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 pickledteak
I just noticed that the Sovereign Stars Forum is gone, along with the updated playtest. Is there anywhere else to get the map and marker pieces?
Thanks, I very well might try it out. I've been looking at it in the Rules Annex for quite some time and wondered how it played out. Perhaps I'll give it a whirl this weekend.
I noticed the version in the Annex and the "current" one up on the boards are pretty different. Would it matter which one I give a go first? Have you played it?
I'm still interested in VBAM, but Sovereign Stars might be able to hold me off till I hear more about VBAM and the 2nd edition rules.
Had a game last week in which my opponent convinced me to let him go backward using the standard movement rules. Trying to figure out a way to make it a hastle to do it, I told him that it would double his thrust requirements doing so. What then happened was me desperately trying to get enough speed to overtake him while retaining enough room to maneuver, all the while getting shot at by an HGI arc weapon.
Has anyone else played with rules for moving backwards with standard movement? I think the best in game option would be to use pivots to attain the same effect, but my opponent is arguing that pivots don't allow him to maneuver well enough to make it worth while flying backwards blowing up my entire fleet.
I told him that if he wanted to move backwards in a space game and shoot at me, that we might as well play Saganami Island Tactical Simulator (of which I love and he hates).
But before I try to convince him to do that, I figured I'd ask about other peoples house rules regarding reverse movement. Is doubling thrust requirement enough? Does it break the balance of the standard movement system?
I had heard about the second edition being worked on, but havn't parsed the dev forums enough to get a feel for how it'll work.
My biggest wish is for a method to run a campaign were players can decide not to run a tactical combat for certain battles, while retaining the ability to choose to "jump" in and take control. It sounded like VBAMs campaign combat model would fit with that.
I checked out the demo version off of RPGnow and found the number of possibilities exciting, but also felt alittle confused as to the setup and pacing of such a game.
Mostly I'm looking for something for 2-3 players plus or minus a CM.
You're right about ROF 6. I didn't check that before letting him chose it. I just set him up on one of the ship builders and let him go. So with ROF 6 coupled with 2+ ACC it probably was a bit over powered for it's combat rating (204). Next time I'll let him know to stick within the base vanilla Starmada rules for ACC and ROF.
I could have easily countered his ship by just having 1 flight of fighters, as his ship had Starship-Exclusive on it's weapon. However, I did build my ship within the base construction rules, with the added Tender ability for Flotillas instead of fighters. Flotillas died in 2 turns before even getting into range. Next time countermeasures and stealth will need to be looked into.
I played with the Tenders carrying Flotillas last weekend. I thought it worked well, just using the 25% su capacity requirement mentioned earlier in this thread. I used the Launch & Recovery rules with them to prevent spamming. Played three games with them and will definitely consider using them in a campaign.
It was in these 3 games, that I also found out that I don't like allowing the expanded accuracy, rof, imp, and dmg. My friend built a 10 hull ship with one weapon (RNG 18, ROF 6, ACC 2+, IMP 2, DMG 3) which made it to where my flotillas couldn't even get close. I found that ship to be way over powered despite only have 1 3 arc weapon.
I would love to see some SFB/FC scenarios translated over, could be fun.
I've been playing FC since release, and have even put in some time with SFB over the years. It's been a great game, however it just doesn't fit with a busy life schedule anymore. Anything beyond the duel (of which I'll still use it for) takes way too long to finish. I can't even count the number of games where someone just surrendered because it had gone on for 6+ hours. Hell, even Saganami Island plays faster than SFB does, and it's more complex (in my opinion).
But I love the source, so having the Armada series of books have finally let me play my big squadron battles in under 3 hours!
Tactics wise, things do change abit which I know some SFB/FC vets probably frown at. I enjoy the new feel though and accept the change. The great thing about KLA and RMA is that if you don't like how a ship performs, change it. The only thing I would love to see if Fleet Scale versions of the ships, as I think the Squadron scale is a bit to beefy.
Anyone try making KLA/RMA ships into fleet scale?
I was wondering if people have had good luck with Starmada:AE and VBAM.
I'm interested in trying out VBAM (I've heard good things) but don't actually know how well it plays out. I know the Starmada VBAM book is made for Starmada X, and that there has been a conversion file put up in the files section to allow play with Admiralty Edition. How well does it work? Any issues? Do people play this online?
Before I pump out 50 bucks for the VBAM manual and the Starmada source, I'd like to know that people think about it and if it's worth learning.
Thanks!
1) Thank You.
2) When converting Attack Boats to Starmada AE, (from "Boltian and Kuissian") which are small ships less than hull size 1, I set the cost to the tender at 25% of the total SU carried. Although I did not have flotillas in mind, the individual ships fit the size requirement.
3) This would depend on the setting, in the Boltian and Kuissian universe they would be carried in very large open hangers, in which case weapons could not be used. Carried externally they could use weapons but it would not be wise for ships to stay with the tender (the part about a carried ship being destroyed taking the tender with it.) It is different with joined ships, this is for the likes of Fireball XL5 (missiles are in Fireball junior - the front portion) right up to the Enterprise and such ships. Although the re designed Enterprise (and "A") was supposed to channel phaser power through the engines so it would have no weapons if the saucer was to seperate, bet the writer never thought of that, then again maybe it was only possible on paper and someone glued the saucer on.
Paul
So in that case, sample V1 Destroyer Flotilla (6 ships; 186su) would cost 47 su for a ship to Tender?
Would this affect CRAT at all, or would you factor the 55 CRAT from the Flotilla in addition to the carrying vessel? As opposed to Carriers in which flights are calculated as part of the ships CRAT?
Ex. 100 pt Tender carrying 2 V1 DD Flotillas coming to a total of 194pts for the battle.
I'm liking that idea a lot. I'm going to try this tonight as stated.
Seems like a good time to ask, has anyone (I know a couple of people have) had a look at the "give it a try" in the shipyard guide or the Aracnonoi booklet with regards to tenders?
I think they work but very few people have commented one way or the other.Paul
I just took a look at it. Very nice, I love the layout, very professional.
With those Tender rules how would you implement carrying a Flotilla? I love the idea of being able to ferry other starships with it, but would like to be able to use vanilla Flotillas in that role. Almost like carrying "super" fighters I guess. Of PFs for LACs whichever term works best.
The only thing I'm not sure about, is allowing externally carried ships to use their weapons. I feel that could become a bit munchkin.
I'm going to play tonight specifically to try out some Flotilla Tender options, and this is one I will be trying now. Thanks!
Such as having an Aux called Tender, that would maybe need to have as many SU's used as the Flotilla takes + or - some percentage? That's a good idea, I didn't think of using auxiliary systems to cover that.
That would also partially eliminate the fiddly bits of using un balancing fighters one way or the other. I wonder if using Fighters Launch and Recovery rules would be possible without bending the system too much away from vanilla. Or a modified version.
The only thing that I can see would be in points...since fighters aren't "pointed" the carrier includes the cost in itself. Flotilla ships do have a point cost so, you would have to either have a house rule that omitted that when including them on carriers, or you are basically getting overcharged for their services. However, some might let that stand anyway figuring that it is the price that must be paid for bringing along the bigger ships.
Anyway, that's just my thought.
Erik
By points I assume you mean CRAT? In that case, how far off if one Flotilla with 4 ships from 3 standard flights of fighters in terms of effectiveness.
If I was better at math I'd say a Multiplier being applied would probably fix it, but sadly I'm nearly the opposite of math wiz.
What is Bekosh's MacroFighters? I did a quick search and didn't turn up anything. Is it a homebrew Starmada ruleset?
Not sure if this has been brought up before (didn't find anything in a search), but I'm wondering how much it would break balance with the current system allowing Carrier Capacity to carry Flotillas.
My first thought would be allowing Carrier Capacity to store a Flotilla if it's Capacity was equal to the SU's that flotilla used (i.e. 160 for a 4 ship flotilla maxed at the 40 su per ship).
If that does break CRAT/SU balance, has anyone else toyed around with this to make it balanced with current "vanilla" Carrier Cap?
No amount of proof reading catches all errors, so it's expected to have a few slip by. Hell you even catch large companies who have teams of editors (*cough* WOTC) letting multiple errors and typos into their release products. At least through the model of print and play fixes are possible.
I know it falls into the BoM rules, but I'd love to see Scouts for all the races. Maulers would be pretty nifty too. Outside of the playtest ships, I'd like to see more base variations, such as the Base Station and Starbase.
That would be awesome. I've already toyed around with them for an Honorverse setting, using them both for laserheads and anti-missiles.
All and all, drones retain all of their advantages from FC (battlefield control, using an enemies weapons to shoot them down, and panic factor) without the head ache that squadron to fleet size battles provide. Ever launch a Kzinti drone wave from a fleet in FC? It's terrifying and can end a game before it begins. No one wants to play a game that has 32 drones on the board, not so much because of the threat, but because the game will take forever.
Just want to say thanks for an awesome system that actually allows me to play SFU in the scale I've always wanted 
In the dozen or so fights I played through, drones were not nearly as powerful as some people think. Launched at range, an enterprising player just has to maneuver himself so that the drones will be within tractor and phaser 3 range. Using both those systems have saved my butt several times against Kzinti drone waves. And considering that most Kzinti ships can only unload 3 drones per turn, I think it's pretty managable.
Balance wise, I feel that drones in KLA/RA have a better feel than in FC. The drones in FC were horribly nerfed, to the point of making them almost not worth the extra table work of having 15-20 counters on the board and tracking their impulse movement. I also enjoy being able to close with an enemy to the point of him not being able to fire defensively against them unless they themselves want to use drones.
Against strikers and seekers anti drones work fine, but if I 'm thinking right, they have little to no effect against fighters because of them attack adjacent hexes. Is that right?
I can see loading up on cheap seekers for defense only, as there are several analogs in the real world to this (such as SeaRam's vs. an expensive cruise missile)
I think the effectiveness of the anti drones against other striker and seeker models would be offset by either, numbers (four ADD vs a flight of 8 fast drones), or by defense values if the striker/seekers bought the increased defense.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by pickledteak
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.