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 madpax
Ah, ok, I feel I didn't understand that on the formula.
Marc
At least, I'm not alone thinking this. 
With continuing damage, you are sure that each damage will inflict one hull damage. And a potentially illimited number of everything else.
BTW, I think that ROF, IMP AND DMG values shouldnt cost the same value for designing weapons. A big ROF, for example, is more interesting against fighters than a big IMP. But that's another story.
Marc
Continuing Damage is kind of a slightly lesser version of "Double Damage". I figured the LRG was slightly less powerful and, thus, gave it this trait. It's also a cheaper trait for the less expensive weapon. Justification being something akin to how some small calibre bullets ricochet inside a body.
OK.
The last game I did was with the Kalaedinese from the ISS. All of their weapons have the CD trait. The first penetrating hit I did inflicted... 7 damages...I feel that with a bit of luck, it's one of the most powerful trait I know.
Any suggestions that seem better are welcome.
None now, but maybe later. 
Marc
Very interesting, I like the rationale of all of this and I wonder how you will designed the TPF foes, but I have a question:
Why light rail guns have the continuing trait?
Marc
I remember that having been discussed:
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopi … amp;t=2425
Marc
My comments were mainly designed to answer the initial request for information on fighter operations.
OK, BTW, KA and RA are based on FC, ans unless mistaken , EW is not used in FC. In the end, I suppose fighters will be treated the same as usual.
Taking damage: Yup, probably irrelevant. But an important part of how they operate in SFB, so figured I'd provide the info. Cricket's shown he can use items in SFB that appear to be irrelevant or difficult to do in Starmada, quite elegantly.
That could be useful if, for example, a fighter with a lot of hit point is awarded a defense bigger than 0.
So, one way of dealing with fighters and booster packs is set speeds around 3-4 (with the normal maneuverability - in other words, change direction any time, no facing). And on any turn they can turn on their packs, but if they take damage that turn they take twice as much as they would have.
I wouldn't use fighter that can be easily dodged by ships, just because they are so slow. BTW, who would want to pilot a fighter that is simulated this way?
It reminds me of a story during the Bataille de France during WWII, where french pilots of MS 406 were usually unable to follow HE 111 
Marc
s me. Note that what I said was from foggy
I'm pretty sure that the earlier comment about being able to fire on fighters with no penalties is incorrect. I forget the range break, but at a certain range fighters get small target modifiers: +2 ECM to direct fire weapons targeted against them (+1 to the die roll essentially) and at an even greater range +4 ECM (+2 to the die roll). I don't know the range breaks off the top of my head.
It seems that was me. Note that my comments came from old and foggy souvenirs. I don't remember fighter benefiting from ECM as being small targets, but, what I remember is that ships could negate that by using ECCM, something that they can't do in Starmada, unless they already have the anti-fighter or Fire control traits.
1. In general, once they've used weapons other than phasers, they have to return to their ship to reload. The phasers are still fully functional though, I believe.
In a Starmada game, it seems there is not enough 'real' time to resupply fighters. Also, my games are so quick that you don't have 'game' time as well to resupply. Yesterday, we did two games, using 2400 in all (a breakout scenario played twice), and each ended very quicly, after 4 to 6 turns.
2. When they take 2/3 of their damage, they lose half their speed and have only a Phaser 3 (forward arc?) left as weaponry.
Irrelevant in Starmada.
3. They're usually slower than the starships (they can move about half as fast as a ship's max speed), unless they use warp booster packs which double their speed but also doubles the damage they take.
Starmada can't compare with FC when talking about speed. In FC, ships can move the speed they want with relatively low restrictions, but are limited to a fixed value, either the general max sped, either their energy. In Starmada, you can move at any speed, but their will have big restrictions. Fighters, on the other hand, have a fixed value, in FC or in Starmada. I don't know what will be decided, but I feel that iSFU fighters should be treated normally in Starmada.
Marc
Sorry, I have again some errata, to be confirmed, of course:
The KR Ph 2 should have twice the CE DF fire arcs or something approaching, instead of frontal arcs.
KRC PL-S and -F fire arcs should be GHJ GIK. idem for novahawk and Royalhawk PL-F
Marc
I like the dual-role fighter, but according to the rule, a striker is immediately removed from the board after attacking.
Marc
Another one.
Fasthawk: For its Phaser 1, it should have either 3 x ABC either 2 x ABD. As the firehawwk seems to be the same shuipe with two plasma F replacing ph-1, then the fasthawk should 3 ph-1 with ABC fire arc.
Same as the Gorn CC, the Fasthawk Plasma S fire arc GJL should be replaced by GHJ.
Marc
Not familiar with SFB at all, but the one-shots sound like something you could do with strikers or dual-mode fighters with one mode being a striker.
Except that a striker is eliminated after use, which fighters shouldn't be, and they usually carry another, multi-shot, weapons.
Marc
I don't think aegis would have to be translated in Starmada.
Otherwise, what I never like about fighters in SFB/FC is that you can shoot at them as easily as if they were ships (no penalties). They mostly acted as very small ships with hit points and not as nimble fighters.
I feel Starmada give us a better feeling of fighters.
Another point. In SFB/FC, some fighters have only a phaser (I suppose that those with the phaser-3 would have the same stats as a regular fighter), but some others have one-shot weapons (missiles, fusion, whatever). I don't know how to resolve this but maybe note (with a marker, maybe) that they have such a one-shot weapon.
Marc
Sorry, a bad assumption for me. :oops:
Marc
All ships have engine ratings based on the amount of power available in SFB/FC.
I'm surprised you said that because AFAIK, all ships in FC have more or less the same engine ratings, enough to move at max speed. But FC movement doesn't work like starmada's. In the former, the speed doesn't generate momentum and can be easily different each turn. You can move at max speed one turn, at 0 speed the next.
Also, what is speed in FC is maneuvrability in starmada.
In fact, AFAIK again, there is not really a 'fast' ship in FC.
In the end, fast and non-fast ships should have the same engine rating, but I can see that small ships have a 7 engine rating where as medium to big ships have a 4 to 6.
Another thing about ship design, mainly to understand the basis of design. I can see that F5 and E4 have shorter ranged disruptors. Although in FC all disruptors have the same range, I can understand why it is not so in starmada. But why small kzinti ships dsruptors doesn't have the same reduction of range?
Marc
I suppose there is an error on the Gorn CC ship sheet, as the plasma S should have the following fire arcs: GIK GHJ instead of GIK GJL.
BTW, I was wondering some things that seem weird. Why 'fast' ships are not necessarily faster than their 'slower' counterparts.. For example, the klingon fast D7 and the D7 have the same engine rating. Same thing for the Gorn. Also, the same gorn BC is describved as almost maneuvrable as a brick, but has better engines than a fed CA, and the same engine rating as a D7 which is fairly maneuvrable.
Also, why the fed CL (old design) doesn't have 'armor plating' as it is considered to have some armour?
Marc
I added Science (50) to the Discovery. After all, it is an exploratory ship.
Marc
One, or maybe the first space opera game I've played was Starfire. At its release, I liked a lot the simplicity of the design, but alas, its complexity made it hardly manageable.
But There is a wealth of ship designs, systems and scenarios.
So I will try to design the ships displayed in the v3 and its expansions, mainly.
Of course, I will not try to reproduce exactly how systems and ships behaved, but will try to give each race a flavour. Or hope so.
Marc
Phaser-G: Why not simply a ROF 4 phaser 3?
Fusion, OK.
Hellbore is a bit difficult to reproduce, as it's supposed to kill a lot of shield. I like MRCChris version, though.
Stingers. I'd love to see a lot of fighters included for all races. It will add another important dimension to KA/RA and any subsequent modules.
But I feel they should act as squadrons of 6, and not really as a single unit. Even if their ships house less fighters.
Marc
No, I WAS confused. I assumed that two weapons with the same name should have the same stats. In fact, they have not!
I also wondered why two cruiser-type ships had almost the same stats, but they have not, again. Although they are still very similar.
No problem with that, now. I just prefered to have something more different ship classes.
Marc
I agree that the 'same' weapon on different ships can have different stats. But it's a bit confusing. If different, it should have a different name. Just to avoid confusion, of course.
Marc
1) What is the 'Attack Value' for the torpedoes shown on page 34? Is this the same as 'Accuracy'?
Yes.
2) Are the other values (Impact and Damage) the same as the Plasma Bolt lines on the ship cards?
Both are equal to 1.
Marc
Heck, you are right!
Now, I wonder why we have two almost identical ships, with two almost identical weapons...
BTW, by looking closely at the negali weapons, I can see that the 'same' weapon can have two different range, etc.
Marc
Is there an errata for this book?
Looking at the negali ships, I found something strange. The svirse and the tabecji have almost the same stats, the sole difference between the two being that latter hava a lower engine... but cost more. Using the shipbuilder, the tabercji should cost 328.
And why create two very similar ships?
Marc
Look here: http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopi … amp;t=1912
A lot has been done for B5. Not necessarily ACTA ships, but as those has evolved from edition to revision...
You can design new ships, or discuss created ones, I suppose.
Marc
Second, if a seeking plasma manages to attack its target on the turn right after it was launched, the target doesn't get to shoot at the torpedo, since it attacks in the fighter phase, yes? That seems to be what the sequence of play is saying.
Yes, that's right. Note that Starmada and SFB/FC are totally different. For example, in Starmada, a seeking plasma may, even if it reach its target, inflict no damage.
Finally, on a philosophical note, we were wondering why the standard Starmada movement system was chosen for KA and RA. Seems to us that the Basic system would be more FC-ish.
I dont know, but I like the 'inertial' movement. Otherwise, I suppose you could chose whichever you want.
Marc
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by madpax
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.