Thank you for clearing that up, Daniel. I totally forgot about that - Starmada shield totals should equal 20% of total FC shield boxes, with adjustments made accordingly where necessary.

This is AMAZING news! I hoped for Distant Armada. Getting Battleships as well is just...incredible!

Never mind winter - the General War is coming!

Recently, Daniel said that Distant Armada Unity was 90% finished. See below. I've been looking forward to it as well.

http://mj12gamescom.ipage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12777

The Captain's Log ship collections. I'm specifically curious about the Andromedan and ISC ships, since it will be a long time before they are officially ported to Unity. Also the Fed Mars-class and Klingon B-10 BBs.

Also, any news re: Distant Armada Unity?

In the (highly unlikely) case that a fast, undamaged ship might buy some extra movement or utilize the "no phasers" option and thereby end up with a speed greater than ten, I would just add the extra hexes of movement to impulse ten - i.e., have the ship in question move two or three hexes that impulse, whatever is needed. In practice, that will likely never occur, since the fastest object in SFU Unity that I have seen so far has a speed of 8.

When multiple ships are supposed to move at the same time, they go in order from from slowest to fastest.

Also, re: slowing down the game, remember that you will not be going through all ten impulses per turn. You can skip any impulses where no one is moving. Therefore, if there are two ships and one is moving at speed 3 and the other at speed 5, first 5 would move, then both would move (3 moving first), then 5, then 3, then 5, then both - six impulses total.

I like using the impulse chart for movement because it really makes the game feel like the SFU to me. Stripped of the constant interruptions to fire weapons, launch shuttles, or perform various administrative tasks, and pared down to 10 impulses rather than a burdensome and overly-granular 32, I have not found the use of impulse movement to slow the game appreciably at all. It also adds an element of spur-of-the-moment decision making to the game, where you get to react immediately to the sudden (perhaps unexpected) actions of your opponent. If you decide to give it a try, let me know what you think.

I haven't found that it slows down the game much at all - remember, in Starmada movement and combat take place in different phases of the turn, so you don't get to (potentially) fire weapons every impulse (or 4, in FC). I use the impulse chart with free movement - it allows faster ships the chance to position themselves based on how the slower ships are maneuvering. I tried posting it, but the board won't let me post a text file (?!?), so I'll make a pdf out of it tomorrow and post it then.

Great idea - that handily explains why the SFC designs are so different from SFB.

I think that the reason that people such as myself like Starmada SFU is that we have been gaming in the SFU for a long time (I bought the Designer's Edition in 1983). However, many of us felt the SFU had a problem: a bloated, outdated ruleset that demanded time-consuming micromanagement of each ship, which made games sometimes take multiple sittings to complete. Don't even get me started on how long damage allocation took...

We loved the setting however, and the ships (that was why I disliked FASA - imho their ships were often downright ugly). While I sympathize with you re: your implied issues with "the designer," I have to say, I'm a big fan of his work. What I always wanted was a version of SFB that was quicker and easier to play.

Then, Federation Commander came along. I jumped ship from SFB to FC, and although it was an improvement, too much (imho) of the intricacy of SFB was retained. Damage allocation had been streamlined to a degree, but it still took too damn long to allocate a 96-point alpha strike on a downed shield. And so, I still ended up playing mostly duels, not multi-ships-per-side engagements.

I knew of Starmada SFU, but had heard it was too "different" - especially Nova - and I was told I probably would not like it. But then Unity arrived, and I heard good things. I picked up Klingon Armada, liked what I saw, and I grabbed Romulan Armada as well. After a few games, I had internalized the rules to such a degree that I rarely needed to consult the rulebook. There's no going back for me. You gotta love a game where you can keep the damage allocation chart in your head!

TL;DR: I don't consider Starmada SFU Unity to be a "watered-down" version of anything. I consider it to be an improved iteration of a game and game-universe I love. The (very) few things I missed that were not included out-of-the-box (such as tactical maneuvers) I was easily able to incorporate. Starmada Unity SFU is the game I always wished SFB and FC were.

As for your designs: I think they are amazing! The issue of lack of interest might perhaps stem from the fact that there are no Romulans or other races besides Feds and Klingons. I'll bet many were eagerly waiting to see more of your work - I know I was!

In FC, optional weapons mounts on Orions/WYN/bases, etc., are handled by providing a list for what weapons are allowed on each mount, on a ship-by-ship basis. This list can be found in section 5L of the FC Reference Rulebook. I actually like the way it is done in Starmada - i.e. making the Orions a drone-and-disruptor race. Disruptors, with their ability to fire every turn, plus their overloadability (is that a word?), make perfect sense for them, as do drones, since they are fire-and-forget and don't evaporate over time. You don't need plasma to fight plasma, as Fed ships prove.

YES!!! Thanks for the update - that's the best news I've had in a long time!

The truth is, I'd rather wait for the Unity SFB pdfs to be released. Any word on when Distant Armada Unity is coming? I was hoping to put it on my Christmas list.