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 Alex Knight
I wonder if it would break the system to use half damage points and round them up.
That way, 1/0/-1 damage with a DMG 1 weapon is:
Carronade, Range Based DMG and DMG .5
The Declutch Staller Limpets- Striker; Size 5; Speed 15; Attack 5+; Defense 0; Extra Engine Damage, No Hull Damage, Double Engine Damage.
These missiles were developed by pirates to 'enhance' their ability to capture prime cargo, or facilitate an escape from an untenable situation. They target an opposing ship's energy systems, attaching to cables and other weak areas, leeching power off of the engines, though the loss of power there can also have adverse effects on weaponry and shields.
Perhaps two series of traits are optimal:
1) Extra * Damage - does a point of * damage per damage die, regardless of the result of the damage roll. Existing example: Extra Hull Damage.
2) Double * Damage - does an extra point of * damage whenever a point of * damage is rolled. Existing example: Double Damage (which applies to all damage types).
Hrm. I think I like this m'self. Gives you options for something along the lines of the Shield Cracker for the Selts - (Extra Shield Damage; No Hull Damage) or something not quite as dangerous to one system (Double Shield Damage) or something devastating to one system (Double Shield Damage, Extra Shield Damage - What?!? Two or Four shields every hit!?)
I have *not* heard good things about GoDaddy. My older brother has had issues with it and the site that he runs on there is a simple WordPress based site for his photography. So take that as you will.
In most cases, the demo version do not include the rules for unit creation, ultimately the meat of all of the systems. Otherwise all you get are the initial 'generic' units they offer. I think there is other functionality removed, but nothing that is essential to get an idea of how the game works.
Are option mounts really that hard to do? (In hindsight, yeah I think so.)
I mean, yeah, okay because the math is entirely tied to DRAT which is based on hull and shields, *buuut* I'm sure that something managable can be hammered out.
SU used isn't an issue because, well, this is SFU and the ships already assume the space, so our only concern is for the ORAT for the weapons. Hrm... going to see if there is something simple that can be done.
Drones are simple. 12 added to the Combat Rating per Drone in an option mount.
Other weapons... This is going to take a little more time. The three issues being engine rating of the vessel, hull size and total shields. Each weapon option might have to have a base value and then each ship gives a multiplier to that value based on the ship itself. The hard part, of course, is trying to determine the base value for the weapons as it is sadly, not as simple as finding the base SU requirements as I had thought.
Okay, I'll have to work on that later. My brain is starting to hurt.
Though as I do it, it makes me wonder something: are option mounts worth the hassle? The balance in SFB and FC is that you need to have the power to use the guns. In SA, the balance is... I pay more points for some options than others? Thoughts?
Edit: After a little bit of work, I *think* a guesstimate is close enough.
One option: Give just enough ship construction rules to add option mounts, with the SU for each weapon given. Pro: It's the easy way for production I think. Con: It might be a little too much for some people.
Another option: Give a base CRAT for each weapon, then have a multiplier for each option mount. Pro: Easier for the player. Con: It's not entirely accurate (Granted within 1-2% inaccuracy. I don't think it's that bad, all things considered.) It will be a little more work for the design team, as each ship with option mounts will have to have multipliers for each mount.
Last option: Simply use preset options. Pro: Easiest. Con: Takes a lot of the flavor of the particular Empires out of the game.
Sure.
A weapon with "extra shield damage" hits doing three damage dice. The results are 1, 4, and 6. Doing a point of Hull damage, a point of engine damage, TWO shield damage (one for the roll +1 for extra shield DMG), and one weapon damage.
Hrm. Interesting. I like that, but my gut feeling is that if it is called Extra (X) Damage, it should work like Extra Hull Damage only with (X) instead of Hull. That way no one gets confused.
You might look at it this way. For Extra Hull Damage, you are charging x3 for a guaranteed Hit against something that would otherwise have only a 1 in 2 chance of being Hit. For Extra Engine Damage, Extra Shield Damage, or Extra Weapons Damage, you would be charging for guaranteed Hits Against systems that would otherwise have a 2 out of 3 chance of not being Hit. Keeping the same ratio of cost to benefit for Extra Engine Damage, Extra Shield Damage, and Extra Weapon Damage that there is for Extra Hull Damage, I come to the conclusion that the Traits: Extra Engine Damage, Extra Shield Damage, or Extra Weapons Damage should cost x4.
I disagree with a x4 multiplier. A ship that loses all of its hull is destroyed - victory points to the opponent. A ship that loses all of its engines merely can't move, it can still use Hyperdrive (if it has it) and can still fire if it has range and arcs. A ship that loses its shields can still move and shoot, its just easier to explode. A ship that loses its weapons can still escape. In all three cases, the ship isn't providing my opponent with victory points and in two of the three results, I wouldn't even consider the ship a mission kill as it is still able to provide a threat, although a diminished one. I'd consider x 2, 2.5 or even putting it on par with Extra Hull Damage, but not more than Extra Hull Damage.
Heck, even double damage is only a x2 multiplier and it would cause more overall damage than any of the Extra (x) Damage.
Looking at the example from above: The same rolls we'd get would be - four hull hits (3 and 5), two engine hits (2), two shield hits (3) and two weapon hits (5) - that's 10 overall points of damage, versus the 8 of the Extra Shield Damage.
I hadn't even considered the Tholians and their webs. Interesting. If I remember correctly though, their actual webs didn't do any damage, just trapped ships that entered the hex they were in. But they DID have web casters which I think did do damage.
Hmm...
I never really paid attention to the Tholians. Except to shudder at the thought of assaulting something they'd had time to prepare a defense for.
My SFB playing friends said that the old webs did do damage when you ran into them in SFB, whereas they do not in FC.
Interesting... and might make for an interesting way to do the Tholian's Web when they get there.
If it is the one I am thinking of, (sadly I don't have my books with me here at work...) double check the rate of fire on the guns. I think the less expensive one has a smaller RoF.
Use explosion rules, so little ships are only weak one shot weapons that cost VPs to employ. There are lots of examples in various sci-fi settings of purpose built suicide ships (usually employed by the bad guys, I can remember specific examples in the Lost Fleet and Starfire series of books) with great big bombs in them. If you use a great big ship with no other capability than to explode near the enemy you won't loose very many VPs, relative to the possible damage, but the chances of the ship surviving without points dumped into defenses or weapons are much lower.
Erik
Another example are fire ships too. I almost forgot about that idea. Heh.
That's also a thought, but then what if you don't want explosions from *all* ships? That's why I consider the explody or unstable trait.
A couple of weapon and ship traits I'd be interested to see:
The first two weapon traits would be best used with Dual-Mode weapons and without the Damage Control option:
- Burnout: After firing, the weapon is considered damaged. There could be varying degrees of this making it more or less likely to blow. This trait would be able to represent in dual-mode disabling the safety protocols, or overcharging the capacitors. As a non-dual mode weapon, it could represent either experimental tech, a race whose equipment is known for unreliability or for pirates who salvaged the damaged weapon and jury-rigged it into their systems.
- Similar to burnout only the level of damage is more catastrophic. Any ones rolled when firing the weapon are rolled IMP and DMG against the ship firing it. Like #1 only to the nth degree.
The last one I was thinking of, and I'll probably eventually think of more:
- A weapon or ship trait that destroys the ship when used. Either as a cannon that the sheer shock value of firing it rips the firing vessel apart, (Again, similar to traits above) or - more to what I was thinking - something along the line of the Shofixti Glory Device that you can detonate when the ship is heavily damaged to try and take an enemy ship out with you.
Would it be considered "Fan Fiction" if it is your own universe? Still, I wouldn't be adverse to seeing such things.
The Rules Annex also includes material from Hammer and Claw, Iron Stars and Dreadnoughts. The only thing from those (And ISS) that it does not include are the ships. Even though I have ISS, I'm going to eventually pick up the Rules Annex so I have all the optional rules in one book instead of scattered throughout five books (Main, ISS, H&C, IS and Dread).
What do you have against pillbugs?
I have nothing against them. I just found it curious to see a definition of them in the glossary and it has seemingly no bearing on the game itself.
In the very early days of Starmada, we used sequential movement, where one side would move their ships and then the other. When we got tired of waiting for Brian to puzzle out the optimum placement for each of his ships, we decided to implement simultaneous, written movement orders.
Ahhhh... that makes a lot of sense then. Hence, "The Brian Rule."
Well, now I know.
I'd still like to hear how long games last for other people before I start making my turn record sheet. I'm thinking a quick easy something in XL format that I can then take to Kinkos or what-have-you to make a bazillion copies of in a cool pad that I can tear the pages off of, like a page-a-day calendar.
1.) How many turns does your average games last? 5, 10, 20, more? I ask this because I am planning on making up a quick Turn Record sheet. The last one I did could fit about 45 turns worth on it, so I could either go with a four ship sheet with ten turns or a three ship sheet with fifteen turns.
2.) Why is the pillbug in the glossary? Is this an in-joke?
3.) Why is the alternate movement rule also called "The Brian Rule"?
4.) Not a question, but more of a thought. The rules state that unless the scenario says otherwise, players are to assume a ship's initial speed is 0. My small suggestion is to allow players to set their initial speed anywhere up to the engine rating of the ship. I know it's something I'm going to impliment in my own group as default.
The Madeen Class Bombardment Airship is a recent development in the Archadian arsenal. The Terra Homing cannons are primarily meant to breach fortifications in order to allow Archadian troops to enter and occupy them, though they are also capable of decimating Resistance airships. In order to provide the magicite power needed for the Terra Homing cannons, the ship's engines have little to no extra power for speed or maneuverability. To make up for this, extra armor plating has been added. However, the airship will still require support from Ifrit, Shiva and Catoblepas Class airships. (Notes: The concept of this design is derived from the Final Fantasy 9 Summons, Madeen, and is not an airship from Final Fantasy 12, thus mostly unique. After the Catoblepas has been designed, I'll then begin work on the Resistance airships. Though I might revise the Ifrit and Shiva.)
Type: MADEEN-class ARCHADES BOMBARDMENT AIRSHIP (389)
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 1
Faceted: 18 17 15 13 11 9 8 6 4 2
Facets: (4,3,3,3,3,2)
Weapons: 1:[VW] 2:[VW] 3:[2W] 4:[2W] 5:[W] 6:[W]
Battery V: Terra Homing, 3/6/9, 5/3+/2/1
No Range Mods; Minimum Range
[AB] [AB]
Battery W: Magicite Cannons, 4/8/12, 2/4+/1/1
[AB] [AB] [AB] [AB] [AC] [AC] [AC] [BD] [BD] [BD] [C] [D]
Special Equipment:
Armor Plating; Carrier (100); Marines (10)
One option would be to use current insignia and create a background around why the US Flag has a big red dot in it (Cause we merged with Japan, of course, in 2865)
What? No Sino-American Alliance?
How can I be one o' dem innapendents without it?
...
Sorry.
Was Quantum Legions intended to be a game with a background and modularity like Squad Leader, or was it intended to be fully generic and modular to fit any background?
Another suggestion is to offer it as a separate purchase, mebbe at a lower cost bracket? Like, PDF is X, Hard Copy is X+n and Drake Notation is a couplea' bucks?
If someone were to put together a collection of Drake notation for published ship designs and provide them to "dispense at [my] discretion", what would be fair? For that matter, should we make the Drake notation available as a matter of course when future supplements are released?
That's a good question... I guess it would depend on utility in a print format. Perhaps as a supplemental download for those that purchase the book, if such a thing could be tracked?
I do like the new hexes. They do look neat, without being too "realistic". Plus the new ones look a little more "professional" than the first set. The first set was a little... eh...
It does give the same damage ranges... I get the feeling that RoF 3, damage 2 would work OK, though RoF 6 might come closer to the 'automatically inflicts one hit' on anything within the radius.
I think for now, I'll revise my ships with the RoF 3, DMG 2 version of the weapon.
Upon re-reading the ordinance rules, that seems a legit conversion, since they actually just roll against armor.
That's a pretty nice job on the Cobra, and quite a bit less expensive than mine, since it's not using carrier capacity.
I'll have to re-read the rules, but it may end up even cheaper as I'll be dropping the teleporter and *perhaps* the Marines. Or at least dropping the Marines to 1. I *am* considering upping the Tech level to make the ship fit on a Hull 1 sized Hull.
The same idea hit me a couple days ago while re-reading the ordinance rules. It would free up a lot of space, allow for carrying extra squadrons beyond the launch limits, or both. One could also use the Interceptor and Bomber traits to reduce the sizes on the fighters, too, since BFG bombers can't attack fighters and BFG fighters can't attack ships.
A thought would be to try and get the two to be the same size (easier said than done...) and allow the ability to arm loadout on launch. It would be a deviation from standard Starmada rules, but hey, as long as all BFG fleets can do it, it is internally balanced, I think. And then just pick them ahead of game for cross-over play.
I probably would've done the same, but the Shipyard requires that each fleet use the same shields technology, so I would've needed two separate spreadsheets. Or I could hack in a 'faceted override' on the Template, maybe...
Ahhh... I use MyShipBuilder, usually.
Hmmm... I wonder if it would be balanced to allow the sacrifice of marines to deal non-hull damage. So you teleport a marine squad to an enemy ship, and if it isn't canceled by an enemy marine squad on the same ship (ie, the ship has no marines), you can sacrifice them to cause a 'no hull damage' damage roll (the sacrifice being so that they don't later count towards hull reduction). Maybe more than 1 NHD hit, since crits in BFG are pretty damaging.
Crits in BFG are pretty damaging, but in most cases they are also repairable. Damage in Starmada is only repaired if using the Damage Control option.
As an aside, if using more than three weapon systems, possibly a fourth (where necessary) system could be added: Teleport Attack RNG 3/ RoF 1/ Acc 4+/ IMP 1/ DMG 1, No Hull Damage, Carronade, (Continuing Damage or Ignores Shields - I lean towards the latter.)
Cobra Revision Assuming Escorts can Teleport:
COBRA-class IMPERIAL DESTROYER (34)
Hull: 2 1
Engines: 6 3
Shields: 3 2
Weapons: 1:XY 2:XY 3:XY 4:YZ 5:YZ 6:YZ
X: "Weapon Batteries 30 cm" 2/4/6, 1/4+/1/1
[GHIJK]
Y: "Torpedoes" 6/12/18, 1/4+/1/1
Fire-Linked; Doubled Range Mods; Slow-Firing
[G][G]
Z: "Teleporters" 1/2/-, 1/4+/1/1
Carronade; No Hull Damage; Ignores Shields
[GHIJKL]
Special Equipment:
Anti-Fighter Batteries (1)
Assuming no Teleport, One Hull Point:
COBRA-class IMPERIAL DESTROYER (22)
Hull: 1
Engines: [TL 2] 6
Shields: [TL 2] 3
Weapons: [TL 1] 1:X2Y 2:X2Y 3:X2Y 4:X2Y 5:X2Y 6:X2Y
X: "Weapon Batteries 30 cm" 2/4/6, 1/4+/1/1
[GHIJK]
Y: "Torpedoes" 6/12/18, 1/4+/1/1
Fire-Linked; Doubled Range Mods; Slow-Firing
[G][G]
Special Equipment: [TL 2]
Anti-Fighter Batteries (1)
---
And since I am revising - Here are the previously posted ships with the "Teleport Attack" weapon rather than the Marines and Teleporter:
Type: TYRANT-class IMPERIAL CRUISER (224)
Hull: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
Faceted: 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4
Facets: (5,4,4,4,4,4)
Weapons: 1:[2VWX] 2:[2VWX] 3:[2VWY] 4:[VWX] 5:[VWX] 6:[VWX]
Battery V: Weapon Batteries 30 cm, 2/4/6, 1/4+/1/1
[HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK]
Battery W: Weapon Batteries 45 cm, 3/6/9, 1/4+/1/1
[HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK]
Battery X: Torpedoes, 6/12/18, 1/4+/1/1
Fire-Linked; Doubled Range Mods; Slow-Firing
[G] [G] [G] [G] [G] [G]
Battery Y: Teleport Attack, 1/2/3, 1/4+/1/1
Carronade; No Hull Damage; Ignores Shields
[GHIJKL]
Special Equipment:
Anti-Fighter Batteries (2)
Type: DOMINATOR-class IMPERIAL CRUISER (258)
Hull: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
Faceted: 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4
Facets: (5,4,4,4,4,4)
Weapons: 1:[3VW] 2:[3VX] 3:[3V] 4:[3V] 5:[3V] 6:[3V]
Battery V: Weapon Batteries 30 cm, 2/4/6, 1/4+/1/1
[HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK] [IK]
Battery W: Nova Cannon, 6/12/18, 3/5+/1/2
Minimum Range; Area Effect; Ignores Shields
[G]
Battery X: Teleport Attack, 1/2/3, 1/4+/1/1
Carronade; No Hull Damage; Ignores Shields
[GHIJKL]
Special Equipment:
Anti-Fighter Batteries (2)
Type: GOTHIC-class IMPERIAL CRUISER (226)
Hull: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
Faceted: 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4
Facets: (5,4,4,4,4,4)
Weapons: [TL0] 1:[VW] 2:[VW] 3:[VW] 4:[VW] 5:[VW] 6:[VX]
Battery V: Lances 30 cm, 2/4/6, 1/4+/1/1
Ignores Shields; No Range Mods
[HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ]
Battery W: Torpedoes, 6/12/18, 1/4+/1/1
Fire-Linked; Doubled Range Mods; Slow-Firing
[G] [G] [G] [G] [G] [G]
Battery X: Teleport Attack, 1/2/3, 1/4+/1/1
Carronade; No Hull Damage; Ignores Shields
[GHIJKL]
Special Equipment:
Anti-Fighter Batteries (2)
Type: DICTATOR-class IMPERIAL CRUISER (463)
Hull: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1
Faceted: 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 4
Facets: (5,4,4,4,4,4)
Weapons: 1:[2VW] 2:[2VW] 3:[2VX] 4:[VW] 5:[VW] 6:[VW]
Battery V: Weapon Batteries 30 cm, 2/4/6, 1/4+/1/1
[HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ] [HJ]
Battery W: Torpedoes, 6/12/18, 1/4+/1/1
Fire-Linked; Doubled Range Mods; Slow-Firing
[G] [G] [G] [G] [G] [G]
Battery X: Teleport Attack, 1/2/3, 1/4+/1/1
Carronade; No Hull Damage; Ignores Shields
[GHIJKL]
Special Equipment:
Anti-Fighter Batteries (3); Carrier (200); Launch Tubes
My group tends towards 1 1/2" hexes, simply as that's what fits the Megahex counters for Starfleet Battles/ Federation Commander. Though I will say, there are members of my group that would prefer to abolish hexes altogether.
Yeah, haven't found a really good way to simulate the holo-fields... I went with Countermeasures and Point-Defense, but those don't quite do justice to the '1 in 6 chance to hit with lances and ordinance.' Which might be for the better.
Yeah, not sure how to handle that. I considered that maybe, as off as it sounds, Armored Hull might fit, but then that would affect weapon battery fire. Leave it to the Eldar to be screwy...
That's something I've been wondering about recently; is the three-trait limit a balance consideration or a sanity consideration, like the old three-battery limit?
That's a very good question. If anyone knows the answer to that? ::looks at the designer:: Another two options, one that also breaks the existing rules and one that doesn't: RoF 3, with a DMG of 2 to keep it rules legal. RoF 6 if we don't mind tweaking the rules. It's not *quite* as randome 1-6, but it works.
Ooh... the double-range-mods is an excellent idea. The only thing I don't agree with is the Fire-Linked; FL doesn't mean you have to fire all of the weapons in the battery, just that all of those you choose to fire use a single attack roll to hit. About the only way to make it so that you have to fire all of the torps in one salvo would be to have one high-RoF weapon for the entire torpedo battery.
Right, I was looking at ease of design. I can make one system a torpedo, and just give multiple instances of it to the same ship. I do agree that 'kinda' breaks the original feel. However, I'm not so sure on high RoF either. High RoF, there's a greater chance of at least one torpedo hitting, where Fire-Linked is an all or nothing. I lean towards the all-or-nothing approach myself a the IMP will dictate what actually hits.
I initially tried the escorts as flotillas, but wasn't able to fit enough firepower or armor on to them for them to match their BFG counterparts. There just isn't enough space in a .5-hull ship to fit multiple batteries in wide arcs and shields 4. Or even just shields 4, for that matter, since the Shield Factor on a hull that small precludes anything but shields 1 (IIRC).
Right. The best I could pull off is bringing the Cobra down to a 2 hull. It uses shields rather than Faceted shields since it's smaller and there is no armored prow on the Cobra.
Type: COBRA-class IMPERIAL DESTROYER (34)
Hull: 2 1
Engines: 6 3
Shields: 3 2
Weapons: 1:[VW] 2: [VW] 3:[VW] 4:[W] 5:[W] 6:[W]
Battery V: Weapon Batteries 30 cm, 2/4/6, 1/4+/1/1
[GHIJK]
Battery W: Torpedoes, 6/12/18, 1/4+/1/1
Fire-Linked; Doubled Range Mods; Slow-Firing
[G] [G]
Special Equipment:
Anti-Fighter Batteries (1); Marines (2); Teleporters (1)
Those are pretty nice... I converted Turrets to AFBs at a 1:4 ratio, since a turret in BFG can shoot down an entire squadron, while it takes many AFBs in Starmada to have the same effect. However, freeing up the space from AFBs would allow for wider arcs...
One possible solution to that is to make fighter *squadrons* of one ship. Thus it could be more faithful to the source material. It *might* also solve the size issue with the Mars-class. (It tends to need a higher tech level if hull size is not boosted.)
Also, I did the math and Faceted (5,4,4,4,4,4) takes up the same amount of space as Shields 5 and yields the same increase of DRAT, so they're basically interchangeable; while Faceted does a better simulation of Imperial armor (though it doesn't quite do justice to the 90-degree 6+ prow), Shields 5 for the same price provide superior protection and less book-keeping. Probably a personal preference thing.
I agree on the personal preference. I'll probably use Shields for ships that don't have the armored prow and Facet those that do.
I do like your version of the Dominator; I ran out of space for the batteries, so I only ended up with 9 on each side rather than 12. Also, marines: the folks I play with rarely board, so piling a bunch of defensive marines on to things is usually pretty superfluous in our games. I might have to try somewhere in the '4-6 marines, 2 teleporters' range, to make them offensively useful. However, the teleporters are faithful to the source; hit-and-runs were something I kind of glossed over, since they're not something my group usually does.
Yeah, I only put the large number of marines in to simulate the source. The issue is that more Teleporters would be needed to make them interesting as the do not have the same function as they do in BFG. Haven't quite found something that does yet.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Alex Knight
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
