26 Reply by Taltos

(9 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

VBAM is a campaign system. A year or so ago VBAM and Starmada combined to produce a system which links the two together. The K/E/B system is simply a way of differentiating between different weapons (for example, the E in the K/E/B stands for energy, and is the 'shield' against which all energy weapons have to penetrate. But a railgun would roll to penetrate against the K rating. You can customise your shields against a particular type, so you could be really effective against energy weapons, but pitiful against ballistics.

Which I love as a elegant idea of expanding weapon and defense customization / flavor. And it 'builds in' ideas like those captured in the PDS system description (point defense guns, sand casters, etc.) without adding additional die rolls (which I personally dislike).

It is a taste thing, I know.

Go to forum: Starmada

27 Reply by Taltos

(17 replies, posted in Discussion)

I can report that the festive occasion was accomplished Mr. and Mrs. Dan are now so in fact.

Much fun!

Go to forum: Discussion

28 Reply by Taltos

(10 replies, posted in Discussion)

I have dabbled in VBAM quite a bit over the last year to year-and-half, including helping with the VBAM Starmada Edition book some and putting out my own Starmada/VBAM setting book.



I do agree that the main book could be laid out a bit better.
OTOH, it is a different type of game from Starmada, requiring the ability to be much more detailed for full campaign simulations which gives it some heft. So while the VBAM curve does seem daunting at first, I have found it to be surprisingly simple at its base once you get into it. There are a lot of optional rules that can really make a game as detailed as you want. Sometimes it can be hard to separate those levels, though.

IMO, for what it accomplishes, I think it is pretty elegant and not too hard to manage once you get into it.

Go to forum: Discussion

29 Reply by Taltos

(6 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Zerloon wrote:
Taltos wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

A 2d6 mage have 7 ME, more or less... so using 6 point you can "cancel" 2 point... spending 8 me cancel 4, 12 me cancel 5 point... ok, you may hamper the opponent mage, but you must use a mage only for this... it's like warhammer scroll keepers, mage that not cast but only carries dispel scroll... IMHO is not very good.

The trick is the range restriction inherent in the FtM magic system. I have not played GW stuff, but my understanding is that range on the counter efforts is not a factor. Here, the targeted mage must be within spell distance. That can be quite a feat with armies in the way.

Zerloon wrote:
Taltos wrote:

Holy Fire and Rancor are the exact opposite of each other - same die shift affect. I do not see the issue you are indicating.

Holy fire raise one the die type when attacking undead.
Rancor raise one the die type when attacking.
Both cost the same.

I can suppose that since Holy Fire is Assurance and Rancor is Quietus then there is a fluff balance... but imho fluff should not take into mechanics.

As Jim corrected me, I read this too fast when I responded the other day. Since it is Undead restricted it should be cheaper.  So noted and I will take a closer look. Thanks.

Guess you can tell I have not played much Assurance magic.  lol

Go to forum: For the Masses

30 Reply by Taltos

(6 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Zerloon wrote:

And now, time is come for the spell factor  :twisted:

Good! I never get enough discussion on this topic to make me happy. smile

Zerloon wrote:

Animate (3 – Qu): I suggest to make a "standard" skeleton/zombies stats, and apply them for all animated troop. Is simpler, avoid confusione between piece, and give a precise effect.

Feel free to do so for your group. But the desired power of my skeletons may not match yours, so we were loathe to dictate. The strength of the system is flexibility, and I would hate to undercut that.

Zerloon wrote:

Apply Special (Varies – As, Ca, Cy, Qu): I don't understand this passage:
"The cost for this factor is the same as the cost for the special being applied. Round up in the event that a special has a fractional cost. No special may cost less than one full point."

The cost of the special as listed in the table on page 28. At one time it was meant to work as if paying for the special ability while building a unit, but that was too unwieldy. It appears that we didn't get the text cleaned up enough... nice catch.

Zerloon wrote:

Change Terrain (3 – Cy) : I think that should be forbidden "change terrain" in the middle of a unit. This phrases "Element that finds itself in Impassable terrain is unable to move." mean that with only 3 ME I can effectly block a unit for the game... not fair I think.

ah, but it would be for the game... the spell has to expire unless the Mage spend the same spell over and over...

Plus the easiest way to make it impassable is to raise/lower the hex 2 levels which guarantees a 6 ME cost. pricey.

Zerloon wrote:

Despair (4 – Ca, Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

smile I often wish it were cheaper. But, it certainly isn't the factor I choose to use the most, so I think after some play you will find that it is probably about right. Since the beneficial effect is random, and no effect in the case of a bad die roll. Could be wrong, but it has worked out reliably at this cost for us so far. If you find it too cheap in play, let me know, we can always discuss good tweaks.

Zerloon wrote:

Drain (4 – Ca): 4 Me for draining 1 me? And 2 more for 1? IMHO is too costly, maybe 4 for 1d4 is more in line.

Hhmmm, it has not come up in play enough for me to have a good answer to this one. Thoughts Jim?

Zerloon wrote:

Holy Fire (4 – As): should cost less or be more effective. For the same point you get Rancor, that have the same effect but on all target...

Holy Fire and Rancor are the exact opposite of each other - same die shift affect. I do not see the issue you are indicating.

Zerloon wrote:

Protect (3 – Cy): I think the target hex should become also impassable, or maybe you can't shoot througt it. Otherwise Shield is much way better.

You may have something there. Shield protects against all damage and Protect only works against ranged attacks, yet the latter is cheaper.

* Either the prices should be reversed,
* It is easier for Assurance mages to provide protection
* Noel just plain missed this.
* Or I am forgetting something.
* A combination of all this.

Zerloon wrote:

Wasting (4 – Qu): I think this should be a 5 point effect.

Now this is, my favorite factor. OTOH, I rarely cast it by itself, so its cost never feels low to me. Now, it isn't permanent, so the cost seems right on the surface. It is all about timing and having your mage near combat.

Go to forum: For the Masses

31 Reply by Taltos

(21 replies, posted in For the Masses)

underling wrote:

Point costing systems can be "interesting" things to deal with.
One issue that can really be tricky is that of abilities which reduce cost. I don't think they shouldn't be included by any means, but they can have unforseen effects. Like that of the archers example above, where their cost is reduced. What on the surface looks like a penalty (the Hesitant ability) really isn't, because there'e no intention desire to get them into close combat in the first place. So their cost is reduced, making them more effective than maybe they should be.
But there's probably no way around this.
Because the more flexibility you build into a game, and FtM has a lot, the more you allow for the chances of min-maxing.
So what you hope for is to provide as flexible a system as you can, and hope that players will use it, for lack of a better term, wisely.
smile
Kevin

Well said all around, Kevin.

And as much as Jim and I tested and retested things, I cannot pretend we hit all the combos that may stress the bounds, so there certainly are questions and areas to tweak left out there. I love getting all feedback as a result to help us out.

Go to forum: For the Masses

32 Reply by Taltos

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Enpeze wrote:

The german word "Pfaffe" ist also a old fashioned german word for "priest". So one could imagine what ammunition a "Pfaffbeschleuniger" has. smile

Now that is hilarious.
We need an artist's rendition, stat!

Go to forum: Starmada

33 Reply by Taltos

(21 replies, posted in For the Masses)

jimbeau wrote:

We played 3 times each with a unit that had the ability versus one that didn't and then made an educated guess.

Ah, that's right.
Either not enough, or too much, beer and scotch since then.

Go to forum: For the Masses

34 Reply by Taltos

(21 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Zerloon wrote:

So long, go ahead, this is my impression on skill:

Cause Fear: (1.25) I'll raise this to 1.50, see Fearless for more arguments.

Fearless: (1.5) I wonder why this cost more than cause fear, this skill work only if there is units with fear, fear works ever. I suggest to low this to 1.25.

There is sound logic there, and frankly I cannot remember back to the dark ages of why these scores were determined.

Zerloon wrote:

Forester: (2) I will lower to 1.5, is much more specialized than ignore terrain.

Ignores terrain is just related to movement (and probably under costed after many recent games). Forester also affects the ranged attack modifiers for shooting through trees, which is not to be underestimated.

Go to forum: For the Masses

35 Reply by Taltos

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

I admit complete guess work in my amateur attempt to make reasonable names for the German forces. My German contacts failed to validate, but I am glad they provide some fun, though the GW comparisons sadden me.  lol

Go to forum: Starmada

36 Reply by Taltos

(10 replies, posted in Starmada)

Inari7 wrote:

You cannot beat Armies of Arcana for fantasy, and you cannot beat Starmada for fast play starship combat.

.............Doug

Starmada being MJ12 - Here! Here!

AoA isn't... so plenty of room for debate.

Go to forum: Starmada

37 Reply by Taltos

(9 replies, posted in For the Masses)

Yay! Glad you are having fun with it.
Nice to see the pictures, too. That really helps.

I look forward to seeing the rest.

Go to forum: For the Masses

38 Reply by Taltos

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

I'd like to remind people that those battles have been between you and me so the only person who DOESN'T see them is me tongue smile

At the table true enough.
It matters to the strategic commanders (which are different folks, for those others of you reading this) having to send their ships into the engagement without knowing what could possibly happen.

jimbeau wrote:

But Since I am obviously the better tactician, that hasn't bothered me too well.

tongue

Go to forum: Starmada

39 Reply by Taltos

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:

Personally, I don't see the problem, but that doesn't mean it can't be addressed... smile

I just think the variable speed fighters (more so than just fast and slow) makes them feel more cool. It fits my asthetic, if you will, rather than addresses "a problem".

cricket wrote:

I'm wondering why the suggestion of +/-1 TL = +/-2 fighter speed. Wouldn't the following make more sense?:

TL -2 = Speed 8
TL -1 = Speed 9
TL 0 = Speed 10
TL +1 = Speed 11
TL +2 = Speed 12

I do not see enough variability there to please the aforementioned asthetic. smile

jimbeau wrote:

You may not select a custom fighter flight unless the ship class carrying the fighter flight has a modified tech level (or better) to support that custom flight.  E.g. if you want Shadow Fighters, then the ship carrying those fighters must have Shields TL of +2.

Customizations independent of Tech Level:
Small
Slow
Large

Shields
TL +2

<<<SNIP>>>

I see where you are going with this.... But I think the overall tech level combo-limitations on fighters may be a bit much. Or maybe it is that I do not see the same correlations between the techs and abilities? hhmmm...

Not sure. On the surface I like the existing VBAM tech approach, but in a pure Starmada game environment there may be value in this line of thought.

Go to forum: Starmada

40 Reply by Taltos

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

The way I handle this in my campaigns is when a new ship is encountered the player across the table is welcome to ask questions, etc. just like normal - but not necessarily able to review the sheet directly (so they can get size info, etc.) and then in the battle observe speed, weapons, etc.

At the end of the battle, both sides get copies of any new ship classes encountered - as output of battle comp scans.

This keeps some element of surprise in first appearances, but allows intel to progress from contact reports.

Probably not perfect. But it has worked so far for us.  smile

Go to forum: Starmada

41 Reply by Taltos

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

That is an interesting point.

However, any mods you do because of low tech have to be mirred in the higher techs too.

IOW, if each -1 equates to a -2 in speed for fighters, then a +1 should be an increase of +2, right? so if you have a +2 in engines, then your fighters get to fly 14 hexes.

seems like the situation would get worse with that kind of mod.

Not if you lowered the fighter base speed.
Consider:

E Tech -2: fighter speed 4
E Tech -1:  fighter speed 6
E Tech 0:  fighter speed 8
E Tech +1:  fighter speed 10
E Tech +2 : fighter speed 12

Go to forum: Starmada

42 Reply by Taltos

(12 replies, posted in Discussion)

grendeljd wrote:

Guess I gotta get busy and polish off the Defiance supplement layout, eh? See if we can't just take command over the entire top 10...  8)

Josh


Masses probably needs to get itself dusted off. Need to figure that out in conjunction with For the Macedonians release party.

Terran Civil War has a history of the post war chaos brewing...

Someday I will get my mind wrapped around those sci-fi combat notes.

And I still want to do superhero combat...

Top 10 today! Tomorrow the World!

Go to forum: Discussion

43 Reply by Taltos

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

jygro wrote:
jimbeau wrote:

Well, actually as i remember it was more like 80 total ships.

You are some sick people...

True.

jygro wrote:

Anyways,  I was going to add that starmada works well if there is a person per 4-6 ships.  I would run massive battles of about 40 ships, but there were between 6 and 8 people playing.

The battle Jim referenced was 65 ships - 30 vs. 35.  This took about roughly 12 hours, over the course of 2-3 days. 1 commander per side.

We fought a later battle in that war that was around 72 total ships. That ran closer to 8 hours in two sessions on one day. This fight was shorter due to one side deciding to exit the battlefield, stage left. Again 1 commander per side.

jygro wrote:

VBAM works really well to bring some economic feel for your space battles.  Adding little time for turns shouldn't be a major problem(turns take ~30 minutes tops for each player).  Also with the expansions, you can create NPEs (non-player Empires) which brings new sets of challenges.

Agreed, it is great for creating a sense of purpose for your battles and providing scenarios. They aren't balanced by any means, as the strategic effort works to keep the tactical situations... fluid. But the fun doesn't fade as a result - because it feels appropriate.

Go to forum: Starmada

44 Reply by Taltos

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

RiflemanIII wrote:
Taltos wrote:

There has been talk, off and on, of equipment that lets a ship carry other small vessels - not fighters, hull 1 ships - that may qualify for what this sounds like.

I wouldn't think so. "Re-entry vehicle" often refers to things like the pods used on the Apollo space craft. If it was something like an actual shuttle, then the Sulaco wouldn't have been able to  "Nuke the site form orbit, just to be sure."

Ah, I was reading 're-entry' as a ship to go down and come back, rather than a single delivery mechanism.

Go to forum: Starmada

45 Reply by Taltos

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

RiflemanIII wrote:

Hello. I was in the process of converting the Sulaco from the movie Aliens to Starmada, and I have all of the weapons and other abilities down, except for one detail of the vessel.

"The Sulaco also carries 80 re-entry vehicles for various ordinance, such as Bunker-Buster weapons and nuclear warheads."

Given that the Sulaco already already has three rather different types of weapons (Disabling Particle beams, Railguns, Long-Range ASAT missiles), what would be the best way to simulate a vessel having weapons that aren't  usable against spacecraft?

There has been talk, off and on, of equipment that lets a ship carry other small vessels - not fighters, hull 1 ships - that may qualify for what this sounds like.

Go to forum: Starmada

46 Reply by Taltos

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
Taltos wrote:

and so on down the line. AND any ships that turn their guns on the fighters are NOT targeting enemy hulls and become free targets themselves. (note: we play without all fighters deployed, but they launch darn fast when they want to...)

So? The ships turning their guns on the fighters are SUPPOSED to do that... they aren't meant to target enemy hulls. I've shown how a 37-point ship can take out TWO 50-point fighter fights EACH TURN. How is that not effective, regardless of whether all of them get range every turn?

I did not do a good jump spelling this out I guess... but my point was that as the fleet dies to the fighters you must decide "guns to fighters, guns to ships", or run. (In a campaign, running becomes a matter to carefully consider - save the ships and lose the system?) And you must decide.

Extreme example: The swarm sweeps in... a cruiser or two or three go poof. Your escorts haven't fired... but now you don't have anti-ship force. What do you do? Cause your enemy isn't using an unbalanced "all carrier" fleet. He has muscle, too.

cricket wrote:
Taltos wrote:

I will now fade back into the background.

Why? This has been a great discussion... big_smile

Cause I am tired. sad
I am not articulating well, and I can't share my mileage cause you weren't in the car with me.  smile

(oh, and yeah, the fighters were all "heavy" which limited a lot of the usual efforts to kill fighters... too many variables I guess... but the basic feeling I am left with is something is off, not a lot but off nonetheless.)

cricket wrote:

The point is, these (sometimes contentious) discussions bring out the creativity in the Starmada player base. Why would I want that to stop?

Oh, I agree. I just don't think I can properly convey the situation on the tabletops I have seen (my mileage has varied, as it were.). Dedicated AF escorts, interceptors, sunbursts, high shields.... yet the fleet was devastated by fighters. Again and again. Just too many variables on each side - heavy fighters, campaign forced ship dispositions and objectives, etc. etc.

Maybe it is the players, with a well managed swarm of fighters superior to any effort to contain them that goes after the fighters do.

My experience has been tainted by several recent battles. I am on the other side of the issue now and I am uncomfortable there, but there it is. :?

I will be trying out CPS, though.

Go to forum: Starmada

47 Reply by Taltos

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

My position on fighters is this: I saw a campaign game that lasted over a year degenerate into a fighter bash. Fighters became, in that game, THE weapon to use in a Starmada game.  You can rest assured that regardless of your defenses, 40 flights of fighters will make a Bad Day(tm) for anyone.

Which was never the intention, and made me a bit sad.

But there is no way around it, and no matter how many little fighter killers you make they will not all have range and the gang hits the first ship which goes *poof* (ample evidence of hull 10 ship in one turn so I can believe it) and so on down the line. AND any ships that turn their guns on the fighters are NOT targeting enemy hulls and become free targets themselves. (note: we play without all fighters deployed, but they launch darn fast when they want to...)

Anyway, my opinions of the campaign events are different after reading go0gleplex's post - which was quite good, and I think incapsulated the problem. As much as it pains me, I now accept the reality in a campaign - the logic just make sense (thanks, go0gleplex, much appreciated).

But in a off game, I could see the frustration being quite high.

jimbeau wrote:

It wasn't till the end that we found the wondrous Sunbursts

Was it that we found them, or found how to use them properly?

jimbeau wrote:

and I think we'll probably start building the anime spinal mounts, if I have anything to say about it (which I probably don't).

nope. don't like 'em and hence the universe doesn't support 'em. wink

jimbeau wrote:

Frankly, I'm sorry I brought it up. Seems to make people a bit twitchy.

Apparently, I wish I kept my yap shut too... I just thought it worth mentioning that I who had been a "hold the line" supporter have waffled. I do think they are somewhat under-pointed - but I will not house rule that major a change.

I will now fade back into the background.

Go to forum: Starmada

48 Reply by Taltos

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:

No, the x2 (or x3) modifier is applied to the offensive rating before the final square root is taken. Thus, 39 x 2^.5 = 55; 36 x 3^.5 = 68.

36% more expensive then now? That may be more accurate.
I didn't say before, but 75 feels better to me which is close.

cricket wrote:

While I have listened (read?) with great interest regarding the feedback on fighters in this thread, my own experience has been that they are spot-on points wise. And as others have pointed out, there are many different ways of countering their threat -- the most effective of which is to have your own fighters; which makes sense if you're associating them with wet-navy air power.

As I said Dan, I have been there with you for years. Recent games have sent me to the dark side of this argument. Your own fighters was also my own favorite tactic, but why force it into a BSG game? Why isn't there a good (really good) non-fighter fighter counter?

Go to forum: Starmada

49 Reply by Taltos

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

Steve, I agree completely - you have listed the best options to handle fighters as they currently are conceived. And I have beat the same drum myself on many an occasion.

However, it has been recent games with larger numbers of fighters than I normally have seen (against ships with much of what you have listed- shields 3, long and short range high ROF weapons, dedicated anti-fighter escorts, etc.) my tune has changed to the "fighters are too cheap or need to be weaker camp".  :cry:

Go to forum: Starmada

50 Reply by Taltos

(80 replies, posted in Starmada)

I do think fighters are under-costed. I don't think they are worth 100pts, but the current cost is too low. The benefit of getting in damage before any efforts to fight them off is profound - the advantage conveyed in the first couple of turns of contact is hard to overcome if the fighters are able to concentrate.

The CSP idea has potential (I like it), but it forces you to have and use fighters of your own. This forces games more towards a BSG feel rather than a balanced game action feel. Hence, I think fighters are too cheap.

OR they need to lose one or more of their umpteen special abilities.

Go to forum: Starmada