26 Topic by mikeaxe

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

Dan,
I know you have said the rules on page 37 of KA-n is incorrect and a disruptor should be range 18 overload range 9. I have been going through the ship displays for the KA-n book and note that the E4 and F5 have a disruptor range of 12 and an overload of 9 while the FD7 has a range of 18 but an overload of 12. The Kzinti FF also gets the short ranged version.

Looking back I can see the E4 and F5 had shorter ranges in Admiralty Edition but the FD7 and Kzinti FF had  'standard' Disruptors. From my Starfleet battle stuff the Kziniti FF probably should have the shorter range but is the FD7 correct?

Go to forum: Starmada

27 Reply by mikeaxe

(21 replies, posted in News)

I have just downloaded the PDFs from E23.

Go to forum: News

28 Reply by mikeaxe

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

For all you guys waiting for PDFs. I have just downloaded the PDF versions of KA-n and RA-n from E23.  big_smile

Go to forum: Starmada

29 Reply by mikeaxe

(21 replies, posted in News)

May I second the request for PDF versions. I currently have all the Admiral edition rules but I am reluctant to shell out for the new NOVA edition trekkie books. I would however be willing to pay for the cheaper (hopefully  smile ) PDF versions.

Mike P

Go to forum: News

30 Reply by mikeaxe

(16 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

Oh wow. And I was still thinking about some names and setting and an idea for ships....  Now I'll just have to invent my own setting rather than rob yours wink . After I've tried these out of course.

Go to forum: Starmada Nova

31 Reply by mikeaxe

(16 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

This is English!! very english and weird is fun. Actually I'm from the far widdershins borders of mercia not the middle lands wink . And while we were briefly conquered by the Danes, our Great Leader Offa did stop the rimward aliens (welsh) from expanding  corewards.
Perhaps I was getting confused on the flag and was referring to the separatist in New Cornwall big_smile . Now about the New Republic of Mercia Fleet......? Hmmmmm.

Go to forum: Starmada Nova

32 Reply by mikeaxe

(16 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

As a Mercian myself, though the classes seem correct I believe the spinward barbarian (Wessex) flag is incorrect, the inset should be a white cross on a black background. big_smile

Go to forum: Starmada Nova

33 Reply by mikeaxe

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

Dan Wrote...

In the second diagram, the solar wind is "blowing" to the southwest. The ship is pointed to the northwest, or within 60* of the wind.

Ok I see what you mean by "the direction of the wind".  But the wind (at least in the UK) is a Northeasterly wind not southwesterly and in sailing terminology the ship in the diagram is facing 120* away from the wind not 60* towards it.

Probably its just a translation problem between English and American or land/spacelubber and the sea. smile

Go to forum: Starmada

34 Reply by mikeaxe

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

SOLAR MOVEMENT

On page 35 I think the first line should read
"... more than one hexside (60 [Deg]) ..." not "... within one hexside (60[Deg])..."

Otherwise the second diagram is wrong.

Go to forum: Starmada

35 Reply by mikeaxe

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

Blacklancer99 wrote:

Ok, the way I look at it Armor is strengthened and reinforced Hull so if you add extra hull the result should be the same in gameplay terms. However, by calling it armor, it is a way to conceptualize the vessel better than if I simply add hull. Let me explain. If I have a 12 hull heavy destroyer with 2 boxes of armor in each section, it's an armored 12 hull ship. If I simply add six hull to the ship, it becomes, to me, an 18 hull ship with no armor, and therefore a totally different kind if ship. Oh, and because that 18 hull ship has lots more SUs, shouldn't I put more stuff in it? I think most people would be REAL hard pressed to have all that extra space and keep their hands off of it. Whoops, now the CR goes up.
So, to me it's all about conceptualization over simply construction. When I see the 18 hull ship all I can think of is all the empty space, which I just don't like. Anyway, that's my opinion before my first cup of coffee...it might change once I'm awake.
Cheers,
Erik

Erik,
I agree about how you (and I) might think about it but thats just 'fluff'. In game play and design there is no difference between armor/screens/whatever and some extra Jacuzzi/cinemas/holodecks for the crew! One of the joys of design within Starmada is the logic of the system. Trying to fit everything you want into a certain size hull/cost (CR) has some reflection of real naval design. But now in NOVA Armor is simply 'fluff' which I think is a pity.

As for an anti-armor campaign, BeowulfJB while house rules can fix the problem locally now is the time to raise the issue before Dan closes the dissuasion and starts printing.

Go to forum: Starmada

36 Reply by mikeaxe

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

hmmm....
I always design my ships within a setting so armor is just part of that setting. 

But as a direct test I stole  yikes  the Commonwealth STEADFAST-class Armored Cruiser (apologies to the designer) from the drydock sandbox and directly changed the armor into hull converted it to Commonwealth STEAD-OF-class Un Armored Cruiser ! The break points did change with Damaged now being one box fewer and Crippled more more, due I suspect to rounding. The CR remains the same and there is no difference in the game performance of the ship but you now have 1073 SU spare as apposed to 117 for the Steadfast. :?  You can see the results in the sandbox.

Conclusion armor is pretty pointless in the game.  :shock:

To easily 'fix' it my initial thought is to agree with RobinStirzaker to put the all the armor in the first undamaged section making an armored the ship more robust, by delaying the first check point, than a ship consisting solely hull. How to adjust the defensive rating I'm not sure. I leave the fancy maths to those with fancy calculators. wink

Another solution is to make armor some how different from hull within the game, such as 'Ignore armor' or 'armor only' with all that entails and I do understand the arguments against that approach.

A third option is to remove armor from the rules along side Carronades and Long-range Scanners.  yikes

Go to forum: Starmada

37 Reply by mikeaxe

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

During an idle moment I thought of this a few days ago but got busy here in the real? world and forgot it again. :shock:   You've prompted me to have a look. I played around with the drydock building part ships and here is my take, it may not be the official line.

Basically for a given Hull size/[number of hull boxes] you get so much SU space. You can fill that SU with things like weapons etc and Armor is one of those things. Armor is a 'system' which increases the number of hits needed to reach a critical test point. This increase is shown by adding extra 'hull boxes' they are show separately in case Dan finally gives in to pressure and allows an Ignore armor trait.  wink

Go to forum: Starmada

38 Reply by mikeaxe

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

I like the idea and it may go some way to shift the balance on the "fighters are now too weak" argument by concentrating the fire power into one activation. Spread out and gain the initiative sink and get picked off or concentrate firepower and lose it.

As similar arguments can be used for movement, should/could the initiative during the movement phase be handled the same way? You count/activate stacks with the fighters moving to separate hexes if desired. Even though the argument is not as strong in movement, I like the idea of fighter initiative being handled the same way each time just for simplicity's sake.   

It has been mentioned elsewhere about only counting ships/fighters for combat initiative which could participate in combat.
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopi … amp;t=3665

On the issue of stacking fighter miniatures I place small dice, one colour for full strength flights and one for damaged, alongside a fighter miniature.

Go to forum: Starmada

39 Reply by mikeaxe

(133 replies, posted in Starmada)

There was a request for a Bourbaki basin and Cricket said the Drydock was the NOVA equivalent.

    [*]Where does all the 'buff' for each setting go?
    [*]How are designs protected from overwriting by others?
    [*]How are we going to identify related designs produced by people like murtalianconfederacy (who has more time on his hands than is good for him big_smile ) provide us with so-many different setting?
    [*]If we all use it to develop ship designs how is the 'dross', which we will all create, going to be managed/deleted?
    [*] How do you develop stuff before publishing?

While the Drydock is a marvelous tool it cannot replace "The Bourbaki Basin (NOVA). For it to do so, and I have some experience with software development, would be a significant development project and in all honesty this is a wargames forum not an open source development project.

In short we need the basin AND WE NEED IT NOW!! ... please.  smile

Go to forum: Starmada

40 Reply by mikeaxe

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ok so changes during the phase are ignored, it makes sense. My opponent had visited me and stayed over night we had already played a modern naval and an ACW game the day before and just fitted in a few turns of SNE to see how the rules worked before he set off home. I was both teaching and learning the rules and did not have an answer off the top of my head, so asked.

As for Seekers, I have reread the rules and Underling you are correct the seeker is activated by the target not the firer.  That means that every ship that has a potential target must be activated at some point. Why would you not ... why to avoid that 300+ missile yikes  attack on your carrier that's why!

[Note to Cricket: When you write the rules could you also please make sure I read them properly.  :roll: ]

Anyway thanks for the answers now to start some conversions to SNE. big_smile

Go to forum: Starmada

41 Reply by mikeaxe

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

Blacklancer99
Thanks missed that.

underling
On page 8 the firing sequence for two ships Vs 5 is A-R-R-A-R-R-R. So I think the out numbering is in the fire phase as well as the movement, but the 'loading' is towards the end rather than the front (as for movement) of the sequence.

As for the point about why you would count a ship that was out of range. You of course would not nominate a ship out of range, but suppose 3 of the R fleet were out of range, could I fire both R ships that are in range before the second A ship? What happens if all ships are in range at the beginning but loses makes some ships out of range later, does that alter the sequence? (more of an issue in a longer sequence).

I have been thinking about this all day and suspect the answer is; You do not include the ships initially out of range and you calculate the sequence patten at the beginning of the phase and if circumstances change the sequence patten remains the same with one side running out of ships early. All the other options I've considered can be 'manipulated'.

Also don't forget that a ship may now be out of range but any seekers activate when the ship does so you may need to activate a nominally 'out-of-range' ship which would of course count in the sequence calculation.

Go to forum: Starmada

42 Topic by mikeaxe

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

I've just played my first actual game big_smile . However we did have a few questions.

1. I had 7 fighters and 3 ships while my opponent had 4 ships and had the initiative. I worked the sequence as 1-3-1-3-1-2-1-2, which having read the rules again should have been 1-2-1-2-1-3-1-3. His first ship however destroyed 3 fighter flights! How should that effect the combat sequence or indeed should it? Should we recalculate it to 1-1-1-2-1-2-1-2? This would produce some weird issues if the losses had occurred  later and some had fired and some not. Or do we just carry on and once I had run out of un-destroyed ships to fire stop?

2. Also do you count ships which have no targets (out of range etc.) in the fire sequence? Ships could be in range at the beginning of combat but not when activated. which would produce a similar issue to 1 above.

3. Anti-fighter fire I assume a Dx2 weapon would destroy a fighter flight on a hit.

Comments:
I tested my QRS and found a few errors (-2 for damaged fighters missing!) I will post it once I've redone it as a rival for Madpax, working on the assumption that two QRS are better than one wink .

I have decided to adopt the alternative fighter combat system as it is the same as Marines/Mines/Asteroids and will be simpler I think in the long run.

Go to forum: Starmada

43 Topic by mikeaxe

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

I'm trying to put together a QR sheet and have come up with a few questions on range effects/Traits.
Scatter and Telescopic traits alter the number of attack dice at each range band, are they still effected by +1(short) and -1 (long) modifiers? I think the answer is yes but I'm just checking. I am also assuming though it is not stated that they both get the -2 at extreme range.

Go to forum: Starmada

44 Topic by mikeaxe

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

I am trying to sort out a NOVA game for later this week using the ships provided. Comparing the ships in NOVA with the ones in the Imperial source book I notice the S'ssk suddenly get Drones ... lots of Drones. In the Imperial Source book these drones are breaches which I thought are now included in the cost of Marines?

Go to forum: Starmada

45 Reply by mikeaxe

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

OOPs. :oops:
I miss read the Majestic's sheet it hasn't got any armor! What I thought was an Armor box was the second row of Hull.

Page  4 says "Two rows of damage boxes each divided into three groups. The top row is made up of armor ..." when actually there can be multiple rows of both Armor and Hull (due to space). Obvious, once you look at the ships at the end of the rules.

I know the Majestic has done sterling service in this position but a ship with a some Armor might have been clearer.

Go to forum: Starmada

46 Reply by mikeaxe

(55 replies, posted in Starmada)

Paid my money this morning and got the pre-release PDF to read on the train smile .

I've found a few questions/issues in the PDF pre-release.

1. Page 5
The ship chart for the Majestic are the HULL and ARMOR tracks not transposed?

2.Page 15
Fighter Movement The words fighter and flight seem to be used interchangeably. Should not the word 'fighter' be 'flight' in all cases? This is a problem in the set up as it says '... up to six fighters per hex.'  but elsewhere stacking is stated to be 'six fighter counters' which I assume means flights.

The rules also say a flight is 6 to 4 fighters. Is this just 'fluff' or have I missed an adjustment for smaller flights?

I think a QR sheet is needed and will have a go at doing one along the lines of the one in SFO.

Still reading so may find a few more questions but I like what I see. Now I need to clear my games table, print  some ships and blast them to space junk ... again.  :twisted:

Go to forum: Starmada

47 Reply by mikeaxe

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy,
As I said in the end of my reply its your universe and what you decide doesn't have to work in mine. For example I have been converting the old game Imperium to SFO using a 'missile' weapon trait  rather than drones. Given the fixed nature of the ships I think it works well but probably not suitable for general application.

One word of warning, you do realize that this setting is yet one more you will need to covert to SNE for all your fans. Very soon (hopefully) you are going to be very busy I suggest you enjoy the rest. wink

Go to forum: Starmada

48 Reply by mikeaxe

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

I bet Dan has already forgotten SAE big_smile . Its so yesterday or should I say last January wink

Personally I favour option 1. The 1/2 movement which allows movement on say even numbered turns, as its easy to play. It shouldn't screw up the orat as that's simply  mathematical calculation. The mobile base doesn't get the bonus as its always moving. However if adopted as a general rule it would open the door to speeds of 2.5 etc :cry:  and with Nova on the way do we really need to be coming up with rules changes for SAE?

Another way would be to double the weapons ranges and speeds and play at a smaller hex 'scale'. Ships with a half movement would then move 1.

On the other hand, I'm always saying that Stamada is a construction set for any setting and you pick the bits you need to make the setting work. If half movement doesn't work outside your setting who cares, if you need a half movement rule go with the one you want.

Go to forum: Starmada

49 Reply by mikeaxe

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

maxpax wrote

First, it will surely be an optional rule smile . Second, it's not difficult to say 'I move the ship this way, etc. and at the end of its move, I use some thrust to pivot that way'.

True, its not 'difficult' but along side all the other options it adds to the overall complexity and if you consider the dissuasion we've just had about solar sails all these move options are starting to add up.

Go to forum: Starmada

50 Reply by mikeaxe

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

I have just had another thought. Its not that I disagree but all this 'randomizing' of the movement order both in the rules and the forum sort of makes who has initiative pretty pointless.

Go to forum: Starmada