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
You mean my mj12games.com email box?
That's weird... it shouldn't be even close to full. :?:
The questions (and answers) apply both to Nova and Admiralty.
Sent from my SPH-L710 Using ForumTouch for Android
Ships are for both Nova and Admiralty.
I presume we will be including a more well-rounded presentation of the ISC in a future product; but no guarantees they will look exactly the same as they do in CL47.
Captain's Log #47 (from ADB) will contain rules and four ship designs from the ISC.
Just in case you wanted to know. 
Personally, I think "piercing" gives enough of an "ignores shields" flavor, but I've never been one to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own Starmada settings.
If you wanted to have a weapon that cancels shields (abbreviated [xSh]?), I'd use an SU multiplier of x2.74.
When the rules say that face-up seekers are attacked "at short range" that simply means all rules which apply to short range attacks are in effect. It does NOT impose a specific hex range on the attack. Thus, a range-3 weapon with the proximity trait would NOT attack the firing ship.
I am in the process of recreating the search index. Should be working soon.
Sorry for my dismal record with communication lately, but I'm in the process of moving back to Colorado. Hopefully once we're settled in Denver again, I will be able to focus on the more important things in life.
I see it as a possibility... but I have no plans to reintroduce them at the moment.
1) Movement is based (loosely) on vector mechanics. Thus, in theory, even the slowest ship can turn completely around in a single move, but it can do so only if traveling at a slow-enough speed. If you use the cinematic movement rule instead, the game will feel more like SFB/FC.
2) If you add "slow" to photons, the Federation ships will become seriously underpowered.
3) Likewise, if you remove "slow" from overloaded disruptors, Klingons will become overpowered.
The issue with weapons is that Starmada does not have (a) a defined turn length or (b) energy allocation. Thus, we couldn't do a straight 1:1 comparison with turn lengths in SFB/FC, because that would mean plasmas would fire every third turn -- an eternity in a Starmada game. Similarly, without energy allocation to restrict the over-use of overloaded weapons, we added "slow".
In the end, you can tweak the ships however your want; just be prepared for some balance issues.
Hope that helps.
24 hours and no new spam... <fingers crossed>
I am reviewing the conversion document, and there are clearly some issues with it. I have no idea where some of those factors came from... For example, the armor factor should be 0.79, not 0.63.
Give me a couple days to redo this.
Except, with my group, this worked the opposite way. At-a-glance assessment of weapon systems by numbers which would never be achievable was actually de-clarifying. For example, if there's no way that a Furious-class DD will ever get to 7 attack dice on its CDCs (because all arcs are -3), then it's not a 7-dice weapon, and seeing it as one wasn't helpful to us.
Does the fact that each arc indicates a separate weapon change your interpretation of this?
This doesn't address my question, though. The two interpretations I listed (1a and 1b) are distinct cases; which one is the accurate interpretation?
Neither is correct.
Looking at the Majestic's close defense cannons, I can attack one target in the FF arc at -2; a second target in the PH arc at -4; and a third target in the SH arc, also at -4.
Except, with my group, this worked the opposite way. At-a-glance assessment of weapon systems by numbers which would never be achievable was actually de-clarifying. For example, if there's no way that a Furious-class DD will ever get to 7 attack dice on its CDCs (because all arcs are -3), then it's not a 7-dice weapon, and seeing it as one wasn't helpful to us.
Which is why I admitted the suggestion was a good one.
Because you wouldn't have to have a page of screwy log value tables to help people?
No, seriously, it would be much simpler because every scientific calculator in the world has a natural log function, and it's the native log function implemented in most coding languages [...] I know this has nothing to do with gameplay - it's just a notational suggestion from a math guy.
A fair point. FWIW, I wrote that section after completing the Drydock in PHP, and in that language the syntax is "log(X,base)". So that's where my head was.
1. Why are overlapping arcs listed for weapons? For example: The Majestic-Class BC lists the arcs for the Close Defense Cannons as "[FF2][PH4][SH4]", meaning that any target at (say) 1 o'clock will be in both the FF and SH arcs.
Each arc designation indicates a bank of weapons, each of which makes a separate attack.
2. For weapon systems which have penalties for all arcs, why not remove the minimum penalty and shift the attack dice list to the left by the same amount? For example, why have a weapon system with arc "[FF2]" and attack dice "A B C D ...", and not "[FF]" with attack dice "C D E ..."? It's simpler and less confusing.
This has been suggested by others, and is not a bad idea. The reason things are the way they are now is so that one can quickly determine the relative size of each battery by looking at the first number in the row, even if all of those weapons cannot be used to attack a single target.
3. In the ship design section, why use log with sqrt(.5) as the base? Why not simplify "log (base sqrt(.5)) X" to "-2.885ln(X)", since every scientific calculator has an "ln" function?
Not entirely sure why that would be "simpler".
Yes, fighters trigger mines in the same manner as ships.
O_o
http://www.wynkoop.com/beer-blog/item/172-update-on-rocky-mountain-oyster-stout-cans
Each rack carries a single flight. The "capacity" of 12 indicates the amount of space taken up by the launcher.
Yeah, I saw that.
<grumble grumble>
The "super dreadnought" is way too big for my tastes, but to each his own.
I'm interested to see the Terrans' adversaries.
Yes, I have noticed the spambots' return.
I am in the process of finding an appropriate countermeasure. 
Battleships Armada is now available for pre-orders: http://store.starfleetstore.com/merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=S&Product_Code=6105N&Category_Code=01
Ah, I see.
Then it should be remembered that ships in Nova take hull damage twice as quickly. (In Admiralty, only 50% of penetrating hits caused hull damage.)
Not too crazy about aircraft. That is the main reason I have no interest in WW2 naval or moderns.
Agreed. GF3 will account for aircraft in a fairly abstract way, but the main focus will still be on surface combat.
From the cards it looks like GFIII is going to streamline out a fair bit and add post 1940.
It will streamline a bit, but not by a whole lot. Think "faster play" rather than "loss of detail".
And while the pre-release stuff has been focusing on WW2 ships, it will still handle RJW, WW1, and inter-war scenarios as well as it ever did.
While I don't want to make promises, since the birth of our child has made the amount of time I have to devote to gaming unpredictable at best, I would expect to see some movement on this in February and March.
No. The only way to remove mines is to attack them (p.21).
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.