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 madpax
Or you can play without hexes, that's what I do. it works fine and my friend and I prefer a hexless map.
It allows you to define the 'size of a hex' (for move and range purposes), usually 5 cm per virtual hex.
And it allows you a freddom of move unequated.
Marc
No launch rate, they are treated as normal weapons. As they are expandable, you can shoot all ol them in one salvo.
I wouldn't have simulated that way, but I'm not the designer. 
Marc
I feel it's good, although the BAS could be much higher as the mauler is a one-weapon-ship...
In fact, you could increase the BAS up to what the ship can house.
BTW, 'history'-Wise, which nations invented the mauler?
I know it's one of the bad guys, but is ts Kinglon or Romulan?
Marc
It is alternate in the sense that it includes a new phase, the command phase, where players decides secretly whether their ships will be hurtling through space or try to maneuver swiftly.
After having used this variant many times, I can present it here. The idea is to give some tactical flavour to games, where you don't know how the other ships will behave when giving orders to yours. This variant has roots from SFO.
Marc
I don't think you'll ever be sure about CR costs.
The first advantage of those crew qualities is when you still have some unspent CR.
Marc
I didn't read it thouroghly, but it's always interesting to add flavour.
Kudos to you!
Marc
Daniel replied that it was to avoid romulan ships to become too big compared to their systems. After all, they have the same weaponry (more or less), hull, etc. than Gorns, but the latter don't have cloaking devices which take a lot of room.
Marc
I let my work to rest sometimes, but my goal is:
- Simplify the designs to avoid systems that have no real impact in a so fast paced game. For example, marines everywhere. I prefer to let some commando ships have a lot of them than have all ships have some of them. They tend to negate themselves.
- Simplify the weapons arcs and number of weapons systems: Usually, one heavy with FF, one close range, light, medium TT.
- In my STA universe, the SFU shields are shields, but all ships also have armor, just to jeep them fighting longer.
- Reducing the ships designs to those that are really useful.
- Standardizing designs, for example, all DN are (for example) 24 hulls.
All in all, it makes the designs simpler and thus the games can deploy a lot of ships and keep a good pace.
You don't have for example, to continually look at the SSD to determine the fire arcs of each and every weapon.
Marc
I've done a first try there:
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=5595
But I reworked to simplify them again. I didn't finish the work though.
But I played with the last version and they work well, at least to my taste.
Marc
I don't remember the détails, but it was bloody for a start.
The solution for me was to recreate the fleets according to my taste, making the ships simpler to use and with a lower firepower to resistance ratio .
Marc
Two things that disapointed me over the SFU books. One that is related to SFU is that there are fleets that are very similar (klingons and kzinti) and in the end, too many things look like the same (all have phasers, transporters, etc.).
The other is about the starmada translation. Ships are much too powerful. Their life expectancy is very small. I remember a game (Admiralty) where a klingon destroyer was destroyed at long range (18 hexes) due to disruptor fire) from some kzinti ships. Two or three cruisers fired at long-range this way and pouf, no more destroyer.
Such a thing would never have happened with SFB and although I don't ask for both games to be similar, I just felt that starmada ships should be less easier to kill just to give us more time to move around and maneuver and not simply move straight one or two turns before one fleet is shotto ribbons. range-based ROF phasers are especially monstruous...
Marc
I Wonder how you translated the PPD...
Marc
I would say that I wante'd both!
And for all reasons said here. NHD can be very interesting for some settings (primary or energy beams from starfire, for example), and IS is also used on some universes. And as already say, I don't feel it could be cheesy as there are two other défenses.
ECM can be reduced by scout, but there is still nothing that counteract, at least a bit, armor. I would think as a weapon that destroys two armor for each damage. That's just an idea to make all defense with a counter, but this is not as 'compulsory' as NHD.
Marc
I created my own 'ESG' for my own 'lyrans' but with Starmada Nova. They are Rng 3, TT, Prx (that's bacause they can hit many targets), Sct (their power is greatly reduced with range), Acr and Pnp (they should hit fairly easily, especially fighters).
About their defensive capabilites, well, I have to translate that as more armor than other ships of the same size.
Marc
I know this has already been proposed but what about this:
- Roll 1D6 to determine if you have emty space (1-4) or something (5-6). If the latter, continue.
- Roll 1D6 to determine the overall terrain: 1: Black hole (centered on the map); roll 1D6-1 (min 1), this is the size. 2: Dust cloud. 3-4: Planetary zone: On the center, roll 1D6-1 (min 1) for size. Place as many moons (size 1) as the size -1 (hence, a very big planet (... Jupiter?) will have 4 moons. Of course, you could roll 1D6 per size -1 (Jupiter will roll 4 D6; on 4+, there is a moon. 5-6: Asteroid zone: Divide the map in six sectors. For each, roll 1D6: 1-3 place one or two large asteroid anywhere; 4-6 place an asteroid field (roll size as per planet)
I know, this may generate a lot of dice rolls, but after all, this is the game!
Marc
"A follow-up novel, Exodus, co-written by Steve White and Shirley Meier was released in December 2006. The latest novel, Extremis, was co-written by Steven White and Charles E. Gannon and published in May 2011."
Those are the same story. Interesting, although I'd like to see some novels on the begining of the Starfire era, where fleets made of one light cruiser and some escoert were considered as 'small'. Here, many monitors and a lot of escort are considered small...
Marc
The combination of Dx2/Dx3 and Cts is a good way to create a big fat ugly gun.
Marc
madpax wrote:I don't play with simultaneous play. Not only does it seem, to me, not realistic, it does bring some problems non-simultaneous play resolves. For example, I don't have to remember what damages were suffered that turn of before.
Marc"not realistic" .. muhahahahaha... for a made up game with made up rules, what is "realistic"?
And you forgot to say that it's a game about science fiction (ie something that has never happened) with ships that will never be built and obvisouly will never fight. We do not even know when such ship (ie ships that will look like what we can imagine as starships) will ever exit and even if ever there will be starships able to fight in space.
But when I say 'realistic', I suppose a sense of thought and a lot of imagination to determine how such thing should work that way, etc.
For simultaneous play, we can imagine real warships (wet navies) fighting with guns and missiles and IMHO, true simultaenous combat is not realistic. Just to imagine many dreadnought firing at each other in simultaneous way is making me laugh. Good for a game POV, a bit ridiculous otherwise. But it's just my opinion and it's just a game and all that.
Marc
I don't feel this is the problem, Kevin.
In non simultaneous play, seekers are fired during the turn N and attack during the turn N+1.
In simultaneous play, seekers are fired during the turn N, but exactly when?
As enemy ship can fire at seekers when they are fired, simultaneous play poses some problem. If you suppose any enemy ship may fire at them, then seekers are disadvantaged over simultaneous play (more ships ie opportunities to fire at them).
And at the end of turn N+1, they attack, giving the opponent more ships to fire at them.
Marc
Seekers can be fired at during the turn they are fired, i.e. when they are face-down. Top of second column, p25. Of course, this is for non-simultaneous play.
I don't play with simultaneous play. Not only does it seem, to me, not realistic, it does bring some problems non-simultaneous play resolves. For example, I don't have to remember what damages were suffered that turn of before.
Of course, for people wanting to play with simultaneous play, I would propose that seekers can only be fired at the turn after, just before they attack.
Marc
I tend to agree with murtalian, although I Wonder if the seekers are not attacking the turn after they are fired, but may only be fired at that same turn. Ie, during turn N, avery ship is firing, and those seekers fired that turn are immune to fire, and during turn N+1, everyship may fire at seekers along normal antiship fire, and then, after all fires done, seekers are attacking too.
But, how do we determine range between ships firing at seekers and seekers during that turn?
With non simultaneous play, that range depends on the turn (when seekers are fired or the following turn). In the second turn, range is not computed the same way whether the firing ship is the one targeted by seekers or not.
Marc
With interactive sequence, there usually will be few opportunities during the back and forth to take potshots at just fired seekers. With the one player does all attacks, followed by the other of the simul mode, the side firing second will have the advantage of not having their seekers susceptible to 2 rounds of fire.
I don't understand the problem with seekers here. During turn N, ships are alternating fire, and thus would place seekers face down when they fire. During turn N+1, you resolve seekers effect after the target ship have been activated to fire.
So even in the worst of world, a ship targeted by seekers would have one opportunity to fire at them.
Marc
I think it dépends on the way you are playing SNE. I remember a SAE topic. It was, more or less, 'what do you think about my space station?'. This SS looked like the Death Star. Very big, a lot of very powerful, long-range, weaponry adapted to kill ships. And the answer was 'well, I design a massive fleet of small gunboats with just one very short range, narrow arc, weapon, an engine with a value equal to 1, begining at that range and accelerating each turn in order to being 31 hexes bthe turn before ending adjacent to your SS and blasting it to ribbons in just one massive shooting from all unscathed gunboats'.
I agree that looking this way,stations can be very vulnerable with any rules. I was thinking more of using them in some settings where ships are designed along some lines where efficiency is not the main factor and where you will not necessarily find the exact answer to any problem.
Just a different philosophy.
Marc
After reading The Lost Fleet, Stations should be more vulnerable than they are. Aft all, they are immobile i.e., sitting ducks. But for game purposes, I dont feel they should be treated that way.
IIRC, SAE rules gaves them a bonus when firing because they are stable platforms. But it should be ships, and nt stations, that should earn a bonus just because they can't evade shots.
For my own SFU-like designs, I created for most races bases stations and star bases. BS are DN-sized, with fire control, reinforced structure, the heavier version of the race heavy weapon, some short range weapon, and fighters. And also ECM even this if not used by the ships of their race.
SB are less than double te size of BS but having more of everything
That way, BSs cost about twice a DN, and SB three times a BS.
Marc
A corrolary question: If a stack of 6 fighters is moving through mines, do they suffer one attack per mine, or 6 attacks per mine?
In other words, does a stack is treated as a singe ship of does each fighter is treated as a ship?
Marc
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by madpax
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.