So I guess the whole "Trekmada" idea was doomed from the start?
:oops:

Anyway, looking forward to it. Maybe now I can even get my non-wargaming rpg buddies to give it a try!

Having a "canon universe" with established races, plotlines, etc., would be a good thing. It's hard for a generic ruleset to attract attention without having specifics to capture the imagination of players, this I know from the rpg side of the hobby. Champions, for instance, could be about *anything* but players tend to gravitate towards the pre-established superhero universe. And, even tho I don't go for it, the RPGA rakes in players with their "Living Greyhawk" type series of adventures. A big master plotline in a set universe, with a series of programmed adventures and a programme of advancement (like earning ranks) for participating in adventures--that certainly resonates with some.

The trick is to balance the "official" side of things, while still having enough grey areas that creative types feel free to invent and create. If M12 decided to go that route, it would probably be one of their biggest decisions as a company.  It could take you down paths that you hadn't forseen (books and movies?) It could just be the tale that wags the corporate dog (for better or worse.) Then again, it might lead nowhere.

As such, I'd think carefully about what the canon universe is. While i like the ISS material, it may or may not be the best vehicle to provide the kind of loose/tight structure and organization that you're looking for. Just like any good story, there should be some over-arching themes, prominent characters, and conflict.

Lots of conflict.

Most excellent! I like where this is headed. I'm really an rpg-er, so any excuse to add in a little story/drama is a good thing. (The best space battles have a really good story and memorable characters.)

The only thing I'd add to the discussion is allowing a range of flexibility for our "heroes," with the limitation that it increases the cost. Heroes with "dedicated" bonuses should be cheaper, while more expensive "heroes" could have a number of bonuses that they can allot more flexibly.

Examples:
  Cheapest: A "Scotty" who only provides a +1 bonus to shields
  One who provides a floating +1 to use on general shipboard systems
  A Scotty who has 3 bonus points per round
  Most Expensive: a Jedi-level hero who would have all kinds of crazy bonuses that can be moved around on the fly

Players would have to be in agreement on whether they're using "heroes" or not. (And how they're implemented, since these rules could/should range from realistic to cinematic.)

You'd also need a mechanic that allows one player to kill, kidnap or disable the hero. (Thus, the "mega Scotty" wouldn't quite be equal to three ordinary "Scotties.")

Is the changing ORAT the reason weapon range is in multiples of 3? I'd assumed that it was to avoid min-maxing/munchkinism. (It would be easy enough to divide any weapon range--say, range 10--into thirds, rounding off.)

Actually, I wasn't planning on having players build the ships themselves, anticipating newbies who need to learn the system (and to be honest, a gm who's still green.)

So I'm trying to balance forces of roughly the same strength, from totally different universes. (Star Wars, Trek, B5 and Galactica). There are many fine conversions out there, but they're consistent only within their own universes, not across franchises.

The plan is to start small, with a few key iconic ships. Write a kewl scenario, and let it evolve from there.

I think the whole idea of "canon" is pretty suspect. To me, TOS, ST:TMP, Movie Treks II-V, TNG/DS9/Voyager and Enterprise all represent slightly different universes, alternate realities. I think the new movie is going to be different enough that it's going to be hard to shoehorn it into the established continuity. (And, saying that it *doesn't* fit, that it's a "reboot," doesn't that automatically make it an alternate universe from the accepted one?)

My main concern is that they have a plan of some sort of where they're going to go with this if it's successful. Are they going to do a series of original movies? A tv show? How will the original material fit in? (People love to hate Berman and Braga, but they did oversee more hours of Trek, good and bad, than anyone else. Managing these franchises is almost as important as the individual films. Need proof? Look at the Alien series.)

J MIchael Straczinzki had a plan where they would reboot trek, featuring a blend of classic stories retold along with new scripts. (Good plan, tho' he is not involved in this project at all.) Personally, I got no problem with that. That kind of treatment is ok for Shakespeare...

I've heard that the new movie will be an alternate-universe, which suits me fine. Seems like every incarnation of Trek that comes along is a slightly different version of the same beast. The movies don't fit the series (or each other!) "Enterprise" seemed completely out of step with TOS. The longest run on consistency was TNG/DS9/Voyager.

Just thinking about Trek, I'd say my three favorite starship battles:

"Best of Both Worlds" otherwise known as the Battle of Wolf 359. And it was, minute for minute, the best of all Trek worlds.

the Doomsday Machine: with a great 3-way cat-and-mouse game between the crippled Constellation, the Enterprise and the unicorn horn from hell.

The Wrath of Khan: just a perfect movie on so many levels. A great reboot to the film series.

AWESOME!!!

Using cardboard counters is often easier--images are all over the internet for any genre you want to do. But kudos to you for re-using these very intriguing images. (Think I'll try a google search of "macro photography" and see if I can find some myself!)

Personally, I like keeping them glued flat. Steve Jackson Games has a line of multicolored bases that work well with them, too.

After you're done with combat, wanna post their stats?

30 hexes is pretty big--if you're anywhere near the center, it's almost everything on the friggin map!!! Yowza!

Do you discuss rules or weapon options limitations before playing, and if so, should range limitations be part of the discussion? How about limits on the value of individual weapon systems? If not, I guess that's what you get in an "anything goes" kind of game rather than some kind of established millieux.

The suggestions given (cloak, etc) seem solid countermeasures.

As an alternative to adjusting the CR, perhaps there could be inherent penalties that kick in as range increases, to help levelize these ultra-long range weapons? Thinking in terms of what you would logically expect to see, any really long-range gun/beam/missile ought to be slower, weaker, vulnerable to countermeasuress...or else very, very expensive (leaving an opening somewhere else in the ship design.)

Read the review, and one point jumped out--why have two idententical ship print-outs side-by-side? Seemed a bit odd when I first saw it. In the future, perhaps two variants of the same class could be presented?

The question about "which weapon gets slagged?" reminded me of a house rule I was toying with. It would seem to make sense that if you score a hit, it would have to be on a weapon that FACES you (if one is available.) Anyone play it that way?