51

(19 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

American Battle Fleet
The primary mission of the American fleet is protection of its vast merchant fleet. Large numbers of escort types are deployed throughout human space to accomplish this. The secondary mission is commerce warfare, and a small, scattered force of hunter-killer type ships are tasked with crippling an adversary's ability to move freely. The last component of the American fleet is colonial defense, composed primarily of older or smaller vessels with largely reserve crews

[attachment=0]American Ships.pdf[/attachment]

52

(19 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

British Battle Fleet
The primary mission of the British fleet is protection of its colonies, relying on their alliance with the French to cover their core system assets. As such, most of British warships are scattered at various locations with a relatively small "reserve fleet" at Sol. The secondary mission of the British fleet is merchant protection and many light vessel types are deployed throughout human space for this purpose.
[attachment=0]British Ships.pdf[/attachment]

53

(19 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

French Battle Fleet
The primary mission of the French fleet is the defense of its core system assets. The secondary mission is the protection of its many colonies. Despite its size, having so much shipping wrapped up in these missions leaves few combat vessels available for commerce protection. The majority of merchant escort is handled by a number of auxiliary cruisers converted from commercial hulls while true warship types are employed elsewhere.

[attachment=0]french fleet.pdf[/attachment]

54

(19 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

So after a couple of years of tinkering and reworking the designs when I could find the time I finally have my Nova Edition 2300AD ships done. I no longer have the time in my life to put them all together "pretty" with lots of fluff and flair, but I wanted to get them posted up at least.

A couple of things about these designs...

For those familiar with the 2300AD setting you will see many ships that appeared both in canon materials and as man-made designs. I have tried to keep all of the designs true to the spirit of the setting, but these are not straight up "conversions" of any of the ships. In fact, I found that the inconsistent nature of the original design process and the differing philosophies of many fan -made ships made it impossible to establish a coherent conversion process. As a result I went back and used a modified version of Starcruiser 2300AD's Naval Architects manual to redesign every single ship. In this way I was able to produce designs that were entirely consistent, and generate the statistics that I used to build the SNE versions.

After building and testing a number of these new conversions I found that play test games were very "vanilla". So, I started to rework some if the core elements of 2300AD to add more diversity to the SNE versions. There are several examples of these changes that those familiar with 2300AD will notice.

First off, I had originally designed every fighter as a standard ship and then placed them into groups of 4 to essentially make a flotilla. Play test games showed that these were ok, but decidedly un-fighterlike. After redoing them as SNE fighter flights the designs lost some power, but added a little more fun. One thing this caused was to have to "fudge" things a little to be able to include fighters not based on ships. For planetary interceptors/fighters I just include a 3-hull ship with no other features just so I can put the fighters on the board, but we never actually include the "ship" in the setup.

The next change that I made was to submunition weapons. As built in 2300AD these are expendable direct fire weapons, that (because of their nuclear detonation nature) affect line of sight. I decided that to add flavor to the games I would change submunition weapons into Flares and Mines. I looked at the design intent of the submunition launcher, and if it was a defensive type system primarily for protecting a vessel against attacks I converted it into Flares. Conversely, if the submunition dispenser was a primarily offensive system, I converted it to Mines. Playing around with these I found that they added a lot of complexity to the play test battles without "breaking" the overall feel.

In 2300AD recon drones can play a big role allowing a vessel access to targeting and search information without exposing itself by running its own active sensor systems. I played around with a couple of things but eventually settled on converting the drones to Probes with the rule alterations that I have posted elsewhere.

In 2300AD electronic warfare plays a very important, if sometimes vague, role. To try and get this flavor I have used Active/Passive sensor optional rules and I have also included the Scout special ability on several ships, though nothing exactly as it appears in 2300AD. I have intentionally not used the Escort ability so these special scout vessels are used in the less direct role of fleet electronic warfare support (though if I ever have the time to try it I have a plan for using their ability in a campaign setting).

I decided to limit the numbers of missiles that I ship could fire in a single attack to just one salvo, with its BAS determined by the number of remote communicators that the ship had. With this I also put in a house rule that one ship can only fire 1 missile salvo per turn. This simple change kept missiles from being overly powerful compared to how they work in 2300AD. Because of this I also redid fighting missiles as weak, but potentially numerous and therefore useful fighters WITHOUT limiting how many a ship can have on the board at once. Even though this makes them quite different than the 2300AD versions, it does play ok, and helps justify the "pointing" of ships using them. In play test these tweaks made for some interesting choices for players beyond range, aim and fire.

I included Marines, but limited their number to the lift capabilities of a ship's small craft, with additional troops being lumped together as Transport. Likewise, I only included armed landers as SNE Shuttles, though a vessel may have numerous small craft in 2300AD.

The last thing I will mention is that some slight "tweaks" were necessary in a few designs to make them SNE Space Unit compliant. However, there are some units that are over the SUs by hull size. In every instance that I did this, it is to accommodate auxiliary services and has no bearing on the combat capabilities of a ship. The majority of the "oversized" ships are civvies and I would rather have a smaller Hull with "oversized" cargo. I didn't want civvies to become damage sponges... Also, players have a tendency to look at huge Hull civilian ships and say, "hey, let's fill all that cargo space with weapons." In the real world auxiliary warships are never INTENDED to fight purpose built combat vessels (though they sometimes had to). In the game ships like that quickly get outlandish. By keeping Hull down and making all civilian construction Fragile Systems I tried to keep this tendency under control.

55

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Cool! Now if I could just tune my probes to home in on the subspace disturbances caused by a cloaked starship... wink
Erik

56

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Of course it is all a matter of taste, but I like to differentiate between speed and agility to a greater degree than the Thrust Rating feels like to me. As I said in my first post when I was looking at historical ships there were VERY large cruisers that were faster than some destroyers, so I was trying to come up with a way that the cruiser could never turn with the smaller ship, even if it could outrun or chase it down with ease. There is also a lot of precedent in science fiction where there is a gulf between pure acceleration and the ability to turn. The simplest idea I had was to slightly alter the REVERSE COURSE orders only as this would alter the turning radius of different ships.  Ships Rated A can complete the Reverse Course as described in the rules. Ships rated B must move one hex between each hexside turn after the first, ships rated C must move one hex before each hexside turn (this means it must move one hex forward before its first course change), ships rated D must move 1 hex before the first turn and 2 hexes before another turn, Ships rated F may not make a REVERSE COURSE movement.
A Thrust 5 Destroyer with A Maneuverability moving at 3 could turn, turn, turn, move ahead while a Thrust 6 Armored Cruiser with Maneuverability D moving at 3 would have to move ahead 1 hex, turn, move ahead 2 hexes, then turn.
If I am playing this right it would look like this:
[attachment=1]Setup.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Reverse.PNG[/attachment]
If the big cruiser wants to make a "tighter" turn it had to slow down and use COME ABOUT orders rather than REVERSE COURSE. It will take several game turns to come around 180 degrees but she would still have the same ability to accelerate at a very high level.
Anyway that was my thought on it. I could see where coupling it to the existing size categories would work.
Erik

57

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Am I the only one that feels like Nova needs rules for maneuverability? It just feels wrong if a massive ship with a powerful Thrust rating can out-turn a smaller ship with more modest engine power. I have played around with a simple A,B,C rating along the lines of what Star Fleet Battles does, and that seems to work pretty well. I really got to thinking about this converting pre-dreadnought warships to Nova. Some of the really big cruisers could pile on the speed but took half an ocean to turn, while some smaller ships could never outrun or catch them, but could easily outmaneuver the bigger ships. Want a Science Fiction equivilent? The Imperial Star Destroyers are supposed to be fast, but evidence would suggest they aren't particularly nimble.
Thoughts?
Erik

58

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

So one thing that I have been thinking about is using probes as recon platforms, and not lousy weapons. A lot of settings have such things and some plain rely on them. I know you can hand-wave recon drones/probes etc as being part of a ships ECM, but I wanted something that would add a little granularity to a game, especially in a setting with things like FLARES and ESCORT, but no ships that work like the SCOUT ability is written in the rules. So here is my first go at Probes as "Tactical Intelligence/Recce" systems rather than weapons.

Probes may be used to improve an attacking ship's ability to target a foe. Probes are launched at the same time that a ship makes its other attacks. A ship may not launch probes when cloaked.

First, declare how many probes are being launched, and remove that number of probes from the ship. For each probe launched, select a target hex within 12 hexes of the launching ship. Place a “PROBE” marker face down in the target hex. Up to five probe markers may occupy a single hex.

During the end phase, remove all face up probe markers, and flip all face down probe markers to face up.
Probes have two effects. First, if the launching ship has line of sight to a face up probe marker and the probe has line of sight to a target ship the launching ship may attack the target so long as all other criteria (range, etc…) for an attack are met. The second, if the face up probe is 4 hexes or less from a targeted ship, the launching ship gets +1 to all of its attacks against that target so long as all other criteria (range, etc…) for an attack are met.

When a ship is selected to make its attacks, it may target any probe markers.
Attacks against probe markers incur a -1 penalty.
If the weapon is also accurate or repeating, a further -2 penalty is applied.
If the weapon is catastrophic or triple damage, a further -3 penalty is applied.
Each hit against a probe marker destroys the probe.
Weapons with catastrophic, diffuse, double damage, scatter, and triple damage traits loose these abilites when attacking probe markers.

Thoughts?
Erik

59

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ok, I just wasn't sure if there was some arcane mathematical, square root abusing, reason for it to work that was with the damage allocation model you have come up with  big_smile
As I mentioned I think that "front-loading" the armor is excellent at modeling "hard" shields. I have also found that when designing or converting ships I almost always use Nova Armor (front-loaded or regular) to represent shields because it prevents a Hull hit and I use Nova Shields to represent Hull Armor. But that's a conversation for another thread!
Cheers,
Erik

60

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

I can see what you are saying about varying the damage allocation. I'm not math savvy (and my gentleman's C in statistics and probability was over 20 years ago) so I could never break down the numbers reasoning.

This has led me to a couple more questions...including this rule would seem to open the door for systems damage only/no hull damage weapons wouldn't it?
Second, is there a practical or mechanical/math reason why you couldn't continue to divide the armor as normal Nova, roll for "location" first and then hit armor if it is present? There are plenty of justifications for armored systems (armored bulkheads, armored turrets, etc...) I assume you must have a reason for using "ablative" style armor exclusively with this optional rule. I personally use that style armor a lot to model "hard" shields and use Nova Shields to model armor because I like the way it works better. However, I was just wondering why it would be the only way to go here.
Cheers,
Erik

61

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

After mulling this about  for a couple of days I have a couple of thoughts.
First off, I feel like this process kind of runs counter to the simplicity of the Nova damage rules, not in what they do, but how to get there. I haven't run them through to see if the feeling is reality. It seems to me that adding something in the construction of a ship is fine, but the additional things to keep track of and roll through in game-play seem kind of clunky in Nova.

Second, I really don't like a "No Effect" roll on a hit. If I miss (or some other hand-waving of last second deflection/non-essential hit) that's one thing, but it is deflating to me to "score a hit" and roll a no effect.

Lastly, I would like the damage allocation to skew in favor of systems damage over hull damage. It seems to me that in naval combat and science fiction battles it is more common to score a "mission kill" on a vessel by damaging or destroying key equipment and either forcing it to retreat, fight on at a reduced capacity, strike colors, etc...While everyone wants their attack to result in a brilliant fireball and drifting debris, I think it is more interesting for ships to reduce each other with hits. Ships in Nova already feel too fragile to me most of the time (it's a scaling thing) so I would prefer to see hits that are less likely to result in complete destruction but may force different decisions on a player.
Of course these are just my opinions, but since no one else raised their hand I figured I would jump in here and give my two cents.
Cheers,
Erik

62

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

BroAdso wrote:

Hmm, I agree.  But a rule which says 'always take weapons damage, never shield or engines' isn't a totally 'fair' tradeoff - a ship could, if rolling damage checks, take damage in several at once.  It also begs the question of whether a flotilla with one 'weapons bank' could be in bad shape under this rule, which one with the same points cost but two banks could be in better shape, since MC's rules assume we're using bank-specific damage.

Would the following rule work: "Flotillas, when damaged, never take shield or engine damage, but take two weapon damage results and roll as normal for special systems."

As long as every flotilla was required to have three or four banks, that would work very well (damage check one: two banks damaged, or one bank completely destroyed.  Damage check two: all four banks damaged, or two banks destroyed).

It would also work well with Murtalianconfederacy's rules for how many ships and of what type they are, since those rules give some good ideas on how to set up the banks based on what kind of ships are in the flotilla.

Here's a sample flotilla from an IP we all basically understand:
(33) X-Wing Squadron -class  Flotilla     Nova TL: 2
Armor: 1 * 1 * 1
Hull: 1 * 1 * 1
Thrust: 12 8 6 4 3
Shields: 5 6 6 6 6
ECM: 0 0 0 0 0
Weapons: 0 1 2 3 4
[V]: 1x Red Leader and Red 1 (Dfs/Pnp) / [FH] / 1 - 2 - 3 / AD: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   Mode2 (Gid/Skr/Slw) / 2 - 4 - 6 / AD: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[W]: 1x Red 2 and Red 3 (Dfs/Pnp) / [FH] / 1 - 2 - 3 / AD: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   Mode2 (Gid/Skr/Slw/Dx2) / 1 - 2 - 3 / AD: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[X]: 1x Red 4 and Red 5 (Dfs/Pnp) / [FH] / 1 - 2 - 3 / AD: 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
   Mode2 (Gid/Skr/Slw) / 2 - 4 - 6 / AD: 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Special: Hyperdrive

Under the proposed damage rules, on its first damage check, two 'vessels' from the flotilla are gone and one 'bank' is destroyed (oh no!  We lost Red 4 and Red 5!) or two 'vessels' from the flotilla are gone and two banks are firing at a -1 (Red 3 and Red 5 are both gone!).  If you get unlucky and roll for damage, the whole flotilla can't go to hyperspace - maybe a destroyed ship had the coordinates, a damaged ship's debris are causing interference, who knows.

This is better than using traits to simulate and still simple enough. Oh, and Red 5 never dies. wink
Erik

63

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Um, no, not really. My main concern was to insert flotillas with minimal changes to the rules--so it's not too much trouble to simply slot in, as it were. I like your idea, however I think there should always be the possibility of taking shield and thrust damage (think of it as shrapnel from exploding flotilla ships impacting other ships).

Here's a first draft of the flotilla damage concept:

"Units designated as Flotillas should be treated as having Fragile Systems for weapon, system and munitions, but Re-inforced systems for thrust points and shields"

That gives an automatic 50% reduction in weapon, system and munition damage but a much reduced chance of thrust or shield damage, representing the reduction in raw firepower and loss of unit coherency, but showing that ships are rarely physically affected by other ships being destroyed.

I think it might be better to generalize that Flotillas always take weapons/munition damage with a Hull it and never take Thrust damage (and just leave Shields as is)...that way you retain the ability to use the Fragile Systems and Reinforced Systems traits in design. Just my $0.02.
Erik

64

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Sorry, I should have been more specific...I was really wondering if Cricket had anything official in the works.
Erik

65

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Just wondering if there were any Starmada Nova Edition Expansions in the works. I was particularly wondering if there was anything non-Trek planned...I feel like Nova Edition has really just become Trek Edition. I know that the guys at VBAM are working on some tie ins with some other tactical games and I was wondering given the past collaborative products if there was any chance there would be a VBAM 2nd Ed/SNE book.
Cheers,
Erik

66

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

This looks very well thought out and you provided excellent examples. It seems like the kind of thing that can be used across a lot of different settings beyond Star Trek. Nice job!
Erik

67

(8 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Just wondering about the scope of the new edition. Will it simply be an update of the mechanics using the same fleets/ships as presented previously? Or, will there be new fleets and/or powers presented as well to expand upon those previously described?
Cheers,
Erik

68

(8 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

Love the look, but I hope there will be "printer friendly" cards that can be printed without using so much toner/ink?

69

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

In principle I like the second version much better than the first. I feel like a damage system like this would add a considerable amount of spice to Starmada combat that has become very, well, vague, for lack of a better word. I think that it falls well below the really complex, detailed diagrams used by some other games and that's a good thing for a game like Starmada. The basic design of the damage allocation system also opens up the possibility of some intriguing additions that could be made to weapons and even the design of systems...thinking along the lines of some of the things that AOG had in B5Wars, yet vastly simplified for Starmada-style play.
Just my thoughts,
Erik

70

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

Starmada: Evolution Edition. An Omnibus of everything Starmada...with something new and exciting in the final pages of course!  smile
Cheers,
Erik

71

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

If you are doing boots and hooves propulsion only would it be absurd to use fighters as cavalry? Attached to the larger organizational body until sent forth to scout or attack, more mobile than the parent unit by far and literally eat up space in terms of logistics. Of course, that would probably mean upping the basic ground scale from company to battlion level...hmmm...if you do that you could have battalion level arty on the same design too...
anyway, just a thought.
Always interested to see what you come up with!
Cheers,
Erik

72

(18 replies, posted in Starmada)

I like them; clear and concise but covering enough variation to be flexible and interesting. Good work!
Cheers,
Erik

Just a thought from the peanut gallery...I feel like if there is a "problem" it is with the frontloaded/ablative armor combined with the fragile systems not with shields. To me it really does an excellent job of creating the kind of shields you see in sci-fi all the time ("that hit brought our shields down to 67.3% captain), where once you knock out the shields damage happens pretty rapidly. The problem is this: in most of those types of setting those types of shields are either universal, or used by some dominant force. That seems like what has happened here. Either you have the shields (armor) and you are on a more-or-less equal footing, or you don't and you are at a bit of a disadvantage. I don't see any game design reason to fix this either, these things have their place. It all comes back to whether you want your games to be about design philosophy, recreating something from movies/tv/books, or some other basis for "controlling" what is available to factions.
Just my 2 cents.
Erik

74

(6 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

OldnGrey wrote:

Wot! only hull 75 big_smile
Think I topped the Drake notation at Hull 240 :twisted:  "That's no moon".
Paul

What kind of modifier did you give the "Exhaust Port" trait?  wink
Erik

75

(6 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

This is what happens when you've got five minutes to spare and decide to play around with OldnGrey's shipyard spreadsheet...:D

(10004) 5M2S -class Breaking the Unbreakable Chain Human Sphere 10K Dreadnought
Nova TL: 2
Hull: 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 * 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Thrust: 4 3 2 1 1
Shields: 2 3 4 5 6
ECM: 5 4 3 2 1
Weapons: 0 1 2 3 4
[V]: 20x Capital Missile (Gid/Skr/Dx3/Prc) / [TT] / 10 - 20 - 30 / AD: 20 14 10 7 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0
Mode2 (Pnp) / 2 - 4 - 6 / AD: 60 42 30 21 15 11 8 5 4 3 2 1
[W]: 40x PD Battery (Pnp) / [TT] / 1 - 2 - 3 / AD: 80 57 40 28 20 14 10 7 5 4 3 2
[X]: 20x Assault Laser Cannon (P.O.C.) (Gid/Acr/Prc/Dx2) / [TT] / 5 - 10 - 15 / AD: 20 14 10 7 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0
[Y]: 10x Hypervelocity Rail Cannon (P.C.C.) (Pnp/Prx/Prc/Vlt) / [TT] / 4 - 8 - 12 / AD: 10 7 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
[Z]: 20x Heavy Flak Battery (J.A./C.F.W.) (Bls/Gid/Acr/Prx) / [TT] / 3 - 6 - 9 / AD: 20 14 10 7 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0
Mode2 (Pnp) / 1 - 2 - 3 / AD: 80 57 40 28 20 14 10 7 5 4 3 2
[A]: 20x Fusion Torpedo Launcher (PoL) (Dfs/Prc/Dx3) / [TT] / 3 - 6 - 9 / AD: 20 14 10 7 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 0
Specials: Fire Control, Marines (40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1), Carrier (30)

Now that looks like it would make a pretty darn good BERSERKER for those who've always wanted to try and stop one  smile
Cheers,
Erik