476

(11 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
OldnGrey wrote:

So you said, when I asked about the weapon examples and there were questions about the flotillas I think.
Was there a revised edition? I know some revised ships were posted here on the forum.

I know that the ships don't work out in terms of space units and such -- is that what you're referring to, or do some of the CR values come out wrong?

Partly, they could be confusing to anyone new reading the book. If I remember correctly, you said that the CR's were correct.
You intended to do a replacement page/s for the examples on pages 11 and 17. You said that the example on page 11 was totally wrong. I do not remember seeing a revised page.
Paul

477

(11 replies, posted in Starmada)

Gone through the calculations.
As Eric Morecombe would have said, All the calculations are there, not necessarily in the right order.

The OCR was the problem. I am sure it used to agree with the shipbuilder to within a point or two. I blame Oo3.0 myself, some times I hit the wrong button when it makes suggestions as to formulae.
Going senile as well as blind I think.

Anyhow, changed some of the rounding etc and should now agree with the shipbuilder.

Sorry to everyone.
v26 posted

Paul

478

(11 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
OldnGrey wrote:

Examples in the books do not always conform to the shipyard or shipbuilder (look at the examples in Dreadnoughts!)

There are problems with the ships in Dreadnoughts?

So you said, when I asked about the weapon examples and there were questions about the flotillas I think.
Was there a revised edition? I know some revised ships were posted here on the forum.

Paul

479

(11 replies, posted in Starmada)

mahon wrote:

I was reverse-engineering some ISS ships with OldNGrey's Shipyard, and I found that I was unable to get them right.
Somehow calculations were always wrong for Negali ships.

Which means?
Something's not quite right about tech levels, because Negali fleet uses tech level modifier.
Either the ISS book or the Shipyard is wrong.

Strange, The shipyard uses the same calculations as the official shipbuilder, (OK it is a little bit more complicated as everything has it's own tech level.) When the Tech Range is set to 2 on the Tables sheet C2, the modifiers match those on page 42 of the core rules but I'll have another look at it.

mahon wrote:

And I managed to find one thing - engines' SU usage was miscalculated because Shipyard rounded the score up (AS6 cell in Template spreadsheet), which caused the miscalculation. After changing it into normal rounding, the SU usage was calculated right for the engines.

But what's the RIGHT way of calculating? Round UP or use the normal 4/5 method of rounding?
There must be other differences in calculations in Shipyard, because even though I set the right Tech Range (2), I could not get the values right whenever tech levels were different than 0.

Any insight?

Core rules page 28, Engine and Shield factors, "As with the SU total, these results are rounded up to the next interger." Just as per the official shipbuilder.

Examples in the books do not always conform to the shipyard or shipbuilder (look at the examples in Dreadnoughts!)

Can you please post the drake notation that you have.

Thanks
Paul

480

(0 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Apparently Excel 2008 for Mac does not like the Shipyard spreadsheet this may also be true for the Wardogs Design Spreadsheet.
I have tried my best to keep the shipyard (and Wardogs Design) as compatible as possible but it would seem that Excel and Open office are determined not to work together.

At least at the moment Open office will open most file types.

I think that the solution could be to keep a version of Open Office that works for you on a 1GB usb flash drive. The drives only cost a few pounds. If you get a larger one say 4GB, you could keep a copy of your spreadsheets on it also, Although I think that Open Office only takes up 240MB.

Don't forget to keep a back up of the files.

It is possible to use Open Office from the usb drive without installing it on the computer.

See:http://portableapps.com/apps/office/openoffice_portable

I believe that you will find version 2.4.1 as well as 3.0

Paul

481

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

Apparently Excel 2008 for Mac does not like the Shipyard spreadsheet.
I have tried my best to keep the shipyard as compatible as possible but it would seem that Excel and Open office are determined not to work together.

At least at the moment Open office will open most file types.

I think that the solution could be to keep a version of Open Office that works for you on a 1GB usb flash drive. The drives only cost a few pounds. If you get a larger one say 4GB, you could keep a copy of your spreadsheets on it also, Although I think that Open Office only takes up 240MB.
"Have Shipyard will Travel"
Don't forget to keep a back up of the files.

It is possible to use Open Office from the usb drive without installing it on the computer.

See:http://portableapps.com/apps/office/openoffice_portable

I believe that you will find version 2.4.1 as well as 3.0

Paul

482

(17 replies, posted in Wardogs)

thedugan wrote:

And you can use that in Open Office (which is a free program), yes?

Yes to both, it was written using Open Office calc 2.4, Open Office is free at http://www.openoffice.org. Although the latest version 3.0 seems to have the odd glitch (it was re-written after 2.4 and is less excel compatible).
It can also be found on magazine dvd's (Computer Buyer / Shopper etc). These had 2.4.1 right up to January 2009 editions. I have kept both versions just in case I come across a spreadsheet that will not work under 3.0 (had to re do parts of the shipyard thanks to this).

I have been through it and it should work fine in Open Office 2.4 and 3.0 as well as excel.

Updated version just uploaded (Hovercraft mod fixed).

Paul

483

(25 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Crumbs, missed it, now fixed it!

EM was OK, just missed adding the movement. Thanks for spotting it.

Updated design sheet in files.

Paul

484

(17 replies, posted in Wardogs)

go0gleplex wrote:

Check the assembly line thread...there are a few units posted there with which to go boom. wink  I've got a couple more just waiting for me to post as well.  And I believe there is the unit creator file available in the files section... :geek:

Yup, the design sheet is the only file so far, although only downloaded 18 times!
It is not hard to use, there are 13 example weapons and a unit example (PA Trooper). Anyone new to the game could use it to see what is possible.

Any problems with it, I am always happy to answer questions.

Paul

485

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Oops forgot to put in the bit about shields (edited above.)

thedugan wrote:

Speaking of Uber-Weapons....How about the 'Singularity Cannon' - shoots Black Holes ?

Something I came up with on my first (and forvever to be unpublished) starship game was something called the "Unified Field Projector":

Bit like the Genesis Device, I'm gonna take them with me! :evil:

Paul

486

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:

So, think big. What's missing from the Universal Game of Starship Combat?

Was this a clue? Space stations?

Romulan plasma type weapon, idea:
Single spinal weapon (Energy) single arc (G). Damage as hull, looses 1 point of damage per three hex/inches and per hit that it takes (only hit on a 6+). Shot travels at speed 6 per turn in a straight line. from the second turn after launch and before movement expands 1 hex.
Damage is taken by all craft that it hits. Roll against shields (IMP) or weakest screen.
Range =  24 (4turns), or when damage points =0.

Paul

487

(1 replies, posted in Discussion)

Has anyone else noticed that there are 293 members of this forum but the Yahoo mj12 group has 996!

Where have all the others gone?

Paul

488

(41 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

I think Armor Plating is not something you can totally destroy.  Like I put in my chart, it can be bypassed for a particular DMG roll (or rolls from the same IMP die if DMG>1) like a critical hit but cannot ever be destroyed to non-functional status for the rest of the scenario.

I think that there is a strong case for excluding Armor Plating, it being essentially part of the hull.

GamingGlen wrote:

The same can apply to Regeneration.  This would seem to be a shipwide ability of its hull, like human skin for humans.   Perhaps it can be impaired momentarily (i.e., shock), but should not be a system that is totally destroyed in one shot.  Or, it can have a set number of hits it can take before it becomes non-functional.
   :idea: Borrowing from the Hyperdrive activating sequence method: each hit does 1D6 damage and when the total damage to Regeneration is 10 or greater then the Regeneration no longer functions (the system is repairing itself?).  It's also something that cannot be repaired in the scenario.  :idea:

More inclined to give Regeneration 3 hits, which it gets to roll for repair when the roll is made for the hull. If all 3 are destroyed the system is too (Worn out, chewed up, frazzled).

Paul

489

(41 replies, posted in Starmada)

Insomniac wrote:

My primary goal was expandability.  A 2d6 chart (with temporary or transferring damage) is easy to cap out.  So if a new upgrade is added the system needs to be rewickered.  I usually try to come up with solutions that have growth built in because I get tired of redoing and redoing solutions.  My secondary goal was to try and stay consistent with current mechanics so that the solution was easy to integrate.

Irreparable would work well in a campaign setting but not in a one shot game.  Hopefully you get to play more campaigns then I do.

Cheers

Sorry, I should have said that I would think about adding the two things to the chart in the shipyard. Which, I doubt many people will fill. Even with all of the optional equipment that I put into the Starmada X versions I do not believe that I ever saw one design with 22 different pieces of equipment from the equipment table. There is still room for another 50 or so new equipment choices (without having to change the chart) but I am fairly sure that Dan would not like AE to go down the same path as Starmada X. There are only 14 official equipment choices in the equipment table.

Still, Starmada is all about choices, nothing is set in stone (unless Dan says it is).

Paul

490

(41 replies, posted in Starmada)

I think that I would add only two things, I like GamingGlen's idea of including Damage control and would put that on line 12 (fixed), One hit per die, since "damage dice", if used, are not chosen.

The other being to add ® to indicate equipment that can be repaired (Once only without returning to a base or space repair dock), marking off the ® and returning the O when repaired. Next hit, sorry, even Scotty cannot fix this.

At last a reason to protect that Pearl mobile repair facility.

Paul

491

(41 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

Except for which weapon battery goes in which of the 3 locations, the player does not have any say so about anything else about damage.  Die roll: 1-2 = engines, 3-4 = shields, 5-6 = weapons, odd = hull.  So why let them have a say in how the special equipment damage chart should look like?  I foresee a lot of munchkinism in allowing it.

That is what I thought about D12's, I also considered D10's and finally decided on D6's as Starmada is a D6 game.

The chart is supposed to be applicable to any ship, that is why it is filled by the spreadsheet. I did not intend that it be changed to suit. It is only the equipment in the middle that is influenced by the order in which it is chosen in the design of the ship. If high dice rolls are the in thing, then Transport if used will always take the hit first. No matter where something is "put" there is still the chance that it will go Kaput!

Still, I did say that it is just an option to try, something to think about.

Paul

492

(41 replies, posted in Starmada)

If worried about the 2D6 curve use a D12 (ah yes starmada fans they do exist!)

On a 1 "Oh my god, they've hit the plumbing. Head for starbase 12 max warp... I.. Gotta....Go!"

It may well be unusual for a lot of ships to reach line 7 let alone 12 on the chart. As it goes, Fire Control will come first with Launch tubes, then equipment choices, Carrier flight capacity (One damage point for each flight carried)  and finally the Auxiliary Services.

What I should have said is when Extra Hull Damage or Double Damage weapons actually penetrate the shields to cause damage. Or when a weapon scores 6+ on an IMP throw.

Paul

493

(41 replies, posted in Starmada)

I have put the damage chart into version 24 of the shipyard, I will upload this later today, as soon as I have finished a revised "How to" pdf booklet.

Paul

494

(41 replies, posted in Starmada)

Something that I have been working on for trial:-

System takes damage when ship takes a hit from weapons with either Double Damage or Extra Hull Damage traits and if IMP roll is 6+ (More likely with higher piercing weapons), Irrespective of hull size.

Roll 2D6 on chart.
Mark off one damage from each system on that line. Chart rolls over if more than 11 different systems on the ship.
If line is blank then next line up with a system present takes the damage. If more than one system on a line each takes one damage. If a system has multiple numbers i.e. Marines x3, it is still on one line so to some extent "Padding" with cheap options has little effect.
All options taken are included (even armor plating, which may have been trashed). In the shipyard the chart is auto-generated, the only choice is the order in which equipment is picked.

See example chart.
Paul
[attachment=0]Equipment Damage.jpg[/attachment]

495

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

thedugan wrote:

How about regular damage control? The Crew can fix certain systems during a battle?

By regular do you mean special equipment?
Engines, Shields and Weapons come under Appendix E.1 Damage Control.

Paul

496

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Blacklancer99 wrote:

After sleeping on it I had another thought...a rule for constructing tender/battlerider type combinations. It could be as simple as Tender=+20% the SU of the battlerider or such. Tender would not add as much to the CR of a ship as Carrier I would think.  This would allow large jump capable ships that transport warships greater than hull 1, something that occurs quite often in sci-fi literature and shows.
Cheers.
Erik

From Unofficially Unmissing.
[Use the Tender option (VBAM campaign ability) 150SU, OCR=25, DCR=25.
Option allows the docking of one Hull 1 craft or two super Heavy Fighters.
Choose option more than once.]

Been in Starmada/VBAM conversion for a while.
Paul

497

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

Reading the Whats Missing thread seems very familiar. Almost like looking at the wish list for Starmada X.
I think that I must have added most of the things listed to the Starmada X shipyard at one time or another.
Including Ablative Armor and Any Range up to 30.
I think that although Dan supplied the figures for many things the only missing thing was "OK this is considered official".

Marcus Smythe requested a few things like:-

1)Dual-Mode weapons with ammo for one mode.
2)Some provision for stowage/carriage of craft larger than fighters. FTL Tugs, if you will.

1)Question for Dan, will this work. (Do not actually see the need but here goes)
Example: Hull 1: Engines 2 :Weapons & Arcs = 6 : Range 15 : Ammo 4

Dual Mode Weapon
Mode1 (21.94SU basic)  \ 26.94 = Total SU of 49 After Ammo Adj.etc. = CR138.83
Mode2 (10SU basic )     /

Same weapon with Mode 1 only being Ammo 4. Ammo adjustment of SU before combining the two modes gives.

Mode 1 (21.94SU basic) After Ammo Adj = 40   Which would give a 80SU dual mode weapon and CR226.67
Mode 2 (10SU basic)  = 60SU

2)Use the Tender option (VBAM campaign ability) 150SU, OCR=25, DCR=25.
   Option allows the docking of one Hull 1 craft or two super Heavy Fighters.
   Choose option more than once.

Maybe made a hash of it but entered the dual mode figures into an altered shipyard and it looked right.

Paul

498

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Yes thanks.
Perhaps when used in VBAM encounters only, a player could choose which mode to use, anti ship or anti fighter interceptor.
I felt that with the introduction of dual mode it created a gap between the two systems

Paul

499

(67 replies, posted in Starmada)

I know what I would like to see in this respect, Anti-Fighter Batteries getting the first shot in against Fighters, Strikers and Seekers. If only on the basis of Every historical or fictional film that I have seen. As soon as something is incoming (first aircraft and now missiles also, hell, even a 5" shell has been hit by a target ship) every weapon that can try to hit it does open fire, sometimes even before the target is in range(the I DON'T WANT TO DIE instinct). In a space environment where hull puncture can be followed quickly by death I should imagine that the instinct to fire as soon as possible at anything that is trying to kill you will be that much stronger.
Automated or live finger on the trigger, nothing is going to let the other guy shoot at them first at short range. As thedugan pointed out, any chance of surprise Unless in hiding powered down, should not be possible.
Probably with repeating, I think that fear would keep the trigger finger down.

Fighters with combat endurance based upon their size (VBAM sizes would do nicely here.ULt=1, Lt=2,SF=3,Med=4,Hvy=5 & Shvy=6)
Once they have used the combat endurance in attacking either other fighters or ships, being unable to instigate further attacks and have a -1 penalty if they are then attacked. This would force them to bug out if independent fighters or return to their carrier.
Just my 2p worth.
Paul

500

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
macdrack wrote:

The construction rules have a divisor of 4 in the screen calculation, would uping that to 5 to cover the loss of flexibility make sense?  Or some fraction 4.5, 4.75 etc?

I would say a divisor of 5 is a good place to start. However, this is one of those things I'd really like some playtest data on before making a strong commitment.

Is there a need to change the divisor? The rules do not state that the allocation of screens have to change from turn to turn therefore the only choices made are that the ship uses screens and how many.
The choice not to re allocate the available screens is the same for everyone using them.

Paul