26

(51 replies, posted in Starmada)

I think the situation is just more exacerbated with seekers - because they are inherently cheaper than their direct fire equivalents, and don't require the ship to maneuver into range to use them.

Seeking weapons are of course cheaper because they can be shot down or out maneuvered - however when they are either fast enough or come in a vast wave, those disadvantages are mitigated.

If you want to focus only on cost, I'd increase the cost.  If most weapons only get 4 chances to fire in a game - and slow (x0.7) reduces that to 2, maybe make expendable be like 0.35?  There are games that will be shorter, and expendable will be a boon - other games will go longer and make people think twice about having boring ships that just alpha strike on first contact and then have to run home.

-Tim

27

(17 replies, posted in Starmada)

@MRCAcct

Great post!  Agree with most of it.


@cricket

I love 4 defensive directions.  6 in SFB was always too much, but it worked okay with that game - but that was a game you didn't design your own ships.

RE: Screens - I really like the current incarnation of screens/armour.  Do we need a weapon trait that counters it?  I guess catastrophic and kinetic doing extra damage to it just keeps it consistent with how those traits are affected by all the other defenses. 

Glad to hear some of the other stuff will be back. 

I'm thinking really high levels of Stealth might get annoying to deal with.  Fire control somewhat mitigates Countermeasures, as does high accuracy, but what about stealth?

-Tim

28

(51 replies, posted in Starmada)

I agree, I don't think the "cost" of the expendable/ammo weapons is incorrect.  The abuse is a huge amount of them, especially as seeking weapons.  Not so much fun to play against.  Doesn't really matter if you brought something to shoot them down when there is that many.

Philosophically, expendable/limited ammo should be a disadvantage, and right now it almost feels like its a loop hole to get an advantage, not just save a few points on a ship.

I think space is the issue.  Most seeking weapons that have limited ammo would have a "launcher" component and an ammo "magazine".  Could hold true for non-seeking limited ammo weapons too.  I think the Launcher part should make up a large amount of the "space" the weapon requires say 50% of a weapon without limited ammo - then the reminder is ammo (maybe assume each volley needs 5-10% space, compared to a weapon with no ammo limit).

Anyway, just an idea.  I'm not a big fan of just hard restrictions (e.g. no more than X% can be spent on ammo limited weapons), but I do like it when there are construction rules that push you in that direction.

-Tim

29

(51 replies, posted in Starmada)

I know in Squadron Strike this is somewhat mitigated by restricting the number of weapons a ship can have... or maybe I'm wrong, its been a while!

Other ideas:
-If using defensive weapons or Anti-fighter batteries in defensive mode - you are allowed to roll AFTER the to hit roll of the seeking weapon, that way you only have to shoot down ones that were on target. (I think this one was in Squadron Strike too)
-Ships have have a limited number of seeking weapons they can "control" at anyone time (star fleet battles had this)

Strictly speaking, its the expendable that is the problem here, not the seeking weapons.  While you are right to give a discount for a weapon you can only use once, what that tends to mean is that someone just brings a weapon that is 5x more powerful and just shoots it off once during the approach and pulls off a devastating attack.

I think another way to mitigate that might be to have "expendable or ammo" weapons take up the exact same room as a weapon with unlimited shots, but have a cheaper cost.  That way you couldn't pack that many into your ship to begin with.

-Tim

30

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Are you doing up SFU "Scouts" in Starmada Unity?  These were ships have had special "Sensors" that allowed some serious electronic warfare shenanigans!

Just curious.

-Tim

31

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

I know in the past I've always wanted ships that were more or less maneuverable than the typical - but with the base Unity movement system I don't feel that way anymore.  All ships can accelerate to very high speeds, so really engine IS maneuverability.  Plus there are overboosters that let you pivot like a madman and boosters that let you do other crazy things.

I would love for there to be some way to have a ship with "command".  Would have to figure what that "means" in Starmada.  Things I can think of are allowing X number of dice to be rerolled OR let X ships redo their movement orders after everyone reveals their plots OR get to move X number of fighters/seekers go first in the fighter phase.  Anyway, not something "needed" but certainly would be fun given the number of genres that make reference to command ships.

Would love to see Flotillas too.  Would also like rules for things like heroic small ships - (e.g. Firefly, Millenium Falcon, Slave One).  I suppose you can just get a small ship and load it up with Stealth or Countermeasures, thus making it a waste of time to shoot at. 

-Tim

32

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

I'd like to also see the Drydock updated with any new "stuff" that gets included in supplements, SFU included.

33

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

Oh, I can get it started, its just the finishing and balancing thing that I'll fail at  big_smile

34

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

I'd like to see faction design rules/guidelines, either as a standalone thing or as part of as some campaign system.

35

(8 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

This is impressive. I started one a couple years back, but hit a snag and never managed to wrap it up.

I'll try out some Kriegsmarine when I get a chance.

36

(0 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hi All,

Our group played Unity for the first time this past weekend.  I don't think all of us had actually got together for a space game since Admiralty Edition!

First off we ended up really liking the default movement system with pre-plotting.  Our group had previously been a bit lazy and had opted to use the Movement Point based system in AE, which while quick and easy to execute, doesn't necessarily give the "feel" of space movement (its more like driving a car).  While it took some time to explain and get our heads wrapped around the engine requirements, it works beautifully. I'm especially impressed with out concise the rules are.  There is a lot of stuff at work here (being allowed to accelerate to very high speeds even with a low engine rating, having to slow down to turn, sideslips being recognized as partial turns and of course my pet peeve - no going backwards!), would have taken me many more pages with a bunch of limitations - but in Unity its just summed up in 3 lines!  The book keeping is also very minimal. 

One player indicated that a limitation to plotting movement might be that it limits the number of ships you can really control - but that lead to a discussion about how running battle groups of identical ships would simplify that (you can just decide for one ship and then copy the same orders for the others and keep them in a tight formation). 

In the past we'd also used sequential turn order for movement/combat - having everything go simultaneously is just the way to go.  I've had to do this for other games (e.g. Squadron Strike), but I can't state how many issues this gets ride of.  Nobody gets to see who moves where before you decide your own movement (which makes for more tactical thinking and less just being reactionary) and everyone gets a chance to unload their weapons before they take damage.

Really liked the seeker rules as well.  This will be a great boon for the SFU Unity supplement - as seeking weapons are such a big part of the SFU.  The movement is dead simple and the timing of the various phases is spot on.  If you are close enough to your target they aren't going to have a chance to shoot down your seekers unless they've brought dedicated defensive weapons (i.e. anti-fighter batteries or weapons with the "defensive" trait or tractor beams), which feels about right.   Another very cool thing is we were playing with a few asteroids and one of the players managed to move and get an asteroid between himself and the seeking weapon, which forced the seeking weapon to move into the asteroid.  So great when you can use the environment like this!

Of course those familiar with AE will be right at home with the combat.  Same to hit and impact rolls as before.  Damage is ever so slightly different.  Probably the biggest difference will be in learning what all the revised weapon traits do.  I think we'll probably make up our own cheat sheet listing them all, as that seemed to be the thing we had to look up the most.  Applying the damage was quick and easy.  Getting to choose your own weapon hits speeds things up - maybe lets you take certain liberties on your first few weapons lost (like destroying a weapon you know won't be in arc for the next turn or two or to eliminate an expendable weapon already fired), but because of the limits on the right, you won't be escaping meaningful weapon damage for long.

Anyway looking forward to doing up some of our own designs and hitting the table again in a few weeks.  Will try to take enough pictures and notes to do a proper AAR.

-Tim

37

(78 replies, posted in Starmada)

mj12games wrote:

Anyone who orders the hard copy before the end of April will get the PDF download for free.

I'll be taking you up on that offer!

-Tim

38

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hmm, some interesting, setting based, additions to the rules I see:

-2PP
-Engine Power Ratio(4)

And of course fire arcs matching the SFU.

Very nice!

-Tim

39

(78 replies, posted in Starmada)

Really looking forward to Unity.  AE really sat well with our group, until we got carried away with the min/maxing.  Based on what I've read in the other thread, seems like we won't have the same issues with AE, but still will have the flavour!

Nova was smooth and streamlined, but ultimately I think its best served in Grand Fleets - a game where the weapons/defenses are similar, but where there is a great number of combat modifiers.  The way the combat effectivness of each weapon is distilled down to a couple of parameters makes it easier for Captains to make decisions.

For space games the decisions are often based on where there are degraded defenses to exploit or weapons that counter certain types of defenses (or trying like hell to destroy a ship that is currently exploiting those on your own fleet!).

I like having the defender choosing where to apply the weapon damage - simplifies things!

40

(0 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Hey all,

This is another... wouldn't it be cool if we had... topic.

I would love to be able to *sometimes* include carriers in GF3 games.  Not interested in making them the main focus, or having carrier fleet duels - there are other systems that handle that quite well.

There are already aircraft in GF3.  You can spend a given allotment of your points on aircraft tokens.  These are one use resources.  One would assume that this represents aircraft coming from either a ground base or distant carrier.

Other than carriers having basic GF3 stats based on their armour (or lack there of)/guns/movement, it would be great if they somehow modified how your fleet used the aircraft tokens.  Some thoughts:

1) Increase your allowance on % points spent on aircraft (kind of boring but dead simple)
2) Allow you to reuse aircraft tokens (to a certain limit - or a certain # aircraft/turn - maybe have them come back like rolling for reserves)
3) Increase the effectiveness of your aircraft tokens (a bit gamey, which isn't that fitting with GF3)

Anyone else have any interest/ideas about carriers?

-Tim

41

(3 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Ya, I like it, overall it gives just enough feel, without being overly complicated (and let me tell you, there are games where this gets a bit crazy).

I was thinking for a moment that this makes torps slightly less "powerful", as with a high initiative, you can no longer eliminate a threat before its had time to fire.  However it does have the ability to "scare" your opponent into using "Evasive Action", which could be good for you for a whole host of reasons.

BTW, will my favourite torp curiser the Kuma Class "Oi", be making an appearance in Awakened Giant?

-Tim

42

(31 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

So wow, Tsar and Empire not so long ago, and then a pair of very handy play aid supplements for Jutland.

I guess Awakened Giant is next?

I would also love to see a supplement covering the major UK naval battles in WWII (Straight of Denmark, North Sea, Mediterranean, possibly even Far East) at some point.

-Tim

43

(3 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Hey all,

With all indications that Awakened Giant is the next supplement, I was contemplating some more elaborate torpedo rules.  While I really like the difference in damage resolution for torps, I think the timing of the torpedo attack feels a little generic (its just resolved at the same time as guns), and doesn't give the feel of a slow moving weapon.

What if torps didn't hit right away, but hit in the next turn?  This would make it feel like it took some time for them to get there - plus then ships would have the opportunity to take "evasive action" to reduce the chance that torps hit (at the expense of their own offensive power).

Discuss!

Other things I'm thinking:
-Perhaps if torps are fired at really close range - they hit the same turn, like now.
-Does there need to be a separate torp phase after movement?
-Should torps still launch when guns fired or at a different time?

-Tim

44

(8 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Personally I'm not planning on using the over pen rules, but if I did I might just apply it when the difference was 4 or 5.
That would make it more difficult for BB's to take out destroyers but that is about it.

45

(31 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Oh man, now I've got to go out and find some minis to use with Tsar & Empire!  Maybe I'll contact topside minis and drop some comments in their suggestion box...  wink

46

(8 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Wilf,

I was just curious.  I would leave  out crew rating in a learning game too.  Coronel on paper looks like a fairly even match, but factor in superior crew and the historic victory of the Germans is easily explained.

I'm keen on using Over-concentration - but not so keen on over-penetration.  Depends on the battle I guess.  If I did use it I'd probably change it to -1 for 3 levels of difference or possibly even 4.  I don't think you would have had any ships that would have been affected by Over-concentration anyways - it only affects 12" or larger guns at long range.

From K&K I am definitely going to use the new damage rules.  I think they are simpler and quicker, and I probably won't even introduce the ones in the rulebook.  I really like the range-based AP mods - although I would probably leave them out of the first game or two.  But I think range-based AP is key to emulating WW1 naval battles.

-Tim

47

(8 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Wilf,

Did you give the German ship's veteran crews?  Just wondering.

48

(3 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Stats for von der tann are in the new king & Kaiser supplement. Yours are pretty close to what is there. The one in the book is only 95 pts but also only had 11 attack dice for its 11" guns.

But good job. There are a lot of different sources for ship stats... Hard to know which ones to go with.

49

(4 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Cool, I would love to see pictures.  I had kind of resigned myself to getting all my WWI stuff from topsideminis.com, but always looking for affordable and minis that I can still see!

-Tim

50

(5 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Have fun.  Hopefully there will be some supplements soon with more ships!