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 Taltos
I think it actually came in second as WARMACHINE was upped to the overall winner from that same category...
Which is sad given that theirs was just a supplement to their existing game, right?
Guess what?
Yep, its happened again. I've screwed up.
Bought the file, printed off about a quarter of the book, totally forgot to save the files to my computer, and now I've lost it.
A fiver for just 39 bloody pages--and thats not taking into account the printing costs of £3.90...
Idiot... :evil:
Ouch. My sympathies. I have done that before myself, but usually without the printing.
That's all right.
Last I checked I need neither a passport nor an airplane for the 15-20 minute drive, but I still won't be able to make it.
I'd come, but theres the little problem of the Atlantic Ocean, the non-existent passport and the lack of funds to purchase a plane ticket...
So I guess I won't come...:)
Talk about reaching for excuses. :roll:
Dude! Plucky Hero dies?! But I wasn't done reading the book, yet. Now you've ruined it for me.
jimbeau wrote:don't forget Sunbursts as valid anti-fighter weapons
they completely destroy an entire flight when they hit, no matter the hevay or not.
I wrote and erased many reasons why I don't like them for this, and instead I shall say...
I don't see the Battlestar or B5 firing Sunbursts as anti-fighter weapons.
You could justify BSG at a stretch if you call the sunbursts flak from defense guns.
Hello everyone!
Down south, one friend used exclusively heavy fighters! For them I have "Talos Missiles" which are identical to Terrier, except that they are 3/1/2 to give the extra damage need to destroy heavy fighters with one shot.
Unfortunately, the 3/1/2 missiles don't help with the Heavy Fighters. You don't roll PEN or DMG against fighters, just the hits. 
Other than that, it is a good idea. Heavy fighters are a tough nut to crack.
The coming Stars Divided book for VBAM provides a Starmada ship to have hangar equivalent for the VBAM tender ability. It works off the old debate that hangar space would be roughly equivalent to Construction Bays. They hold and deploy hull 1 ships - the gunboats of past Yahoo group discussion.
Honestly, I wouldn't advocate for a system that shoots before fighters can attack -- this would remove the one advantage fighters have over ships (move and attack in their own phase).
Try one of their advantages. :twisted:
Or did you forget that nasty -1 to hit and the fact that they 1/2 shields?
Taltos wrote:Interesting contrast there. I have always pictured a "battle rider" as a carrier for non-hyper frigates, destroyers, or larger - that is carrying and deploying warships.
Not sure what you would call the other end, which is I think what Nahuris was trying to convey, was a troop ship loaded with combat forces and small non-hyper but durable ships designed to deliver discreet combat units from the troop ship to a planet's surface.
Nope... the original post is specifically talking about a ship. A small one, but a ship nonetheless; it makes no mention of troops.
Truth, but dropship is a common term for troop landers in more than one genre / setting so I claim that my error is forgivable. :wink:
I like monkeys.
Nahuris wrote:Is there a way in Starmada to simulate a dropship?
I want to build a carrier to transport a few of these, but am not sure how to rate them. Would I use a fighter bay for each one, or is there a way to simulate the fact that another ship carries them through hyperspace to the battle?I believe the term "dropship" is traditionally used in sci-fi to refer to a ship that drops through an atmosphere and lands ground troops planetside... what you are referring to is more commonly called a "battle rider" or somesuch.
Interesting contrast there. I have always pictured a "battle rider" as a carrier for non-hyper frigates, destroyers, or larger - that is carrying and deploying warships.
Not sure what you would call the other end, which is I think what Nahuris was trying to convey, was a troop ship loaded with combat forces and small non-hyper but durable ships designed to deliver discreet combat units from the troop ship to a planet's surface.
I don't think there was an option for a larger ship to carry a smaller one in the Compendium--could you mean FT?
It came in with VBAM, it is an ability in that game. The coming Stars Divided book offers a way to model it in Starmada designs.
VBAM handled dropships by requiring that the design carry Troops and Vehicle Bays.
There is also a VBAM tech item for Tender - or bays to carry small 1 hull ships.
I'd say the original suggestion of using the CP value is pretty close on the money. If the ship points out at 1245 CPV then using 124.5 MCr is pretty close on par from my recollection. (not done any High Gaurd designs in almost a decade :oops: )
I'd still factor in the hull size somehow...
How do you compare a 89 CR hull 4 ship vs. one that is hull 5? (made up numbers). Is the smaller one less expensive or more?
Since it came up in a recent battle...
We're trying a house rule on Anti-Fighter Batteries: they roll to hit, needing 6+ to do one point of damage, before the attacking fighters roll to hit. The number of dice you get is equal to your undamaged hull. Any fighters that are destroyed do not get to make the attack.
The reasoning is that bigger hulls will have more "AA" guns, especially since they allocate more space for AFB than smaller hulled-ships. It was a last minute idea, so we haven't had a chance to try it out; but then most of our ship designs don't have AFB because they are not cost-effective.
There is a solid idea in here, but as you pointed out it doesn't work when you activate 1 flight at a time.
hhmmm off to think myself about active AFB.
Btw, does an attacking heavy fighter that rolls a 1 becomes destroyed or just takes 1 point of damage if the target ship has operational AFB?
We have always played it as 1 pt dmg... so it takes 2 ones to die.
Isn't "pinyin" the method by which Chinese characters are transliterated into the Roman alphabet?
That is true, and there are at least 2 major and some minor versions of pinyin which is why there are so many different romanticized spellings of the same word.
OTOH, it is tonal language, with normal western keyboards and operating systems unable to manage the number of inflections/accent marks.
"Pinyin", by my limited understanding, could actually be as many as 16 different words without the correct marks (assuming each combination is valid according to the standard spelling rules)... and that is just within a single version of pinyin.
I have a couple of friends within China, if there is a need for good accurate translations for any canon material.
Same great combat, but low fat.
yes - it is from the Compendium.
It blocks hyperdrives from working... don't have the book handy for the full rule at present.
NP.
I get the impression it is under used.
With the right jump lanes mix on your map it is an awesome strategic ability, though.
Fast is a VBAM ability.
Campaign Guide, p.114
In short, "Units with the Fast Ship ability gain a bonus to their movement during the campaign turn. Fast Ships can traverse one (1) extra minor or major jump lane at the end of their normal movement."
There is more, but that is the basic part of the rule.
Yes and no, from my perspective.
I hate cloak...subs don't go invisible... they use their surroundings and slow careful behavior with tactics to try and be sneaky. the other side has to use tactics and technology to crack the surroundings to find the opponent. it is a challenge. subs are never untouchable, never out of reach... it is a matter of thinking, planning and tactics
cloak is... "poof"! you can't see me.
blah
Corporate training in me is coming out. If yer gonna knock all the ideas, then offer a solution
I know, I know. It's the curmudgeon in me sneaking out.
I almost didn't post cause I can't think of a solution. I think the best bet is to leave them out, which probably puts me in near your sentiment, don't clutter up the setting with every possible toy... if it fits, let it fit and not force it in.
But I also admit I am a cloak-bigot. Don't like it in Star Trek, banned it in my VBAM universe...
If sub rules were easy, everyone would have them. 
I'll admit I didn't follow your entire post, go0gleplex (and I will further admit that may be the beer (or the scotch :?:)), but I really agree with this
There really isn't another way to hide a ship in space other than camoflage of some sort
At minimum, without getting all complicated, a ship with limited speed and mass should be more difficult to find (disrupting the aether, giving off heat), no external lights, or whatever. That is a sub, in terms of what that term means to the tradition of the introduction of the technology/technique. An immediate leap to a "cloak equivalent" is too much for me.
In the end, I may have to agree with this:
...my recommendation is to drop subs as a human type vessel and introduce them as an alien advanced tech...like Saturn or such.
I'm not sure I'm getting the reason why the "cloak"-type ability would be a Bad Thing.
After all, the whole point of the cloaking device's creation (in Star Trek, at least) was to allow a sub-hunt-type story.
We're looking for a way that "subs" can hide until they strike; since the concept of "submerging" doesn't make sense in space, you have to go with some type of invisibility.
Yes and no, from my perspective.
I hate cloak...
subs don't go invisible... they use their surroundings and slow careful behavior with tactics to try and be sneaky. the other side has to use tactics and technology to crack the surroundings to find the opponent. it is a challenge. subs are never untouchable, never out of reach... it is a matter of thinking, planning and tactics :twisted:
cloak is... "poof"! you can't see me.
blah :evil:
I have been enjoying this thread, and think this is the sort of thing to re-pique my IS interest.
However....
I agree that making bender ability like a "cloak" would ruin it.
And the hard idea of "submersing" is just a bit much.
Neither feels right - the former cause it is to high-science for the setting and the latter cause really you want sub-equivalents rather than just translating subs to space, right?
I can't say I have a real idea/solution yet, but I am pondering it.
Linking them to diving into deep atmosphere has potential, but then they lose any real relavence for striking convoys.
I agree with Dan that the simple black paint approach can be done by any ship so it isn't "special".
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Taltos
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
