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 mj12games
Of course, I had a brain fart back there, as the same concern applies to the existing Starmada initiative system.
I still think the "opponent chooses" idea is worth exploring.
FWIW, I have long considered adding Dx2 and Dx3, or either with Cts, to be abusive, but I have never officially outlawed the practice.
The cost vs. impact debate is ongoing. For now, there is a slight discount due to the fact that extra damage potential can often be wasted against smaller targets.
For a +3 shift, multiply the number of dice in the SECOND box by 4.
For a +4 shift, multiply the number of dice in the FIRST box by 4.
For example, the Indomitable-class BB has lightning cannons with an attack dice string of 8-6-4-3-2-1-1-1-1. On a net +3 attack modifier, the number of dice rolled is 6x4=24. On a net +4, the number of dice is 8x4=32.
I like this very much. The only concern I have (which might not be an issue once some playtesting is done) is that one or two battlewagons can game the system by surrounding themselves with a dozen or so cheap escorts. The number of chits in the cup will go up, increasing their chances of moving last and firing first.
A possible solution is to have the OPPONENT choose which ship moves or fires.
I'm not sure of the question: auxiliary systems, as noted in the rulebook, have no direct impact on the game. They are meant to simulate "meta" systems, and as such, only become useful or important in campaigns. At the moment there are no official rules for them, which means 100 SUs of "repair" space may mean something completely different in your campaign than in someone else's.
So, I cannot tell what you mean when you say "combinations that seemed reasonable [but don't] seem to work."
Further, if you want to add "hangar" space as an auxiliary system, go right ahead! Find a number that works for you and go with it.
Cartman-
PM me with your email, and I'll send you a link for the password-free file.
What is the password for? I don't remember requiring one to open or print the file, but that was a long time ago. 
I like this rule... it even uses a square root!
I will see what I can do.
As proof we are nearing completion of Third Edition, here is a preview of the game's QRF.
Yes. "GJL" should be "GHJ".
I'm not familiar with B5Wars, so I can't comment on the conversion per se, but these seem like some solid designs. I look forward to some after-action reports!
You're welcome. I hope it brings you years of pleasurable starship destruction.
1) Yes. If PEN >= Armor, the penetration roll succeeds on any result >1.
2) No. There is no penalty for "overpenetration".
Correct. Armor ratings have no effect on torpedoes.
Aircraft in GF3 will be present, but in a fairly abstract way. I can see adding Zeppelins to the mix, although I admit I hadn't considered it until this point.
The problem with GF3 is the same problem I have with everything else on my personal wishlist; too little time. But rest assured, I haven't forgotten about it.
If you were to try this, I would prefer doing the reverse; applying a -1 penalty until a hit is scored against a new target.
60 hull and thrust 14?
Sounds like I need to increase the SU cost for engines.
I see no reason why the expanded rulebook wouldn't include the stuff from the SFU books.
On this day in 1994, I posted the first version of the Starmada rules to the rec.games.design usenet group. That's right; Starmada is twenty years old today!
You can still see the original rules here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.games.design/starmada/rec.games.design/tRoWWtGxruo/wBcIHNNiKX8J
To celebrate this milestone, we've got a number of things in the works for this year:
* A second edition of Starmada: Fleet Ops, compatible with the Nova Rulebook;
* An expanded version of the Admiralty Edition Rulebook, incorporating all of the stuff from the Core Rulebook and Rules Annex into one volume;
* Re-releases of Starmada X and the Starmada Compendium; and
* The next in the Star Fleet Universe series for both Nova and Admiralty Editions.
We hope you'll stick around for the next twenty years!
Couple ideas:
1) You say your friend is skilled at maneuvering and keeping the range open. How fast are your ships?
2) Telescopic obviously shines early in the game; if you can get within even long range, your friend's weapons are now overpriced. So, start using equipment that is front-loaded in its usefulness. Use ablative Armor and Reinforced Systems. Try Cloaking Devices. Flares can create "terrain" behind which you can hide.
3) 58 dice of damage is brutal, particularly if it is all applied to a single target. Use larger numbers of smaller ships -- make him split his fire.
Just some thoughts.
If you're new (or getting reacquainted) I'd suggest no more than 3-5 ships per side.
I'm going to have to re-read it to get the full intent (it is a bit wordy, as you warned ), but at first glance I kinda like it. I've been accused before of simplifying the damage resolution system in Starmada too much -- and I freely admit checking off hits is my least-favorite part of the game. But if someone can come up with a more detailed system that still keeps the action moving, I'm all for it.
The only thing I'm a bit hesitant about is the multiple die types. I've used it for some games (Iron Stars) but Starmada has always been a d6-only system. It feels ... weird ... to have different dice only for damage resolution.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.