3,601

(50 replies, posted in News)

spencercl wrote:

My other concern with this format is that the powers in-the-know will have to monitor all of the lists for questions instead of one.  This will slow the follow of information to us not-in-the-know.

Let's be honest, tho... this was happening anyway. THere's so much going on, that I for one can't keep track of all of it.

So -- it may be time to start designating "point persons" for each of the games....  :?:

3,602

(50 replies, posted in News)

CSAR Pilot wrote:

It may have been just me (yes, I am a rocket scientist), but I did not get a clear indication that you were definitely shifting everything over to this new forum.  Perhaps, as someone stated, the casual MJ12 guys are still over at Yahoo, but that may be that you didn't spell out the move clearly.

That's because I didn't announce that we were definitely shifting over... it just sort of happened. smile

Maybe I'll go make an announcement...

3,603

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

thedugan wrote:

Could we get a summary of the rules?

1) Boarding parties are "fired" like torpedoes at their target.  (Default of d6)

2) Range mod is +1 per 1" beyond the first.

3) Armour does not apply.

4) In order to attack, the line of sight between the attacker and the target must cross opposing broadsides (e.g., the attacker's port and the defender's starboard, or vice versa). In other words, the attacker must move alongside the target.

5) The difference in momentum between the two ships is an additional modifier to the target number:

0-2 = -1
3-4 = 0
5-6 = +1
7-8 = +2
9-10 = +3

6) A "hit" lands one boarding party on the target. A "miss" means the boarding party never made it to the target... it is gone, if not forever, then at least for the remainder of the game.

7) Once boarders have breached the hull (a "hit" is scored) roll for damage normally, with any "Hull" damage treated as a crew casualty.

Friendly BPs on the target ship may be sacrificed to avoid this normal damage -- e.g., if my BPs cause 5 hits on Matt's ship, Matt can sacrifice up to 5 of his own BPs to avoid the damage rolls.

Dan

3,604

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Sounds OK.  But I think that should be the last bit before we actually test it, agreed?

Oh, look who's talking. smile

Seriously, one final change-- if we're gonna allow BPs to cause actual damage, then perhaps we can dispense with the boarding combat, and just roll for damage at the time a "hit" is scored.

You can justify the lack of repeating damage by saying the BP was incapacitated/killed in achieving its objective, or that it needs to stay put to secure the engine room/gun turret, or whatever.

Besides, one BP shouldn't be able to rampage through an entire ship... smile

3,605

(50 replies, posted in News)

spencercl wrote:

Although I do not play any of the games other than Starmada, I do like reading after action reports for all of the games.  I do not know how hard it will be to find them in this format, so that may be a loss to me.

Not sure that will be an issue, since the forum allows you to look at all topics that have started since you last logged in. As long as we make sure to title our posts appropriately, I don't think we'll end up losing any information.

3,606

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Taltos wrote:

However,... if I got aboard and the fighting was in the corridors or the mess, that would be one thing. If I got aboard and secured the engine room....

I suppose we could just have hits from boarding parties rolled on the damage track as normal -- with damage applied to the hull treated as crew casualties.

Thus, a boarding party could blow up a gun, or knock out part of the ship's engines, etc.

Dan

3,607

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Having said that.....would it be feasible to have a boarding party that rolls a "4" be able to destroy a special piece of kit instead of targeting the crew.

Dunno. I'd like to have the current rules played a bit before we decided to make them more powerful.

3,608

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Taltos wrote:

But see, that reduces it to pure attrition.
And random attrition at that.

Isn't that what wargaming is all about? Random attrition?

smile

Since boarding combat is not the focus of the game, I do want to keep it simple.,

3,609

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

If you wanna make it a little harder to pull off, I would tighten up the momentum difference modifiers.
IE
0 = -1
1-2 = 0
3-4 = +1

With a base die type of d4, I think the momentum mods shouldn't be too restrictive.

Also, the ranges (0-2, 3-4, etc.) are consistent with the optional target momentum gunfire mods.

3,610

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

So, this is what I think:

1) Boarding parties are "fired" like torpedoes at their target.

2) Range mod is +1 per 1" beyond the first.

3) Armour does not apply.

4) In order to attack, the line of sight between the attacker and the target must cross opposing broadsides (e.g., the attacker's port and the defender's starboard, or vice versa). In other words, the attacker must move alongside the target.

5) The difference in momentum between the two ships is an additional modifier to the target number:

0-2 = -1
3-4 = 0
5-6 = +1
7-8 = +2
9-10 = +3

6) A "hit" lands one boarding party on the target. A "miss" means the boarding party never made it to the target... it is gone, if not forever, then at least for the remainder of the game.

7) Once boarders have breached the hull, shipboard combat occurs.

The defending ship gets a base number of d4's relative to the number of hull boxes remaining:

1-3 = 1 die
4-8 = 2 dice
9-15 = 3 dice
16-24 = 4 dice
25-35 = 5 dice

In addition, any friendly marines/boarding parties on the ship can roll their dice as well. Obviously, the attacking boarders roll their dice.

Each roll of 4+ scores a hit on the opponent, and eliminates one enemy boarding party. If there are no remaining defenders, then each hit scores a crew casualty instead.

3,611

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

How slow do you want them to go (what's the combined momentum limit)?

I'm not thinking of a particular momentum limit... what I'm suggesting is that we use the optional momentum modifiers from TMW, but apply them for both the target's and the attacker's speeds.

3,612

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

It's OK  if you don't think boarding crews are a viable addition to the game.  I'll just find something else to set the Italians apart.  It don't sound like yer in love with the idea, anyway  :wink:

I think it's a great idea. It just seems we've got a minor difference in concept that needs to be resolved.

3,613

(30 replies, posted in Miniatures)

thedugan wrote:

lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol  lol

themattcurtis wrote:

big_smile  big_smile  big_smile  big_smile  big_smile  big_smile  big_smile

Do not make me turn off the smileys.

smile

3,614

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

Think on the pirate flicks you've seen -- the pirates don't swing across to another ship when they've crossed its T.  They've always pulled up alongside.

Okay, see... this is where we have a problem. I think boarding actions in a game like Iron Stars would be reserved to finish off a badly-damaged target (if at all -- how many wet-navy boarding actions were there post-1900?)

I don't picture this as an attempt to simulate swashbuckling pirate adventures.

smile

3,615

(30 replies, posted in Miniatures)

steve @ brigade wrote:

Well Tony tells me that the first 6 are just about done, 3 Brits and 3 Russkies

Dare I say it?

Woot woot!

3,616

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

The reason for the difference in speed being the modifier is that the speed of the attacking ship, by itself, doesn't matter a whit.  Acting in a vacuum, its troops would simply step outside and inherit its forward momentum.  But if their target is moving drastically faster/slower, it makes the action all the harder.

While strictly true, basing it off of the difference in speeds makes for additional problems. For example, what if I have momentum 5 and you have momentum 5, then our difference is zero. However, if we're approacing each other, that's a relative speed of 10.

Also, I think it makes more sense for boarding actions to only occur between slow-moving (or stopped) vessels.

3,617

(4 replies, posted in Discussion)

thedugan wrote:

Oh, BTW, it's 'AYE', not 'eye'....

It's also "Nay" as opposed to "Neigh".

I think Mr. Callahan was being funny.

Ha.

smile

3,618

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

The only thing I would change (if it makes sense to you) is that a miss wastes the boarding party.  I'd treat them as expendable, just like torpedoes or missiles, and a miss sees them tumbling off into the void, having missed their intended target.

Huh. I guess I can see that. But maybe a bit o' both -- a normal miss allows you to try again next turn, while a roll of 1 means they're gone forever...

Dan

3,619

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

themattcurtis wrote:

There are other games that treat boarders as a purely offensive weapon meant to destroy systems, kill crew.

I haven't played too many Age of Sail games (which would be the only naval genre I can think of that allows for boarding actions), so I can't fall back on what other games have done...

But treating each boarding party as a separate "weapon" has some merit, methinks.

For example:

A standard boarding party is d4, while specialized units get d6 or even d8.

Then, make an "attack" just like a torpedo, except:

1) Armour is not counted;

2) Apply momentum modifiers for both the attacker and target;

2) A "miss" means the boarding party is not "fired" -- i.e., its tethers didn't attach to the target or somesuch, but they can try again next turn; and

4) A "hit" means the party managed to board the enemy ship.

Then, conduct shipboard combat during the End Phase of each turn.

Dan

3,620

(50 replies, posted in News)

phpBB is outpacing Yahoo! in our poll 9 to 1...

3,621

(42 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Okay... how stupid is this?

Matt Curtis asked me how he could model boarding parties in his Italian fleet, and I got to thinking about it. This is what I've come up with so far:

Assume that one ship has grappled another (how this happens is a different story altogether, and not suitable for a family show wink ). Men in vacuum suits now start swarming across the tethers in both directions.

Each side should roll a die, the type of which is based on the size class of the smaller ship:

VS = d4
S = d6
M = d8
L = d10
VL = d12

This represents the fact that, even though a VL ship will have many more crewmembers than a VS ship, the amount of carnage that can occur is strictly limited by the fact that the VS ship can only get so many into combat at a time.

The side with the lower roll loses that many crew casualties. For example, I roll 3, Jim rolls 5. Therefore, I lose 3 crew casualties.

Simple, elegant, and easily integrated into the current game (once CCs are introduced by TMW smile ).

Marines would then just be cannon fodder -- they can be sacrificed for CCs on a 1:1 basis.

It's late, so this may not be as cool as I initially thought... the other option was to roll a number of dice of a set type equal to the number of crew hits remaining on each ship, and compare them, Risk-style, to determine who takes what damage.

Dan

3,622

(50 replies, posted in News)

smokingwreckage wrote:

Web only and on a slow connection, whereby the clumsy Yahoo navigation, and massive batreps for games I dont play, are made annoying by the time it takes to load each individual thing I'm not SUPER interested in..... and then there's the ads.......

I guess I just don't have the frame of reference -- I rarely (if ever) go to the Yahoo! page, and just rely on the messages to come to me.

It's much more personable that way, IMHO, and already I'm missing it...

If I could just figure out how to make the listserv functionality in phpBB work.

Dan

3,623

(50 replies, posted in News)

Anonymous wrote:

I wouldn't worry too much about splintering the group, as someone above stated, other people are annoyed by posts about the games they don't play.

Well, I hope you're right. Of the 664 members of the Yahoo! group, only 23 have jumped over here.

3,624

(50 replies, posted in News)

thedugan wrote:

No kidding, 'guest posting' is just another way to say 'we love spam', and will only degrade the 'Mj12 Experience'....

Didn't realize that it was something I had to do manually. But it's been fixed.

Dan

3,625

(50 replies, posted in News)

KDLadage wrote:

It certainly cannot be any worse than the new Yahoo Group look...

Whaddaya mean? I worked hard on this look -- I think it's great!

  big_smile