a ruling.

As the rules stand right now, Stealth Gen shifts the range band up one level, for good or ill.

However, I'm willing to consider changing this if appropriate after a comprehensive "real vs. effective" range debate...

Go to forum: Starmada

3,389 Reply by mj12games

(41 replies, posted in Defiance)

Demian Rose wrote:

1. A Starslayer army list with some new fluff and a few new rules, especially new options for the Customizer.

2. An opensource, stand alone Customizer with many more options.

3. A close quarters battle modification of the rules and Customizer for tunnel and city fighting.

My vote is for #2 (whatever that's worth... smile )

Dan

Go to forum: Defiance

3,390 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

jwhsu wrote:

When I think about it, Dan's second interpretation makes more sense. Targeting is dependent upon various factors which can make a ship appear closer or futher than they actually are. Range based damage, however, is a physical property of the weapon and should only rely upon the actual range of the targe. In a way, the additional complexity of different ranges, a la SFB, makes sense in this context (and besides, since you split To Hit, Pen, and Dam, it is very easy to state in the rules that the stealth generator only affects To Hit and everything else is left alone).  smile

I kinda like this...

Go to forum: Starmada

3,391 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

steve @ brigade wrote:

seems a lot less excting to me - particularly when you hve factors > 1

Yeah... without the ROF/PEN/DMG distinction, it would seem things would be much less fun. Also, that distinction would make the number-crunching very difficult for a one-roll system.

Just musing out lound, I guess... smile

Go to forum: Starmada

3,392 Topic by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Would anyone be interested in seeing a "one-roll" variant for Starmada, whereby the to-hit/penetration/damage rolls are all combined into one?

Just a thought sparked by a comment on the VBAM list...

Go to forum: Starmada

3,393 Reply by mj12games

(16 replies, posted in News)

rkhigdon wrote:

> Just picked this up, and on first glance it looks pretty spiffy. 
> There is some complexity but that's to be expected in a campaign
> system, especially one that merges 2 totally independent
> games the way
> this one does.
>
> A more detailed review will come later, but overall...Nice job!

I'm glad to hear it passes initial inspection. Looking forward to the detailed review... smile

Dan

Go to forum: News

3,394 Reply by mj12games

(16 replies, posted in News)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

So...

How much does it cost? (hopes the price is not over my budget...)

The product page is here:

http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/0113.html

Dan

Go to forum: News

3,395 Topic by mj12games

(16 replies, posted in News)

Majestic Twelve Games and Victory by Any Means Games are proud to announce the release of our very first collaborative project: Victory by Any Means: The Starmada Edition.

Victory by Any Means™: The Starmada™ Edition combines two of the most flexible space gaming systems of our day. This book provides the rules links you need to play a campaign using a combination of both Starmada: The Universal Game Of Starship Combat and the Victory by Any Means (VBAM) Campaign Guide. VBAM: Starmada includes:

* A comprehensive method for converting Starmada ship designs to the VBAM campaign system;

* Over 125 new starship designs, taken from The Wars Of The Boltians And Kuissians VBAM sourcebook and converted for use in Starmada;

* Extensive technology rules, building upon those already provided in VBAM and Starmada;

* 10 sheets of counters representing the forces of the Boltian Star League, the Kuissian Empire, and the Terran Union;

* New optional rules for Starmada, including notable starship crews, sensors, and specialized defenses;

...and much more!

VBAM: Starmada is not a stand-alone product; ownership of both Starmada X and the VBAM Campaign Guide is required. Possession of The Wars Of The Boltians And Kuissians sourcebook is also recommended.

For more information, please visit our web site: www.mj12games.com

Go to forum: News

3,396 Topic by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Kevin forwarded this to me... and I thought I'd share it with the group since it shows us to be VINDICATED in our approach to light guns... smile

cscholti wrote:

> In your games last year at GenCon, many comments were made afterwards
> about the secondary and smaller guns causing so much damage -- even more
> so than the primary guns. I know I was puzzled by it.
>
> In the latest Miniature Wargames magazine (UK), there are some fast play
> rules for pre-dreadnoughts 1880-1905 written by David Manley. ("The"
> David Manley, now of AA Engineering, creator of numerous naval gaming
> rules including Action Stations!, Form Line of Battle and Blue Steel,
> Grey Thunder.)
>
> Some interesting excerpts:
>
> "Battleships mounted  large numbers of small calibre guns, 6" to 8",
> both for use against destroyers and torpedo boats, and also to pour a
> wall of shells into the opposing battleline in the hope that the sheer
> weight of fire would make up for the low probability of hitting. Large
> guns (typically 12") were carried, but these invariably suffered from
> low rates of fire, and this meant the damage inflicted by them was on a
> par with, or often exceeded by, that inflicted by the smaller guns."
> .
> .
> "You will sometimes find (as we did during playtesting) that secondary
> batteries cause as much normal damage as heavier guns. Research will
> show that this is in line with the historical examples as the secondary
> guns typically had a much higher rate of fire and ships were as often
> sunk or disabled by multiple hits from small guns as by odd hits from
> larger guns."
> .
> .
> Maybe this is nothing new. Maybe it wasn't so much the number of hits as
> was the damage smaller weapons did. (So you modified the penetration
> chart, right?) But overall, a ship peppered by small stuff might be
> quickly disabled.

Go to forum: Grand Fleets

3,397 Reply by mj12games

(9 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Louie N wrote:

Thanks for the replays guys and very nice game system by the way.

Thanks!

I had my doubts with all the stuff Kevin made me put in (heh smile ), but I think it turned out really well.

By the way I'm reading "Castles of Steel" right now.  Classic reading for anyone interested in this era of gaming.

Good to know -- I read "Dreadnought" (the 'prequel' to CoS) and loved it, but my copy of Castles of Steel is still sitting on my bookshelf, the spine uncracked.

I need to start reading again...

Go to forum: Grand Fleets

3,398 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:

Thus, in your two examples, the inverted range mods would give a +1, and the range-based ROF would get one die (although the target is really at medium range, the SG shifts this to long range, with all the appropriate combat changes).

Having said this... I'm beginning to rethink my position.

The RULES would indicate that the above is the correct interpretation (but who are we to abide by RULES? smile ).

"Reality" would indicate that perhaps the range-based ROF weapon should still get its 2 dice against a SG-equipped target at medium range. The SG doesn't affect the distance, but rather the interpretation of that distance by the shipboard sensors. Thus, targetting effects, like for the inverted range mods, would be affected.

However, I presume that a weapon with range-based ROF/PEN/DMG has these effects due to some physical characteristic of the weapon, and not due to sensors or other "soft" characteristics. So perhaps the SG should not affect these?

Just wondering aloud on a Monday morning...

Go to forum: Starmada

3,399 Reply by mj12games

(9 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Kevin Smith wrote:

> Well, I'm the guilty party. smile
> But I was thinking that, in reality, most ships classes with
> offside turrets COULD shoot across the deck. But that there
> were a few ships classes which couldn't. There are one or two
> British classes which, according to my Conway's source book,
> could not shoot the offside turrets across the deck because
> of the likelihood of deck stressing.
> With respect to the Moltke class in particular, I don't know
> that this was an issue.
> So I guess I'd allow it.

Well, there you go, then. smile

Go to forum: Grand Fleets

3,400 Reply by mj12games

(9 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Louie N wrote:

I'm reading through the Grandfleet rules sold by Majestic twelve. I noticed in the stats for the Moltke class battlecruiser it showed that the side turrents can shoot to both Port and Starboard arcs.

I really thought that the side turrents on most Dreadnoughts could not shoot across the ship for fear of causing damage and such.

Dunno about this... Kevin did all the ship chart creation.

I assume he'll have an answer for you -- but if you think it's wrong, there's no reason you can't designate the side turrets as firing into ACE and BDF instead of ACDE and BCDF.

Go to forum: Grand Fleets