701 Reply by Blacklancer99

(35 replies, posted in Discussion)

Not Everyone will eventually make admiral because some will always wander off or otherwise become less active. Some may lurk mostly and others still will just have nothing to add to many conversations. It reminds me of a professor I had that based your entire "class participation" grade on the total number of times you spoke up or asked a question and did not take into account the intelligence of said comment, question or concern.
Besides, Dan can always alter the formula (something tells me this one is just too simple for him anyway!  big_smile ) so that the boards to dot become to top heavy with Brass.
Cheers,
Erik
(who is still a mere plebe)

Go to forum: Discussion

702 Reply by Blacklancer99

(23 replies, posted in Starmada)

I know all too well the Shipyard, I was being silly. I download every version as Paul puts them out, and mod them to my needs...and do it all over again when he puts out another version  :evil:  I'm not new to this game, just to the forum having migrated here from the (dying?) yahoo group. I waste most of my free time building ships in said shipyard. I had about, oh, 1 million (mostly crossover/conversions) done in Starmada X which I have have been reworking in AE. The process is slowed by the fact that I do most of the grunt work on 3x5 cards since I simply can't sit in front a a computer screen for the hours and hours required, but apparently I was a scrivner in a former life.
Cheers,
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

703 Reply by Blacklancer99

(23 replies, posted in Starmada)

OldnGrey wrote:

Just a thought.
If you are running a game, take one copy of the shipyard.
On the Nation sheet, design 26 weapons, impose restrictions regarding max range (although if you have designed the weapons this one will not be needed) or hull size.
Decide on what equipment will be allowed (ie no cloak).
Same can be done on the Small Craft sheet. Design fighters, strikers etc. Or leave these as standard so the players have to choose from the ones that you make available (Therefore no super hit all strikers).

Then have the players use this shipyard to design their ships.

Paul

Whoa! Did I just witness a drive by product plug? big_smile

Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

704 Reply by Blacklancer99

(23 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

Unfortunately any game with a built in construction mechanic is AUTOMATICALLY subject to munchinization.

I certainly won't dispute this, nor do I disagree that it's much more fun to play setting-derived scenarios over "bring-n-bash" games ... but I will say that part of the point of Starmada is to ensure that even munchkin fleets are balanced.

I think it does relatively well. Even the occasional problems that crop up (e.g. range-30 weapons) are not inherently broken, they are just difficult to overcome unless you have the right counterbalance.

Oh, I agree with that actually. I don't think things are unbalanced when everybody on the table is at a set point level. I was just saying that it's just more fun for me when you have to make trade-offs and your not just trying to "Min/Max". There is a seemingly endless list of settings which, when turned into playable games, players/designers have looked at and said,"Gee, why didn't the designers of the X-class dreadnaught just add one more hull and add point defense?" Full Thrust is a perfect example of how players looked at the canon ships and wondered why everything over the size of a destroyer doesn't have ADFC! Same thing goes for Starcruiser from the 2300ad setting (made worse by the NAM) where every designer has "improved" on the canonical ships, to the point that the ones in the rules generally cannot compete with the player designed ones, so the canonical ships are all "broken".
So I'm not ranting against Starmada Dan. It's just that I don't very much like the Min/Max thing. Call it personal taste. I experienced it in D&D games a million years ago, Magic the Gathering at it's height, and seen it in plenty of other games. I don't care what others do, so don't think that I am ranting at anyone in particular, the whole point of any game is to have fun. If somebody enjoys the challenge of max'd fleets meeting head to head in a free for all, that's great. It's just my opinion and I hope it doesn't offend anyone. Sorry to hijack the thread a bit.
I would engage my cloak and return to Lurk-mode...but I couldn't squeeze it into my design at TL 0, so I had to settle for Countermeasures. Wish me luck.
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada

705 Reply by Blacklancer99

(23 replies, posted in Starmada)

Unfortunately any game with a built in construction mechanic is AUTOMATICALLY subject to munchinization. After a few "Maximized Ship" games, it usually wears pretty thin. For that reason I find it far more interesting to either do conversions from settings/systems like B5 and 2300AD and play those, with the limitations inherent to the settings. Keeping the tech level lower also seems to help keep the ships from getting too uber-powered. Typically, I'll set the current tech level of the most dominant/prominent power at 0 across the board, and adjust others relative. At lower tech levels, it's just too difficult to jam all kinds of extras into a hull. The other advantage to using a fixed setting is that the size of the ships can be maintained relative to each other. For example, if building a Kennedy from the 2300ad setting, it doesn't make sense to make it 20 Hull! We never play "tournament style" games as we have found it much more interesting to play scenarios where there is more at stake than kill or be killed. I hate min/maxing in any and every game I have ever played as it sucks the fun right out of everything, so I felt I had to add my 2 cents.
Cheers & Happy Holidays!
Erik

Go to forum: Starmada