1,076

(76 replies, posted in Starmada)

underling wrote:

I've found that some of the conversions come in rather messy with respect to firing arc modifiers.
For example, the close defense cannons weapon entry of the Belligerent class light cruiser is as follows:

This is not really a conversion issue, but a result of having multiple banks in a given battery. Because the arc modifiers are based on the percentage of the total number of weapons that can fire into a given arc, you're going to get this when putting weapons into a bunch of arcs. For example, a battery with 6 weapons firing forward, 4 weapons each firing forward-port and forward-starboard, and 2 weapons firing aft is going to look like this: [FF3][FP4][FS4][AA6].

Close Defense Cannons    [FF3][FP4][FS4][AP6]     2-4-6    14-10-7-5-3-2-2-1-1-1-0-0
[...]
Close Defense Cannons    [FF][FP1][FS1][AP3]     2-4-6    5-3-2-2-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-0

It is true that in basic game play, these two displays will yield the same results. However, with some of the optional rules, like combining the fire of two or more banks, the former display is preferable, even if it isn't as "clean" as some might like.

1,077

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:

No need to record the exact speed, you just have to chose each turn which speed you use (normal or fast i.e. more than your engine value).

In most cases, yes. However... If my thrust rating is reduced to 5 due to damage, it matters very much if my speed is 5 or 6.

1,078

(76 replies, posted in Starmada)

Traits still exist, and they are on the sample ship cards (Phasers are "Diffuse" [Dfs]). It appears I left them out of the heavy weapons, though.

1,079

(76 replies, posted in Starmada)

It would be fair to say that SFO had an impact on some of the design choices, but the most direct influence was Kevin's thoughts on a fleet-scale naval game (which has grown into the upcoming third edition of Grand Fleets).

The idea of modifying a starting number of attack dice via "column shifts" was all Kevin. However, he wanted a limited number of columns (no more than six, IIRC) and the drops were based on percentage points, not percentages (I think it went 100% - 80% - 60% - 45% - 30% - 15%).

My contribution was to set it up as a logarithmic scale, where the value in each column was 70.71%  that of the previous column. This meant expanding the number of columns, but allowed for more consistency. Once that happened, the rest sort of fell into place -- e.g. using modifiers to represent differing bank strengths, applying ECM as a column shift, etc.

As far as SFO goes, it's entirely possible that this edition will eliminate the need for two different games in favor of two different "scales", as with Federation Commander. We'll have to see...

1,080

(76 replies, posted in Starmada)

Welcome to the first in a series of mini-articles describing the whys and wherefores of the new edition of Starmada. Today's topic: Attack Dice.

In previous editions, the basic premise has been that each individual weapon mount rolls one or more dice to determine hits. For each hit, one or more dice is rolled against the target's shields. Finally, for each die that penetrates the shields, one or more dice is rolled for damage location. While this process has worked quite well, there are some drawbacks:

1) It's a LOT of die rolling, particularly when some of the weapon traits/special equipment are factored in.

2) Rolling for hits on a D6 severely limits the number of modifiers that can be applied -- and those modifiers aren't consistent in their effect. For example, if the weapon's ACC is 5+, a +1 modifier increases the chance of scoring a hit by 50%; if the ACC is 3+, that +1 modifier only represents an increase of 25%.

3) The need to roll for damage location on each die -- and the need to track damage to individual weapon mounts -- requires special considerations, like the weapon damage chart (which incidentally means yet ANOTHER die roll).

4) Did I mention that it's a LOT of die rolling?

With the new edition, we're making a paradigm shift, from individual weapon mounts to whole weapon batteries. Each battery has a total attack dice strength, which is then stretched out into a "string", like this:

LASER CANNONS : 10 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1

When making an attack, the appropriate number of dice are rolled, and each 5 or 6 scores one point of damage on the target. That's it. To represent differing firepower strengths in different arcs, each battery is then subdivided into "banks", like this:

LASER CANNONS : [FF2][PB4][SB4] : 10 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 1

Each bank has a firing arc ("FF" = forward; "PB" = port broadside; "SB" = starboard broadside) and an arc modifier (all arc modifiers are negative, but the minus signs are omitted for clarity). When determining the number of dice to roll, each -1 results in a one "column" shift to the right. Thus, the FF bank has 5 attack dice, and the PB/SB banks have 3 dice each.

Other modifiers are applicable: in particular, the target's ECM is subtracted from the arc modifier. For example, if the FF bank is used to attack a target with an ECM of 1, the number of attack dice is 4 (-2 - 1 = -3).

Why is this better?

1) It's faster. Consider this: in The Admiralty Edition, the Diamondback-class S'ssk gunship has two Serpent's Fangs firing forward. First, two dice are rolled to score hits; then, as many as 4 dice are rolled for impact; finally, up to 8 dice are rolled for damage location. Thus, in order to resolve the attack anywhere from 2 to 14 dice are rolled, in three separate rolls. If these weapons are converted to the new system, one roll of 6 dice is made, with each 5 or 6 scoring a point of damage. Simple. If the target has shields, a second roll is still needed -- on the other hand, if the target's only defenses are ECM or Armor, just the one roll will suffice.

2) It's more consistent. Each modifier has the same effect, regardless of the starting number of attack dice or when in the process it is applied. For every +2, the number of attack dice is doubled; for every -2, the number of attack dice is cut in half.

3) Damage to weapons can be handled in a more abstract fashion (i.e. as a further attack dice penalty) or in a more traditional "damage to individual banks" fashion.

And if you're worried about a loss in granularity, consider this: if the SAE version of Serpent's Fangs are fired at medium range at a target with a shield rating of 3, the overall chance of causing hull damage is as follows:

Hull Damage ... Probability
One point ... 21.7%
Two points ... 17.7%
Three points ... 7.8%
Four points ... 3.3%
Five points ... 0.9%
Six points ... 0.3%

Thus, in the process of three separate die rolls, involving as many as fourteen dice, four or more hull hits occur in less than one out of twenty-two attacks. In the new system, this same scenario would result in the roll of three attack dice (assuming an ECM of 2, which is the equivalent in protection to Shields 3). The probability of each outcome is as follows:

Hull Damage ... Probability
One point ... 44.4%
Two points ... 22.2%
Three points ... 3.7%

The curve has been flattened, but not completely. Although the very rare multiple-damage (4+ hull) attack results have been eliminated, the chances of causing at least one point of hull damage has gone up by more than a third (51.7% to 70.3%), while the average number of hull hits caused has remained the same (1.00).

In other words, by reducing the attack to a single roll of three dice -- and thus considerably hastening what has been traditionally the most complicated and time-consuming part of the game turn -- we have kept a similar range of (reasonably) possible results, increased the probability of success per attack, and maintained the overall hits-per-attack ratio.

1,081

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

I kinda wish Kevin hadn't posted that. It's gonna confuse people more than help.

For example, listing fighters as "weapons" with firing arcs is NOT the default for the new version. This was a conscious choice made by Kevin for his particular setting.

Instead, here are two PRELIMINARY ship displays for the SFU -- note that these may (will) change before the release versions. However, they give you an idea of what to expect. Also, note that the "Shields" on these displays act like "Armor" in the new version of Starmada.

1,082

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

A single weapon firing into a single arc takes up twice the "Base SUs". (1+1 = 2)

1,083

(27 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

The anti-air battery will indeed have a purpose. smile

1,084

(3 replies, posted in Defiance)

Not to my knowledge, no.

1,085

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

Marauder wrote:

So can you divulge any more game mechanics?  You said in some cases it would come down to just one die roll - where now you'd only get down to 2 if the target had 0 shields.  Have you done away with the damage roll?

There is no damage roll on each hit -- instead, "damage checks" are performed at 1/3 and 2/3 hull damage.

How does ECM work - takes away attack dice or makes it harder to hit?  Is it safe to assume weapon banks still have their own accuracy value?

ECM removes attack dice. Weapon banks do NOT have a separate ACC value, but traits can have the same effect.

Shields pretty much the same as before?

Yes.

Is armour ablative (i.e. has hit points) or does it give a fixed save?

Armor is "hit points".

1,086

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

The three forms of defense are:

ECM: Reduces the effective firepower of attacking weapons.

Shields: Deflects incoming fire.

Armor: Absorbs damage that gets past the first two lines of defense.

1,087

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

Certainly, work on Fleet Ops informed some of what went into this new edition, but I think you'll find it's much closer to SAE than to SFO.

The variety of weapon traits will remain.

1,088

(27 replies, posted in Grand Fleets)

Since the Starmada announcement in CL #44 (http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Starmada%20Ships/CL44-Starmada.pdf) kinda let the cat out of the bag, thought I'd share this with you.

1,089

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

For those dying for more information (or worried about how this might impact Star Fleet Armada) check out the release notification from ADB's CL #44:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Starmada%20Ships/CL44-Starmada.pdf

I knew there was a reason I didn't want to allow photos...

IMHO, the ability to fire at incoming fighters/strikers/seekers, etc., not only muddles the normal phasing of events, it also creates problems of tracking which weapons have already fired in the current Fighter Phase.

OTOH, the new edition might just address some of these concerns... smile

1,092

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

andyskinner wrote:

Released in January, and you're still accepting playtesters?

Things move quickly around here. wink

Will things covered in the Rules Annex be covered in the initial book for this version?  Those rules were built up over a few supplements, and I wonder whether the things they cover will get reset and have to wait for release again.

My plan is to make the initial release as all-inclusive as possible. That being said, there may be an odd optional rule here and there that doesn't make it initially, either due to an oversight on my part or because I'm not sure how best to incorporate it.

How compatible with this version be?

Not sure I completely understand the question.

diddimus wrote:

However changing movement is where I'm worried.

It's hard to explain without giving you the whole picture (which will likely happen shortly). However, there's nothing to worry about, IMHO. If you like the current movement system, you'll love the new one -- mainly because it's the same system, just easier to navigate.

1,093

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Potential name: Starmada 2012: The Final Edition tongue (little dig at the whole 'the world will end in 2012)

I had considered "Starmada: Doomsday", or "Starmada: The Mayan Edition".

I'll be a reviewer. Playtests are...difficult...for me as I don't have the time nowadays, as well as one of my family moving next weekend.

Send me an email, if you would.

But I'm not happy with you Dan, I've spent the last few months releasing new supplements just for them to become obsolete... sad /shakes fist angrily

wink

I know there will be some hard feelings -- there always are -- but Starmada shouldn't stand still. Other projects (some released, some still in waiting) have convinced me that now is the time, and I have confidence the changes being made are for the better. Hopefully you'll all agree.

1,094

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

More later, but in answer to some preliminary questions:

1) More streamlined movement: The actual movement of ships (i.e. pseudo-vectorish) remains unchanged; however, the means by which players determine that movement has been simplified, making it much easier to explain to newbies and for experienced players to remember (also, no more "absolute difference" discussions. smile)

2) Three distinct forms of defense: Instead of assuming all ship defenses work in the same manner, differing only in "fluff" (i.e. "Shields" might in fact refer to armor plating, point defenses, etc.) there are now three kinds of defense that can be chosen from or combined on a single ship -- ECM, Shields, and Armor.

3) No official name for it, yet. Suggestions are welcome... Behind the scenes we've been calling it "Starmada: The Next Iteration". smile

4) My intent is to update all existing Star Fleet Armada ships out of the gate, and then move forward from there, probably with Battleship Armada.

5) Playtesters/reviewers are welcome.

6) The scale will remain the same.

1,095

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3565

1,096

(297 replies, posted in Starmada)

Majestic Twelve Games is pleased to announce that after months of planning, a brand-new edition of Starmada: The Universal Game of Starship Combat is slated for release in January 2012.

While in some ways this new edition will be notably different from previous incarnations of the game, at its core Starmada remains the game you have grown to know and (hopefully) love. As always, the guiding principle has been "simple, but not simplistic".

Among the changes to the core game system, players will find:

* A more streamlined movement system;

* Three distinct and layered types of starship defenses;

* A reduction in the number of die rolls -- and amount of time -- required to resolve ship-to-ship combat. In some cases, the outcome of an attack can be decided by a single throw of the dice!

On the other hand, much remains unchanged, such as:

* A commitment to balanced game play;

* A core set of rules accessible to beginners yet robust enough to support the needs of experienced gamers;

* The most comprehensive set of starship construction rules available in any game currently available!

And of course, Starmada will continue to provide dozens of stand-alone options and advanced rules from which you may pick and choose to fit your desired level of complexity and create the type of game you want to play.

Stay tuned to this space over the coming weeks as we continue to provide more information about this new edition -- I'm sure you'll like what you see!

1,097

(23 replies, posted in News)

I had no idea TMP had moved to a pay structure -- I've been happily sending my emails to Bill like I always have...

1,098

(6 replies, posted in ARES)

Er, no... 15" would be the maximum range for a figure with a range factor of 3; a figure with a RF of 5 (for example) would be able to shoot out to 25".

1,099

(6 replies, posted in ARES)

The range die depends on the distance to Figure B:

1-3" = d4
4-6" = d6
7-9" = d8
10-12" = d10
13-15" = d12

1,100

(6 replies, posted in ARES)

The maximum range is the figure's range factor times five.