426

(36 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Surely, take, for example the Boreal Large Horde

1 Horde Master (General) 84
1 Hero (Personality) 56
1 Hero (Personality) 42
1 Shaman of K'Syaad (Personality) 216
1 Warriors (8 Elements) 584
1 Warriors (6 Elements) 438
1 Javelins (6 Elements) 696
1 Horse Warriors (8 Elements) 1224
1 Zealots (5 Elements) 610
2 War Mammoths (Monster 3) 424
1 Yeti (Monster 2) 123
1 Giant Polar Bear (Monster 1) 63
4,560

Command dice
Horde Master 2d6/8 CmdValue = 54.4
Hero 1 d6/8 CmdValue = 22.4
Hero 2 d8/8 CmdValue = 27.2

Total = 104
# units = 13

104 / 13 = 8

8 x 4560 = 36480 force total

okay, maybe some of the values need a little adjusting, but that's how I envisioned it.

I guess the commanders force multiplier will have to go back to the drawing board wink

427

(0 replies, posted in Cheese)

sweet but slightly salty...

um...

http://www.gruyere.org/ecri/10d_9951.html

As of right now, I am freezing the point formula unless there's a huge outcry.

________________________________

Okay, Zerloon has me inspired today.

I rewrote the point formula. Well, at least I revised it. The basic idea is still there, square root of Orat * Drat but there's a significant change to commanders.

I assume and hope there will be questions. I can justify all the values mathematically, and for most I have in another post, but if you want to see my calculations, I will, of course post them for you to investigate. Please do check me out, especially you statisticians out there, I am not a professional mathematician so my calculations need as much help as they can get.

[size=200]Unit Cost[/size]

[size=134]Combat Value [/size]
(ORat * DRat * SpecialMultiplier)^0.5 ** Change back to ^0.5 **

[size=134]SpecialsProduct[/size]
Product of all Specials Multipliers

[size=134]ORat[/size]
(Movement + 1) * MeleeMultiplier + (RangedMultipler * Range ^ 1.25)

[size=134]DRat[/size]
DefenseMultiplier * Wds * MoraleMultiplier

[size=134]SpecialMultiplier[/size]
MagicMultiplier * QtyMagicDice * SpecialsProduct * UnitTypeMultiplier

The tables are as follows:

[size=134]Specials Multipliers [/size]
same as FtM I, we'll deal with those if we see huge disparities in practice. I can't say as I've ever seen one that really was too far off.

[size=134]Multipliers[/size]
MeleeMultiplier

1d4     1.3       
1d6     1.5       
1d8     2.0       
1d10    2.5       
1d12    3.0       
2d4     2.0       
2d6     3.0       
2d8     4.0                                               
2d10    5.0                                               
2d12    6.0                                               
3d4     4.0                                               
3d6     6.0                                               
3d8     8.0                                               
3d10   10.0                                               
3d12   12.0                                               

RangedMultipler

1d4     0.65     
1d6     0.75     
1d8     1.0     
1d10    1.25   
1d12    1.5     
2d4     1.0     
2d6     3.0     
2d8     4.0     
2d10    5.0     
2d12    6.0     
3d4     4.0     
3d6     6.0     
3d8     8.0     
3d10   10.0     
3d12   12.0     

UnitTypeMultiplier   

Artillery        1.25
Cavalry          2.00
Infantry         1.00
Monster Size 1   1.00
Monster Size 2+  1.25
Personality      1.00

DefenseMultiplier

    0      1     
    1      7     
    2     15     
    3     25     
    4     50     
    5    100     
    6    200     

  MoraleMultiplier  *** Significant Change here ***

     1+  10         
     2+   9         
     3+   8         
     4+   7         
     5+   6         
     6+   5                       
     7+   4                       
     8+   3                       
     9+   2                       
    10+   1                       

I flattened the curve here because I felt like there wasn't enough of a difference between a 3+ and a 7+.

MagicMultiplier
(1 + MagicRange) * MagicValue

MagicValue
   d4   3.75   
   d6   5.25   
   d8   6.75   
  d10   8.25   
  d12   9.75   

[size=200]Command[/size] *** Significant change here ***
I changed it back the the old way, again, but made Movement part of the formula.

CmdPointValue
CmdMultipler ^ NumberCmdDice * (CmdRange * (CmdRange + Movement)) + 1

CmdMultipler
d4    2.5
d6    3.5
d8    4.5
d10    5.5
d12    6.5

no pressure atl all, if you finish something, we may have to get off our butts and actually DO something smile

thedugan wrote:

What I'm saying is that the players have come up with all kinds of non-copyrighted materials that are inspirational enough to suggest new and novel things to think of as 'armies'.

What I'm saying is that we have our own players and they're damned creative.

thedugan wrote:

This genre of game is so cross-linked, ANYTHING that anyone comes up with is d***ed near impossible not have come up elsewhere. The difference is in combining ideological elements in an imaginative way.

Exactly.  I would rather see Intelligent, trade-oriented orc races than brutish ugly orc races.

thedugan wrote:

You, Jim, are the filter - if something is too close to something that you feel is copyrighted, you veto it - and explain why. There's Babylon 5 fan generated stuff for Starmada, as well as Trek, and others....

Noel, too, is the filter. I can't sneak anything past him, durnit.

thedugan wrote:

Coming up with something that NO ONE has ever seen elsewhere is difficult at best.

Don't care how hard it is, mister, excuses won't work in this man's army!

er, um... you know what I mean big_smile

thedugan wrote:

One such place to see lists is here:

http://www.btinternet.com/~alan.catherine/wargames/listlist.htm

There are 28 entries under "A" alone...."Q" is the only letter under which there are no entries.

So much for creative players.

Where the Qabal army? huh? where is it? Jeesh.

thedugan wrote:

The mechanics for HOtT are like unto DBA, and as such, aren't compatible  with FtM.

Not entirely true I can forward the conversion scheme I built a couple of years ago if anyone wants it smile

thedugan wrote:

Look up 'Hordes Of the Things', and you'll find (eventually) a lot of different 'army lists' - that ought to give someone an idea or two....

I'd like to avoid any obvious reference to HOtT for obvious reasons

432

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

RedShark92 wrote:

Plus I'm one of those people who "recoil in horror" from hexes so anything that makes it possible to play gridless is a step in the right direction.


Auuugh! I recoil in horror from anyone who recoils in horror at hexes big_smile

Anyway, I don't care how you play, as long as you have fun!

433

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

What, specifically do you not like.

and how does the vector movement system not work for you , if you don't like "cinematic"

That is one thing I never thought of!

Sphinxes!

ooh I'm all aquiver...

435

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

RedShark92 wrote:

As I see it, the main advantage of Full Thrust is that it's gridless and has two great movement systems to pick from. The main advantage of Starmada is it's versatility.

By combining the best of elements from each system you simultaneously avoid the weaknesses of each one.

Starmada? Weakness?

Someone pile up the wood and get the stake!  We've gt a heathen in our midst!

<faint>

Doing a new race is pointless if there no miniature to game with. I mean, "classics" race have many miniature, a totally original race not.

Sir, I beg to differ smile

One tenet we've held true to (in spite of my cockamamie schemes) is that FtM is not tied to any particular line of miniatures, you can use whatever you like. Use legos if you want smile Or, different colored poof-balls.

My eldest son Devin built an entire army of ninjas! Inspired by the ninjas you get out of the gumball machine.
see:
http://www.orientaltrading.com/application?namespace=browse&origin=ShoppingBagDisplay.jsp&event=link.itemDetails&sku=39/1170

We do have a fine write up of Dwarves already. Sorry, but you're welcome to try some other race:

an excerpt:

Anyone that meets them generally regards Dwarves as a considerate, polite, and cleanly race. Learned scholars who have corresponded with their Dwarven counterparts claim this is due to the nature of their underground existence and its close quarters. This habit of living has produced a high level of considerate attention to their fellows and desire to keep their halls free from clutter and grime. This grants the dwarves an intrinsic air of sophistication and careful manners when dealing with races that dwell above ground and away from these conditions. Unfortunately, this also makes the Dwarves somewhat sensitive to perceived slights according to their social rules and perhaps a bit gruff when they are put off by “rudeness”. This can lead to unfortunate social and political disturbances, thankfully of usually short duration.

so you see, I think it bows to tradition without being driven by it.

However, let the creative juices flow and come up with something, anything!

The races we have in FtM 2.0 as they stand are:

Alvernan (knightly medieval types)
Boreal (Northern Barbarians)
Azwetan (like zulus)
Dwarves (well, they're short and polite)
Wood Elves (you know...)
Grimmpule (Nasty little creatures. ick)
Haedun (Animal people)
Laxud (craaaazy lizards)
Orcs (grrr)
Man Orcs (Half-orc types)
Saxid (trading lizards)

Fill any Hole you wish.

Well, what do I look for?

I personally like things well-thought out, bowing to tradition without being stifled by it, originality, long walks in the rain, soft ice cream...wait, um...

You get the idea, though, almost anything goes, as long as it isn't a rehash of the same old Orc/Elf/Dwarf/Human business.

I am most inspired by the passage in the Orc description that reads:

There exists a common misconception that orcs are foul, mindless brutes that care nothing for the beautiful or gentle things of the world. On the contrary, orcs are foul brutes that care nothing for the beautiful or gentle things of the world. Mindless they are not.

Kind of defines how I feel about race in FtM.

Um, and I would really really appreciate it smile

You could come up with original races

anyone can do that.

You know we're very close, about 6-12 months

No, seriously, we need to be play testing of the current system and I'd like to see about 2-3 more races/kingdoms.

Points system is also in great need of an upgrade.

All these things are dependent on initiative and playtesting time we can devote to it.

arg I wish I had better news sad

441

(15 replies, posted in Cheese)

mmm cheddar

442

(2 replies, posted in Discussion)

20" Pill bug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_isopod

443

(14 replies, posted in Starmada)

I prefer the Starmada XXX edition.

mmmm wiggly bits...

444

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

When I read Dan's post earlier about "where does it go next" I considered it heavily.  Many days of solemn meditation followed. I came to this conclusion:

[size=134]There is room in the universe for Starmada Sourcebooks.[/size]

Several other throughts occurred to me, not least among them was "will Rachel Weisz ever make another movie".  However, three main points filtered just below the Rachel question, they are:

1) Is there enough interest to fund this project?
2) Where does the source come from to do this?
3) Do I have enough time to lead such a project?

I think I know the answers, and here they are:

1) I'll leave the first up to all y'all (in the form of a poll).
2) I think we ask permission to use ships from the Bourbaki Basin.
3) Probably not, but that never stopped me before.

Also, if there are books to be published, how many races in each, do we develop an entire universe of source material or just share our ship designs? Other questions will occur, but these are just off the top of my head for now.

Thoughts?


(oh yeah, Rachel Weisz is in the process of six(!) movies planned for 07/08 yay!)

445

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

I lament each day the passing of the Compendium Races

Lament lament lament

Oh, lord there was lamenting.

446

(1 replies, posted in Miniatures)

and a new camera to boot, is this a nice camera or what?

http://gallery.tablegamer.com/index.php?showimage=201

Those are 15mm Spug Artillery

The camera is a Canon PowerShot SD630 Digital Elph

447

(4 replies, posted in Game Design)

I'm wondering if there's not even more incentive to have overlapping arcs.  I can't imagine if a gun can be turned to face a particular point why it would ever not be used to put rounds into the bad guys out there too.

even when it's bad structurally for the vessel carrying the gun (i.e. if firing to a particular arc also causes the captain's rum to spill) why a sailor wouldn't just shoot first and buy the captain a drink later.

In other words, if the gun can point at the target, it'll be used to hurt the target.

I have also never seen a really bad game effect from the overlapping arcs effect either. I think that it could be addressed but that it might seem a little fiddly.

I don't know for sure, of course, but that's my feel. 'Course, I've been wrong before (e.g. the KEB issue)

448

(3 replies, posted in For the Masses)

nicely done

449

(1 replies, posted in Miniatures)

after a long hiatus (and after being hacked once by our friends from south america)

http://gallery.tablegamer.com/index.php?x=about

Most pics from the old gallery are posted, and some new ones, but no text survived the move.

450

(8 replies, posted in Discussion)

I'd say if you like the games go ahead and poist a review at rpgnow!

or the miniatures page

...or here

...or on a website somewhere

...or just call us and tell us.



we live for stuff like that smile