Hello everyone,

Last Sunday, I added battle satellites to a couple of my ships.  I like the added firepower and the added anti-aircraft capability they add.  (In the Starmada compendium, only a few weapons can fire at fighters; extra AA is an asset).  I have noticed that rules  to modify drones in a similar way as modifying fighters have been made.  I was wondering if the various fighter modifications, along with their extra cost, could be used to modify battle satellites?   Although most of my slow ships have a speed of 5, it would be great to have faster batt-satts to keep up with my speed 6 or speed 7 ships, even if they cost more...   Perhaps if the "assault" version was available, it could fire as a T2, banked laser cannon.  Any thoughts from the creators of this awesome game?

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

PS:  We play again on Sunday @ Sanctuary game store  here  in Jacksonville @ 2pm.  All are welcome 

Hello everyone,

In the Starmada Compendium, in sec [A.2.1], in the second paragraph (on page 20), there is the line
"...although ships with more than 12 hull points should be quite rare..."  Is this idea also in Starmada "X"?  Should ships with 13 hull and greater be rare in Starmada "X" games?  For the Starmada Compendium games we play, I have reduced all  but 2 of my ships to hull size 12 and smaller.  It wasn't easy...
(I had to join the support group: LHA = Large Hull Anonymous <LOL>)
I will admit, that I can still make my ships have the stuff I want on them.  And they are less expensive...

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Hello Everyone from Jacksonville, Fla.

     Having played some of both versions, I have some thoughts on the Starmada Compendium game and the "X" version.  Now that I again play the earlier version of the game, I do miss being able to write about my designs, and such.  My friends here in Fla. & I may be among the few using the 'compendium rules.  I must confess, that I enjoy those compendium weapons such as the Antimatter Beams, Disrupters, & others a lot.  The unpredictability of these weapons' results is a lot of fun!     And allowing only laser cannons and a few other weapons shoot at fighters makes them less vulnerable to AA fire.  Also, I do like the way that Long Range Sensors lets you shoot out to 24 Inches.  It makes the battlefield larger, and also does not interfere with the {2+/3+/4+} to hit numbers, nor those that vary this: {strike missiles, scatter guns, energy lances, etc}.  I am also enjoying the combination of  Armored Batteries, Armor plating & Reinforced hull.   All of my 'compendium ships have all three of these. 
     Here is a possible home rule change for the compendium: In order to more simulate the damage chart of the newer "X" game in compendium games, we can make each weapon-hit, on a roll of 4 or 5,  hit a different battery:  For example, if the first weapon lost was in battery 3, the next needs to be in battery 2 or 1, then the next in 1 or 2,  the fourth back in battery 3, etc.  Overall, I find the 'compendium game easier & less cumbersome  to play.  These games seem to be quicker to play because of the smoother game mechanics.  For example, in Starmada "X", you have  to roll a dice for every hit if you have reinforced shields, reinforced hull, and armored batteries hoping for a 5 or 6.  In the earlier game, you just mark one slash on the hull point, shield, &/or weapon, then finish it into an "x" after the second hit on that system. Bad dice rolls in the "X" version can make the extra cost for either of the 3 just wasted points.  On compendium ships, having only every other hit cause damage, makes these special equipments reliable and useful. Finally, combining engines&hulls on compendium ships keeps a slow large ship from becoming engineless when it still has over half its hull and weapons left because they are combined, and because Armor plating and Reinforced hull protect both.. 
     If there was ever a "Next (?)Edition" [!] {gasp} <game designers groan> of the game, perhaps a combination of the best of both game versions could bring the smoothness of play the compendium has, as well as some of its fun weapons, with the greater detail that the "X" version has.  Or perhaps their could be a slightly more expensive form of Armored Batteries, Armored Hull and Reinforced Shields added to the "X" version that may cost more, but instead of only working on a roll of 5 or 6, they stop every other hit and there is No need to roll for every hit.
     If I am rambling or babbling, my apologies, {100% Blond here<LOL>}   0nce again, please do not take any of this as criticism directed at the makers of this awesome game.  You are Very Creative and have provided me with many hours of much fun     

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Hello everyone
    I have a question for the Starmada designers.   I really like the way the Point Defense System works in the "X" version of Starmada compared to the way it works in the 'Compendium..  I was wondering if using the PDS in Compendium designs as it is used in the "X" version would be the same point value.  If not, what would be the difference or the modifier to use the PDS in Starmada Compendium games as it is used in the "X" version?   
    Sometimes my fertile imagination just won't stop...

Steven Gilchrist, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Now that we are using the Starmada Compendium rules, dealing with InvertedRangeModifiers & LRS is a challenge.   I suggest several ideas.   One is to have fighters screen your ships until you get into middle range.  Also, while doing that, strengthen the facing shield and move forward.  Hopefully, you can go forward faster than your opponent can retreat!   I use reinforced hull on all my designs so I can use Emergency Thrust once or twice to get into range(if you have 0rganic Hull, even better!!.  Finally there is the use of of ECM or cloaking devices.   
     Gaming Glenn used this combination effectively against ships of mine that had Mass Drivers as maie weapons.  He won, but it was a somewhat close game.  He is a great player and caught me by surprise:  Good job my friend.    
     But wait till March... (!)     
Steven Gilchrist
Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Hello everyone,
I have read this thread with much interest and caution everyone not to overcomplicate the game.  StarFleetBattles started out as a fairly playable game when the first "Captain's Edition" came out.  Then it grew and grew and GREW to something so complex as to be virtually unplayable.  I would Not want to see Starmada deteriorate to something such as that...

Steven Gilchrist
Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Hello everyone from Jacksonville!

The idea of "Stand-off weapons"  that have an extended Long range, such as the Longbow Missle, but no short range, is an excellent idea.  Something similar to the second example happened in the Pacific during WW2.  In one night naval battle off Guadalcanal between US warships and  Japanese warships, one US destroyer (USS Laffey?) was so close to the Japanese battlecruiser IJN Hiei, that the Japanese BC could not fire its 14"guns at the US DD.  Also, the destroyers torpedoes would not arm before hitting the BC, so they were ineffective also.  The BC almost rammed the DD ,they were that close!  The US Destroyer could and did fire its 5"guns and heavy 40mm AA guns at the big Japanese BC and caused some harm. 

    If this became an official change, I would use it for the Heavy Guns of all my personally designed ships.  How much would such an addition cost? 

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Hello everyone!

     I have another design for another anti-fighter weapon that is much less expensive than the "5 Inch Guns" I mentioned earlier.  This weapon expendable and so costs  much less.  Once you fire them, they are gone, but (hopefully) so are the fighters!  I call them "Tartar Missiles".   Just fill up the C-battery with them on a few Anti-aircraft ships.  And you still have "A" & "B" batteries for heavier weapons. 

{Tartar Missiles; expendable, 3+ to hit, range=18,  3/1/1, Rerolls To-hit }

     0f course, if there are no fighters, then this barrage of Tartar Missiles can also damage hostile ships...

Steven Gilchrist; former US Navy GunnersMate, Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Hello everyone!

     I have made some small mass 4 ships with a speed of 5 and six Anime Spinal Mounts.   I use little sub figures for these ships.  I get these figs from the game "Attack", and figs for similiar mass 8 ships from Axis&Allies.  The ships have a cloaking device and cloak (submerge?)<LOL> between shots.  These ships have overthrusters, a must for Spinal Mount ships, and are effective.  They ships are fun to play and snipe, harass & annoy the opposing fleet. 

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Hello everyone,

I have been reading with interest the ideas about CSP.  During WW2, the major aircraft-carrier using fleets had Combat Air Patrol to provide cover for their ships.  Earlier, several have written:

"...a flight on CSP must be "stationed" around a particular ship. However, I'll have to disagree with you-- I don't see why a flight shouldn't be allowed to provide cover to nearby vessels, albeit with reduced efficiency (thus the roll for success)..."

This type of event occurred during the Battle of Midway 65 years ago between the Japanese and the USA Navies.  When the CAP over the USS Enterprise observed the USS Yorktown under attack, some planes  rushed to help.  But they were unable to arrive in time to disrupt the attack (they may have rolled low on their dice<LOL>).  However, the  few Japanese planes that attempted to attack USS Enterprise and USS Hornet were shot down.  This historical event, and others from the Pacific War, seem to follow Starmada CSP rules.  (!)

Steven Gilchrist

Hello,

This looks very interesting.  I will definitely want a book version {print on demand?} of this; willing to pay extra.  I enjoy sitting on the porch while reading a good book.  Al though I can read things off the PC screen, I enjoying holding and reading.  (Gasp!  How old-fashioned<LOL>)

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA.