Glen, that reminds me of the Sailing Orders stuff I posted up... god, a year ago?
Maybe something useful we can mine out of it. I'll bump it.
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 Marcus Smythe
Glen, that reminds me of the Sailing Orders stuff I posted up... god, a year ago?
Maybe something useful we can mine out of it. I'll bump it.
Buming this as potentially useful vis a vis the long range weapons discussion, specifically the ability to choose orders which reduce your vulnerability on turns you are denied the ability to fire due to massive range penalties, anyway.
((The has the additional advantage of being realistic, as ships unable to return fire but striving to close would be manuvering their vessels to maximize surviviability, rather than return fire.))
Some things would have to be changed to reflect the evolution of SMX to AE. Given interest, I'll make those changes.
Another thing to consider...
Range 30 weapons (or any other optional rule) is probably something that people just don't play against that much.
Anyone first meeting a new technology, used by someone very comfortable with that technology, is likely to get their hat handed to them.
Our best feedback will probably come from Beowulf's gaming buddies, who face it on a table time and again... or if we could set up our own test group, to play against it alot.
Ive done some 1-offs against it, but the only thing I've got that fares well against the ships-o-doom is my own, personal, more-than-slightly-tweaked fleet.. and even then, I cant give his ships a floating map...
Marcus Smythe wrote:Id pay money to see Beowulf fight against his own designs
...
And I want to see Ken Burnside flying the Range 30 Speed 6 ships.Count me in. I've got $13.07 burning a hole in my pocket...
((And the problem with most of the good suggestions is their not 'normal play' Most fleets dont cloak, most fleets arent pure fighters and strikeboats, etc...))
Most fleets don't have range-30 weapons, either.
True about the range 30 weapons.
I would love to see reports of you facing your own ships with a conventional Starmada fleet and winning.
I don't think you wil see that anytime soon.
Id pay money to see Beowulf fight against his own designs, at a convention, in front of a crowd, using the Imperial Starmada. Equal points, open, empty, floating map, last man standing. Oh, standard fleet doctrine for the Imp. Starmada, too.. lets see a mixed force, not too heavy on any one ship class.
And I want to see Ken Burnside flying the Range 30 Speed 6 ships.
Okay, what convention is good for both of you guys?
((And the problem with most of the good suggestions is their not 'normal play' Most fleets dont cloak, most fleets arent pure fighters and strikeboats, etc...))
I agree up to a point with Bewoulf. A low speed, coupled with less than maximum range weaponry, is begging for trouble.
But in defense of the Titanium Cluster:
1.) Its a setting piece. Nothing in the setting has a range >15. That in part may be what allows these things to wallow about like solid-iron battlepigs that they are.
2.) One of the setting bits seems to be TL=0. TL=0 means you can be, at most, 2 of 3: Well Armed, Tough, or Fast. For DNs, they chose Well Armed and Tough. I cant question that.
3.) Weapons over range 18 are an optional rule. Despite the fact that this is a points-balanced game, and a very well points-balanced game, the use of custom-designed maximum-win optional-rule enabled craft against flavor-designed maximum-setting-appropriate core-rule craft MAY somewhat void the warranty on balance.
In short, yes, your fleet would likely annihiliate its points, or more than its points, in Titanium Cluster ships while taking moderate casulties at best. Thats not necessarily a 'flaw' on the part of the Titanium Cluster (unless they are meant to be entered in a 'King of the Hill' fleet tourney), or even a 'flaw' with your U.S.S. Navy Fleet. Heck, I like building 'Faster, Battleship, Kill! Kill!' fleets as much as the next guy.
I just dont expect them to play even with flavor fleets.. which most book fleets are.
I also prefer my starship blowuppity in FtF format, but find a deplorable paucity of players IRL...
Some sort of good, idiot proof client woudl be wonderful. As elegant as the game is, it shoudlnt be -hard-.. but Im incompetent as to programming, so I cant really say what would, and would not be, hard.
http://mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1434
I just addressed the capships, and not even all of them.
I had hoped to capture the race 'flavor' in doing so, but alot of those races have alot of their flavor invested in their fighters and strikers... there are some just-bloody-mean torpedoes, among other things.
Certain commonalities run throughout the capital vessels of the titanium cluster. All are Hull 20 (though I also address a 'light capital' class at hull 16). All have Engines 2 and Shields 5. All are Armor Plated. Almost all have Fire Control and Countermeasures. None mount Hyperdrives, and almost all have 8-12 Marines and half that number of transporters to deliver them.
As a result, these ships are obviously designed, and intended, to play together as parts of a single setting, rather than 'at large' in the SM:AE universe. Interestingly, the capital vessels are more similar, at least in terms of speed, size, and defenses than has classically been the real world scenario. The primary differences appear in their armament, as if all the races were building from the same 'blueprint', but applying different daughter technologies. One wonders if we are looking at a semi-dark-ages 'after collapse of empire' style setting.
In any event, on to the ships!
Okhani Northern Union Ooshookhan Dreadnought:
The Heavy Particle Lances are potentially horrifying. With 2 Impact Rolls for 2 damage each, each one double damage extra hull damage, a single weapon can expect to generate 12 Hull damage, if it hits and both impact rolls penetrate. However, the anticipated damage, especially at long range, is about the same in Pulse mode, given the greater accuracy (and discounting the impact of AOE against multiple targets). The Rail Cannon will actually serve the big beast better against its cousins, and the Okhani Northern Union will probably want to close to Range 12 with other capital vessels, while using the Heavy Particle Arrays in either lance mode, to remove medium-sized vessels in one or two shots, or in Pulse mode to wipe out the swarms of fighters and torpedos that are endemic to the setting. The Rail Cannons will open up their cousins sheilds.
The Sentinel Defense Turrets will serve in the anti-fighter role, but the Ooshookhan really relies on escorting vessels, or in judicious use of pulse mode at long ranges (before fighters can escape the ponderous vessels limited arc) to cut down the number of incoming fighters/seekers/etc.
Khirokh Central Empire Peirimal Class Dreadnought:
The Grav Lance Replaces the Heavy Particle Arrays 'Lance' Mode as a long range ship killer. The three Grav Lances, especially with the 'piercing' mod, will allow the Perimal to out-shoot the Ooshookhan in the longer range bands. The anti-fighter role of 'pulse mode' is taken over by the Heavy-Mass Fusion Cannons. Though they lack the massive ROF of the Pulse Mode Arrays above, their much greater numbers (7 v. 2) and wider coverage offsets this. The double-damage 'Mass' Mode makes a decent secondary armament. Close in defense, with the Grav mines, should be hiedously effective.. the vessel can cover alot of close-in space with ROF 5 AOE. Coupled with the AOE Fusions and the slow, shielded, accurate, ROF3 Chalrus SuperInterceptors, the Khirokh DN is self-escorting (and the Chalrus will be relatively mean, due to piercing, in an anti-ship role). Its weakness, inasmuch as it has one, seems to be in dealing with multiple middle-weight opponents. The limited arc of hte Grav Lance, coupled with the short range of the Grav Mines, means that the Perimal really depends on its 2 fighter groups and Fusion Cannons against agile, well armed light cruisers, and could get in trouble alone against them. Still, on the whole, superior to the first DN discussed, though the lack of countermeasures means that it will suffer some accuracy disadvantage at longer ranges against its more-common Fire Control+Countermeasures opponents.
Multi-State Alliance Shokhalath System Control Ship
Something of the bastard child of a DN and a CV (still over 1200 points without its fighters), the Shokalath is elegant. Its Gatling Cannons, with their limited cross-bore coverage (6 guns, 1 arc each) provide little effective point defense. However, a total of 40 ROF 3 Fighters -do- provide effective point defense. The Heavy Ion/Mass Driver is interesting. Piercing in both modes, a definite plus in this universe of max-shielded ships, it seems to rely on the Ion Mode to produce buckets O damage to cripple enemy capships, and Mass Mode either to finish the target off or to shoot lighter vessels. On the whole, the two modes seem a bit too similar to really get the juice out of dual mode weapons.
Self-Escorting, due to its fighters, and with at least some response against any likely opponent, the Shokhalath is really only let down by its 2000 point price tag. Also, 640 of its BV is tied up in highly powerful, but relatively fragile, fighters that will, if care is not used, quickly fall prey to the plethora of AOE anti-fighter options found in the cluster.
Nexus Allied Powers Mahkhogran Class Dreadnought
Stock systems, size, and speed, here. Point Defense attempts to make up for the lack of on-board fighters or anti-fighter weapons. Although the Bolt Mode of the Nexus Beams suggests additional anti-fighter use, the very ppor arcs, coupled with the 3 IMP, 2 DMG, and Double-Damage make it clear that Bolt Mode is meant to break up concentrations of mid-to-large ships (anything smaller will stay out of arc).
The lack of range modifiers, coupled with the good accuracy of the Pulse Mode, suggests another vessel best suited to long range combat... a suggestion that the lack of any close-in weapons or real anti-fighter defenses supports. Excellent at its role, but very, very vulnerable, the Mahkhogran should never be allowed out on its own, the Nexus Player will have to make very sure he keeps the support ships for the Mahkhorgran alive long enough to capitalize on its 16 to-hit, 48 Impact, 96 Damage dice of range 15 no-range-modifiers misery, and thus ensure that the Mahkhogran does not end up unsupported. The lack of piercing on its primary guns may be problematic against other capital vessels, however...
Khonilka-Yan Imperium Khalakhor Heavy Battleship
Winning the award for 'Best Designed Dual Purpose Weapon in the Cluster', the Heavy Laser/Pulse Cannon has a highly effective anti-fighter flavor (though the 2 impact is a bit wasted, everythign shouldnt have to be perfect, and will make it a fairly decent weapon against strikeboats), and a Piercing, Double Damage, No-Range-Modifiers anti-ship mode that is a well balanced capship killer. The three Nexus Cannons cover short and mid-range dual-purpose duties, being decent in the anti-fighter and anti-strikeboat role.
Better alone than some ships, the Khalakhor will still suffer from a serious vuneraiblity to fighter swarms, as fighters should have little trouble evading the A-B arcs, and the Nexus Cannons just cannot swat down enough.
I'Ter'Kor Alliance No-Khantai Dreadnought
Take a Khalakhor. Rip off the Nexus Cannon, and downgrade the Lasers. Add some mines and 200 points worth of very strange, highly innacurate, piercing, AOE??? fighters. Likely to perform reasonably well, and flies better solo than the Khalakhor due to the wider coverage on its primary weapons, but will have trouble focusing firepower on point-targets at range, and (like many capships in the cluster) will be very vulnerable to firepower destruction due to the very small number of weapons... especially with the 'double' damage' weapons prevalent, one die roll could easily strip half of a capships firepower.
On the whole, feels like a variant of hte Khalakhor hull.. how closely are those two empires related?
Conclusion:
Interesting. Id like to put them on a table to see how differently they play from one another... whether the subtle enginnering differences create interesting, subtle but meaningful tactical differenecs (I give you the Kzin, Klingon, and Black Shark Tourney Cruisers of SFB. Phasers, Disruptors, Drones... and yet, they play differently in very important ways, especially against each other). My expectation is those subtle differences could make for good play against each other, but from the standpoint of an 'outsider' race, they will all seem like clones.
Enjoyable, and I pity that I lack the time and energy to write up the rest of the navy!</t>
I like the designs, on the whole... They look not dissimilar to alot of other conversions I recall.
Speed is solid, but nothing over the top. Decent shields and firepower, relatively balanced.
Im not sure I'd make the Omega, Primus, and G'Quan all the exact same hull size, but then I dont have the B5Wars/etc. source material.
As for Beowulf... dont let him scare you. Most fleets aren't nearly as scary as his.
I say build to balance with book fleets, as their the 'authors intent' version of Starmada. Once youve got a local group of players, you can figure out collectively what sort of balance point you want to aim at.
PS: Welcome to Starmada, and have a wonderful stay! Cant wait to see all your ships converted up and posted!
Marcus Smythe wrote:I wouldnt want to try to do Jutland with SMAE.. but it would be perfect for the Battlecruiser engagement (assuming we all overlook the light cruisers, etc. )
Funny you should mention that...
Heh heh heh...
Tease.
I really like the 'floats, but objective must stay on the map'. Seems a reasonable compromise.
And if your here from SFB, welcome again. I do love SFB, and its my accept-no-substitute game for Wrath of Khan style ship dueling... but I think SM is probably the queen of Squadron Style engagements... up to small fleets.
I wouldnt want to try to do Jutland with SMAE.. but it would be perfect for the Battlecruiser engagement (assuming we all overlook the light cruisers, etc. )
I have been known to play with floating maps.
So long as everyone builds and plays in good faith, floaty maps are to me alot more realistic (space having no walls).
However, be aware that there are ship designs that, played on a floating map, may prove less than fun to play against. Given good faith on the part of all players, this shouldn't be an issue most times.
I suck at quotes, so...
1.) "Slow Firing" is a penalty that applies to a weapon. Reduced Penetration is a penalty that applies to a weapon. If the slow firing penalty on mode 1 also penalizes mode 2, why does the reduced penetration penalty on mode 1 not also penalize mode 2?
I suppose another way to look at it is...
Dual Weapon= 10 Mode A OR 10 Mode B
Normal Ship, non-dual weapons: 10 Mode A AND 5 Mode B
Such that a Dual-Purpose Weapon ship may have either or, but does not have both simultaneously.
Thus the firing pattern for a the ship described above would be
Turn 1
10A
Turn 2
10B
Turn 3
10A
Turn 4
10B
Versus a non-dual mode ship, having 10 'A' weapons and 5'B' weapons, which would get
Turn 1
10A, 5B
Turn 2
5B
Turn 3
10 A, 5B
Turn 4
5 B
Such that over 4 turns, the dual mode and non-dual mode ships would, at the same cost, generate the exact same volume of fire. This is different from the non-slow-firing dual purpose/non-dual purpose dichotomy, wherein the dual mode ship would fire 10A OR 10B, versus the non-dual mode ships 10A AND 5B every turn.
Since we want the dual-mode ship to have that firepower penalty as a price for flexibility (as its price for having 10B when desired, rather than 10A and 5B all the time), then the slow-firing issue is resolved, and I retract the question.
I suppose that the same concerns answer the ammo question, though I still find the idea of a weapon that has a limited number of 'big shots' and unlimited 'little shots' really flavorful.
Be sure to give yourself time to develop tactics for the various races. Each race would give a great deal of thought on how to use each type of ship. Changes to the ships would be slow in coming, so the local commanders would have to live with what they have for a while. I thought of doing something similar with a VBAM campaign, so I'm looking forward to hearing how this goes.
I'd like to add a 'here here' to the above. I -constantly- battle with myself not to change at least one niggling little thing about my ships every game. The line between refining and 'munging everything until its generic' is a fine one, as is the tendancy to refight the last war. If the fleets we use are to have any flavor other than 'whatever beats whatever I'm likely to fight today' (not that there is necessarily something wrong with that), we have to exercise a little self control in how we change things.
And as has been pointed out, just because what sounded like a wonder-weapon in the lab turned out to be a tragic failure in practice, doesnt mean that an empire can afford to overhaul its entire navy overnight.
On the other hand, if you choose to view at least some of your games as simulations, rather than real-space battles happening in real conflicts, the 'tinker after every fight' impulse we all suffer from does make a little more sense...
Let us assume a dual mode weapon, with modes A and B.
In Mode A, the weapon requires ammunition, is slow firing, and has reduced penetration. (and likely does damage in buckets)
In Mode B, none of the above are the case.
1.) May the weapon fire in Mode B, if there is no ammunition remaining? (We assume that Mode A was costed for ammo, and mode B was not)
2.) If the weapon fires on turn 1 in Mode A, may it fire on turn 2 in Mode B?
3.) If the answer to #1 or #2 above is 'no', then why does the weapon not suffer from reduced penetration in Mode B?
Next Question:
Assuming the answer to question #1 above is 'Yes', may a weapon be designed such that it has modes A and B, and requires (seperate) ammunition for both? May a weapon be designed such that it has modes A and B and shares ammunition for a common pool for both?
Next Question:
It was noted that Dual-Mode weapons must have the same range. Does this still allow Dual Mode Weapons wherein Mode A suffers from "minmum Range" and Mode B has the carronade limitation? (As this would, I assume, subvert the designers intent in limiting dual-mode weapons such that both modes must have the same range, while remaining true to the text of the rules)
Final Question:
Why do Dual-Mode weapons have to have the same range in both modes? A hypothetical 12 gauge shotgun carrying both bird-shot and slug ammunition would have widely varying ranges (and, incidentally, 2 supplies of ammunition, relying on ammunition for each).
Such a 12-Gauge Shotgun, in a suitably up-teched descendant, would make a pretty neat, pretty 'realistic', and currently difficult-to-impossible to duplicate under the rules, weapon.
Just wanted to ask about some stuff that was discussed back during SMX, and whether or not we could look for it at some point in AE:
1.) Area of Effect other than 1 hex Radius:
While I love the current AOE, I'm curious as to the possibility of other forms of AOE, including AOE Line (all hexes along a path between firing ship and target hex), AOE 1 Hex (like the current AOE, but only a single hex), and the like.
2.) Slow(er) Firing Weapons:
While I love the 2-turn weapon 'slow firing', Id like to see 3 turn weapons as well, both for duplicating SFB portability, and to further increase options. I agree that 3 turns is probably a limit.
3.) Ablative Armor:
You remember. I loved the idea, but it was my idea, so of course -I- loved it.
4.) More specific anti-fighter options:
While the 'Anti-Fighter' weapon that avoids the fighter to-hit penalty is a nice start, it would also be nice to have weapons that suffer a penalty against ships, in exchange for loosing the penalty against fighters (Ideally at no CR mod or even a negative CR mod, as fighters are less common than ships). Beyond that, something that could ONLY hurt fighters (at a major CR break) would also be lovely.
5.) Firing Time Options:
We can sort-of do this with dual mode weapons (depending on interpretation, see next post). However, a specific modifier could also work, espc. if the dual mode interpretation doesnt work.
6.) Extra Other Damage Weapons
Extra Hull damage is neat. Might we at some point expect to see extra sheild, weapon, or engine damage? How would they be costed, inasmuch as the x3 of 'Extra Hull Damage' seems high for systems that are non-essential (though I note that shield/engine/system damage occurs 1 time in 3, suggesting the appropriate value thereof would be x4. This seems very high, except (perhaps) for 'Extra Weapon Damage' weapons)
Welcome aboard!
Whereabouts are you? Always a real pain finding local players, though I think I've recruited a couple, so, yay, more sales for MJ12.
I have found that if my ships with their range 30 weapons are faster than the opponants, they can have several turns of fire without having to endure return fire. This also allows me to slow hostile fighters can close, which allows for more AA fire...
*nods* That definitely can work... especially with the vast aft firing arcs on your ships.
Hmm....
I like the paralellism to the WW2 designs.. and leaves room for an up-armored and upgunned Montana (though I might have gone slower, to leave more room for the Iowas.. though I suppose Engines 7 or 8 is always an option)
Something to look at.. if what your going for is paralellism, consider the Hammer and Claw sourcebooks 'dual mode' weapons... the ability to have an actual, dual purpose 5" would seem to fit perfectly with what your trying to do.
I cant wait to see them posted, Beowulf.
I can only say how I deal with some RPS issues for -my- fleets... what I didnt upload with the Wyan is the fleet support ships.. read 'Torpedo Resupply Ships'.
I keep a big pile of BV-mostly-neutral 'alternate loads' for the torpedo tubes, some AOE, some inverted range based damage, etc. Nothing so far as to be customizing a fleet against a given foe, but enough to reflect 'Hey, were on the bugswarm front, so we have AOE ammo' logical mentality.
Granted, fighters and strikers and seekers (though noone much uses seekers) ignore evasive action (why? We dont know why. Its like ignoring ECM, or applying to-hit penalties to certain weapons. Fighters are made of magic in every space battle game they appear in. But thats a different soap box). However, one can design anti-fighter weapons to fire through the penalties, or just bring enough interceptor style fighters of your own to deal with it.
And Beowulf.. you don't have to redesign your navy. I find it can be more rewarding to spend at least -some- time working out a tactical response to a tactical problem, rather than engineering a response to every perceived imperfection. If you swap out your screens for shields, you'll find your navy better against being swarmed (or AOE over-the-shoulder shots), but much worse at the 'holding range open and keeping shields maxed' game their designed to play.
That said, a more generalist design might be something you find more fun to play.
And yes, One-shot weapons oddly enough work better on large, barrage boat hulls than on small strike boat hulls. This is (logically) because the idea is that larger hulled boats, lasting longer, would get less relative value out of the ability to throw everything at the foe on the first round in range.
Unfortunately, the impact is to encourage 'refitted cargo ships' full of missiles, rather than the more fluffy missile armed strikeboats. (though a bunch of CR25 strike boats, armed with a nasty missile AND A POPGUN, can be awesome. The popgun, IMHO, is vital, as it keeps them a threat even after they shoot, complicating the opponents targeting choices)
Before you go making assumptions, Beowulf used expendibles quite extensively in S:X and he posted their statistics several times. They wiped out my fleets more than his big guns did. I'm the one that asked that we do not play with that option. Perhaps we should relook at that house rule.
Expendibles/ammo makes the game boil down to Harpoon: fleets make contact, fire all their missiles, and survivors, if any, win. I played that game once, never again.
Same thing goes with the super big gun with 1 shot. I know my die rolls. I cannot trust that the 1 shot will hit. Even at 2+ accuracy, I expect a 50% success rate.
Hmm.. that seems to make your only option 'same ship, only better'. Which probably means a spinal mount gun, screens, and a tendency to keep your nose on him at long range.
And expendables are like everything else... as a part of the overall flavor of a fleet? Pretty cool. Used to excess? Broken. Most things are that way... ultra-long-range firepower? Broken. Pure fighter fleets? Broken. Massive single salvos of expendables? Broken.
Though with some planning, even the massive single salvos of expendables can be dealt with... get yourself enough thrust for Evasive Action at the +2 level, and ECM. Dare your opponent to fire off his entire CR at a target number of 6 or higher. Sure, you wont be doing alot of damage during those turns yourself.. but if your opponent fires while your evasive, he wont, either.. and then hes dry.
If he DOESNT fire his expendables while your evasive... stay evasive, keep shooting, win.
Id take a swing at it, Rifleman, but I dont want the forums to turn into 'the sound of Marcus talking' just because I just got into this after a near-year absence and am somewhat overly enthusiastic.
Well, if it is R/P/S...
does that not suggest that..
1.) A pure "R, P, or S" will be relatively less fun to play (out of 3 games against 3 potential opponents, only one is interesting).
2.) The ideal fleet design is one that is, to at least some extent, neither R, P, nor S? Ideal in terms of fun, I mean, not necessarily effectiveness.
This is what I was kinda trying to go for with the Wyan.. their fast, have good long range firepower, and are resonably resilient.. but they cant hold the range open forever (so much forward firepower they have to close out of their best ranges), dont have really heavy shields on most classes, etc. etc. etc. They have carrier designs, and escort designs, and alot of ships have a really great first-turn punch (all the single salvo torpedos) but its not enough to tip a game.. just enough to rough the other side up a bit, or (if concentrated) to cripple perhaps one or two really offensive ships.
The idea is to be competent at everything, but perfect at nothing, and not 100% invested in any one play-style or build. Thus, youve some Rock to club Scissors with, some Scissors to cut paper.. etc... while at the same time being vulnerable to the opposing fleet, so even if you manage to win, your opponent doesnt feel like he might as well have stayed at home.
For my own part, I like 'hard to play well' fleets with lots of decision points (thus the focus on 1 shot weapons, slow firing weapons, and the like). So I try to build a fleet that can do lots of things, but requires me to make smart decisions at the table.
Robot fleets dont stay fun long (Robot fleet= fixed, and highly effective, playstyle. "Mount close range weapons, close and hose every time" (though thats really not a robot, in Starmada, because the fast close range ships have a hard time being worht it). "Rear-firing max ranged guns and stealth" being the ultimate robot fleet... keep range open and keep shooting. Yawn.)
But given a broad, lots-of-neat-tricks but no-super-trick fleet, you can at least in theory have fun playing, while giving your opponent some traction to play against. (I like the tricks, the decision points. Without tricks or decision points, it starts to turn into just dice rolling, or mathmatical analysis).
Just my thoughts.
Other peoples? Or other fleet reviews/discussions?
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Marcus Smythe
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.