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 Blacklancer99
Can the planetary artillery fire several shots to make sure that any enemy ships will be out of our flight path? 
Erik
Re: Flotillas
I've started work on a new setting, similar to Eternal Quest (human-centric, large-scale and with the possible addition of aliens), but with flotillas. I've decided to add a new type of flotilla, the Corvette, where each flotilla is a pair of Corvettes.
However, with each Corvette being 1.5 hulls, I'm wondering if they should have Reinforced Hulls. I'm currently thinking no, but giving them a point of armour instead. I'm also wondering whether I should keep with ECM for flotillas or go to Stealth...
I think Stealth...it can't be countered by offensive ECM use and it implies something physical about the vessel's design that makes it tough to hit (in the case of Flotillas I would think size and maneuverability), rather than a "system". Reinforced systems would seem to work better than the armor in my mind because it would lessen the impact of damage (spread out?) while the armor would actually forestall it, know what I'm trying to say?
Cheers,
Erik
This setting is pretty neat, and you really look like you put some brain into coming up with the environment and the way to make Flotillas workable.
One thought did occur to me, and it's really just a terminology thing...but it caught my attention because of the "technological timeline" development of the designs (please don't take this as a criticism, more like thinking out loud) Namely, the use of carronades as the armament of the "old" ships. Carronades historically were a later development than regular cannons and seem a bit out of place as the primary armament of the era. Maybe I need to let go of the term carronade as a specific type of gun, and just get on with my life, but well, that's just how my mind works 
Keep up the good stuff,
Cheers,
Erik
Hmm, fair enough, just the way I'd do it if I wanted mines, as its the least-change version.
Agreed. I think my biggest complaint is that killing the 3 Hull mine dispenser technically gives the attacker VPs. I'd rather the defender have to use some of his set up points to place the mines and therefore not have them for ships rather than tilt easy VPs to his opponent. The end result may just be the same, but it seems a little screwy is all.
Cheers,
E
Sorry that nobody has chimed in to give you any ideas, myself included! Sorrier to say that I really don't have any ideas to give you. I can appreciate what you're doing with the font icons, but personally, just for me, I find them a little distracting or "cluttery" when there are a bunch on the ship sheet. I think a lot of these icons would actually be great as counters for other things.
As to leaving for other games, I'm still addicted to Starmada. Just enough complexity of play options to have fun and avoid a trigonometry-level popsicle headache. I like the gameplay of Nova now that I have gotten enough games under my belt, but I must admit, I do miss some of the design flexibility of earlier editions.
If it makes you feel better I'm actually working on a good sized ship project related to my Terran Republic setting. I've been toying with a bit of a steampunk setting (just a whole lotta notes at this point), and I believe you had something in the works from the Iron Stars setting that I am interested in.
Have no fear, there are a few of us around that probably aren't going anywhere, even if we do get awfully quiet out there.
Keep doing stuff and there are at least two or three of us here in the interwebs that will see it and appreciate it even if the rest are gone!
Besides, it's summer, and some of them could be playing outside. They'll be back when the weather turns!
Cheers,
E
A quick and dirty method would be just designing a hull 3 ship with nothing but mines (and maybe a speed of 1 and/or hyperdrive). Know you've probably thought of it already, but it at least allows you to get lots of mines onto the table...
Tried that and just personally don't like it (did 3 hull, 0 everything else and then a varying number of mines), but it does work fine I guess. I suppose it's just a matter of taste. I tried to justify the 3 Hull mine can as the "controller" for the mine field
I built some 3 Hull, Stealth 1, 0 everything else "Minefields" with weapons to simulate the effect of mines, but it isn't close to being the same...more like Defense Sats.
Cheers,
E
Cricket, just wondering how you might point mines placed during the set-up of a game without having a mine-laying vessel present for the game itself. There are tons of examples from Sci-Fi of attacks into defensive minefields (no, I'm not planning any warp point assaults). Just paying for them at the ORAT rate used in ship construction doesn't feel right (too low?). In the past I have set x-Factors in the scenario set-up, but for some generated scenarios I would like to give the defender the option of adding mines to the mix rather than mandating them. Just wondering if you had an opinion.
Thanks,
Erik
Ships are for both Nova and Admiralty.
I presume we will be including a more well-rounded presentation of the ISC in a future product; but no guarantees they will look exactly the same as they do in CL47.
Thanks, that answers my questions quite well!
Cheers,
Erik
Captain's Log #47 (from ADB) will contain rules and four ship designs from the ISC.
Just in case you wanted to know.
Just curious...are the rules & ships just for Nova or are they presented for AE as well? Also, are the rules/ships part of a future expansion, or will they only be appearing in CL47?
Thanks,
Erik
Personally, I think "piercing" gives enough of an "ignores shields" flavor, but I've never been one to tell people what they can or cannot do with their own Starmada settings.
If you wanted to have a weapon that cancels shields (abbreviated [xSh]?), I'd use an SU multiplier of x2.74.
I know nobody asked my opinion, but here goes anyway I would rather there be a NHD trait than an ignores shields trait. I feel like that in many settings that I have come across there is a system/weapon that allows for subduing or otherwise incapacitating a vessel rather than destroying in. What about something like when a NHD weapon hits, rather than cross off a Hull box circle it or something. Once you reach the point where you would make damage checks (if it was "real" damage) do so regardless of the actual remaining Hull. Just a thought. I wants me some ion cannons! 
Cheers,
Erik
As you may recall, a year or two ago I was converting my own designs from SAE to SFO, but ended up with none to do and then asked a few people if I could convert their designs. One of the fleets was this one, but I ended up with a problem regarding the Valiant--it was a minelayer without mines. Erik sent me (via PM) a corrected Valiant. After looking through this thread, I realised that the Valiant was still the mine-less version, so have decided to post it up. If Erik wants it taken down, I will do so.
No objection from me. In fact I should have corrected it myself. Hmmm. I never did put up any of the other factions I had for this setting. Maybe when I'm done my current project...though I'm not even sure where the original material ended up. Then again, I think you're the only one who ever looks at this stuff!
Cheers,
Erik
Excellent & Well thought-out.
:idea: One minor change: Have fighters, drones, shuttles, etc move before overthrusters are used. This allows ships that have them to use them to change facing to bring weapons to bear on fighters to defend a friendly ship or themselves more effectively.
Cheers,
Steven
Personally, I think the sequence is good as is. I for one think that Overthrusters should stay where they are in the sequence because I think that they should convey a maneuverability advantage over non-overthruster starships but not over fighters. To me, fighters should always have the move advantage over starships, particularly in their Nova incarnation. Just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Erik
Hey Paul, I'm not sure if there is any game-related reason to buy the Admiralty version. Truth be told I haven't purchased either yet because: 1.) I can't decide if I should just get the Nova version or if the game hoarder side of me has to have both (2.) I will not allow myself to buy it until I am finished my current project, because if I do I will get sucked into something else and probably not finish it in this lifetime :oops:
I think the ship counters you have done are excellent, but I think that most people that would put the time and effort into the artwork work that you obviously have are probably going to try and sell them rather than post them up for free. I have zero artistic ability, but I did make some "generic counters" for use with Starmada a while back. Think of them as something like vague "sensor" representations of vessels. I'll dig them out and post them up tonight or tomorrow evening as time permits.
Cheers,
Erik
Is it worth buying the Admiralty version?
Sure, why not...as long as Admiralty products are still coming out the system isn't dead. 
Is it worth getting to update anything in the shipyard?
See above
Would anyone still use the shipyard for SFU Battleships?
You know if you don't do it someone will ask for it eventually!
Where has everyone gone?
I'm stil here, at least once a day. I just don't have as much to say as I used to I guess...
It has been so quiet maybe I missed the hibernation this year.
I WISH that I had been hibernating. For those of us that live somewhere North of Florida the winter has been long, cold, and grey.
What is everyone working on at the moment?
Nothing for Starmada. Redesigning all the ships in another game to a consistent set of building rules. So, call it Starmada-inspired
Why are ship counters (top down that I can put a magnet on the back of) rarer than hens teeth?
Just at a guess, but most game systems would rather that you spend your hard earned cash on minis, rather than give away cheap counters. (If you haven't ever been there, stop by http://www.richbax.com/ for a ton of B5Wars counters, many of which can be used for lots of different games)
Hope that answers all of your questions
Cheers,
Erik
Why Hull size 6 as a minimum? Just an arbitrary choice to prevent little ships from transits? If you're looking to model the Starfire universe are you planning on making Hull 6 gunboat "flotillas" that would then be capable of transits? You could do the same with pinnaces I suppose.
Don't get me wrong, I really do like the idea of warp points and how they change the tactics and strategies of games, but I feel like they need to be simplified a bit more for Starmada, probably by removing the open/closed distinctions, and I would forget the size limitations as well. That's just me though, and if you are trying to more closely model the Starfire universe I see no problem with them as put forth, just a little more fiddly.
Cheers,
Erik
Both versions of BA are now up on E23.
Cheers,
Erik
Oooooooooh, bloodbath warp point assaults finally come to Starmada!
I like the idea of having warp points in the mix as several sci-fi settings have them, and I also like the idea of using them to "control" a campaign. I also think there is a place for both the hyperdrive-less variety and those that use a system (gate drives?) to "open" the warp point to allow the ship to pass through. I think a fire modifier is a good/simple way to handle the disorientation which is typically associated with warp point travel. Personally, I would also restrict warp points to ships and not allow fighters/shuttles/small craft to traverse the warp point (hey, we need assault carriers!). Suddenly that launch rate has meaning as
Cheers,
Erik
I think we need a clarification from Dan, because to me my interpretation makes more sense. Your interpretation means that seekers have to survive 2 turns of anti-seeker fire in simultaneous gameplay, which makes them far less useful.
I don't see how they can be fired on in the launch turn in simultaneous play. To fire at them they mst be targeted, to be targeted they must be in play, but they are not in play until after the targeting part. So in my interperatation they can only be targeted on the "Attack" turn, in which they begin the turn in play and available for targeting.
We need a final ruling from the Great and Powerful Cricket.
Cheers,
Erik
In normal, initiative play, yes. In simultaneous play, they don't. As the rules state, on page 32:
"3) Seeking weapons make their attacks at the end of the Combat Phase, after all ships have completed their attacks"
Combine this with the previous paragraph, where ALL damage is done at the end of the Combat Phase, that would suggest this is the correct order of play:
1) Standard weapons attack; anti-seeker fire takes place
2) Remaining seeker weapons attack
3) Damage from all attacks is resolved
I don't see why this would eliminate the requirement of a seeking weapon to attack the turn after it is fired. To me the way the rules read is that all other fire is conducted before the seeking weapons that are eligible to attack on that turn as per the rules for seekers.
Erik
So my original point about the need for very small ships I think still stands.
I won't get into converting WWI ships or anything but I'm in agreement with the desire for "small ships", and have said so on a couple of occasions. I personally can't see how a Hull 1 or 2 ship “breaks the system”. Maybe it's a pointing thing I don't understand, but I think there is plenty of justification for having ships that simply go POOF when you hit them. I pretty much take all of my cues from published or television/movie science fiction and whether you call them LACs, FACs, PTs, gunboats, strikeboats, attack ships, whatever, there are lots of examples of things out there that would fit very nicely as 1-Hull ships as they are clearly NOT fighters but are routinely swatted aside by our valiant heroes. I actually thought the flotilla rules did a nice job of this and would like to see a return of something official (Don't tell Dan, but I've actually made some 1-Hull designs and used them, shhhhh).
Just my unwanted, un-asked-for opinion.
Cheers,
Erik
It is cold up here in NE Florida too. it only warmed up to 65 degrees up here...
Yeah, I feel for you :x
What could help to jump-start Starmada is to make/use made ships from StarTrek with appropriate minis and invite people to play at a local game-store using ships & sheets you made. You may have to run the show for a while, but it could work. Also, ask the store to advertise a demo for you. You could use minis of Battlestar Galactica & maybe Babylon 5, etc., with ships from those shows also.
Cheers,
Steven
Opponents aren't the problem, but I could use a 32 hour day so I could find 3-4 hours for fun stuff! Haven't seen some of my gaming buddies in quite some time 
Enjoy your game & blow something up for those of us that are 'splosion deprived!
Cheers,
E
Man, I hate when you post that you are playing again! I'm fighting a serious case of gaming envy
Of course, maybe I'm just bitter because it was 2 degrees F here this morning (not counting the wind chill) and your idea of cold in Florida means you have to wear socks with your sandals! 
Cheers,
E
But, the thing that is annoying me more than that is that I wonder who would want to command a small escort ship knowing that it will be the first to be killed whatever you do if he uses it as he should do...
Marc
There's a never ending supply of plucky Redshirts lined up for their first opportunity at command!
E
That is some really nice looking work! Do you have a matching Fed fleet to go toe to toe with those guys ?
Cheers,
Erik
Yes, both versions will be available. Nova first, Admiralty shortly thereafter.
Good stuff, thanks.
WARNING: Here's the part of the post where I pester you about a AE>NE update for the SFU stuff...
Dan, any news on when there might be an update document/info available to port the preexisting AE SFU stuff to NE?
Thanks,
Erik
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Blacklancer99
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.