Welcome to the new Majestic Twelve Games Forum!

2006-12-27 18:06:21

themattcurtis wrote:

Whether a game is point based or not probably shouldn't factor in to this.
Eventhough GF is not point based, losing an important ship with one critical hit could still put a serious hurt on that side's chances of winning a scenario. Much as it would in IS.
So I think the effect in both games would be much the same, eventhough one uses points and one doesn't.
Kevin
I'm going to disagree with that.
I do think a system that's built around the possibility of a balanced pickup game, where points are used to ensure the two sides are on equal terms, could be thrown out of kilter by a mechanic where a single hit takes out a 300 point ship.
It's a pretty basic disagreement, though, so we're not gonna see eye to eye on it.

I think he's absolutely correct, having (or lacking) a point system doesn't really matter here. The scenario breaks down whether it's a nameless 300 pointer going up in smoke or the Hood getting sunk by a fluke shot. That happens, you might as well call it a game and start over. One-hit kill crits are problematic no matter how you implement them.

OTOH, what I'm asking for is more unpredictable and varied damage effects, not simply (or even mostly) a chance at one-hit kills. The wet-navy types I mentioned earlier felt that IS is too predictable in terms of how damage is scored, and they really disliked the lack of "continuing damage" (leaking, fires) effects. Whether they're entirely correct is questionable, but I have to admit I'd like the game better with a bit more variation. Certainly adding some chance of ongoing hull leaks or fires would feel more "naval" without losing the spacegoing aspect of IS.

FWIW, they *do* really like the minefield rules. Never seen a bunch of guys having so much fun figuring out how to drop templates on each other. Go figure...

Rich

2006-12-26 23:38:10

underling wrote:

It's there Rich, it's just not being used.

I put together a critical hit chart for IS very similar to the one that's in Grand Fleets.
Kevin

Pfui. Ought to be in by now, at least as an optional rule. Every time I try to convince wet navy gamers to try IS, the critical hit rules are one of the first things they ask about.

Rich

2006-12-26 23:35:19

brigadetony wrote:

The next batch of IS models (three Austro-Huns, the Volga and the Gamma) are due any day now ... as they have been for a while, I admit ... :oops:

That would be nice. You still waiting on the sails?

2006-12-26 23:33:22

Unless I've missed an update, yes, they do. Pretty darned good against them, too, since the fighter ability to halve shields doesn't work on PDS.

2006-12-26 23:32:03

Sounds like Missile Racks have the "No Range Modifiers" trait. In this case, Stealth Generators would prevent you from firing in the last 1/3 of your range (limiting you to 8 hexes if the base range is 12, or 12 if it's 18), but the die roll to hit at shorter ranges wouldn't change.

2006-12-26 16:07:50

themattcurtis wrote:

Gas equipped shells are the best DD killer. Or black smoke. The DD longevity issue/quirk is the only problem I have with the damage track -- and to me it's a really minor thing. And I guess I'm really not that disturbed when you look at historical wet navy battles where DEs (even smaller than destroyers) were getting hit by MULTIPLE heavy shells and not sinking .....IE look at what the US destroyers endured during Taffy 3's engagement at Leyte Gulf. Logic would tell you a single BB main gun hit should have blown those things out of the water -- but overpenetration kept them going far longer than anyone would have expected. Got a few books that describe that phenomena. AP shells passing clean through the little boats and basically causing only a fraction of the damage that they should have.
Why can't the same be true, to a degree, for ether destroyers?

Well, true. But by the same token, where are the "one hit kill" critical results ala the Hood? And what about "flooding" (pressure leaks in IS) and fires, both of which were major slow-death ship killers historically, but really don't show up in IS? The damage you take in IS is fairly predictable, and none of it lingers around as a gradually worsening effect.

Might be room for some rules expansion there, if the added complexity can be kept down to a minimum.

Rich

2006-12-22 23:11:57

cricket wrote:

hundvig wrote:
I like the d20 thing fine as is, but there are a couple of things I'd like to see tweaked. Nothing should be "invisible" on the damage track, there should always be at least a 5% chance of scoring (say) engine damage no matter how few MPs and how many secondaries/light guns you've got. Conversely, I'd like the game a lot better if engine hits knocked out a given porportion (maybe 25 or 50%) of your total MPs (minimum of one) rather than the current one-for-one ratio. The current ability to soak damage with your destroyer engines bugs me no end.
Yeah... I know that seems counterintuitive. But if we made hull hits more common on smaller ships, then the point cost differential would be even greater. Right now, your typical destroyer is about 1/30 the cost of your typical battleship.

Yeah, I can see the problem...but it still bugs me. The fact that it makes torps (with their d12-more-likely-to-score-hull damage rolls) a primo anti-destroyer weapon is part of it. I've seen Medium hulls built as torpedo cruisers acting as one-ship anti-destroyer screens a little too often, I guess. Wet navy torps were supposed to be for cracking capital ships, not sinking destroyers, although I'll concede that the latter did happen now and then. Torps also don't take size/speed mods on their attacks, do they? Or am I crossing game systems again?

2006-12-21 15:45:36

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Does he have ionic shielding? If not, just get one or two guns with Ignores Shields/Increased Damage. I know its not a very 'gentlemanly' approach, but having Organic Hull isn't either. I only use Organic Hull for some races, and they tend to be lower-tech than the inorganic ships.

Speaking for the Hive Mind, our collective intelligence refuses to acknowledge the anti-adaptive concept of "gentlemanly behavior" that you fragile monominds embrace. Fair play is merely a delusion brought on by your race's psychic isolation from one another. Plus, you're just jealous of our superior genostructure.

Tactics-wise, the key to fighting Organic Hulls is to "thump, not tap" and concentrate your fire. If you hit them hard enough to score one-turn kills, there won't be any regeneration rolls, and they've spent 10% of their SUs and a boatload of CR for that ability. Shoot to kill, never to wound, and if you don't have the firepower to wreck the smallest enemy target, it's time to start pumping your hyperdrive before things really start to go bad...

Rich

2006-12-20 15:44:00

I like the d20 thing fine as is, but there are a couple of things I'd like to see tweaked. Nothing should be "invisible" on the damage track, there should always be at least a 5% chance of scoring (say) engine damage no matter how few MPs and how many secondaries/light guns you've got. Conversely, I'd like the game a lot better if engine hits knocked out a given porportion (maybe 25 or 50%) of your total MPs (minimum of one) rather than the current one-for-one ratio. The current ability to soak damage with your destroyer engines bugs me no end.

The latter would require rather a lot of repointing, especially on smaller ships. Which means it probably won't happen. But I'd like IS even better if it did.

1) Crew Casualties. These automatically cause a hull hit, which doesn't translate easily (or at all) to this new system.
2) Torpedoes. These roll D12s for damage location, increasing the chances of hull and armour hits, something that can't easily be done in this new system.
3) Hull Victory Points. Right now, you gain VPs for every hull hit inflicted; again, this doesn't translate.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, you could get around all three problems by just declaring your "blank" and "X" damage track boxes to be Hull, couldn't you? Have Torps automatically score their first-third-fifth points only against Hull, and Crew losses always only against Hull...

Rich

2006-12-13 15:49:38

The last two or three times I can remember this subject being discussed, the best option presented was to just use standard analog clockface notation for your firing arcs. You can cover pretty much any combination of 30 degree angles that way, and everyone knows what a clock looks like so there are no codes to remember.

The only drawback is that you'll have to pencil in your real arcs on the SSD sheets, since the shipbuilder doesn't support the option.

Rich

2006-12-13 15:46:12

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Okay, maybe I should have expressed myself better. I meant more powerful, as in the optimal damage for a weapon increases. Inverted Range Modifiers I can understand--maybe a missile with a targetting computer that is more accurate as it travels, or something to do with a hyperspace weapon. The Inverted R-B ROF/PEN/DMG issue, however, is something that I don't have a realistic-sounding explanation for.

See my post above, where I gave reasonable PSB for each...

Rich

2006-12-12 01:25:10

What if you just decided on a SU cost per die of Spinal Mount damage for a given range and made the system a fixed (rather than percentage) SU weapon? That would be more in keeping with other weapons, which vary in performance according to the SU spent on them, not the size of the hull they're on. That way you could vary the strength of the spinal mount as much as you want.

Maybe next edition...

Rich

2006-12-12 01:21:14

Nahuris wrote:

However, at the same time, this particular ship design is nothing but the same thing... It is designed to use the turn based nature of the game, and the fact that they can continue to just fly away to give them the advantage.

Who actually plays with turn limits? Outside of specialised scenarios or convention events where things have to end at a certain time, I can't remember the last time I played Starmada (or any other starship combat game) with a set turn limit. We usually play till one side or the other gives up, either by acknowledging they're doomed and "striking their colors" or by disengaging by distance or hyperdrive if they're able.

Different standards, I guess. Never regarded the turn limits in the rulebook as having any validity in a "real" fight.

Rich

2006-12-11 15:23:19

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

I've never really heard or read of any weapon in SF that has a weapon getting more powerful as it goes along (I've sometimes thought of something like flinging a reactor thats meant to go critical, so the longer its in space the more damage it is going to cause), and I'd reckon any such weapon would be so large it would need to be mounted along the axis of a ship.

It's not at all difficult to justify Inverted DAM, any continuously-accelerating kinetic-kill weapon should become more lethal the farther it travels.

Inverted RoF is a little trickier, but a "shotgun" style weapon might deserve it as a trait (possibly along with standard Range-Based Damage, so you'd hit more often at long range but each hit would be weaker).

Inverted PEN could be a weapon that adapts to the target's defenses, becoming more effective as its travel (and adaptation) time increases.

No need for them to be large, really. At least no larger than a 2.4-2.7 multiplier will make them...

Rich

2006-12-10 20:35:05

Nahuris wrote:

My friends and I have been discussing this, and we've found a couple of ideas that might work.

There are lots of ways to counter ships built to play keep-away, the tactic isn't unbeatable by any means. But it is a sensible ship design for ships that are trying to maximize the utility of Inverted weapons, and you should always playtest with the most "broken" combos possible. Test to destruction, you know.

One, no floating table.... if he goes off the edge of the board, then he is fleeing the battle, and forfeits victory points to the other fleet.

I still maintain that, barring some kind of special scenario rule (like an "arena" fight, or a vital fixed objective nearby) fixed tables are simply ludicrous in a spaceship combat game.

Over in the Bourbaki Basin, someone made a weapon that has the fire arcs CD ... at first, I was trying to figure out how a weapon could only fire left or right...

If you're not specifically using the "roll ships" option to allow you to flip your port and starboard arcs, *any* broadside weapon could be reasonably mounted as a C+D arc. The ship would simply spin on its main axis to bring weapons to bear in that case. You could even use that trick selectively alongside the "roll ship" rule, with small ships having C+D arc broadsides and larger ones mounting guns that are only C or D, representing their inability to roll as swiftly as a smaller craft. Handy for Honor Harrington-style settings.

Rich

2006-12-09 17:04:31

japridemor wrote:

In the examples above, I ran the vanilla ships five times and my opponent ran the inverted ships. Then we switched for another five games. Eight of the games the inverted ships tried to back up to keep the vanilla ships at long range. As the ships all had 5 engines, the inverted ships could only back up 2 hexes a turn (maybe we should try speed 6?, that will drop the closure rate to 2 hexes per turn), so the vanilla ships closed by 3 hexes each turn. Maneuver to range 19, close to 16 the next turn then 13 and then you are at medium the next turn, taking only two turns of his nasty x3 shooting at long range. Don't forget that with a SU mod of x3, you are doing just as much damage to him.

True. Changing engines to 6 won't affect the closure rate, though. Both sides will be moving an extra hex, remember.

If we get the time (it took us two weeks to play ten games) we'll try it with the inverted ships firing through arcs EF so they can fly straight away and keep the vanilla ships in arc. I can still see a way to force medium range though. Using pre-plotted movement, your opponent never knows if you are going to follow him or just sit there. If he plots to back up and get you in range, he doesn't know if that's when you plotted to close. Or, you can split your forces and maneuver to either side, while staying out of range (the stern chase is a long chase). Normally, your opponent would then turn to try and crush you in detail, one ship at a time, but with EF arc weapons he loses the ability to close and kill anyone. I think it would be a long battle but again, it shouldn't be too hard to close into medium range.

I think you're overestimating the ease of closing on an EF arc ship. He'll always sprint away at full speed if you're in range at the start of the turn, and if you don't close, the next turn he'll shift into park, since the net result will be no range closure. If you don't close, it's not really hurting him, and it's not helping you. Of course if the vanilla fleet has spinal mounts (and therefore a range advantage) that will change the dynamic a lot...

Trying to flank might be possible, but if he's careful about it, he can avoid one part of your fleet while still intermitently getting shots on the other. This is where having an even-numbered movement is more important, since it slightly increases his ability to attack in reverse when needed.

As you said, likely to be a long and possibly frustrating game, at least assuming a floating map...and what space game belongs on a fixed map, outside of tournament SFB?

I'll agree that 3.0 is probably still too high a mod, but 2.4 might be a nudge too low for a ship built specifically to hold the range open...especially if you allow rear arc spinals as well.

2006-12-08 15:34:07

japridemor wrote:

I completed my tenth game last night between two fleets, one equipped with Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapons and one equipped with plain vanilla weapons. Other than the weapons SU mods, the ships were identical. Each fleet had three ships.
The two designs were as follows:
Inverted Weapon Class Cruiser of the Conjectural Navy ( ? )
Mass: 90.7 KmT, Crew: 315, TL: E:0 W:0 D:0 Q:0
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 4 3 2 1
Defenses: K: 1 | E: 1 | B: 1
[α] Inverted Laser [6/12/18, 3+ 1/1/1, Energy, Inverted Range-Based DMG]
AB
Warp Drive [O]
1[Hα], 2[E], 3[H], 4[D], 5[H], 6[Q]
VBAM Stats
Cost: 7, Maint: 4/2, DV: 6, AS: 4, AF: 0, CR: 6, CC: 3, Base: 0, Spd: 5, Warp: Y, Notes:
Starmada Imperial Stars Edition v1.065
Vanilla Bean Class Cruiser of the Conjectural Navy ( 69 )
Mass: 90.7 KmT, Crew: 345, TL: E:0 W:0 D:0 Q:0
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 4 3 2 1
Defenses: K: 1 | E: 1 | B: 1
[α] Vanilla Laser [6/12/18, 3+ 1/1/1, Energy]
AB, AB, AB
Warp Drive [O]
1[Hα], 2[E], 3[H], 4[D], 5[H], 6[Q]
VBAM Stats
Cost: 7, Maint: 4/2, DV: 6, AS: 4, AF: 0, CR: 6, CC: 3, Base: 0, Spd: 5, Warp: Y, Notes:
Starmada Imperial Stars Edition v1.065
The Vanilla Bean cruisers won eight of the ten battles. During one battle, the Vanilla Bean cruisers were afflicted by horrible die rolling and in one battle they were just plain out maneuvered (congrats to Rob). They had equivalent firepower at long range, 50% more firepower at medium and three times the firepower at short range. To top it off they were marginally more survivable, needing more hits to kill due to their multiple weapons. This leads me to believe that an SU Mod of 3.0 is too high for the Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapons. I agree that 2.1 is too low but I haven't played enough with that SU mod to tell for sure. After these battles, my gut is saying the appropriate mod is around 2.4 ish.

Interesting. What were the tactics employed by the two fleets? I assume the Vanillas were trying to close while the Inverts were backing away at two hexes/turn? Have you tried the obvious variation where the Invert ship design mounts the gun to the rear 120 arc rather than frontally? It's all about closing rates in this fight.

Rich

2006-12-07 19:39:45

Interesting to see how well Battlefleet Gothic's scenarios and campaign rules adapt for other games. Always thought the "strategic" aspects of BFG were its strongest point.

2006-11-30 21:27:30

thedugan wrote:

hundvig wrote:
Real Estate for a mature spacefaring culture is measured in starcity hulls, not planets. An attack on enemy population/infrastructure will be more of a convoy fight than a planetary assault.
That argument goes back to O'Neill, and I'm very much in agreement with it. Ringworld anyone? :-)

Only if it's equipped with a Q3 hyperdrive. As Ringworld's Children proved, even megastructures are disturbingly fragile to weapons of comparable tech levels. Mobility is the key here, I think.

hundvig wrote:

Doesn't match very many traditional settings (Ian Banks' Culture novels, perhaps the Gateway/Heechee books or Wright's Golden Age as adolescent civilizations), but most traditional settings are kind of myopic about the implications of their technologies.

Frighteningly, I just realized that both the Tyranid and Craftworld Eldar in Warhammer 40K are good examples of what I'm talking about too. Who'd have thunk it, good speculative scifi from GW, the company who brought us the chainsword? Must be an accident...

I unsubbed from SFConsimL some time ago, due to all the politcizing (I don't want it HERE, I'm just sayin' that's why I left) - but I would have stayed if there wasn't just a lot of the rehash of the physics of 'real world' space ships. It's boring - I mean, you can see ships as far away as Earth is from Saturn with the simple, low-tech Infrared gear we have NOW...
Stealth won't work in the real world for spaceships, as the background is too cold and IR signatures make you stand out really 'brightly'.
I think that for a game, you need a balance of 'fun' and 'realism', and that target shifts one way or the other depending on who you're playing. I don't mind having stealth and cloaks and such - but they're gonna COST you dear....
:-)

Well, yes, Realistic Physics can be pretty darn frustrating. Fortunately, the moment you include FTL drives, you've already thrown RP out the window. The trick then becomes restraining yourself from going overboard with arbitrary changes now that you know all science is fundamentally wrong.

OS Star Trek is a good example of *not* restraining yourself...but of course they were working on a limited sfx and props budget, which isn't a concern for game designers, right?

Rich

2006-11-30 21:15:29

japridemor wrote:
Inverted Range-Based weapons stand an excellent chance of holding an opponent at their favored range, and they need to be paying for that. A 3.0 mod may seem high compared to vanilla weapons, but don't forget that you can effectively save some mass by skimping on firing arcs. You want/need to stay at long range anyway, where narrow arcs hurt you the least.
Rich
But, at 3.0 and higher for the SU modifier, three vanilla weapons will be better at EVERY range band so why would I every use this weapon ability?

Am I misreading the math? At 3.0, three vanilla guns should be equivalent in terms of firepower at optimal range (for the inverted weapon), and they'll cost more in terms of CR (because they're three weapon hits instead of one). To keep the CR the same, you have to accept lower firepower...right?

Rich

2006-11-29 15:44:30

Ironvein wrote:

This is true if you are using a free floating map.
If on the other hand the scenario is "Merchant Escort" or "Stationary Defence" ala defending a planet or star fort etc. Then their running away defeats the very purpose of their defence and adds to your win.

That doesn't change the fact that you're going to get pounded hard for the first few turns you're trying to close...and if you're movement gets tagged badly enough, you won't catch a merchant convoy anyway. Planets and star forts are more problematic, but that's where Starmada (and most starship games) falls flat. Unless you can somehow approach undetected until the last moment (disguised, popping in from hyperspace) the defense ought to have the option to intercept you at pretty much any range they like, giving them time to hurt you before you make a close approach. Ships don't hide well unless your physics are really unrealistic.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

Ironvein wrote:

Personally in a real world context I believe the "Deep Space Encounter Scenario" should be rare to almost nonexistent compared to other scenarios. Most if not all battles will be about and around Real Estate.

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I find it very hard to believe that any culture with the tech and resources to fight an interstellar war is going to still be concentrating their population/industry at the bottom of a gravity well, or on any kind of stationary platform. They'll build their starships big and both work and live on them full time. Real Estate for a mature spacefaring culture is measured in starcity hulls, not planets. An attack on enemy population/infrastructure will be more of a convoy fight than a planetary assault.

Doesn't match very many traditional settings (Ian Banks' Culture novels, perhaps the Gateway/Heechee books or Wright's Golden Age as adolescent civilizations), but most traditional settings are kind of myopic about the implications of their technologies.

Rich

2006-11-27 15:30:18

That could work. Partially decoupling accuracy from hitting power would be an improvement over basic IS rules in my book. OTOH, Stamada:SFO wouldn't be a bad thing either, especially with suitable tweaks to make it more anime.

2006-11-26 18:44:46

Well, that project hasn't seen the light of day yet anyway...or maybe you could crib the "officer" rules from S:1.0 and stuff them into IS:SFO in modified form. The genre would seem an obvious one for that sort of thing.

Come to think of it, heroic officer rules for both standard Starmada and IS would be nice, too.

Rich

2006-11-24 16:27:04

cricket wrote:

So... the next Iron Stars book will likely be the previously-discussed "Jane's" type recognition manual, with stats for every ship in existence just before the start of our version of the Great War.
Thus, if there's a fleet you've been dying to see fleshed out, get to work!

What nationalities haven't been "taken" already? Did we ever decide if the World Crime League built a pirate fleet or not? Moriarty *did* have a fascination with asteroids, after all...

Rich

2006-11-24 16:24:31

I'd change the name to avoid confusion with S:X, but the 1.0 version had some neat ideas. If nothing else the heroic officers thing was cool.

Hmmm...maybe adapt it to be the framework for Space Fleet Omega?

Rich

Welcome to the new Majestic Twelve Games Forum!

Search options (Page 2 of 11)

Posts found: 26 to 50 of 273

26 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-27 18:06:21

Re: Damage track? (31 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

27 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-26 23:38:10

Re: Damage track? (31 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

28 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-26 23:35:19

Re: Brigade Models New Releases (16 replies, posted in Miniatures)

29 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-26 23:33:22

Re: Starmada X or B5X: PDS vs Fighters questions. (3 replies, posted in Starmada)

30 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-26 23:32:03

Re: Starmada X or B5X question: Stealth generator vs MissleRack (2 replies, posted in Starmada)

31 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-26 16:07:50

Re: Damage track? (31 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

32 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-22 23:11:57

Re: Damage track? (31 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

33 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-21 15:45:36

Re: Questions about Starmada (39 replies, posted in Starmada)

34 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-20 15:44:00

Re: Damage track? (31 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

35 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-13 15:49:38

Re: Firing Arcs (7 replies, posted in Starmada)

36 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-13 15:46:12

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

37 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-12 01:25:10

Re: Light / Heavy Spinal Mounts? (14 replies, posted in Starmada)

38 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-12 01:21:14

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

39 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-11 15:23:19

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

40 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-10 20:35:05

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

41 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-09 17:04:31

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

42 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-08 15:34:07

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

43 Reply by hundvig 2006-12-07 19:39:45

Re: The Grinnell Starmada Club? (3 replies, posted in Starmada)

44 Reply by hundvig 2006-11-30 21:27:30

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

45 Reply by hundvig 2006-11-30 21:15:29

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

46 Reply by hundvig 2006-11-29 15:44:30

Re: Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability (61 replies, posted in Starmada)

47 Reply by hundvig 2006-11-27 15:30:18

Re: A 15-hour drive will make you think of strange things... (19 replies, posted in Starmada)

48 Reply by hundvig 2006-11-26 18:44:46

Re: A 15-hour drive will make you think of strange things... (19 replies, posted in Starmada)

49 Reply by hundvig 2006-11-24 16:27:04

Re: ETA for next book? Minis? (26 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

50 Reply by hundvig 2006-11-24 16:24:31

Re: A 15-hour drive will make you think of strange things... (19 replies, posted in Starmada)

Posts found: 26 to 50 of 273