Two ideas:

1) the attacker (player inflicting the casualties) decide which side takes them, although the target still chooses which units.

2) the first player to declare on each side becomes the leader of that side, and gets to allocate casualties.

(I think I like #1 better.)

I dunno -- these names seem clearer to me, and there's also the MUST attack requirement: warring units can't coexist.

You'll need some rule for ties in numbers of bases and armies, but sure. This also allows allies to "take over" each other's systems without combat.

It must also be possible to declare an attack after moving zero hexes ("My frigates in Gamma Fallopia suddenly launch missiles at your base!"), but no special rule is needed if movement is "up to" three hexes.

Yes. The simplest rule is probably that the intruder declares first, then each of the other players in clockwise order. Each player could declare for either side.

It would be very interesting to see how this plays out!

On diplomacy:

Maybe the conditions should be:

WAR: Units MUST attack each other if in the same system.
TENSION: Units MAY attack each other.
PEACE: Units MAY NOT attack each other.
TRADING: Like peace, but also grants extra income to both parties.
ALLIANCE: The trading, but the victory points of the two sides are combined and they may win together. There may be a prerequisite to forming an alliance, e.g., the alliance's current VP would be less than that of any other single player or existing alliance.

This (or, in fact, the current system) might allow multiple players' units in the same hex. Most games don't allow this, because it makes ownership of a system unclear. One possible rule:

1) If someone has at least one base there (and only one player can), that player controls the system.
2) Otherwise, whoever has the most armies in the system controls it. In case of an exact tie, nobody controls it.

Alternatively, you could simply say that EVERY player who has a base or army in a system controls that system. This would encourage intertwined empires and make diplomacy extremely important. (Maybe armies and bases can't coexist with enemy armies and bases under tension.)

On placement:

Is there an advantage to having more than one base in a system? I thought multiple bases could indicate a larger infrastructure of shipyards, etc. That might suggest some additional rules:

1) At most one army or fleet can be built per base per turn.
2) At most one base can be built per system per turn.
3) Armies and fleets are placed before bases. (Equivalently, a newly-built base cannot produce an army or fleet.)

I like it -- considerable improvement!

Detailed comments follow.

GAME COMPONENTS

On the tile, I like that a hex either contains a system or doesn't. I think this is the right thing to do in the basic game. Terrain (e.g., asteroids) and planetary properties should be optional rules.

I don't really like the font, but I'll admit it's better than the one used in Twilight Imperium:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/393389/twilight-imperium-3rd-edition

(TI also has a nasty habit of making the board text way too small to read -- please don't make the same mistake!)

The background texture is consistent with the Starmada book covers. Will it look right when several of these hexes are placed next to each other?

Obviously, dark hexes fit in well with the theme. That said, if I'm going to have to print this myself, I'm going to quail at using so much toner. Could we have a "low ink" version, especially for prototypes?

Some more radical thoughts on the tiles:

Is systems-among-blank-hexes the right way to go? It seems like it's going to lead to a lot of wasted table space. This may be inevitable in the tactical game (there might be nearly 1000 hexes on the board, but only a dozen or so occupied), but that's because we're simulating Newtonian space. If the strategic game takes place in hyperspace, might a circles-and-lines approach be better? Put another way, why would anyone ever go to the vacant hexes? The only reasons I can think of are "to get to the other side" or "to provide a blockade"; if a hex is truly vast, blockading it might not be realistic.

Do the sectors have to be hexagonal? Rectangular ones would be easier to manufacture (both for print-and-play and the inevitable deluxe edition).

UNITS

Obviously given my previous statements, I think this is a big win: fewer types, no need for damage. This allows me to use, say, the wooden cubes, disks, and people I've accumulated as pieces. These'll be much more satisfying than thin cardstock chits.

I like that armies explicitly contain some space forces. This makes it reasonable that a force consisting of only armies can attack a fleet.

Why five players?

WHAT IS STARMADA

Standard text, but this seems like an odd place for it. Maybe just before integration with Starmada?

SETUP

Is an exploration component desirable?

One possibility for choosing homeworlds: determine player order. The first player designates all of the homeworlds. In REVERSE order, the players choose one of the designated worlds as their own homeworld. This motivates the designator to choose a fair distribution, because he's going to get the last choice.

VICTORY

The bonus point for controlling an entire sector (effectively the Risk continent bonus) is a nice touch.

ECONOMICS

The first-turn bonus might not be necessary if the setup were arranged to be fair.

MOVEMENT

This seems like a reasonable way of minimizing downtime without resorting to plotted movement.

COMBAT

Cleaner -- I like it.

Why is the attacker allowed to retreat with armies he can't carry?

Why does a retreat have to include all units? (When integrating with Starmada, I can see some units escaping into hyperspace while others cover their back.)

DIPLOMACY

Interesting. (I realize this has existed in previous versions.) What does this mechanism provide?

The difference between neutrality and recognition is unclear.

One problem in games like this -- even moreso in a campaign that might go on for months -- is that some players might get hopelessly behind. It might be nice to allow players to merge their empires under certain conditions (e.g., when their combined VP would be less than than of any other player).

PLACEMENT

Nice and clean.

INTEGRATION WITH STARMADA

There could be constraints on what ships could be contained in units (e.g., an army cannot contain any units with hyperdrives; every unit in a fleet must have engines and hyperdrives), but maybe that should be left for optional rules.

Oh, then get the book -- it'll blow your mind. 

That's what boardgamegeek.com is for. :-)

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/88248/wizard-kings

The block games are sort of like Stratego: your pieces are upright blocks, with the information only on your side. This gets you a fantastic "fog of war", because you can't tell which of your opponent's pieces are which. The block games take this a bit further: since each block can be rotated (back still to the opponent, but with any of the four possible orientations of the label facing you), you can have four levels of damage for each unit.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/108798/wizard-kings

If there are, say, four players, I'm going to be able to see some of the labels on my neighbors' blocks, which will be at right angles to me. It might work with three, but that would be the most (again, short of teams).

Yeah, I think you're right on this one.

What power do SDFs have that allows them to control systems where fleets cannot? Is it that they contain surface armies? If so, does it make more sense to separate the armies from the ships, rather than armies-and-control-oriented-ships from non-control-oriented-ships?

...but you have to do that every turn. This slows things down. Are there better ways to prevent turtling?

Yeah, striking a balance between simplicity and richness it tricky. I love the game of Go but it's not big on story.

I would argue for giving them all the same number of battle dice and just changing the prices. One parameter is easier to balance than two. When resolving battle, counting is always faster and easier than adding up a bunch of numbers, even small ones. If these units are all just abstract agglomerations of Starmada ships, it's easy to say that each one is of the same fighting strength. If the strategic value of their abilities can be balanced, making them all the same cost has an appeal, too.

Can you say more about why you believe supply and maintenance are essential? Are they worth the bookkeeping?

I guess it's really the ability to have multiple bases in the same system that provides multi-hit bases. In other words, where you have bases at three strengths, I represent the same thing by one, two, or three bases in the system.

Note the following from the "Light Bookkeeping" section of OoM:

I recommend it. Carcassonne is one of my favorite "gateway games", used to introduce serious gaming to people who know of nothing but Monopoly and Scrabble.

Noted.

That's meant to include engines -- good catch.

I agree. The benefit of long range weapons is not that you get to cover more hexes (you can only fire at so many targets); it's that you can get off a free round of fire.

In our current campaign (using the Simplest Possible Campaign System), weapon ranges only go up to 9. The only fighters are torpedoes, which are strikers with size 1 and speed 5.

This makes maneuvering much more important, and therefore (IMHO) makes the game more interesting.

If everyone can shoot all the way across the map, it's just an artillery duel. A very fast ship might be able to outflank a capital ship, but it's not likely, since a ship that sits in place can turn on a dime. Edge-of-map effects are also heightened by long ranges: a ship can put its back to the "wall" and still fire on most of the map.