Well, if the original version of Ablative Armor had 3 boxes worth exactly as much as 2 hull, and the new version has one box worth exactly as much as 1 hull, wouldn't that.. umm.. get you there?  The way Beowulf is doing it?

Im mildly confused.   :?

This fits what I was seeing...

No navy has the firepower to one-turn-kill your hull 20+ 20 Ab armor meganaughts, so the strength of ablative armor shows very strongly, but the weakness wont be at issue.

I imagine if you put ablative armor on your strikeboats, it wouldnt seem so useful  smile


One thought might be to handle ablative armor like expendables, though in reverse... have ablative armor cost relatively more on big ships than on small ones (because on big ships you can pile on lots, and it will get a chance to do its job.. unlike smaller ships, where its more likely to be punched through and the ship killed, all in one turn)

78

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

While I have my own concerns with retrograde as well, especially as we have the chance in SMX to design ships with a range advantage that a retrograding fed fleet could only dream of...

If we dont allow retrograde, then people will (logically) simply mount long range rear-firing weapons... and then well see more fighting in reverse, because the ships will have no choice.

That said, retrograde issues, like picard manuver issues, are solved by having a fixed map....  but boy, fixed maps in space bug me alot...

79

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

May a ship both accelereate and decelerate in the same round?

Let us assume two ships, each with 6 MP and a current velocity of 3.  Neither turned on the previous round, so they may turn freely as their first movement.

Both see 'something awful' dead ahead, and want to get as far away from it as possible.

By retaining its current speed, Ship 1 may turn 1 starboard (2 MP), move forward 1, turn 1 starboard (2MP) move forward 1, turn a final time to starboard (2MP) and drift forward that last hex.  Its pulled a 180*, is 2 hexrows over from where it started, one hexrow 'behind' where it started, and headed away from 'something awful'

Ship 2, cunningly, goes slow to go fast.  He declerates by 1 (curring his velocity to 2 and his turn cost by 1).  He then makes the same series of moves and starboard turns as his cousin, while at speed 2.  After his last turn, he uses his 3 remaining MPs to floor it, ending up on the same hexrow and heading as ship 1, but 2 hexes further away from 'something awful'

Possible as you see it?

*edit*
And in SIMS, may a ship 'decelerate' beyond speed 0, such that it has a negative velocity (IE, is in reverse, not a realspace 'negative' velocity, which would be.. very strange)

80

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

KDLadage wrote:
cricket wrote:
KDLadage wrote:

Any suggestions on how to impose a speed limit without just saying that a ship cannot exceed "X" hexes per turn? I mean, if you say "10" for example, then several of Rich Bowman's designs are pointless, as they have engine ratings that exceed 10.[/list]

I still don't understand why a speed limit is necessary. Speeds will be inherently limited by two factors:

1) The size of the game board, and

2) The increased cost of maneuvering at higher speeds.

I am not convinced one is needed. I am just thinking via keyboard.

So... what do you think of this system as it stands?

In case my earlier criticism muddied the water, as it stands, I like it rather alot.  Simple, does the job, and I agree that flying off the board might well keep things under control... and it does a bang up job of making it hard to just lay your AB arc on the other guy and barrel into him...

81

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
Marcus Smythe wrote:

I think you and I may just have to agree to disagree at this point.  Space or not, I simply cannot become comfortable with any game where ships may, in the time it takes for the typical weapon to recycle, move from outside of even the most extended engagement range to point blank, or beyond.

Two reasons why I think you might be worrying too much:

1) Remember that Starmada is played under artificial constraints -- i.e., the game board itself. Any ship that accelerates to the point where it can move from maximum weapons range to point-blank in a single move will end up flying off the opposite edge of the board, thus being "destroyed" itself.

2) A ship that does such a "Picard Maneuver" cannot surprise the enemy and destroy it unawares -- while firing at point-blank range, it is itself vulnerable to return fire.

This isn't to say that you are "wrong" -- there's no such thing. smile

Your preference is for wet-navy type engagements, with big ships firing big guns at each other -- that's great. I happen to lean more towards inertial/vector movement (for space gaming, anyway). But if both systems can be supported within the game, I consider that impressive...

1.)  Fair enough.  I should have decoupled the 'unlimited acceleration' issue from the 'fixed map' issue.  In my experience, it is the players who want to not face a speed limit who are most likely to also insist that, for realisms sake, the map should float.  Heck, I like the tank-treads movement, but I still like floating maps.  No walls in space...

As for inertial-vector type stuff... as long as people stay to sane speeds, I'm not picky.  I live in Arkansas, Im stuck playing any way I can...

2.)  Its not that theyll die.  Its that their cheap, their target is expensive, and theres no defense.  Which means that under those physics, Bab5 and DS9 dont get built (at least not as military units). 

This actually fits some fluff backgrounds (truely immobile space units were basically honorverse targets...)

82

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

I think you and I may just have to agree to disagree at this point.  Space or not, I simply cannot become comfortable with any game where ships may, in the time it takes for the typical weapon to recycle, move from outside of even the most extended engagement range to point blank, or beyond.

Even modern fighter aircraft have trouble pulling this sort of boom and zoom in relation to one another (in light of missile ranges, I'll grant that gun engagement might well be difficult at a high speed face-on pass.  Im vaguely okay with the idea that things can move so fast that at least SHORT range weaponry might not get a firing opportunity) Nothing like it has existed, to my knowledge, in all of naval history.  I'm picturing Iron Duke at Jutland, coming over the horizon and flying past Fredrich der Grosse at such a speed that neither can lay guns on one another.  The image of Jellicoe waving jauntily to Scheer en passant is, however, amusing.

Also, it prevents space stations from defending themselves in any setting operating under those physics, because with an immobile target, it is a trivial matter to plot an ultra-high-speed 'jump to Range 1' with a small, disposable, likely remote-controlled vessel with no defenses and cataclysmic one-shot offense, point-blank.  *boom*  The lifespan of DS9 or Bablyon 5 in the face of a competent foe is essentially nil.

I completely understand your relucance to attach a 'scale' to SMX... and the 'reality' problems inherit in applying a speed limit, or non-vector-movement, to space battle.  I sympathize.  The parade of horribles outlined above may well be a realistic descriptor of what space battle in a universe with no real top speed, but a very finite weapon range, would look like.

It just doesnt feel right to me.

83

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

Why not set a speed limit of 10 for ships, to match fighters?

Oh, now, I'm not going to go that far.  I do like having as broad a possible spread of 'ship classes', and to match the mass listed in numerous backgrounds one really has to use the higher numbers (Sharlin War Cruiser?  Imperial Star Destroyer?)

I just... wow.  My biggest DN is a 16 huller, and I've never put it on the board. 

Then again, I DID design a 50-Hull Starbase, capable of building 2 12 hull cruisers at the same time and with more firepower than really bears contemplation, at around 7000 CR... so my hands arent ENTIRELY clean in all of this.  -grins-

85

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

Since weve been discussing tactics, rates of fire, movement systems, and the like, I've been thinking about the ability or inability of ships to influence one anothers movement.

In SFB one of the major things giving the game richness was the ability of many races to use drones or plasma to influence the movement of other players... area denial, threat weapons.  These weapons were marked by the fact that they could be avoided or ameliorated with manuver... and you really, reallly wanted to do that, because wading through plasma torps was rarely a good idea (sometimes, but rarely)

We can do some of this in SMX, but 'throwing' a minefield can be expensive, drones are really a flavour of fighter.  And I really dont want to try to invent another weapon modifier that reduced a weapon to a moving counter.. adding alot of moving counters on the map with their own special rules can be troublesome.

So... I thought of ridiculously deadly, one-shot, relatively slow strikeboats, called 'Plasma Torpedos'.  Give them a R3 3/1/1 Range-Based-Everything weapon, preferably 360 or with some kind of gross AOE modifier, stealth or shields or something to make them harder to hit on the way in, and suddenly your opponents have a reason to plot a course other than straight at you with their AB arcs facing you.

Their pretty cheap, too.
In using them, I'd 'remove' them the turn after they fire (or are destroyed)... and I'm cool with giving the other side the victory points for them.

But... how to 'carry' them?  Would vehicle bays be reasonable?  Put a dedicated 'Launch Bay' on your ship, indicating that it can launch one of these little suckers every turn?  Maybe attach that launch bay to a big enough cargo or vehicle bay to 'carry' the little sucker?

IN THE ALTERNATE:
If someone wants to suggest a 'seeking weapon' modifier, that states that rather than hitting, the weapon gets a counter,  moves at a certain speed, and 'attacks' when it gets to its initial target, with range treated as 'however far it moved to get there', I'm pretty cool with that too.

Ive just got no clue how much of a price break you get for turning a 'shot' into a little counter that (provisionally) must move towards the target every turn at speed X, and doesnt get to roll to-hit till and if it gets there.  Would have to be pretty steep (delayed effect, increased chance of being simply run out of range, etc.)

Thoughts?

cricket wrote:
Marcus Smythe wrote:

-blink blink-
20?
:shock:

Well, that's not all that much, all things considered... with existing Armor Plating, that 24-hull ship goes up to an effective 36.

I expect that in such... quantity, ablative armor will prove very valuable, probably moreso than its cost.  I can't anticipate your opponent will be able to punch out that much ablat in a single turn, so umm.. yeah.

But remember, the ship is point-costed as if those 20 armor points are 16.7 extra hull hits -- so it's the same as if the ship had 40+ hull for Combat Rating purposes.

I really hope to try it myself soon, but I don't think it's gonna be a huge game-breaker...

Oh, it makes sense, when I think about it... I just tend to be pessimistic about systems I dream up (better to be conservative about my own stuff.  A 'too bad' system just goes unused.  A 'too good' system distorts the game.  And I'm a cheeze monkey, so I have to take ideas I'm attached to with a grain of salt). 

And the scale of combat Beowulf discusses is outside my normal experience.  My current navy boasts a 400 point, 12 'hull' (8 hull box, 6 ablat) heavy cruiser that is usually a ship of the line.  I have some trouble wrapping my head around the leviathans.

Beowulf.. my apologies if anything I said sounded critical!  Just kinda threw me for a loop.

BeowulfJB wrote:

Twenty Ablative-Armor may sound excessive; but hey, if ur gonna protect ur ships, Protect them well :!:
Ironically, there is a parallel in what we are doing and the game Full Thrust, which my friends and I played 'til we discovered Starmada. 
With most Full Thrust weapons, any hits a ship takes go first to armor.  As a result, my ships in that game had lotsa armor; almost as much as they had hull.  Just like the Ablative-armor editions of the refitted Mississippi class BBs
Then the Kre'Vak came in with Kinetic Penetration Weapons.  These did only one armor per hit, then the rest of the damage was all hull damage.   As a result, I changed all of my Full Thrust ships to have adequate armor, and lotsa hull. 
A weapon that one of my friends used yesterday, down in St Augustine, is similar to these "K-guns.  His weapon is: {range=18, 3+ to hit, 3/1/3, with "double hull hits" taken twice}.  We presumed that this weapon ability from the ship designer that works with Open 0ffice means 'extra hull damage'.  So each hit that gets thru does six hull hits +  3 damage-roll hits.  He also had 2 TD&R on this ship; Very brutal.  If these become more popular, it will be better to have Armor plating back, even if it means deleting the Ablative armor. 
I am not sure if a ship can have both... :?

I played full thrust before coming to Starmada.. so I'm familiar with the addition, and then deletion, of massive armor belts.

As for the 'K Gun' weapon your friend is using.. while I dont have that version of the SXCA in front of me, id double check that 'double hull hits' is the same as 'extra hull damage'.  The author might have meant something else (Id just double check the multiplier.. if its x3, its extra hull damage.. extra Hull Damage is a BIG multiplier!)

Side note.. your friends weapon, assuming that its using the x3 mutliplier, may be too expensive for what hes getting... the 'normal' weapon does .5 hull hits per damage roll.  The 'extra hull damage' weapon does 1.5 hull hits per damage roll (because it always hits at least one hull), and thus costs 3 times as much.  If this weapon always does 2 hull, plus the roll, its average damage is 2.5 hull hits...  or 5x as much as the normal weapon.  However, hes paying 9x as much as the normal weapon, if hes appling that modifier twice.

wish I had a copy of that one in front of me.

As for whether or not the 'extra hull damage' of an extra hull damage weapon ignores the ablative armor... I suppose it really ought to, since ablative armor is priced appropriate to preventing the normal damage roll.  Hmm, thats kinda cool... 'extra hull damage' weapons would then do 1 hull damage, and also knock off a point of ablative armor (and not get to roll).

-blink blink-
20?
:shock:

By my calculations, that would be correct.  (I got 1316.  Same difference)  However, I must admit that I never anticipated ablative armor in such... large amounts.

I expect that in such... quantity, ablative armor will prove very valuable, probably moreso than its cost.  I can't anticipate your opponent will be able to punch out that much ablat in a single turn, so umm.. yeah.

Let us know how it goes.

Actually, Beowulf, thats exactly the result I got.  As long as your not killing a ship every turn, the ablative armor is a good buy, because it preserves the ships systems, perhaps most importantly its screens. 

Once you start killing a ship every turn, it cant have that preservation effect, and the ablative fleet falls behind.

RE:  Pseudo-Hull

Ablative Armor is peseudo hull, yes, but you get relatively less surviability from it than you would from normal 'hull'

Three points of ablative armor add as much to the CR of a vessel as 2 more points of hull.. but two more points of hull require, on average, 4 hits to destroy, rather than the 3 that the ablative armor does.

My testing was done with Hull 6 Ablat 3 generic cruisers (Speed 3, Shields 3, 3 Range 18 4+ 3/1/2 guns) vs. the same cruiser, only with 8 hull and no ablat.  (Speed, shields, and weapon mount numbers were chosen to make sure the damage chart was the same for both vessels).

Basically, when there wasnt alot of fire back and forth (long range, small ship numbers), the Ablat ships were loosing ablat armor, while the Hull ships were loosing hull.. and shields.. and weapons...    This usually gave the advantage to the Ablat ships.

When I tried again with 4 v 4, and had the 'normal' ships close the range as fast as they could, the tables went the other way... there was enough firepower going back and forth that the Ablat ships would have all their ablat armor shot off, as well as loosing all of their hull, pretty quickly.  The normal ships, OTOH, seemed to 'hold on' just a little longer.  Usually just a hulked wreck, but its not victory points till you kill it, and if its got a gun still shooting, you want to kill it quick.

As I mentioned above, when you consider that the ablat ship will take, usually 15 damage to destroy (First 3 kills the 3 ablative armor, next 12 kill the 6 hull) versus the 16 that the normal-hull ships can sustain (16 damage to destroy 8 hull) it makes some sense.  That said, my results may be suspect, because they conform to my initial estimates, and I may have made (subconcious) firing and manuver choices that tend to create the condition I already anticipated existing.

Also, I only had time for a handful of games, and given how much 'noise' is put into the results by rolling dice, I have a feeling wed need alot more play to figure out what the actual 'signal' on the system value is, if any.

Thats one of the joys and heartbreaks of wargame design where there are alot of dice... its very difficult to nail down the exact play value of something, especially in light of all variables... but its also really hard to be convincingly wrong, unless your way out of bounds.


As for organic 'armor', that is to say regenerating ablatiave armor.. I was literally just discussing that with my best friend (the fertile source for many of these ideas), and we pretty much decided that the 'swing' effect was too great... too easy to get a system that is either valueless (because the ship carrying it gets immolated in one shot) or drastically over-effective (because through a combination of shields and regenerating armor, the foe can never get enough fire in to get ahead of the regeneration and find the crunchy center).
While the second effect MIGHT be appropriate for certain settings (Shadows vs. Low-Tech B5 races, for example), Im not sure I'm comfortable with it on a general-purpose play system.

Initial solo testing seems to indicate that..

1.)  In scenarios where ships have trouble hurting each other quickly, ablative armor is on the cheap side.

2.)  In scenarios where ships kill each other rapidly, ablative armor is under-effective for the cost.

Breakpoint seems to be when one side starts killing, or nearly killing, at least one enemy ship every turn.  The ablative hull ships retain effectiveness better through early fire, so show very well in a low firepower scenario.. their at full effectiveness while their opponents are loosing weapons, shields, and engines.  Once the firepower goes up, the ablative armor ships greater resilience matters less, as the ablative armor gets shot right through, and the ship has less residual hull to take damage on.  Result, the 'normal' fleet is killing ships faster, while the ablative fleet is hulking, but not killing the normal fleets ships (or not as fast), such that it has to put more fire into them to get points, and to prevent their remaining weapons from firing.

In general, Id suggest anyone using ablative armor go for longish range gengagements, especially with heavily shielded craft, with good electronics, and possibly under erratic manuvers.  The opponents of such a fleet should probably try to up the tempo of battle, by getting in their face and forcing a decisive action more quickly.

================So, advantage goes to whoever mainthy76jins 45b the initative (the above confusion on the keys brought to you by our housekitten, Dell.  Dell wanted to contribute, so I allow his contribution to stand).

Anyway, the advantage goes to whoever has the initative, and may thus dictate the pace of the engagement.

Now, onto the question:
Formally, Ablative Armor is based on the value of Hull, and is Hull in some respects.

So.
1.)  Does the 'Organic Hull' system work to repair Ablative Armor? (I assume no)
2.)  How would a system, similar to 'Organic Hull', but only functioning to repair ablative armor, be properly costed?  (I guesstimate at 1.5, or half the modifer of Organic Hull)

Idea is to try to use ablative 'armor' to duplicate regenerating shields...

Anyway, TTFN!

92

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

jygro wrote:

Very cool document.  The only minor problem that I see is there are a lot of different choices to keep track of.  Of course, it might not even be an issue...

-B

Well, my goal was that by limiting the typical fleet to 3 choices, people would choose the sailing orders appropriate to them and their most likely opponents, and thus not have to keep track of a whole bunch of options in game, while still adding 'decision points' in-game.

Initially it was just a large pile of optional rules, but then a friend suggested the whole 'maybe you can only do so many' bit, and the rest, as they say, was history.

Im also trying to price the other 4 'crew levels'...  shouldn't be a large penalty or bonus.. maybe on the order of -10%, -5%, 0, +10%, +20%?  Or something else?

93

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

KD-Thanks for the reply!

Anyone else?  Good?  Bad?  Indifferent?  Waste of electrons?

94

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

The above-described system is called 'Cinematic', in contrast to the 'Vector' system laid out in, IIRC, Fleet Book 1.

95

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

Full thrust Cinematic:

All ships have a Thrust Rating.

All ships have a Velocity

A ships velocity is carried over from one turn to the next

A ship may apply its full thrust rating to increase or decrease its velocity (I belive this change is applied at the beginning of the turn)

A ship may apply up to half its thrust rating to change its heading, unless it has Advanced Drives.  Advanced Drives are found only (in the fluff setting) on two alien races, and are not available to humans.  Advance drive ships may spend all their thrust to change facing.

Every point spent to change the ships heading turns it 30 degress, one 'clock facing'. 

The thrust spent on turning is divided as evenly as possible between the first and second halves of the ships move.. thus a ship that begins the turn at velocity 6, with a thrust of 4, could apply 2 thrust to raise its velocity to 8, and 2 to turn to port.  The ship would turn 30* to port, move forward 4", turn 30* more to port, then move forward a final 4"

This is from memory, and some details may be wrong.

On the whole, a good movement system.  I like that ending locations are fairly unpredictable, especially at higher velocities.  In fact, that lack of predictability is part of what makes broader arc weapons a good thing, and is integral to the play balance of certain placed-marker ordinance.

On the whole, I have the same problem with it that I have with any accelleration based, retained-velocity system... ships frequently end up with very large velocities, such that closing through and out of a ships rangebands and arcs is very easily done.  Ships end up manuvering more like very, very large (and somewhat clumsy!) fighter craft, jockeying for an aft arc shot, rather than like wet-navy ships (this is likely more realistic, in the setting, but as a matter of feel, I prefer wet-navy to space-fighters).

96

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hmm.. I like.  Immediate reactions/concerns, for what its worth...

A Move 1 ship, at speed 12, takes 12 times as long to decelerate to 0 as a Move 12 ship...

but is exactly as agile?  IE, may turn the exact same number of hex sides as the Move 12 ship (that is to say, 1).

Also, any provision for a maximum speed?   I am concerned that the inability to turn at speed will not be an impediment for many navies.

All of that said, if I had to play vector, Id want somethign like this (I'm a cinematic junkie at heart, too much Star Trek).  I also do like the fact that unlike most vector-ish rules, you dont have turrets in space... you keep direction of travel tied to facing, which I do like.

97

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

"Engage the enemy more closely"
-Adm. Horatio Nelson

"It is foolish to expect troops to execute tactics in which they have not been trained."
-Wayne P. Hughes

Sailing Orders (Optional Rule)

The 'Sailing Orders' optional rule adds an additional layer of decision making to the movement orders phase of SMX combat.  It encompasses some existing optional rules into a single format, while adding several others.  The intent is to bring some representation of the men, as well as the machines, onto the board, as well as to hopefully add simple rules which have complex implications.

A ships crew may normally be trained in the execution of three sailing orders.  These orders, such as erratic manuvers or ramming, represent doctrines or operational paradigms outside the 'normal' starship doctrine.  For each ship, the orders that a crew is trained to must be chosen at the start of the battle (oftimes it is recommended that the choices be the same throughout a fleet, or perhaps squadron).  To give a specific sailing order, the admiral must indicate during the movement orders stage of a given turn what sailing orders he wants his ships to be operating under on the following turn (orders take time to dissimnate, people take time to respond, and ramming stations take time to assume!).
Under normal circumstances, a ship may recieve the benefits and burdens of only one sailing order at a time.

Current Optional Rules Reinvisioned as Sailing Orders:

Evasive Action:
Effects as under E.1 et seq.

Emergency Thrust
Effects as under E.2 et seq.

Ramming:
Effects as under E.5 et seq.

Directional Shielding:
As under G.2

Overloading Shields
As under G.5

Other optional rules seemed to fall more under the moniker of technology than of crew, so are for our purposes left as independent optional rules.

Additional Sailing Orders:

Aimed Fire:
By focusing on careful aim, and taking additional time to line up their shots, the crew of the vessel has a better chance of landing its blows.  All to-hit target numbers are decreased by 1.
However, by taking additional time to line up the shot, the vessel makes itself more vulnerable to taking damage before dealing it.  All incoming damage is applied to the vessel before its fire is resolved, such that any weapons destroyed by enemy fire will not have the opportunity to reply.
If opposing ships have chosen aimed fire, then any damage they deal to one another is resolved simultaneously.

Brace for Impact:
A vessel operating under ‘Brace for Impact' may not turn or sideslip.  In addition, as the crew is focused on defensive rather than offensive actions, all outgoing fire suffers a -1 penalty.  This greater defensive preparation serves to mitigate incoming damage, however, with the damage from each successful shield penetration having a 50% of being reduced by 1.
A ship may not Brace for Impact in the same turn she is Steady as She Goes

Closing the Gunports:
A ship must make allowances in its screens for its own outgoing fire. 
Whether a matter of actual 'gunport' holes in the screens, or a matter of
frequency modulation, fire must be allowed to pass through the ships
defenses to reach out for its opponents.
Those holes in a ships defenses are just that.  Holes.  Weaknesses.
A ship may choose to close its gunports on any give turn, during movement
orders, by writing 'CG' at the end of its movement orders.
On any turn in which a ships gunports are closed, the ship may not fire, but its shields on any facing with a shield rating of at least one are treated as being one higher (to a maximum of 5)

Double Shot:
Weapons, like engines and shields, may be pushed outside their normal operational parameters.  A weapon may have additional energy channeled through it to double its damage.  A ship that intends to double-shot its weapons must do so by bank, rather than by individual weapon.  For any weapon which is double shot, roll a D6.  On a result of 4, 5, or 6, the weapon is destroyed.  If using any form of repair rules, this weapon may not be repaired within the scenario.
Double Shot may not be used with expendable weapons.

Engage more Closely:
By focusing on volume of fire rather than accuracy of fire, a trained crew can fill an area of space with a devastating rain of weapons.  Like Double Shot, Engage more Closely must be determined by bank, must be denoted in movement orders, and may not be used with expendable weapons.  Weapons fired in ‘engage more closely' add one to their rate of fire, but add a +1 to their to hit numbers at close range, with a +2 at medium and a +3 at long.
A ship under Engage more Closely orders may not benefit from TDAR

Fire as she Bears:
By maximizing the potential to damage the foe, before being damaged in return, the vessel that fires as she bears does her damage before normal ship combat, such that any damage she deals is resolved immediately, possibly denying enemy vessels the opportunity to return fire.
A ship under orders to fire as she bears resolves her damage before all other ships fire, but all to hit rolls are at a -1 penalty.
A ship under Fire as she Bears may not benefit from TDAR

Hard About
By vectoring the drives, distorting the grav field, or throwing out an anchor, the ship can bring itself about far more rapidly than is normal.  A ship under 'Hard About' orders may, once during its move, expend 1 movement point to come to any new facing.  However, such a manuver is incredibly stressful on the ships engines, and the ship must roll a die after the manuver.  On a 5 or 6, the manuver is successful, but the vessel may not move in the following turn.

Passive Fire Control:
By 'going passive', a ship may intentionally restrict its emissions, such
that foes may not as easily fire upon it.  However, targeting the vessels
own weapons also becomes more difficult.
A ship using passive fire control suffers a -1 penalty on all fire at short range, -2 at medium, and -3 at long, irrespective of any weapons modifiers such as no range penalty or inverted range penalty. 
Passive fire control cannot be combined with an attempt to gain a sensor lock, nor may a ship under passive fire control gain any benefit from a TDAR system.

Reefing the Engines:
Starship Engines operating at full burn are an easy target for enemy fire, as well as being supremely vulnerable to that fire due to the massive energies coursing through them.  A ship may choose to reduce this vulnerability by reducing the amount of power running through its engines.
A ship whose engines are reefed (RF on the movement orders) may use only half its normal movement points that turn (round down).  However, the vessel is allowed to roll a die for every engine box that would be destroyed.  On a 5 or 6, the engine box is not lost.
Note that erratic maneuvers demand such high volume, and constant, thrust that a ship may not simultaneously engage in erratic maneuvers and reef back its engines.

Steady as she Goes:
A vessel is usually considered to be maneuvering to prevent enemy fire.  By holding a steady course, a vessel may improve its own ability to deliver fire, at the price of an equivalent increase in enemy accuracy.
Under 'Steady as she goes' orders, the ship receives a +1 bonus on its
to-hit rolls, while all fire against it is also at a +1 bonus.  Ships under
'Steady as she goes' orders may not turn or sideslip, and may not gain the benefit of overthrusters or a stutterdrive.

Volley Fire:
A ship engaging in Volley fire makes a single to-hit roll for all weapons fire at a single target.  That die roll is applied against the to-hit number for each weapon.  Note that the single roll produced for Volley fire does not apply to weapons requiring a subsequent to hit roll, such as those which may or must re-roll to-hit, or repeating weapons.

Crew Quality:
Green:
Fresh out of the academy combined with a healthy leavening of the crew members that other ships felt they could most do without.  If Siberia is a concept, this crew wrote the book.
Maximum Sailing Orders:  1
CR Modifier:

Trained:
Trained and practiced at their duties, and about as sharp as they can be without getting to regularly fire shots in anger.  The typical crew of the typical real-world navy.
Maximum Sailing Orders: 2
CR Modifier: 

Experienced:
The crew encompasses numerous veterans of numerous battles, or is at the worst the product of a navy which has found itself engaged in an extended and heavily fought conflict or conflicts.  The typical member of the typical naval-war-gamer's navy.
Maximum Sailing Orders: 3
CR Modifier:  None

Veteran:
The crew has served on numerous fronts against numerous foes, and has been together for an extended period of time.  Veteran crews are the backbone of a fleet, and too often it is only the lighter combatants that see enough duty to become this polished.
Maximum sailing Orders: 4
CR Modifier:

Crack:
The best of the best.  These are the crews that get bad holovids made about them for propaganda at home.  These are the crews that have been there when the worst of the worst happened.  Their ancestors fought at Trafalger, they fought on the Line, and their cousin Batty has seen things you people wouldnt believe...
Maximum Sailing Orders: 5
CR Modifier:

Crew Specialties:
Not really 'sailing orders' per se, these represent special training of the crew that is always in effect.

Efficient Crew:
The crew may execute sailing orders in the turn they are written, rather than in the subsequent turn.

Talented Crew:
The crew may perform two sailing orders simultaneously.

DESIGNERS NOTES:
The idea was to give us something else, beyond 'where do I move and what do I shoot', while desparately struggling not to add more than the most minor of record keeping.  All tactics may not be balanced.  Im sure there are some hideously abusive interactions I've missed.  Some care was taken to make this as transparent as possible to the existing gamer and navy, who could probably declare all his ships regular, efficient crew as one of his 3 sailing orders, then pick the two optional rules he actually uses as his two (probably evasive action and emergency thrust, if hes like me), while allowing additional, hopefully balanced options.  I intended every tactic to have a penalty that was at least as large as the bonus, usually larger, but to allow you to situationally give up something you didnt need to get something you did.

Also, I liked the idea of bringing the crews into it, that human element that simply cannot execute, on the fly, whatever crazy idea our nigh-omniscient point of view has suddenly decided will salvage the situation.  Real naval commanders dont get to completely change the way they do buisness in the middle of a battle, no matter how useful that change would be... I was trying to get some element of that without making people roll dice to move their ships.

I readily welcome thoughts and comments, both on actual manuvers, and on whether the idea as a whole is a waste of time.

Optional rules on TRYING to implement Sailing Orders you have not trained in, as well as possible communications difficulties and delays in ordering, were considered, but not implemented.</r>

98

(15 replies, posted in Starmada)

My 'other non-vector' is a modified SMX non-vector.  Basically, every ship gets a 'turn mode' of 2 (must move forward 2 spaces per turn), may sideslip every other move for 1 MP, and sideslips count for fulfilling the turn mode.

Yeah, yeah, SFB.  But it cuts down on the 'instant 180' problem of basic SMX movement, while keeping what I consider a proper ratio of speed to range (such that a long range gun may be closed up in around 3 turns by a fast ship, and in 4-5 turns by a 'normal' speed ship)

99

(36 replies, posted in Starmada)

So Recharge 1 costs 67% as much as recharge 0, and recharge 2 costs 50%?  And both can fire on turn 1.

Daddy likes.  Will be updating my personal spreadsheets for this, shortly.

100

(36 replies, posted in Starmada)

Im also uncomfortable with a scheme that makes a hypothetical thrust 5 hull 20 ship less manuverable than a thrust 5 hull 1 ship.  Both paid the appropriate CR for their thrust, and the Hull 20 ship also paid relatively more SU.


As for fractional ROF, and what it should cost... you should always get less back than the decrease in total volume of fire.  IE, an every-two-turns weapon should cost more than half as much as an every-turn-weapon.

Why?  Damage now is better than damage later.  If it was an even, 1:1 ratio in reduction of ROF to reduction of cost, consider a once-every-20-turns weapon.. or 'round one, I fire, you all die'.