51

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

I am glad the idea seems to have merit  big_smile

I can see the locking of CSP as a mechanism to close the potential for abuse. As soon as you have dealt with enemy fighters yours suddenly gain free reign. Probably realistic but may not necessarily be good for the game.

I would suggest that the flight can land and re-launch to revert to a normal free to act flight. Fluff may suggest rearming for anti ship and removing the boosters required for CSP if fluff is needed. This would create a delay and make a carrier rearming fighters a priority target on that turn. However, this may be less wieldy than is generally the flavour of Starmada.

Something I was thinking of I would like to bounce in here... an addition to the dogfight rules.

A fighter flight can be given a guard order. It then moves with the ship it is guarding in the normal move phase but not in the fighter phase. During the fighter phase if an enemy flight ends its move within 2 hexes the flight can immeadiately intercept and engage the enemy in a dogfight.

53

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

shift_shaper wrote:

Heh, sunbursts...Yeah.  I have a fleet of 150 1 hull ships that each have 2 sunbursts and a cloaking device.  Sunbursting things to death doesn't get old, though we eventually started using the house rule that they give a -1 to firing instead of being impenetrable, due to the massive walls of them that we were making.

Ummm.... don't sunbursts have to be purchased in sets of 5 and therefore 2 on a ship would be illegal? I know the SXCA allows purchases of any number but the rules are quite clear.


BTW we limit repeating to 4 shots to avoid it being overpowered.

54

(6 replies, posted in Defiance)

Fluff will come... I don't think I will do much except a remotetly generic background...

Victorians develop technology and spaceflight, super technology and remenants of an acient civilisation found throughout solar system, great empires in race to expand their holding in the new frontier, friction rises and conflict erupts.

However, here is the start of conceptual thinking.

Victorian Science Fiction (VSF) tends to rely on a foundatin set in history supplimented with the extraordinary. From the historical point of view there is a 'muddying' of technology from the mid 19th century through to WW1.

The technology of each force was very similar during this period with developments just about in parallel. Therefore each army will have a base of similar weapons, effectively identicle in game terms.

Rifles: during the period there were two main rifles. These are described as the single action and repeating rifle.

The single action rifle relied upon the bolt opening the breach, a single bullet being loaded and the breach being closed. Post firing the breach was opened again ejecting the spent cartridge. They still employed a black powder cartridge and a heavy 0.45" to 0.5" soft lead bullet. These guns were favoured right up until the turn of the century, often above the more modern repeating guns because of their stopping power.

Repeating rifles first came into service in the 1880s. These are the bolt action rifles such as the Lee-Enfield that most of us are familiar with and were heavily used in both the world wars. They have a strip of usually 8-10 bullets loaded into the gun and each action of the bolt clears a cartridge and loads the next bullet into place. They were typically around 0.3" and used the new smokeless cordite as a charge. They were more accurate than the single action and faster to fire but had poorer stopping power until improvements in bullet velocity made hydrostatic shock dominant in bullet performance.

55

(6 replies, posted in Defiance)

Yes it is weak superstructure I will add a specific mention. I have included hero costs in all frames but I know I must prune them down to 50% at the end.

56

(6 replies, posted in Defiance)

Thanks for that. Now added an AFV and fixed the points you made I think.

Learning  :wink:  8)

57

(6 replies, posted in Defiance)

To make sure i am doing it right before I waste too much time.

http://www.ironchicken.pwp.blueyonder.c … strian.doc

Thanks

Chris

And another question about vehicles...

It says minimum unit size for vehicles is 2 or none. Therefore i assume you can field vehicles as individuals although the text that follows is a bit confusing...

What are the advantages/disadvantages of single vehicles over units of 2 or more? I cannot see a reason to ever field vehicles in groups in the rules unless it was a group of fast lights.

59

(3 replies, posted in Defiance)

1  Any advice on how you could build an army with a split tactical rating?

essentially the concept is to have two differing sets of morale effects dependant on unit. Representing a core of veteren troops with strong morale and an option for supporting mobs that tend to act more erratically.

Again this is for my VSF concepts where the British are likely to use cheap troops drawn from the 'Empire's savages' militia to support their rank and file.

2  How is a shotgun best handled? Cone or small AOE?

3  I want to put together some form of unreliability effect for vehicles. Basically a vehicle has a stalling and restarting roll (say 9+/5+). How would you cost it?

60

(7 replies, posted in Discussion)

Where's the Defiant Army List for the Boiler Suit Apes then?

Seen their cool new gibbons?

http://eurekamin.com.au/index.php?cPath … mp;sort=3a

cricket wrote:

You know, we did have an "active" fighter defense in the Compendium... the Fighter Defense Network (FDN). Anyone think it might be worth ressurrecting?

How did it work?

Been reading along with this thread with interest. No played much yet but I tend to agree AFB are not useful enough in the structure of the game. A suggestion may be 2 systems...

AFB as is and IAFB (improved) using your 6s to roll system. The IAFB would have a higher CR cost effect and take up more room (twice the cost and space?). Then people could choose.

If a ship bought AFB and IAFB they would roll a number of dice = hull counting 6s and then fighters would also be hit if they rolled a 1. That should keep fighters at bay......

TY

The crew served thing is a challenge because no more than 1/2 a unit may be armed with support weapons and both crew count as being armed with a support weapon. therefore you must have 2 spare men for each gun. Not a classic form for gun team dedicated units. mixed units wont give the right feel. Perhaps a unit augementation may be appropriate, if you have any ideas. 

I could see a classic infantry or field gun in Defiance as: Crew served, infantry braced, slow loading and dedicated loader giving 3 crew, two of which count support weapon armed and the loader not. 2 guns with 8 men seems to be a reasonable group.

As I was thinking of trying to use them for Victorian SF, i i wondered how 2 things were simulated....

1  Field guns with say 3 crew? A light vehicle with very low move perhaps? Don't know. There does not seem to be a 'gun' frame mechanism to simulate AT guns etc.

2 Cavalry???!!! Adhoc unit or just a size 3 frame counting the rider and mount as one?

I will read on.. smile

65

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

If you go to the SXCA Construction assistant (linked in the sticky) and build a 10 hull ship with PDS and nothing else it has a CV of 24 The same ship with 3 shields instead of the PDS has a CV of 27.

However if you do the same thing using the spreadsheet on the Starmarda website then they both cost the same (CV of 20)

Guess there must be an error in the Spreadsheet linked in the sticky from the forum, which is where I got the idea it was cheaper to use PDS.

66

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

I would play this that the TDAR gets past the first roll to hit but the weapon must still make its second roll normally. Otherwise it is a clear loophole.

Is that how others play it?

67

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

Am I missing something about how to use point defence systems?

As I read it they are effectively a 3 point shield that is not halfed or ignored by special weapons or fighters. Points for points it is a lot cheaper than a 3 point shield. Why not just have a PDS and no shileds?

The only 2 weaknesses it seems to have is it is destroyed by a Q hit but that is not too bad as you have several other Q hits to take usually. And Increased damage is calculated on shields not PDS so a ship with PDS and no shields would POP quickly when facing ID weapons.

Seems cheap or I am playing it wrong.

68

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Also what is an interdictor field? It appears under the pure Starmarda version, is it form the compendium or something?

69

(10 replies, posted in Defiance)

tnjrp wrote:

Hmm. D:VG doesn't go well together with unreliable, I'm afraid.

<snip>

...there's nothing that actually makes them unreliable in the way I understand the word.

Most VSF rules seem to have some form of jamming or stalling rolls to represnt the over-extension of technology within the genre. Kind of a save verses breaking down, where failure forces the crew to spend the turn fixing it rather than being useful.

It would be a simple thing to add but assigning points and maintaining balance is always more difficult.

70

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

TY missed that

In the SCX:CA linked above from the sticky...

What is "fast" special equipment?

I have basic game and VBAM but its not in them that i can find.

72

(10 replies, posted in Defiance)

tnjrp wrote:

I have rather limited experience with the genre specificly. What features should it include that makes it different from other scifi settings?

Normally unreliability of technology and vehicles...

73

(10 replies, posted in Defiance)

Just had a skim of these... but wanted to ask the experts.

How do you think Defiance would stand up to doing Victorian 'steampunk' tabletop?

74

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

First draft of the rules written reasonably properly. Should make sense now.

http://www.ironchicken.pwp.blueyonder.c … mrules.doc

75

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

Yes, this seems to simulate maneuverability well without getting into the complexities of extra thrust to reduce turn modes. The effect of number of engines is non-linear, smaller ships with lots of thrust are faster and far more nimble.

I tried moving a couple of ships around on a map and it seemed to feel right and was not really any more complex than the standard rules.

The aim was to simulate the B5W pseudo momentum movement that I found was a good compromise between newtonian and SX vanilla.

Talking of newtonian.... his tree is in the grounds of my work (at least what is left of it, a cutting was grafted onto new root-stock when the original was dieing). Never bears any apples anymore though.