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 diddimus
Thanks for all the replies. I think I've managed to make lasers and pulse weapons to be distinct enough and not too far away in points from each other, the laser being more expensive as I'd like it to be.
Med Laser - RNG 9 - BAS 3 - Piercing, Repeating (to represent the Raking/Sustain nature)
Med Pulse - RNG 6 - BAS 7
I think this gives a choice of the laser for long range and shielded targets, and the pulse for shorter range and fighters.
Great! I was expecting the opposite but this now gives a reason to reduce some weapons down to 1/2 dice but x2 damage.
Just what I was looking for!
So to get back to the topic of fighter questions 
Does a double damage weapon kill fighters with one hit?
The laser version of the shot can't be interfered with by interceptor systems or similar defenses.
I knew that but probably didn't consider just how good that was. I guess if you combine the higher range mod, with negatives from interceptors the pulse weapons will not hit as often?
Any idea how to represent this in Starmada? I've so far got Piercing on my lasers as I'm using shields as interceptors.
I'm re-converting B5wars to Starmada and I'm taking the oppotunity to take a fresh look as some design decisions were made that need or I'd like to change with Nova edition.
I have a question for anyone who knows B5 Wars. I never really played it, I'm simply using it for source material.
A Nova Destroyer has a weapon that can choose between a med. pulse cannon or a med. laser. Therefore these should be pretty similar in cost. There needs to be a reason to choose the other in certain situations. However I'm struggling to see that with exception of range why you would ever choose the laser. Here are some stats:
Pulse ROF 1/2 turns | DMG: 1d5 x 10 | Range -1 per hex
Laser ROF 1/3 turns | DMG: 3d10+12 | Range -1 per 2 hexes
Speed: The laser is slower.
Damage: About the same damage on average, but combined with the speed you'd choose the pulse here. The pulse also increases damage the better you hit.
Range: Laser wins, as the range penalty is half.
Other: The pulse is also better against fighters.
In Starmada I can't do double the range as I soon run out of ranges and some become massive. Maybe this is my mistake? My conversions are:
Pulse Range 6
Laser Range 9
So can anyone shed any light on what's so good about lasers in B5W as I see this when comparing other weapon types.
I'm not sure if you are doing it on purpose anymore :?
It's the guy from Firefly/Serenity.
Did i miss the irony the first time? :oops:
Is this one of those weird Internet virals. My wife shows me this stuff on Pinterest all the time. Don't always get that they are supposed to be wrong :?
...............
-Command is a resource. You get a number of command points equal to the highest command in the force at the start of the turn - lesser commands don't add to it but are redundant incase the "command ship" gets destroyed
...................
-Tim
I like this general idea. It would work along side any of the other options (any movement type etc). It also adds more tactics which I'm always looking for.
The exact details are up to Dan of course but I think this is the best idea for command so far. Think of it as an expendable weapon in a way with an effect other than damage. You could even add a range if it make working out the points easier?
The combination of ECM and EPM seem to be natural, and I'm considering combining them as a Blanket EW (Electronic Warfare) stat that can be assigned either offensively or defensively, particularly for B5wars conversions.....
Same here. I love this rule. It offers some additional tactical options but also works perfectly for B5 Wars 
In my opinion an anti-fighter trait isn't really needed.
If you want to simulate anti-fighter type weapons, just design them with range 1/2/3, and use either the Repeating or Scatter abilities.
Kevin
I guess this works, I don't think anti-fighter is a must and if it means not creating a new trait so late in the day that might not balance I think the options available are fine.
I'm kind of liking the no anti-fighter or no-starship exclusive/interceptor/bomber thing right now. Might I suggest you just add these all in at a later supplement?
If you want to make an anti-fighter weapon just make a short range accurate weapon.
-Tim
I've gone back and forth between thinking short & accurate is ok like the ones in the book, to wanting a true anti-fighter trait. I think I'd prefer a real trait for the following reason:
There's no way to represent a gun that fires lots of low powered shots that will take out multiple fighters but do very little to ships. Currently, unless I've missed it, to take out lots of fighters you need lots of dice, those dice could be turned on a ship and do a lot of damage too. This is against what anti-fighter normally is.
The simplest idea for a trait is to flip the -1 from fighters to ships. You could then add accurate for more effect.
underling wrote:If you have a starting number of 32 attack dice...
... you're rolling too many friggin' dice.True. I doubt you'll have a single 32-die weapon -- although now I've said that, I wouldn't put it past someone to try and design one.
However, I can understand a ship with LOTS of smaller weapons that end up totaling 32 or more dice.
And that's where I'm at. Damn Minbari
Ok I'll try to look at splitting the battery into smaller ones, although I'm probably going to mod the few batteries that turn out like this one.
cricket wrote:Marauder wrote:I also think if you can make any changes you really need an anti armour won trait to balance it with shields.
I've been reluctant to add an anti-armor trait because "armor" isn't supposed to represent iron plates bolted onto the exterior of the ship, but instead reinforcement of the ship's entire structure. Thus, it's hard for me to envision a weapon that could "bypass" it...
Not to mention the fact that once you start adding stuff that bypasses this or bypasses that, you start eliminating effects that points have been paid for, and you start breaking the game.
Agreed. This happened in ACTA. You end up with races who are great against another and not so against others. E.g. if you have lots of armour piercing weapons as a "racial trait" and your opponent has armour then great, but if not you've just wasted a huge amount of points.
The reason is not that you have to count more columns (although it's pointless), the reason is that the chart in my example doesn't go down to 0 or even 1, so what happens when you go off the chart due to the built in high mods.
On the other hand what happens when you go off the chart to the left?
You do what it say in the book for +1 mods and column shift right and double the number (or double the first number in the case of a +2). Or have I misread this?
I don't see what all the fuss is about, just because you might be able to who is seriously going to have an extreme weapon with a total firepower of 72 attack dice.
Oh my! It is so Exhausting having to count a few more columns over to the right.
Excuse me. Just have to lay down for a minute. You young-uns should'nt have a problem.
The system is simple, my eight year old niece can use it.I am not saying don't do it. Just that it seems like going to more bother for nothing. Just my 2d worth.
Paul
The reason is not that you have to count more columns (although it's pointless), the reason is that the chart in my example doesn't go down to 0 or even 1, so what happens when you go off the chart due to the built in high mods.
Yes that's exactly what I think is needed. Glad to see it's already in hand
Why do the weapon displays start at a really high value when all of the weapons have a bank modifier? Take this weapon I designed using one of the spreadsheet, but I've seen something similar on the ones in the book:
Fusion Cannon (Acr) [FF4][FP5][FS5][AS6][AP6][AA4]
72 51 36 25 18 13 9 6 5 3 2 2
There's a load of wasted columns at the start and the end doesn't go down to 0. Really it should start at 18 and reduce all the mods by 4? I presume you'd have to manually modify these or is this something the spreadsheets could do?
Ok I've just tried playing with some fighters. A few questions came up:
1) Do fighters fire at the same time as everything else? I guess this comes under the rule "fighters are ships".
2) I was using some stock ships in the rules with a weapon listed as "Anti-fighter". I think I was doing it wrong to start with; The -1 is a column shift isn't it, it doesn't make you need 6's to hit does it?
3) Unless you use the optional split fire rule you can end up wasting fire from good anti-fighter weapons, once you've done 2 damage to kill 1 flight. I was thinking of ruling that if flights are stacked, then damage rolls over. This discourages stacking around a poor arc. Anyone see any serious issues with this?
Other than I think fighters seem better than SAE so far. I'm glad they are cheaper and much more simple to resolve that SAE. We had to reduce fighters down in SAE but now I'll be able to convert 1:1 in Nova
Ah of course. I'm confusing the versions!
Also I don't get why it's harder to hit the seekers with the various traits. I'm guessing this is a points issue rather than a realism one.
Do seekers have a range modifier to hit the target? I guess you have to remember what range they were at at the time?
I'm thinking of making my missiles guided so this doesn't need to be remembered.
I love the seeker rule in general by the way, I was using double range mods for my SAE missiles. Seekers are better
cricket wrote:jwpacker wrote:Every one of them winds up damaging the armor, while what I'm looking for is an attack that simply does damage to the hull without taking armor into account at all.
Would this not cause the same problems as "ignores shields" did in SAE?
Not if, in your particular universe, ships tended towards a mix of shields, armor and ECM as defenses, opposed to only one or two of them. A ship hit with an "Ignores Armor" weapon might not be hit due to superior ECM, or deflect that attack with their shields. And ships with superior shields or ECM, but lacking Armor at all, wouldn't be unduly impacted even if it did get through. (Edited to add: this was why I disliked the "shields can mean any sort of defense..." line from SAE - I wanted that level of control over what defenses stopped what...)
On a related note, although I didn't use "ignore shield" traits I did like the varying piercing traits. I was planning on giving most of my B5 ships either 1 or 2 shields to represent interceptors and then give all the laser weapons piercing+2 to ignore them. However piercing has now changed! I can't now ignore even the lowest level of shields!
I'm probably going to still do this but it just won't feel as good as it could have.
I'm not sure I understand how morale works in Nova. It seems as the though the higher the morale the less ships I can buy, but the more VPs my opponent needs. Is this right?
So am I the only one to notice this a week late?
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopi … amp;t=3630
Doesn't that mean it should be here now? 
Ah I see, one whole dice for each system.
It could work. Maybe you could indicate the number lost too?
I might consider making some generic ones with just the number of damage on them.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by diddimus
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.