451

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

The reason there is no "maneuverability rating" is that a ship's ability to turn is based solely on how much thrust it takes to shift a ship's heading from one direction to another; i.e. if you're moving 5 hexes/turn, it takes 5 thrust points to change so that you are now moving 5 hexes/turn in a new heading 60* off of the previous course (the old vector, new vector, and thrust applied form an equilateral triangle).

(It's not truly accurate, as the thrust is applied over the course of the turn, instead of all at once, but more precision would require a lot more math.)

That being said, I'm not opposed to the idea of a maneuverability rating; I'm just not sure how it would work. Give me some idea of what you're thinking...

452

(1 replies, posted in The Admiralty Edition)

Don't know if I've mentioned this out loud, but I really like your supplements. wink

453

(3 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Marauder wrote:

BTW, will my favourite torp curiser the Kuma Class "Oi", be making an appearance in Awakened Giant?

We'll see... big_smile

454

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

You could certainly model it any number of ways -- I just know that many players have long wanted to see truly ablative defenses in Starmada for a while now, and this is as good a time as any to try it out. As it stands right now, armor in Nova is really just "extra" hull. It pads the amount of time you have between damage checks, but that's it. By "front-loading" it you are giving the ship all that extra time at full strength.

455

(31 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

We'll see... big_smile

456

(3 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

I think this could work pretty well. However, I'm not sure I would add a separate torpedo "phase" -- I would do this:

When a torpedo is launched, announce the target and place a marker at the firing ship's location. However, do not resolve the attack until after the target has completed its activation in the Movement Phase of the next game turn.

457

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

All good points. Maybe I should explain some of the thinking behind this:

First of all, this wouldn't be a change to the basic Nova mechanics, necessarily. Just an optional rule you could use.

Why would you want to use it? Well, I've grown to believe one of the problems with Nova is that it is too predictable when it comes to damage resolution. If I have a hull size 12 ship, I know that it will take a systems check after 4 and 8 hits, and die after 12. There's no variance. Further, I think the "every hit scores a hull point" mechanic contributes to the psychological belief that Nova ships are more fragile than their Admiralty equivalents (they aren't, but as you say, it FEELS like they are).

What this system does, in theory anyway, is retain the effects of damage, while randomizing the sequence. You might not make a damage check until 50% of your hull is gone, or you might make one before you've lost a single hull point. I like the uncertainty.

Finally, I think I made a tactical error in designing Nova by altering the definition of a "hull point". Ever since the Compendium, a hull point was (on average) equivalent to two damage points -- in Nova, that was altered, while at the same time the space provided by each hull point was reduced. When the dust settled, I ended up with a situation where one hull point in Nova is worth only about 0.75 hull points in Admiralty. That bothers me, and this system was the best method I could come up with to even the scale without requiring wholesale alterations to either the ship card or the damage resolution mechanic.

458

(2 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Wow... those shots are incredible! I love the ship bases.

PM me about the ship cards. wink

I have a copy of Klingon Armada (Nova) on hand; unfortunately, we are sold out of Romulan Armada at this time.

PM me and we can work out logistics.

460

(0 replies, posted in News)

Majestic Twelve Games would like to announce the release of the latest product in our line of Grand Fleets products: full-color data cards for the Battle of Jutland.

On May 31, 1916, the dreadnought battleships of Great Britain and Germany met for the first, and only, time. All told, 250 warships carrying upwards of 100,000 sailors clashed in the cold grey seas of the North Sea, with the outcome of the Great War in the balance. By the time the fleets separated the following morning, nearly 200,000 tons of shipping lay on the sea floor.

Now, players can refight this epic engagement with Grand Fleets ship data cards representing the forces of the British Grand Fleet and German Hochseeflotte.

Jutland: Data Cards covers every major warship involved in the Battle of Jutland, from mighty battleships to fast light cruisers: 109 in all. Each full-color data card includes game data and a silhouette of the ship. These cards are the same size as standard playing cards, allowing players to slip them into common deck protectors and track damage with a dry erase marker that will wipe clean after the battle!

Please note that this product includes only the ship data cards; no rules or scenario text is provided. The Grand Fleets: Third Edition Rulebook is required to use this product. For more information, visit our web site: mj12gam.es/gf3

461

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

Looking forward to it! big_smile

462

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Over the past few days, I've been working on some ideas regarding the inclusion of a "damage location" roll to Nova. Here are the results so far; feedback is much appreciated. smile

When using this rule, the ship display is modified as follows: draw a box around the middle group of hull boxes; these are no longer "hull" boxes. Instead, these are "system" boxes. Next, divide the number of system boxes in half, rounding up. Place a bullet (•) in that numbered box. Finally, place a second bullet in the last system box. For example, the Imperial Majestic-class BC has 17 hull boxes, divided into groups of 6-6-5. When using this rule, the middle group of 6 boxes become system boxes instead. Bullets are placed in the 3rd and 6th system boxes.

Note that if a ship has armor boxes, these are unchanged on the ship display (although they will operate somewhat differently).

Because this modification increases the relative worth of each hull box, all weapons fire is conducted with an additional +1 bonus to the attack modifier.

When applying damage, any armor boxes possessed by a ship are checked off before moving to any "internal" damage -- this is a change from the current system in which the first group of armor boxes are checked off, then the first group of hull boxes, then the second group of armor boxes, and so on.

Once all of a ship's armor boxes (if any) have been checked, instead of automatically checking off hull boxes, roll one die per hit: 1-3: check off one hull box; 4-5: check off one system box; 6: no effect (the shot was deflected at the last second, or struck a non-essential section of the target).

When you check off a system box containing a bullet (•), immediately conduct damage checks as described on p.14 of the Nova Rulebook. Once all of the system boxes are checked off, any additional rolls of 4-5 have no effect.

463

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

At the moment, I am unaware of any Chaos/Eldar conversions. But they shouldn't be too hard -- and I think Nova would be an excellent choice for BFG (moreso than Admiralty).

Also, yes, I see no reason why two sides couldn't use different movement systems, with the caveat that such a thing has not been fully tested, so there may be balance issues that are not immediately apparent.

464

(3 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Maybe I should put a note to that effect in the books...

465

(3 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Squadrons are considered "divisions" in the rules. We are just using the historical labels.

466

(2 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

No, between 1-3 MSMs may act as a division, or between 2-12 individual ships, along with a single flotilla leader, if desired.

467

(0 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Shared these on our Facebook page this week; thought you might like to see them here.

I'm not familiar with the Full Thrust background, so I can't comment on the "accuracy" of the conversions, but the ships look sweet. smile

469

(4 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

SOON...

470

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

And you'll be sharing the results, right? smile

471

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

From a gameplay and/or balance perspective, nothing seems blatantly wrong with it -- although it does seem a bit munchkin-y.

I'd be interested to know how it's explained "in-universe", though.

472

(4 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

The damage checks are meant to simulate the effects of the accumulation of damage over the course of the game; you shouldn't perceive that the gun damage and/or critical hit results are the consequence of any single event.

That being said, if the only damage inflicted was due to a torpedo, and the first damage check results in the loss of the main gun turrets, I can see it might cause some mental jarring. smile

As the rules are currently written, I'd encourage you to go with "justifying a loss of weapon system caused by below the waterline damage (magazine supply/turret/mechanism damage etc.)". But I'm open to discussion on house rules to more accurately distinguish between gun/torpedo/bomb damage.

Also, the critical hits are applied in addition to the "normal" results of the double/triple dice.

473

(42 replies, posted in Starmada)

One possibility is to do a hybrid system:

Roll for damage normally. When weapons hits are indicated, progress through the Weapons Damage Chart, starting with #1. When #6 is reached, restart at #1. You can make tickmarks on the ship's data card to keep track of where you are in the progression.

474

(42 replies, posted in Starmada)

Yes, order would become more important than it is, but not TOO much.

The reason I would argue for carrying over is that it's easier to track: just have a single sheet of paper and check off the damage results as you go. Otherwise, you need to track on each individual ship card.

475

(42 replies, posted in Starmada)

Thanks for the suggestions!

For what it's worth, I have always felt combat/damage resolution was a potential weak point in the game engine.

Don't get me wrong: the To-Hit => Shield Roll => Damage progression is pretty much what makes Starmada, you know, STARMADA. And in  the early iterations of the game, that was it, and it worked fine: one, two, three, DONE.

The problem has always come in when attempting to evenly distribute damage to weapons, which is when I added the fourth roll (sometimes) in Admiralty -- i.e. the weapon location roll. That, IMHO, became a bit cumbersome, especially when you look at some of the additional rolls that come in to play with certain weapon traits. And when I played the game, I felt there was too much down-time while my opponent resolved his attacks. (As a result, I may have allowed the pendulum to swing too far the other direction with Nova, but that's another story.)

Anyway, looking at your options:

1) The D20 roll is not a bad idea, but it does require switching dice in the middle of the process. With the D6 only method, you may re-roll a lot, but at least you're always picking up dice that are already in front of you.

2) I like the dice-less damage thing. Would you track for each individual ship, or for the battle as a whole? i.e. you attack me, and score three points of damage, so I check off one Hull+Engine, one Engine, and one Hull+Shield. When I attack you, do I start over at Point #1, or do I start at Point #4?