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 japridemor
For quite awhile I was into stouts, Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout being awesome. The last few years however, I have turned to hoppier ales; Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and Dogfishhead 60 and 90 minute IPAs.
Now I'm wondering if Starmada is better than Imodium AD? And, seeing all of the cross-genre Starmada adaptions (Dreadnoughts, Iron stars) will there be a Imodium AD-Starmada version?
To keep this slightly on topic, I prefer medium cheddar or a nice monterrey jack.
I find it hard to believe ( and very dissapointing ) that beer hasn't been discussed in almost a year!! :x
Well, I've noticed a little error that crops up in the CORE Shipbuilder from the MJ12 website. specifically in the way that Weapon TL affects ORat calculations of Battery X,Y and Z in cells G20, G26 and G32 of version 2.2. If all of the TLs are set at 0 and a ship is designed, when you change the weapon TL to say +1 or -1, the ORat of the design changes. This shouldn't happen. This is happening due to the weapon TL mods being nested in multiple Round functions in cells J19, J25 and J31 and then being unapplied in Cells G20, G26 and G32, throwing the rounding off.
I haven't used the Shipyard programs to see if they are duplicating this rounding error.
I would like to see rules for Civilian ships. Even if you suppose that civilian techs are say -1 to max military levels, a 5HS freighter can take the same pounding as a basic 5 HS military hull. Shouldn't the civilian be more fragile (less expesive redundancy)? So if you designate a ship as civilian it takes hull hits on 1-6 rather than 1,3,& 5? Of course the DRat calc would have to change as well to account for the fragile hull.
Energy Allocation
/end sarcasm
I second this entire post, plus Ablative/Directional Shields that are set at construction time and odd ranges (21, 27, >30)
I'd like to see the various optional rules bandied about normalized in cost and published in an 'offical' product. Redundant Sheilds, Odd-Ranged Weapons, 'fixed' screens, Three-Turn Weapons.
Dual-Mode weapons with ammo for one mode.
Some provision for stowage/carriage of craft larger than fighters. FTL Tugs, if you will.
A look at how speed and weapon range interact. Not really an 'add something', but are we sure that Engines 12 and Range 4 is as good as Engines 4 and Range 12?
Some way to shoot down seekers and strikers before they hit your ship, on the turn they hit your ship. CIWS.
(I shudder to say this) Counter-based weapons that do not rely on seekers/strikers/fighters/mines/etc. Some way to build something that works like the Romulan Plasma from "Balance of Terror"
Some way to add more decision points, and encourage use of those decision points. Limited Arc Weapons, Ammunition, and Slow-Firing helps inform fire decisions... but more of this is always good.
How efficient is a force with all officers and no enlisted members either?
Sweet, I really like the new look for the forums.
All I know is that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention healthcare, bank bailouts or even education. Why the Federal government can take my money and spend it on these things is beyond me. I'm not saying the government shouldn't do these things...just they all sound like Article (Amendment) X things, reserved to the States. If the people in Massachusetts want to have gay marriage, universal healthcare and free public education, go for it. If the people of Alabama want prayer in school (another thing the Constitution is silent on), sex with donkeys and all education illegal, knock yourselves out. If I like the way Massachusetts is doing things, I can pack up and move there or try and change my State to reflect that without telling the people in Alaska how they should do things.
Amendment I only says that Congress can't establish an official religion...doesn't say anything about seperation of Church and State..the courts have thrown that stuff in through Judicial Legislation....another unconstitutional thingy we let slide. The Constitution nowhere gives the Judicial branch, under Article III or anywhere else, the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Chief Justice Marshal dreamed that one up and the whole judicial precedence stuff and Congress wimped and has let it slide by.
So all in all both of the major candidates in this election were two sides of the same coin. They have us split into two mutually hostile camps, so focused on each other that we can't see them laughing at us in their exclusive club. The two-party system has failed us..just as George Washington said it would.
I speak Arabic and Farsi and I've been to every continent except Antarctica. I'm afraid of heights but love rollercoasters ( including the floorless ones 
).
I'm ashamed that I hardly play Starmada at all now...I've become addicted to the MMORPG Lord of the Rings Online..aahrgh.
Ahh, so sad 
. Another fine thread hijacked. lol All this fine discussion about our favorite fermented beverage, spammed by talking about games. Back to beer please, leave the game stuff to the other threads.
Well in traveller the concept was valid due to the fact that jump engines ate up a huge percentage of available cubage, especially with longer ranges drives (jump 4+). In Starmada, the hyperdrive takes up a flat 10%, not a huge impact. So by having battleriders you aren't saving a lot of SU but you are adding a very vulnerable unit (the tender) to your force.
I used to like darker stouts and porters but over the last decade I have switched to preferring several excellent pale ales. I especially seem to like the pale ales with more hops as in IPAs.
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale...mmmmn
Dogfishhead 60 minute IPA...mmmnnn
Dogfishhead 90 minute IPA...mmmnnn
Dogfishhead 120 minute IPA..not so much, too hoppy and bitter
Redhook's Hammer IPA...mmmnn
Bass Pale Ale....mmmnn
Not a beer guy - Sake' for me, thanks!
Isn't Sake actually more of a beer? I know it is usually refered to as rice wine but it shares most characteristics of beer, not wine. Beer is made from grains (wheat, barley, rice) while wine is made from plant juices (grapes). Wine is single fermented while beer (including sake) is fermented multiple times. The big difference is that in sake the enzymes for starch conversion come from a mold and not malt. Like all beers, Sake is best served fresh, it doesn't age like wine, quickly spoiling if unrefrigerated.
Here is my first thought on a SFB Fed CA with the R refit.
CONSTITUTION-class FEDERATION HEAVY CRUISER ( CAR ) ( 183 )
Tech: E: 0, F: 0, G: 0, S: 0, W: 0
Hull: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 1
Screens: 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1
Weapons: 1 [ XY ] 2 [ XY ] 3 [ XY ] 4 [ YZ ] 5 [ YZ ] 6 [ Y ]
[X] Photon Torpedo [4/8/12, 4+ 1/1/2, Slow-Firing; Variable IMP]
[AB] [AB] [AB] [AB]
[Y] Phaser Type I [6/12/18, 3+ 1/1/1, Doubled Range Mods]
[GHI] [GHI] [AC] [AC] [BD] [BD] [EF] [EF]
[Z] Phaser Type III [3/6/9, 3+ 1/1/1, Doubled Range Mods]
[ABCDEF] [ABCDEF]
Special: Hyperdrive; Fire Control; Marines (10); Science (80); Teleporters (2); Transport (25)
Is a new version of the SAESB going to be availbale with the options from ISS included? On pg. 72 it says that the Drake notation is available but...
Anyway, great work on the supplement.
Frankly, I think I am alone in preferring the smaller hull sizes; but that's ok. Settle on the range of hull sizes that works for you and your gaming group...
Nah, you're not alone. In our local campaign, we have tied construction time to the number of SU. This makes the big ships (2,000+ SU) take too long to build. Each race tends to build one or two but their expense and time to build makes them almost too valuable to use in any but the most critical battles.
NELSON-class CONJECTURAL SPACE NAVY BATTLESHIP ( 788 )
Tech: E: 0, F: 0, G: 0, S: 0, W: 0
Hull: 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Shields: 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
Weapons: 1 [ XY ] 2 [ Y ] 3 [ Y ] 4 [ Y ] 5 [ Y ] 6 [ Y ]
[X] Mk33 Meson Spinal Mount [8/16/24, 2+ 1/1/5, Slow-Firing; Piercing]
[G] [G]
[Y] W3c Laser Cannon [3/6/9, 4+ 2/1/1]
[ACE] [ACE] [ACE] [ACE] [ACE] [BDF] [BDF] [BDF] [BDF] [BDF] [GHI] [GHI] [GHI] [GHI] [GHI]
Special: Hyperdrive; Armor Plating; Fire Control; Marines (10); Seeker (240)
Carries 8x Mk20 Missiles of which it can fire four in one salvo.
Mk20 Missile [Seeker, Size:8, Spd:12, Acc:3+, Def:0, SU:30]
I just noticed, while designing some new ships, that the calculation for screens seems wrong. It looks like the /4 modifier is hitting twice, once in cell C12 of the Worksheet page and again in cell J12 of the same page.
To fix, change cell j12 to "=ROUNDUP(B12*C12,0)"
Shouldn't we have a line to state the tech levels used? And if so maybe a place to note the range used under the expanded tech levels. You know people are going to use them ( I am ).
Also, I'm not sure I like the Weapon line. A lot of ship designs have fewer weapons than hull and so wouldn't have an XYZ value for all of the six slots. Then you would end up with a series of /// next to each other. For example, an HS:6 ship with 3 X battery weapons would have a line like this:
Weapons: X/X/X///
If we use [N] instead then the line would look like this:
Weapons: [X][X][X][][][]
I am not advocating any style, it just looks a little strange to me. The information definately needs to be there, I just want to see alternative formatting styles.
If you are going to play a campaign then you are going to have to determine how to point cost those ships that have no combat rating.
-Bren
In our local Starmada/VBAM campaign we are costing ships at (( ComRat / 25 + 1 ) x HS ) ^ 0.5
I like the design, and the description, but I'm confused... putting this into my spreadsheet, I get a combat rating of 772?
:oops: Mea Culpa. On my spreadsheet, when I added the Fighter flight work area, I put the flight traits below the wepon traits in columns O : P. The weapon calculations ended up grabbing the lower fighter mods and calculating. Thanks for catching that. I have corrected the design and will redesign later..
I guess that with all the snow up North and in the Midwest that many don't want to hear that I went into the pool down here in Florida on Christmas Day... :shock:
Yea, My family and I went to the beach.
REFUTOR-class CONJECTURAL SPACE NAVY CRUISER ( 772 )
TL: E: 3, F: 3, G: 3, S: 3, W: 3
Hull: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 10 9 8 6 5 3 2
Shields: 4 4 3 3 2 2 1
Weapons: 1[XY], 2[YZ], 3[YZ], 4[Y], 5[Y], 6[Y]
[X] Mk3 Meson Spinal Mount [8/16/24, 2+ 1/1/5, No Range Mods; Piercing]
[G]
[Y] Z3e Pulse Laser [5/10/15, 3+ 2/1/1, Range-Based DMG]
[ABC] [ABC] [ABD] [ABD] [ACE] [BDF] [GHI]
[Z] CID 4 "Blunderbus" Coilgun [2/4/6, 3+ 2/1/1, Range-Based ROF; Repeating]
[ACE] [BDF]
Special: Hyperdrive; Armor Plating; Countermeasures; Fire Control; Marines (10); Seeker (40)
Equipped with a very powerful spinal mount for initial long-range engagements, this class has a very powerful battery of pulse lasers for close-in fighting. Ships of this class usually salvo their two Mk14 shipkiller missiles while closing on an opponent with their vessel's high speed, forcing the enemy to split their fire. Careful timing is required as this class carries no reloads. Anti-fighter protection is found, not only in this class' high speed, but its short-range, rapid fire, coliguns.
Mk14 "Shipkiller" Missile [Seeker, Size:6, Spd:12, Acc:4+, Def:0, SU:20]
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by japridemor
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.