Skip to forum content
mj12games.com/forum
Majestic Twelve Games Discussion Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Welcome to the new Majestic Twelve Games Forum!
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!
Search options (Page 18 of 32)
murtalianconfederacy wrote:There is another issue--the flotilla example doesn't seem to work. I've just handwaved it as some typos, but it looks quite unusual to say the least...
See:http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1504
If the example is the same as page 11 of Dreadnoughts it will be in error.
Did you remember to give all weapons the (Star)ship-exclusive trait?
I kept forgetting, that is why I put the choice for all weapons to take this into account without having to add the trait into the shipyard.
Guess I'll have to buy a copy later to take a look at.
Paul
Nomad wrote:Just went an bought a copy in pdf from RPGnow, and am perusing it... I noticed that on page 15, no multiplier is listed for the Crew-Killer weapon trait. I'm guessing it's around x1.5 (since the expected value for hull hits goes from .5 to .75), but that's sort of an issue.
Also, the text at the beginning of Non-Piercing [X] on the same page suggests that it expands the Piercing trait... shouldn't it expand the Non-Piercing trait?
The Mod for Crew-killer is 2.0
I have not seen the Annex but both Piercing and non-piercing were expanded, +1 to +3 and -1 to -3.
Paul
TeknoMerk wrote:Where is the cell I need to change in the Shipyard? Maybe Small Craft sheet, cell M66?
Thanks
Yes you can reduce the fighter cost in the shipyard using cell M66 on the Small Craft Sheet.
If you enter 117 it should reduce the cost by 20%.
Any problems, let me know.
Paul
Maybe a half way solution would be to use Dual-Mode fighters and with strikers as the second mode, given a range of 3?
Perhaps this could be introduced exclusive for Dual-Mode "Space" fighters?
Paul
Have you tried using Open Office? Listed as running on an Apple Mac as well as windows PCs and the latest version should run the builder without problem.
You can find it at OpenOffice.org and it is a bit cheaper then Mac Office, $0.00 (free).
Paul
The Tech Range governs the "spread" of the values from 0.5 to 2.0 over the Tech Levels.
As shown on Page 42, a Tech Range of 2 has a spread of 5 where as a Tech Range of 5 has a spread of 11.
For each Tech Range a Tech Level within that range has a different value.
The higher the Tech Range chosen the more the maximum values are spread out.
The spreadsheets therefore calculate the new value whenever the Tech Range is changed.
You cannot change the Tech Range for different items on a ship.
Paul
Anti-Fighter Batteries can be found in the "Imperial Starmada Sourcebook" and "Dreadnoughts" book.
The Anti-Fighter weapons trait can be found in the "Imperial Starmada Sourcebook" and "Hammer & Claw" book.
Paul
Tha Ammunition calculation published in ISS & H&C is:(in your example)
Weapon SU: 48
x (Shots + No. of weapons) (6 + 4): 10
/ (10 x No. of weapons): 40
Rounded up
48 x 10 / 40 =12
Paul
Just about any stand can be had from here:-
http://www.em4miniatures.com/acatalog/MINIAATURES_BASES.html
check out the cheap mechs thread in wardogs for delivery comments.
Paul
MadSeason wrote:Ahhhh, okay. So does this mean that the cost has changed and those ships are now incorrectly costed? Or they were correctly costed for the time and so are good to go as is?
I would say that they were correctly costed at the time and are good to go as they are. Since all of the ships were made with the same official sxca there should not be a problem. (barring any print error of course 
.)
Paul
I can answer this.
It is all my fault!, well that and 0.1
Shipyard v36 had been updated to Iron Stars. Non-Piercing was expanded and what was non-piercing (cost 0.7) became non-piercing-1 (cost 0.8). That 0.1 difference in the W battery threw the figures out.
The official sxca still had 0.7 last time I checked.
So everyone was right - sort of.
All I can say is sorry for the confusion.
Paul
Of course, the (Star)Ship-exclusive trait was included in the shipyard.
In either of two ways:-
1) Each separate weapon can be given this trait in the drop down trait choices.
2) Cell C29 on the Nation sheet. Choose Yes and all weapons become costed as (Star)Ship-exclusive.
Paul
japridemor wrote:cricket wrote:I'm really confused ... I thought that's what we were talking about.
SAE Rulebook is at revision 1.
You're confused? I'm confused. I wanted to know about changes to the SAE Shipbuilder on the MJ12 website...not revisions to the rulebook. Epic thread derailment 
.
The current version (2.2) on the website has errors on calculations (discussed above) and doesn't support the newer rulesets (Dreadnoughts, Iron Stars). I want to design some ships but there is no spreadsheet out there that can duplicate the units from Dreadnoughts, Hammer & Claw, Iron stars, IS Sourcebook, etc. HELP!
And there I was thinking that I had the "shipyard" up to date.
I did include ALL of the options including Flotillas, dual mode weapons, dual mode fighters etc.
The official sheet has lagged behind a bit.
Paul
cricket wrote:Huh. I guess I never actually made the update. Don't worry -- I've checked the files on mj12games.com and at our print-on-demand site; nobody's got revision 2, except me on my hard drive.
Thanks Dan, I have added the paragraph to my print.
kehrer1701 wrote:I was over at RPG now, where do you see what revision it is, does it list it before you download it??
No it just shows Starmada AE, but if you log in on RPGNow and go to your account, there is an option to see if any pdf's you bought have been updated since your last download. (Just in case you may have missed any update notification.)
Paul
SAE Revision 2?
The version at RPGNow.com still shows as Revision 1.0 January 2008 on pages 2 & 10.
Paul
I just downloaded the pdf again and indeed the speed has changed to 12, still DMG 3 though.
However the "Revision Summary" on page 5 still shows original version with no changes noted.
I did notice that Teleporters on page 7 has been corrected to Orat +10.
Paul
kehrer1701 wrote:Where did you find ablative armor in X? I didn't see that option. Which product
Ablative Armor was an "In Forum" item which did not make it to any rule book.
See:http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1170
Paul
Now that is just plain weird!
Mine is Original Version - April 2008 pdf.
Pdf downloaded within hours of release. I have not heard of different versions.
Have it right in front of me and it has speed 14. :shock:
Perhaps Dan can shed some light on this?
Paul
This way?
Striker Coefficient=29
Size+1^2=25
Speed=14
Attack 4+=4
Defence=6-1=5
29x25x14/4/5=507.5
507.5^0.5=22.53
DMG 3=1.5
22.53x1.5=33.795 Roundup to 34
I had noticed the differing stats for the "same" weapons. v1,v2 or Improved may have eased confusion.
Paul
Edit, just noticed that if the +1 is not added to the flight size and the roundup is to 4 decimal places you get 28!
The number in the book. Math typo?
Edit: hit 4 instead of 5, end figure right though.
Lsutehall wrote:I have question concerning Dai-ken missiles.
Page 14 gives the stats for the Type 94 missile and says that they are strikers. It shows a capacity requirement of 28. Using the latest shipyard, I get a capacity requirement of 32. Changing the type to Seekers drops this to 24.
The Small Craft last division in the calculations has been put out a bit by Text/Number formatting. Should now work ok.
The shipyard now gives these strikers a capacity of 34. Also checked by hand and got the same figure.
Lsutehall wrote:3 of the Dai-ken ships are ok, but the other 4 are all a little out. The Goryu is spot on, but only when it has imp 2 main guns, not imp 3 (like the other guns with the same name). The other 3 are all out (5 points less, in all 3 cases). Very strange.....
Which ones? I just entered the KAMINARI details from the book into the shipyard and they matched exactly.
Do not forget that not everyone uses the shipyard and there used to be a couple of points difference at times due to rounding in the calculations. (I thought I had fixed that.)
If you think that there is a problem in the shipyard, please say where you think it may be and I will take another look.
Paul
Stingray, Stingray, da, da ,da ,da......
Oh wait a minute, that was done by John Treadaway in 1989 using FT.
http://www.salute.co.uk/salutegames/stingray/graphics/index.htm
Followed in 1998 by the free rules, Aquazone.
Oh well...
Paul
go0gleplex wrote:Don't confuse station keeping engines with maneuvering thrusters. They are two completely separate systems.
Aye that may be, but it's all gas ta me. Well at 2.00am it is.
In the tin can game, how much thrust is produced by the crewman that has been eating beans? 
I think that there is a lot of fuss over nothing. Stations are not a part of starmada anymore, although I can see no reason not to use one for some scenarios. Babylon 5 used one for Five seasons! Why would anyone want a big station? Maybe to call home whilst terraforming a planet, maybe because people usually like space (room to move around in without being cramped, not the almost empty place). A stop off place, R&R, Hotels, Training facilities or maybe they would just look intimidating when seen from the ground?
I thought every mother tells her kids "DON'T THROW ROCKS!"
Paul
go0gleplex wrote:Well...technically (oh god...there he goes again)...
Stations do have engines in the form of station keeping drives. Just little ones that allow them to adjust their orbits...or nudge themselves back into one after gravity tags them a little bit. Figure something along the lines of 5-10% of the SU cost of an Engine-1 value.
Weapons shouldn't fire any farther than they are designed. The revised weapon cost calculations should be taking all of that into account anyhow, so they just aren't that special.
I can see an SU bonus (15% max) since their size and (likely) geometry would mean a more efficient use of space for control runs, bulkheads, etc. But no more than that.
My two cents. :geek:
I do not put station keeping thrusters in the same class as engines needed to shift a spaceship (I seem to remember that a re-supply vehicle had to use it's engine to give one of the stations a boost), which is why i suggested overthrusters. Actually they were suggested back in 2007. The extra 50% space has been used in other sxca's since the Compendium.
I know that there is always a temptation to "get real" but "technically", it is just a game.
If it was based on reality I imagine it would be guys (and gals now) hanging out of tin cans yelling Yeehah and shooting at each other with .45's. (Is there a game there?)
Paul
BeowulfJB wrote:In the Conpendium version of Starmada, the weapons on a Space Station fired twice as far as ship mounted weapons, at no extra cost. Perhaps this could be added to SAE Space stations to make them also Battle stations/Space Fortresses. :geek:
It could, but I'm guessing that you would go for range 30 weapons! If some people had their way, they would be firing at the enemy before they even got in the same room :roll:
To answer some of the questions.
New rules, no, just restrictions / differences in construction.
I changed the shipyard so that making a ship for Starmada also gave a ship for VBAM. In campaigns these things become more important. Also, requirements for shipyards, repair docks etc have already been laid down. Primarily this is for those that use VBAM.
They are sitting ducks. Yes, but can afford 50% more weapons, longer range weapons for the hull size. Just consider them easy targets but watch it when they bite back. (or shed a bucketfull of fighters.)
In orbit without engines, look up, that is the ISS and it aint got an impulse drive even! They can have overthrusters if you are afraid they might fall
Scenario wise, they are a planets last best hope.
If you do not use the shipyard for VBAM campaigns or linked scenarios then just leave the option at No, you will never know it is there. That is the best thing about optional, it's ignorable.
Paul
Been trawling everywhere for details.
SU increase by x1.5
Drat x1.8
Armor Plating requirement
No Engines or hyperdrive but can be given Overthrusters to pivot in place.
Very big stations could be made by designing them in sections, attacking ships having to declare the section being attacked. Loss of a section destroys 20% of next in line? Thoughts?
Paul
Posts found: 426 to 450 of 786