You are not logged in. Please login or register.
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!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by underling
With all of this talk about weapons this and armor that, I've got a request for a new weapon trait.
I'm not sure what to call it, but its effects would be as follows:
* One die is only ever rolled
* Hits on a 1+
* The weapon totally ignores everything, with the first damaging hit causing the target to explode into a bazillion pieces.
I think that covers it. 
I'm not sure what the multiplier or SU cost will be, but I'm guessing they will both be fairly large.
Kevin
underling wrote:murtalianconfederacy wrote:As part of my epiphany (see 'My First Ship' in Bourbaki Basin), I decided to calculate the dice strings from 1 to 50. Once done, I decided to type it up, and then post it up here.
Below is a PDF file, which has all the dice strings for integers from 1 to 50. If time allows (read: if I become sufficiently motivated), I might do the dice strings from 51 to 100.I'd hold off on that...
I believe these values are only good when the number in the first column is a whole number.
If you've got a fractional value for the first value, the number string will probably vary from what you've got shown.
KevinWhich is why I stated 'dice string for integers'--I'm not such a masochist that I'm going to calculate all possible attack strings...:P
EDIT: probably more snarky than I meant--I blame lack of sleep (caused by being up until three-four in the morning). This is meant to be for the 'normal' attack dice strings, which after hearing some round here say they'll be sticking to integers for BAS, seemed a reasonable idea. If you're going to be using pi or e for BAS, there's nothing I can do about that...:D
Yep, that's my bad.
I missed the word "integers."
I believe you're correct in that if you use a BAS of 1 you should get a whole number dice value for the first column.
Kevin
Would having a very small spreadsheet where all you do is input the first Number (whether whole or fractional) and it figues the string for you to then: transfer, or print, or put to a personal weapons table be more useful ?
I think it probably would.
For example, a first column value of 12.4 versus 11.6 will round to the same initial column value of 12.
But the die string each of those generates will be different.
I may be wrong, but I don't think you can always count on a whole number value for the initial column.
Kevin
As part of my epiphany (see 'My First Ship' in Bourbaki Basin), I decided to calculate the dice strings from 1 to 50. Once done, I decided to type it up, and then post it up here.
Below is a PDF file, which has all the dice strings for integers from 1 to 50. If time allows (read: if I become sufficiently motivated), I might do the dice strings from 51 to 100.
I'd hold off on that...
I believe these values are only good when the number in the first column is a whole number.
If you've got a fractional value for the first value, the number string will probably vary from what you've got shown.
Kevin
Vandervecken wrote:in the 5 armor that becomes 3 Front-Loaded armor, will it matter where that 3rd armor goes: Armor area 1 or Armor area 2 ??
The idea is to use the same ship display (divided 2-2-1) but just ignore the middle section (2-X-1).
The 3rd armor doesn't "go" anywhere -- it stays in the third section, where it was to begin with.
(I'm not sure I'm understanding the question... :?:)
Ah, okay...
Now I think I get it.
It's Monday morning.
You set up the ship display as normal, and then simply cross off the second section of armor, leaving the first and third sections.
But...
All damage is taken in those first and third armor sections before any hull is crossed off.
Kevin
cricket wrote:Blacklancer99 wrote:My reading of the initial post was that you were "losing" the third armor section ("paid" for as normal construction) for the benefit of shoving the second "forward".
Indeed -- the point is to allow for "ablative" armor through a special rule, rather than a separate construction process. You build your ship normally, print out your ship display normally, and just cross off one section of armor before the start of the game.
Ok, so I build a ship with 9 armor, 6 go "forward" and 3 are essentially removed from the design. This was what I thought initially and led me to say what I did about a "surcharge". Probably not the best word, but what I intended to convey was that you are "paying" for 9 dispersed armor, but getting 6 front-loaded armor, not just paying (less) for six armor total which are then placed in a single block.
Cheers,
Erik
So if I understand this correctly, three would go forward, with two of the three in the first section, and the third in the second section.
So the new armor configuration would look like:
5 / 4 / X
It'll be interesting to see how this plays.
Kevin
Well, as I read it, it reduces the total amount of armour by 1/3, but armour is hit first.
If we have a unit of eighteen hull and six armour, in normal circumstances you go through 2 armour, then 6 hull, and so on. Here, you have four armour at the start, then you start taking hull damage as normal. I think that the 'all armour muust be destroyed before hull' is off-set by losing 33% of the armour to start with.
This also could make sense in one of my settings where shields composed of two effects--the normal 'shield' effect which had to be penetrated, and the ST effect where the shields had to be ground down by fire to reach the actual ship...
Hmm...
That's not how I interpret it.
I interpret it as you get the armor you pay for, but it is now distributed over two sections instead of three.
If you actually lose 1/3 of the armor you pay for because of the front loading, then that would make more sense from a point costing perspective.
Kevin
What does this do to the point cost of the armor?
It seems like it would change it significantly.
Kevin
I was wondering if folks still make weapons in S:AE stats and then convert them, or if they're making weapons from scratch?
If you're making them from scratch, is there any sort of logic to how you assign a BAS?
Cheers.
I've been designing them from scratch since last summer.
I always set the BAS at one, because it's easier for me to think of the weapons and dice in terms of a one to one relationship.
Kevin
So with Nova out the door - will what the schedule for GF3?
-Tim
Good question.
The short answer is I don't know.
GF III was actually being playtested well before Nova, and has gotten to the point where the combat mechanic works really well. The snag is in the activation system. It works, but we haven't tested it in enough different sized engagements to know whether it'll work all of the time.
Currently we're using alternating movement activation by division (squadron), followed by alternating combat activation, also by division. We've played through various scenarios from Ulsan (RJW) to different WW I hypotheticals using a bunch of battlecruisers and battleships, and I think we're on the right track. This would also work with plotted movement, similar to the way Nova is set up.
It's just a matter of focusing back on the historical side of the dice column system, and playing through enough scenarios to know whether there are big advantages to the move first - shoot first, or move second - shoot second activation mechanic.
Kevin
:?: This may sound like a silly question, but exactly how do I add Drones (or fighters) to a design? I want to design some DDGs and am unsure how to add either of these to a ship design.
We don't use fighters, but I believe in the Starship Systems area you add "Carrier: (X)" if you're using fighters (where X is the number of flights you want), and "Drone: (X)" if you want drones (again where X is the number of drones you want). If you add fighters, you can then add any fighter traits in the "Fighter Traits" box.
For examples, check out some of the other users in the database.
Kevin
andyskinner wrote:Anybody willing to put a technology-specific tech level into their builder?
thanks
andyWhat categories do you want? Engines and Weapons, and Misc are natural, but do fighters still warrant their own category? Does each of the 3 defenses get its own, or should they be rolled together under one Defenses TL? I might be able to fulfil such a request after this coming Wednesday.
My XL sheet breaks it down into three categories: Weapons, Thrust, and Shields.
Though I'm guessing you could break it down into as many categories as you want.
Kevin
cricket wrote:Naevius wrote:Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?
I could see allowing scatter to counteract the -1 penalty vs. fighters/mines/seekers.
Hmmm. Would it be too ridiculous to only apply that at Short range when the attack dice would normally be at their greatest?
Cheers,
Erik
Yes (meaning possibly too ridiculous).
Wouldn't this affect the cost multiplier a little?
It seems like now we're at the point where we've got weapon abilities that only apply some of the time, and that some of the time now only applies to some of the ranges?
We may need a reference sheet simply for the exceptions.
Kevin
What about the armor rewrite...?
It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the rules, although you are correct that this was the intent.
If, however, one player groups all 12 weapons into a single banks, while another splits them into four 3-weapon banks, I don't believe it will "break" the game. It just clutters the ship displays unnecessarily.
Yeah, having multiple identical banks doesn't play any differently than having one larger bank. Most of the time we combine fire from those banks anyway, so it's still just one roll.
The reason our group used identical banks was so that more than one target could be engaged in the same arc. I believe this was before the splitting dice rule was incorporated.
If there's nothing "officially" prohibiting it, we may not worry about it and allow that type of design, should the players choose to do so.
Kevin
I believe the intent of the rules, because of being able to split weapon battery fire (and also hgaving talked with Dan about this...), is to not allow duplicate batteries for a single weapon system.
For example, I don't believe this is allowed:
FX6, FX6
It'd probably need to be represented as follows:
FX12
If multiple targets were then to be engaged by this battery, the rules for splitting dice would then be used.
Is this actually stated in the rules anywhere?
Kevin
Now, I agree with the fact that you have systems to counter ECM and shield but nothing against armor (either to bypass it or to destroy more than one point of armor per damage), but if nothing is introduced for that, why not...
Marc
I'm not sure I'm following you here.
Granted, there currently aren't any abilities that by-pass armor.
But there are several abilities that do more than one hit:
Double Damage
Triple Damage
Catastrophic
Volatile
Granted, Volatile damage may or may not, but more than likely will.
Kevin
I agree with you, and I think probably the pointing of Armor needs to be adjusted somehow, rather than the function. Also, I was thinking about the whole "we need an Ignores Armor trait" line of thinking. How about a trait that says something to the effect that on a successful attack, only the first point of damage/hit is "absorbed" by the Armor, with the remaining damage/hits going directly to Hull. Call it Penetrating? For example a weapon with Penetrating scores 3 hits on a ship with 3 armor boxes in each section and 5 Hull, one box of Armor is ticked off and two hull. It would allow the armor to have some effect, and therefore not be useless, but it would allow it to be "bypassed" or mitigated like some other defenses. No idea how you would point that though.
Erik
My preference on this is to not have any kind of "Ignore Armor" trait.
I just don't think it's needed.
That being said, since it's being discussed, I thought I'd throw out the following, which is similar to what Erik has posted.
The ability could be called "Penetrating."
When damage is caused by penetrating weapons, damage alternates between armor and hull, starting with armor; i.e.the first box marked off is armor, the second box hull, the third box armor, and so on. When damage is caused by this weapon and the last hull of a section is eliminated, a systems check must be taken eventhough armor may remain in the section.
In effect, this allows half the armor (if my thought process is correct) to be bypassed by this weapon.
Kevin
Oh yeah, you're right... it does specifically mention crossing off armor boxes. I guess we were extrapolating from AE, where marines cared not about Armor Plating. This way is rather counterintuitive, though... "Yes, let us take and hold this piece of external armor plating!" "Sarge, isn't this where we're most likely to be vaporized by incoming fire?" "It's called a beachhead, trooper." "But 7th Platoon has already taken engineering; we don't need a beachhead. Shouldn't we be inside, killing crewmen and taking the bridge?" "..."
On the one hand, it would be kinda neat if marines acted as an anti-armor weapon. On the other hand, armor doesn't need the counter.
I can't remember whether this came up in playtesting or not.
It does seem a little illogical, but from an ability and balance point of view, it's probably better to have to destroy both hull and armor.
Kevin
I took my Standard Design BB Arizona which had 25 armor and 20 hull, and is on my accound on the DryDock. On the drydock, I changed it to 45 hull. The cost remained at 422 and the speed I kept at 4; no changes except the change to all hull. This leaves me with 3360 spaces. This No-Armor, Big Hull version of my Standard Dreadnought is actually much less vulnerable to being taken over by Marines. I honestly see not much advantage to having armor, except that I like having Armor!!
I'm not sure I understand how not having armor makes a ship less vulnerable to being taken over by marines.
Unless I'm interpreting the marine rules incorrectly, marine attacks still have to eliminate both hull and armor.
It's just done in reverse order.
Kevin
Does anyone know if the drydock has fully implemented the 1.0 changes?
Thanks in advance.
Kevin
There's no reason you can't use the different tech level categories in Nova -- as long as the combat rating is computed properly, the game won't break.
I agree...
And I guess I should be paying more attention to the finished product.
My Excel sheet (from last summer) is set up with thrust tech, shield tech, and weapon tech levels.
Kevin
To expand a little on what our intrepid admiral explained earlier, the example in the book isn't the best at explaining how armor and hull works. A better example than the Majestic would have been... better.
There will always be three sections of hull, while there may be one or more sections of armor.
With the Majestic, there is no armor, and the first two sections of hull have six hull boxes, while the third section has five hull boxes. With respect to the rows, I think the ship cards are set up to have five boxes per row (of both armor and hull) in each section, so that's why the first two sections have two rows of hull boxes.
Kevin
And fighters as slow-firing seeking weapons seem perfectly reasonable; if only you could fire them at other seekers for that combat-interceptiony feel.
Fighters are the one thing we haven't experimented much with.
We played a few playtest games with the actual fighter rules, and decided they weren't really for us.
Our group prefers not to clutter the board too much with stuff other than ships, so we've kind of glossed over fighter effects. We do like the way seekers work, though, and when you throw on the expendable trait, we think that that simulates the launching of big waves of fighters fairly well.
You're right in that it doesn't capture fighter versus fighter combat very well.
We just use the short range (1/2/3) weapons to simulate anti-fighter batteries and kind of leave it at that.
Kevin
Ahh, upgraded the range to 9. That'd help, certainly; I think that's what I ended up doing with my later-gen AE conversions. Getting in, hitting, and trying not to die matches my experience in AE pretty nicely; cloaking sure helped in getting out intact
. What shields did you use?
I think the current version of the Shadow (Type A) has an ECM of 1, Shields of 4+, Stealth rating of 2, and a thrust of 12.
We've experimented with shields as low as 2+ also.
I've also come up with a Shadow (Type B) that sacrifices some offensive capabilities and adds the Command ability. What Command actually does, or is going to do, it still up in the air though, so the Type B isn't quite functional yet.
We simulate fighters differently than what is in the rules, basically by using them as seeking weapons, so the Eclipse probably looks a little odd. I haven't found it to be nearly as effective as the Shadow.
Kevin
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by underling
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.