51

(78 replies, posted in Starmada)

A question on seeking weapons. In the construction rules (why, that was the first thing I went to, why'd you ask? tongue) there's a bit that perplexes me. It reads: "In addition, seeking weapons apply a divisor...". Should that read modifier, b/c otherwise heavier weapons would be smaller than lighter weapons...(I haven't played around with the drydock yet, so maybe I'm missing something...)

EDIT: Okay, I tried it out with the drydock and it seems to be correct. I do the seeker weapon as a standard weapon then apply the divisor (at least that's what I get from the drydock). I must have been slightly tired when reading that because I only thought of the 'correct' meaning as an afterthought.

And I guess that with a dual-mode weapon, one mode with seeker, one without, you work out the CRat with the longer range (for example, a MA 8 seeker weapon and a RNG 12 standard weapon would base the ORat on the seeker weapon). That enables a Unity version of Eternal Quest to be done...:D

And, while I'm here, in a Multi-Weapon Mount which has Fire-Linked, would a successful to-hit roll mean all the weapons hit? I'm assuming so, and if so, that means I could use a single weapon to create larger versions of that weapon without doing a light/medium/heavy weapon (I'm particularly thinking about my current weapon obsession which is a beam cannon--the shield-cracker mode would have Fire-Linked while the sweeper mode would be normal)

52

(15 replies, posted in News)

Earlier than me, so maybe...:)

Am going to be trying to knock out some ships later...:D

53

(78 replies, posted in Starmada)

Aaaaannd...ordered big_smile

54

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Yeah, I got SAE:RA from MJ12Games--the only experience I had with ADB (it never turning up and having to contact Dan about it) regarding that made me decide I wouldn't bother getting any other products from them. I might be blaming the wrong party for it, but the old adage about being shy after being bitten holds true.

55

(78 replies, posted in Starmada)

mj12games wrote:

5) Playing With Fire (by MurtalianConfederacy)

And this is one of the reasons I re-released PWF as an Admiralty-edition supplement. So, y'know, thank/blame Dan as appropriate...:)

56

(0 replies, posted in The Admiralty Edition)

A fighter-free supplement. Three main groups of ships: the Avaltican Commonwealth, the Outworld Confederation and the Fahtor-Kaz Council.

The inspiration for the Avaltican Commonwealth comes from a number of flags I had created for another (unsuccessful) setting. I might post them up later if anyone's interested...

57

(0 replies, posted in The Admiralty Edition)

This time, slightly different--instead of being done on P&P and then inputted into OldnGrey's shipyard, these ships were mainly shipyard-exclusive, with only the ship drawings done on P&P. It has three main powers--the Ensori Alliance, the Chielor Republic and the Ixtilri Commonwealth--and some civilian and warlord/raider designs. They're all the same race--two are outer-space powers formed after a cataclysmic war fought on the homeworld, and the third is the resurgent homeworld. All three powers dislike the other two, so you won't find much in the way of alliances.

58

(19 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

Blacklancer99 wrote:

Of course you're interested! I can't imagine a universe in which you wouldn't be.  lol
I just wonder how many other people might be left around these parts. It's awfully quiet most of the time.
Cheers,
Erik

Oh, there are some universes in which I'm lukewarm...:D
Activity seems to peak at certain times, but dips in others. I'm hoping to ignite some interest soon (if only for a short while), so stay tuned...:)

59

(19 replies, posted in Starmada Nova)

I've only seen supplements (such as Sol Cruiser, which was based in the 2300AD universe but free), so I don't know that much, but I'm interested...:D

60

(2 replies, posted in Discussion)

No excuse this time--saw the place had some d12 and decided to get some to fill out the dice box. Unfortunately, one minor error is that one of the packs of d12 came in with only 9 d12 and 1 d10. Seeing as how I've got the order info on a different computer (mainly to stop me ordering willy-nilly) I'm going to wait until tomorrow and contact them and see if they can rectify the first, very minor, error they've made in three orders. Oh, and to order something else...:)

EDIT: Aaaaand....they have. Now just need to get my extra di(c)e back to them. Be nice if there were more than one post office in this town, wouldn't it?

After sitting around moping, I was looking through my folders and realised that I had some settings that I haven't re-released. After a particularly bad time of checking and re-checking my supplements to find error after error, I came to the conclusion it was better to just take the stuff down rather than keep running around fixing the mistakes. This month, however, I decided to finally tackle the task of getting one of my older supplements re-released.

This one, Playing with Fire, has been done by taking the older supplement, churning it through OldnGrey's shipyard and seeing if the ships were both legal and pointed correctly. Where they weren't legal, I made a simple edit to make them legal (and, presumably, edit out the typo that I must have made ~5 years ago). I've also made minor edits to the flags (as the ones I did back then had little problems)

Luckily, there were only a couple of ships that were wrong, and it was minor edits (a two-bank battery having [A] [B] rather than [AB] [AB] arcs, but one major error was my pointing the USK County as 657 rather than 542. No idea how I got that so wrong, so.../shrugs

Anyway, the complete setting--Playing with Fire, The Terrible Truth and Fanning the Flames--is here in one 64-page document.

62

(0 replies, posted in Iron Stars)

...and found a trio of ships I designed for the French and Dutch in around 2005. Might as well post them up. Of course, as people might expect, they are ships designed by myself when the (in)famous Greeks were around, so you know what to expect...:D

Bretagne-class battleship (225 pts)
Hull Points: 30
TR: 4
AV: 4

Primary: 4/d12(x2) [Lightning Projectors]
Secondary: 8/d10(x2)
Light: 8/d4(x1)
Equipment:
Babbage Engine
Forward-Only Turrets
20 Hale Rockets
5 MGs
2 FACs
Hull: 1-13, Armour: 14, Thrust: 15, Primary: 16, Secondary: 17-18, Light: 19-20. Q hits suffered on the 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th and 25th hull hit

D'Entrecasteaux-class armoured cruiser (120 pts)
Hull Points: 20
TR: 5
AV: 3

Primary: 4/d8(x2) [Lightning Projectors]
Secondary: 8/d6(x2)
Light: 8/d4(x1)
Equipment:
Babbage Engine
Forward-Only Turrets
10 Hale Rockets
1 FAC
5 MGs
Hull: 1-13, Armour: 14, Thrust: 15, Primary: 16, Secondary: 17-18, Light: 19-20. Q hits suffered on the 4th, 8th, 12th and 16th hull hit

And, for a Dutch design:

De Ruyter-class heavy cruiser (111 pts)
Hull Points: 18
TR: 5
AV: 3

Primary: 8/d8(x2)
Light: 10/d4(x1)
Equipment:
Babbage Engine
15 Fire Arrows
2 MGs
Hull: 1=11, Armour: 12, Thrust: 13-14, Primary: 15-17, Light: 18-20. Q hits suffered on the 5th, 10th and 15th hull hit.

63

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

(just throwing ideas out there)

Maybe you could add a penalty to larger ships and a bonus to small ships--something like {[SQUAREROOT](hull/3)} - X

Where X is a predefined number--I'm thinking 2 or 3. The result is the number to add (or subtract) to it's current speed. If we take X to be 2, then a hull 75 ship would end up adding 3 to its current speed, making it much more likely it can only barrel straight ahead, but a hull 27 ship would add 1, and a hull 12 would add nothing, a hull 6 would subtract 1 and a hull 3 would subtract 2, making it much more likely to be able to come about or reverse course.

That would mean a large ship might be massive engines, but it's going to turn like a swan on a frozen lake, whereas smaller ships can turn like a hummingbird.

64

(0 replies, posted in The Admiralty Edition)

Or, it never rains but it pours...

After a long period of inactivity, broken only by a mini-supplement, here's the second of two supplements I was able to design in two weeks. For once, fighters are designed to be a battle-winner in their own right rather than a supporting arm for the big guns (that's my intention, anyway...)

65

(1 replies, posted in The Admiralty Edition)

Another supplement from yours truly.

I did this because, after feeling a bit depressed, someone told me to go and do something I enjoyed...which is designing supplements. I had at one point got nothing done, and only just did a couple of pages of designs, but as soon as I packed up, that was when the ideas started to emerge. The next day, after a few hour's work, this is the result.

As again, two sizes: US Letter and A4.

66

(2 replies, posted in The Admiralty Edition)

See? That's all you need to do folks. Just threaten to release supplements at a steady rate until you get your way...:D

If only you could have done it before 23rd... sad

67

(2 replies, posted in The Admiralty Edition)

A very quick supplement. Have had numerous little problems that kept stopping me from getting anything done (especially with a not-so-good March and April).

Two versions--one for A4, one for US letter

68

(4 replies, posted in Discussion)

Thanks. Have done a few test downloads and all came through.

69

(4 replies, posted in Discussion)

Has anyone tried to download an attachment recently? I tried myself a couple of days ago and got an error message.

70

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Due to a bit of impetus caused by the release of VBAM2E, I extended both the VBAM:SX and SNE SU and Thrust/Defence Factors, and the VBAM:SX CR and CC. The SNE tables will be posted below--one in A4 format, the other in 8.5"x11" format. I'll post the VBAM:SX tables on the VBAM forum.

The table is now extended to SNE hull 90, which should be big enough for anyone short of someone wishing to design a certain moon-sized space station...:)

71

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

Neither have I--I've been waiting for the print versions, but I've forgotten to keep an eye out for them... :oops:

EDIT: Aaand it seems they're already available in print version.../sighs

72

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

Re: weapon damage--I thought that just rolling one die per flotilla wouldn't be as bad, dice rolling-wise, but I can see that multiple flotillas could slow down gameplay somewhat...

Idea: An optional rule (for the optional flotillas) could be to allow players fighting large fleet actions the opportunity to simply say that each flotilla weapon damage roll is automatically 1--thus, for a weapon battery with four banks, the flotilla would lose two banks on the first hull hit, no roll required. I'd say making this kick in for 1000 or 2000pt-plus fleets would make sense--the larger fleet sizes would require some simplifying during gameplay, but for small fleets there should be some ability for a flotilla to retain capabilities for longer. I might have nicked this idea from Hard Vacuum for their fleet actions, but couldn't say for sure...

73

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

And here's my riposte...:)

I looked through your document and found some incompatibilities with your rules and some (maybe even most, if not all) of the flotillas I've employed in the past as well as a difference in the SU requirement for basing. So I quickly threw together this document.

74

(4 replies, posted in Discussion)

And now I've got my (belated) Christmas present. Yippee big_smile

75

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hmm, that works too...:)