51

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

Yer movement is weird in fact the wording is very poor and inconsistent. In the first paragraph on movement it says

During the Movement Phase  beginning with the active player, players alternate selecting one of their own ships to conduct its movement [p7].

then we get

A-A-R-A-A-R-A-A-R-A
The opposing player always chooses one of the ships to be moved: e.g. if the active player is moving three ships at a time that player chooses two and the opponent chooses the third

Which contradicts the first paragraph.

I assume in the example the active player is moving 2 ships at a time. A-A then the reactive player moves 1. But if the opponent always chooses one of the ships then what happens when you are moving only one does your opponent always get to choose? Or does 'at a time' mean 'a turn' ?

I read it and then slept on it, the wording is very unclear and I can see several interpretations. The way I understand it (and I am probably wrong) using the example in the rules ans assuming I am the active player and have 7 ships and Jim my opponent (other opponents are available)  has 3 ships.

I move one of my ships. Jim chooses another of my ships to move I move it. I then choose one of his which he moves, he then chooses the next ship (it must be one of mine) and so on.

In this interpretation the order of fleet movement is determined by the numbers present but who chooses the actual ship alternates. Over the course of a battle this could simulate simultaneous movement by its unpredictability.
   

Another way of reading it is that:-
I move my first ship and Jim chooses my second, Jim then moves one of his ships, I move my third ship and Jim chooses my fourth ship.

This mitigates, some what, against large fleets of small ships ganging up on smaller ships.

A third way is, Jim chooses one of my ships I move it, I choose one of my ships and move it, I then choose one of his ships and he moves it, he chooses one of my ships I move it and so on.

This is actually what the second paragraph says and I think its not what was intended but I don't know.

I think the first option is fairer but weirder (in a nice way of course).

Dan what on earth, or even in space, did you actually mean?

52

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

Thanks guys I'll check them out.

53

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

I noticed the resurrection of the Ironclad supplement in the files section and thought I would like to try it. Being mean however I do not want to buy a load of models just on whim. Does any one know of any counters on-line I could use?

54

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

In My Humble Opinion (How humble can a guy planning on ruling the galaxy be? :twisted: ) we overuse the word 'campaign'. In military terms a campaign is a series of operations which result in achieving (hopefully) a strategic goal. The goals and forces available to the commanders are often outside their direct control. It is normally only part of any war and often of relevantly short time scale, at least in terms of the overall war.  'True' campaign games would normally have no tech development as they are normally over too quickly and have limited forces and goals.

Wargame 'campaigns' however often include the Strategic/Political elements in which politicians and economists play the major rolls. If you want to play strategic games with a strong tactical battle system (and I do) you play the likes of VBAM or Starfire (both require a significant investment of time) with starmada as an addition. But if you want to generate battles with some relationship use other systems such as Sovereign Stars. It depends on whether your focus is strategic or tactical.

The important point however about all the systems above is they are really sets of tool kits to build the game you want. For example, VBAM is at its heart a  quite simple system yikes , but of course faced with the possibility of worrying about Joe Bloggs the Governor of that planet third from the left we all do and end up using all those optional rules! My personnel weakness is multi-planet solar systems big_smile .

This weakness for using all the rules is a problem with Starmada. Its meant, by picking rules and traits, to allow us to play any sci-fi background but judging by the threads on this forum normally we just allow all options and complain about imbalance in the system. Dan and the other game designers/authors are giving us the tools to design our own games and we bear some responsibility for the choices or non-choices we make.

In short I want VBAM, Starfire and all the other systems available so I can pick and choose each time I start a new game what and how I want to play. Greedy I know tongue .

Different strokes for different folks and times.

55

(46 replies, posted in Starmada)

I think Dan has starts with a big loong list, then as we mention a name he crosses it off  wink

56

(23 replies, posted in Starmada)

I voted for option 2
My thoughts are based on studying the historical evidence, Star wars, Battlestar Galactica, and Babylon 5 as well as the fantasy stuff like Midway and the Battle of the Coral sea wink

1. Fighter combat is stuck in the WW2 mold of getting in close and personnel.

2. Fighters always seem to get in close but suffer from a target's defensive fire before delivering their attack.

How about move after ships and fire after ships?

I also think fighters need an abort result for 'failed to press home attack'.  Lots of pilots seem to get home without hitting anything but not getting shot down either.

My 5 Bobs worth...

57

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

I speculated elsewhere that the release date might be the 32nd of January. Looks like I was optimistic sad

Will it be ready for the 59th?  we all ask wink

Has anyone checked which planetary calender Dan uses lol

(Do you know that if we still lived on 'Old Earth' January would only have 31 days :roll: )

58

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

Have you never looked at a set of numbers that you may use frequently and thought that they must be right but "look" a little bit "different"?

Yes usually dice. I roll them and they are good big_smile  look to check how much damage I did and look again and they are not quite so good :? !
I thought it was just me but now I know!

59

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

I guess I'll have to let my Real Life continue uninterrupted for a bit longer then  sad .

I trust the intrusion of your Real Life was not too traumatic Dan and progress continues.

60

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

Its 25th of January

Any news?

Trying to be patient but failing sad .

61

(46 replies, posted in Starmada)

If it was a choice between MM12 and MMXII I would go for MMXII as its 'right' on all counts both the year and the MJXII 'pun'. We could then look forward to MMXIII and ... and ... MMCI  yikes .

Of course we can then have sub titles "Squadron Ops", "Fleet Ops", "Special Ops", "Carrier Ops", "Imperial Source book", "Klingon ARMADA" etc.

So the new version could be STARMADA MMXII: Squadron Ops or just plain STARMADA MMXII with a new source book being STARMADA MMXII: Imperial Sourcebook

The advantage of this is you could then know which publication matches which version of the rules.

62

(46 replies, posted in Starmada)

Maxpax wrote

No, the world cannot come to an end. I have too many minis to paint.


Anybody worried about not finishing painting their minis in time can donate them to me ... and no you cannot have them back next January!  tongue

I would point out that the Mayan calendar is cyclic not linear and last time the 'world ended' only the Mayans noticed. The rest comes from Fundamentalist Christians misreading the book of Revelations. The book is about the wows of 2nd century Rome not the 21st.  :roll:   

So anyone wanting to get rid of any spare Pounds, Dollars or Euros ... no not Euros before the end, can add them to the minis parcel under the same conditions. lol 

Now back to the thread

I do like the idea of 'Sky Marshal Edition'. A bit  David Webber but what else do you expect from a StarFire fan? I also like  Starmada 12 as an idea, we can then just continue adding the year to each of Dan's new versions. Though what we do in 2099 I don't know  wink . (The Century Pill Bug!!)

63

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

How's this trait for the new edition? lol

Somoa-2 Trait: Moves a volume of time and space 24hrs into the future. Can be a defensive or offensive  trait. An example of its use http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16351377

For those worried about unbalancing the game the Somoa-1 Trait operates in the reverse manner. big_smile

Now what would it cost? 

Happy New Year and make sure the Mayans don't get you in 2012! (No I'm not Somoan I'm just starting early!)

64

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

Is a game ship to ship or fleet to fleet?

For me its all about what I'm being asked to do as a player during the game. Any game needs sufficient 'detail/complexity' to occupy me while I'm playing but the question is am I worrying about which plasma coil is overloading or whether the destroyer squadron is correctly placed to protect the battle-line?  My preference is the latter and to achieve that you need to leave worrying about the plasma coils to your ship captains. Of course if we are playing any form of campaign game (again my preference) the resulting table top action needs some 'interest' if only one ship a side turns up while still being playable when Starfleet faces the Borg at Wolf 359! I think SAE+/SFO goes a long way to delivering this and with the suggestion that the two will one day merge as different scales of the same game I will be very content.

The real strength of the Starmada family of rules, which I'm sure Dan is aware of and won't throw it away, is its flexibility to accommodate all our different needs. This flexibility is however also a weakness, when features (traits) allowing a particular scfi background to be modeled are used by those who competitively design their ships and the game becomes unbalanced. Perhaps we could come up with 'packets' of traits for particular backgrounds rather than allowing all traits to be in the core set? Universe designers would be allowed to plunder any 'packet' to create a new packet, but fleet/ship designers are only allowed to use a particular packet. Essentially this is the same as some groups do now in banning particular options.

Hmm needs some thought. [Note to self: stop thinking about stuff while writing a post!]

65

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

Dan wrote:

I actually do not hate this idea...

Now I'm a happy man big_smile .

I think the idea, which did occur to me as I wrote the response to OldnGrey, needs some tweaking but it is flexible and would allow some very detailed arcs if your universe required them. How Dan chooses to represent 'standard' background ships is of course his design decision but I think we could look at this idea as a way of representing shields from homogenous ones right up to six or even more facings, rather than having just a set number.  Before anyone else says it, I think more than 6 shields would far too detailed, I would be happy with forward and rear shields but others might, just might, want more ...., and this system could support all those options.

My original response, by the way, was I liked the idea of crossing of an entire row on a single shield lose but to suggest using plain old numbers as they can be still read when somewhat smaller than the dice icons, cool as the icons are. But if you are the only ship in the quadrant ....
I of course want to play "you're the only Armada in the quadrant" and therefore always looking to reduce the amount of paper shuffling.

Thanks for the christmas prezzy Paul I will have a look at doing some nice ships over this weekend (nothing special happening on Sunday is there????).

Only 9 days to go until January  big_smile    (bet he meant January 32nd... :roll: )

66

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hmm... The problem (if any) is the ship display gets a bit big with the dice icons.
Just a thought but why not do shields like weapons?

Shields:  [FF0][PP1][SS1][AA2] 4 4 5 5 6 6 0 0

You read it pretty much the same as a weapon and apply damage in the same manner on the damage break point?

A none faceted shield would simply be

Shields: [TT0]  4 4 5 5 6 6 0 0

No need to have optional rules  yikes

Sorry I'll go and lie down in a darkened room and repeat 'There must be optional rules. There ......'.

67

(46 replies, posted in Starmada)

Currently I play SFO rather than SAE (I like to field lots of ships) but I design my ships in SAE and convert to SFO, as it allows me to more easily imagine the weapons and ship designs. Perhaps the solution for us unimaginative diehards is to use the 'conversion' rules to design weapons systems the old way then add a ship description as 'fluff' in the fleet lists to describe the weapons we have envisaged, similar to the existing source books. Then play using the new rules, having been told by our 'source book' what the dice represent in a particular case. That way we get the benefits of both worlds umm stellar systems ... galaxies ... universes ... dimensions ... whatever.

68

(76 replies, posted in Starmada)

Dan,
On the ROF/IMP/DMG vs Attack dice argument I feel you miss the point. Yes in every measurable way you are correct. The attack die method is no less varied and will be quicker. However the old system allowed us to easily 'hook' our imagination into the game, when rolling larger numbers of ROF die we could 'see' the Defiant's gatling phasers firing, when rolling lots of IMP we could 'see' the Shadows cutting beam slicing through our ship, just as the control panels in engineering exploded when the DMG dice were being rolled. The fact that all these various die rolls might actually ended up with the same result did not matter. Yes all the attack die statistically give no different a result and the effects will be fast to play but our imagination will need to work that much harder ...

and to cap does Santa know you've postponed Christmas until January?   tongue

69

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

I'm with murtalianconfederacy on this I'm just about finished my conversion of the GDW game Imperium and now I'll have to start again (sob sob). but for simplified movement rules I could just be swayed (who am I kidding roll on January!!!).

Personally I agree, for posted stuff ask and always credit original designer.
I have a bit of a similar problem. I have done a lot of SFO conversions from the Klingon Armada etc. books and a few old starfleet battle ships, along with some house rules and I'm unsure whether to share the designs as they might be seen as breaching copyright and I would not wish to get Dan in trouble with ADB. However I have a campaign I am setting up which I want to post but without the converted ships its a bit pointless.
Rather than just post all the conversions would it be acceptable just to post those require for the campaign (its set on the Gorn/Romulan/Federation Border).

Welcome and a good workable idea,

Personally I think the impact on of terrain is universe specific. Some settings such as Honor Harrington universe have very long ranges and the terrain plays little part in the tactical battles while others such as Startrek seem to have quite a lot of terrain about. 

You might 'improve' your table to accommodate different perceptions of whether terrain is common or not, by adding another d6 roll beforehand. 1-3 roll on terrain table 4-6 it is open space. That would keep Cricket happy (always a good thing smile ) this basic roll can be altered to match others predilections/universes, in the extremes to 1 roll on the terrain table 2-6 it is open space or 1-5 roll on the terrain table and 6 its open space.

Just a thought.

72

(23 replies, posted in Starmada)

I have a wargaming friend  who is also has a Phd in Statistics (he did it on gambling statistics), he always says there are two types of statistics; real world statistics and wargaming statistics. In wargaming statistics the one in a million chance happens 50% of the time  wink, and he has seen it in almost every game yikes. His main point was that most people, including himself, don't put in the required analyses to give an accurate statistical basis for conclusions and unless you play a situation far more times that actually happens almost each 'event' is an anomaly and simple maths are not capable of truly describing the event.   

So perhaps Bill if you play a few more games before challenging the game designer over his stats and Dan relents from making his point a 100,001 times wink  we could have a little peace in the galaxy (but then what would be the point of a space based wargame!)

In short Bill, the game works and we do not all ' just play weapons stats for the fluff value' but they are only part of a quite complex interrelationship between weapon stats, weapon traits, and ships traits. But always remember its is a game not reality (Oh dear I think I have just gone too far and spoken a heresy :? ).

Yep thinking food.

The issue with tech levels is to decide what 'reality' you want. We do not need to model real world economics and development, after all we are taking about space ships here! However lets take for an example the real world aircraft carrier. A modern carrier is of course far superior to its WWII ancestor. A modern carrier is much bigger but its systems are not fundamentally different just orders of magnitude better. But the modern carrier costs far more than its WWII equivalent, not just in $ or £ but as a proportion of GNP. Even without its current budget problems, the USA could not afford to deploy the same number of carriers and escorts today as it did in 1945. But no-one would suggest building WWII quality ships, nations which cannot compete in the Carrier tech race abandon the race rather than settle for copies of WWII designs. Look at the UK despite the problems of cost we are trying to build a modern carrier not a WWII clone.
SAE and VBAM and most of our game solutions to tech however tend to make Tech 'cheaper'.  Which is why, in general, I think forcing weapons to use 'negative' traits are a better option, but requires some thought to set up the tech tree correctly.

My point about how many tech levels do you need is really to do with the time frame of your or my campaign and how much development will occur during the game. Did you need 10 levels in your solo campaign or did you just want them? Of course if the campaign has races at different levels say Earth Alliance vs the Shadows then a large number of tech levels is a must big_smile .

In general I agree with both your general and side points. However starmada must remain a balancing system to cater for the competitive builders. :roll: 

One issue you need to consider is how long your campaign is and therefore how much Tech advance you actually need in the game.  In reality you will rarely need to cater for open ended tech development and having a limited range of possible tech levels allows the discerning campaign creator be creative  without having to invent stuff which will never come up.

For what they are worth here are some thoughts/options I have had about tech in a Campaign setting.
1. Make things cheaper at higher tech levels by applying a multiplier to the CR for each tech level 1.0 for level 1, 0.9 for level two and so on.(This was to mainly compensate for your side point.) In reality Military technology tends to produce better more expensive stuff not cheaper as you generally want the latest available. So this is not an accurate model of tech development. sad
2. Limit the ROF, ACC, IMP ,or DAM levels at each tech level or possibly the total number available to be allocated to each factor.
3. Force negative Traits such a Non-Piercing-3 at level one and Non-Piercing-2 at level 2 and so on but do not apply the SU reductions. When the require technology has been researched you can then develop the 'Laser MkII' with either the SU reduction or without the negative trait.
4. Limit the maximum SU at each tech level.
5.Bearing in mind your side point. What about turn the tech rules on their head somehow, making the SU cost increase as the tech goes up and linking that to idea 4? (just had this idea and not yet thought it through)

All these ideas 'unbalance' the game for unrestricted competitive gaming and design but as an Umpire/God of your very own universe you can use the rules such as Starmada and VBAM as a set of suggestions not cast iron requirements  yikes  . It is after all your campaign!

75

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Neat idea, in the Dread Empire Series by Walter Jon Williams they use small human piloted pinnaces as guides for groups of drones. Your idea would support that concept.