Skip to forum content
mj12games.com/forum
Majestic Twelve Games Discussion Forum
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Welcome to the new Majestic Twelve Games Forum!
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!
Search options (Page 5 of 29)
Seems fine and utilitarian.
If anything, I wish it had a less "generic" feel.
Would it be possible to reintroduce avatars/icons or some other flair (minimum of 15 pieces)?
Just a thought. Otherwise it does the job just fine.
Cheers,
Erik
Dan, is the plan still for BA to be a dual release in AE and NE formats? If so, will they both be released at the same time? Thanks,
Erik
GamingGlen wrote:
In the age of sail, all that really mattered was the ships of the line. Very few smaller ships were in the battle fleet. The Battle of Trafalgar saw the British fleet with 27 ships-of-the-line and 6 "other" ships (frigates and schooners) while the French/Spanish fleet had 33 ships-of-the-line and 7 "other" ships.
While it is true that only "Line-of-Battle" vessels were considered appropriate for fleet-sized actions, ships like frigates and brigs were more useful for a wider variety of missions. The British RN had lots of both (along with other "lesser" vessels), and employed them worldwide. Frigates were the cruisers of their day and while they couldn't stand in the line, they did see a lot of combat, and they did a lot of the other jobs that the ships of the line were poorly suited to do. During the Napoleonic era, most ships of the first 3 rates saw very little combat while the "other" ships took care of the day to day business. Give me a good frigate action any day over couple of 74's pounding it out broadside to broadside, but that's just my opinion.
Cheers,
Erik
madpax wrote:maybe it could be donne on a fleet basis, ie, the designer says that this ship is rare, those are uncommon, etc, and decides about the limit on a fleet (no more than one rare, etc.).
Whatever, my frioend and I designed our own fleets, still from my Star Trek designs along the above lines (no more big ships compared to medium, no more medium compared to small) and we ended up with the same composition. For 1500, we have 3 destroyers (about 150 each), 2 medium/heavy cruisers (about 250 each) and a battlecruiser/dreadnought-like ship (about 500 points).
I took Kzinti with their heavy load of drones (Gid/Skr/Dx2/Acr) and fighters from a CVL, and he took a mix of Hellbore/Fusion with fighters ships.
1500 points looks a bit small for my taste, but it should be interesting, though.
Marc
I think any Starmada "Fleet limits" system would have to be based on points (the B5wars system was extremely subjective based in large part on the designer's fluff or intent for the ship).
Maybe something along the lines of tiered system based on a ship's value in proportion to the total fleet size (ie, if you are playing a smaller game than only one battleship will fit under the "cap" but if playing with a larger fleet point total you could include more). While I think your original post is a nice simple way to do it, and if it works for your games great, but I would personally like to see the breakdown be a little more "granular", with the ability to skip one category (my fleet isn't heavy on destroyers so I send some frigates and a light cruiser with my battleship) as long as the points work out. IIRC Bismark sortied with Price Eugen (a heavy cruiser), 3 destroyers and some minesweepers, so there was a big gap between the heavies and the light vessels. Sorry to inject real world into the discussion...I should find a reference from Star Trek or something 
I think somebody with better math skills and patience than I have could whip up a scaled system to make forces less top-heavy. It would be a nice optional rule I think.
Cheers,
Erik
cricket wrote:I'm always in favor of fleet-building rules (or even loose guidelines). It never feels right to see a "fleet" that consists of a single super-battleship and a couple destroyers to fill out the point cost.
I always liked the B5Wars method of Common/Uncommon/Rare/etc... I don't know how you could implement something like that in a construction based game like Starmada, but I would be all in favor of it.
Cheers,
Erik
Edit: Admittedly, the B5Wars system wasn't based on just the ship's points value, but it does help control ridiculous force compositions.
OldnGrey wrote:There is one thing I would add.
If the ship attempting to ram fails to do so it continues in a straight line, up to the current straight line speed or is placed in the next hex on from the target if the target's hex had been the ramming ship's maximum move (No hex side turn allowed in the same move).
Paul
Agreed. On a failed attack the ship attempting to ram should "overshoot" the target after all, it's hard to turn at RAMMING SPEED!
Erik
Something I've been thinking about recently as the the political ads have been trying to burrow into my brain.
“The major problem – one of the major problems, for there are several – one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
BeowulfJB wrote:Your idea is excellent. 8-) I wonder if I can convince my gaming friends down here to try it...
There are plenty of examples of Ramming from a variety of source material, so I am in favor of including it, but I think any Ramming rules should only be used sparingly at best and conditionally otherwise they would probably be abused. The Ramming arguments go back for generations around these parts 
Cheers,
Erik
cricket wrote:Having a newborn at home is exactly the time-sink you would expect it to be.
Short answer: yes, there is movement.
Longer answer: I can't give you an ETA at this time.
Thanks for the reply! No worries on timetable, I was just wondering if the option still exists. Having an 11 month old at home myself I know that at the end of every day, for about the last year, I still owe somebody time I don't have! I should be able to actually start playing games again in, oh, about 17-18 years or so.
Cheers,
Erik
Putting aside all of the arguments for and against ramming I figured I would jump in
What about something like:
(OPTIONAL)
Ships that end their movement in a hex occupied by another vessel may declare that they are attempting a Ram Attack rather than going through the usual process of moving to an adjacent hex.
Rams are Successful on a die roll of 5 or 6, modified as follows: Add a positive modifier based on the Thrust Rating of the Ship attempting to ram: for Thrust 1-3: +0, 4-6: +1, 7-9: +2, 10+: +3. Subtract a negative modifier for the ship being attacked: for Thrust 1-3: -0, 4-6: -1, 7-9: -2, 10+: -3.
Damage is always equal to the lowest current Hull value of the two ships involved.
This should favor higher thrust ships either succeeding in Ramming or avoiding a Ram attack and should favor larger/more intact vessels for damage purposes.
Just my 2 cents.
Erik
graydo wrote:Blacklancer99 wrote:cricket wrote:I assume the PDFs will be available via e23.sjames.com. I have no knowledge of when that might occur.
The plan is still to provide a short update document that would allow players to covert the ships from the Admiralty books; again, ETA is indeterminate at this time.
I see that Alien Armada for Nova edition is now up on E23. Has there been any more movement on an providing those of us that already have the Admiralty edition stuff with update/conversion info?
Thanks,
Erik
Excellent though apparently difficult question.
I understand Dan is quite busy with Real Life. Just as an update I see Distant Armada for Nova is now available on E23.
Cheers,
Erik
cricket wrote:I assume the PDFs will be available via e23.sjames.com. I have no knowledge of when that might occur.
The plan is still to provide a short update document that would allow players to covert the ships from the Admiralty books; again, ETA is indeterminate at this time.
I see that Alien Armada for Nova edition is now up on E23. Has there been any more movement on an providing those of us that already have the Admiralty edition stuff with update/conversion info?
Thanks,
Erik
Congrats, and welcome back! Hope all are well in Cricketland. Erik
Just out if curiosity what campaign system are you using? I'd love to participate, but real life has been a bit much lately and there is no way I would have the time 
cheers,
Erik
Wow, the whole forum got spambombed. Cleanup, Isle 10.
E
PSYCO829 wrote:koyodude wrote:You seem to play with people who are into making "the winning combination" rather than ships with some sort of concept. In roleplaying games, this same thing is called "min/maxing"
Pretty much this. Picking only what wins in a game where you have so many options for ship designing kinda misses the entire point of the game.
Amen ta that.
cricket wrote:It's basically a way of recreating the separate thrust and shields damage tracks from SAE, which some people liked.
You can count me as one of those people, and I like that this option makes Nova damage a little less linear. I guess I was just surprised you are proposing additional record keeping as you have been consistent in your quest to lessen the accounting.
cricket wrote:For the record, I wanted to strip as many extraneous die rolls from the basic Nova game as possible; that doesn't mean I'm not open to adding them in as optional rules for those who might want a bit more crunchiness.
Glad to hear that...those of us that like to complicate things thank you
Cheers,
Erik
My initial gut reaction is that it looks, at the very least, interesting...adding a bit more "depth" to damage resolution, which I like. However, doesn't this go against one of your core issues of extra dice rolling and extra record keeping? At the very least it will require another "Stat Track" or notation to manage the accumulation of damage. Again, nothing against it (I think I might have been the only person to use critical damage AND damage control in SAE games ), it just seems an odd option for Nova.
Cheers,
Erik
Since the PTs have relatively short ranged weapons my first thought is to get a light, quick , cheap unit or two armed with longer-ranged guns jumping out in front of the battle line to intercept the PTs as they make their dash. Since the PTs depend on speed and not defenses, if the defending unit can bring them into range they could chop them up without having to mount "expensive" weapons with lots of bells and whistles. Historically, this is exactly what destroyers, originally known as Torpedo Boat Destroyers, were developed for. Throw a CD torpedo mount on the Destroyer and you have something that can add a little punch if the PTs don't show up. You could also put a couple of Mines if you guys use them, to drop in the PTs path. Either the PT has to brave the minefield, or alter course to avoid them. Just a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. The Mine version is a little more expensive, but the Torpedo version is cheaper than the PTs (though it is less dangerous to bigger ships than those PTs). I personally prefer the mine version... Cheers, E
[attachment=1]Torp Version.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Mine Variant.PNG[/attachment]
The Nova rulebook includes rules for Cinematic, Naval, Etheric, Solar, and Vector movement.
Cheers,
Erik
murtalianconfederacy wrote:I think Dan said a few months ago that he might post up the relevent rules to allow people who had KA/RA to convert the vessels themselves if they wanted, but not sure if that will still happen.../shrugs
I would personally prefer that, but I wasn't going to hold my breath.
E
cricket wrote:Majestic Twelve Games is thrilled to be offering new versions of Klingon Armada and Romulan Armada, updated for use with the Nova Edition of Starmada: The Universal Game of Starship Combat.
Klingon Armada is a sourcebook for Starmada that gives players the chance to enter the rich and vast playground of the Star Fleet Universe. This product contains all of the rules options, additions, and starship designs necessary for players to pit forces of the Klingon Empire against their perpetual enemies, the Star Fleet of the United Federation of Planets. Romulan Armada is a sourcebook which contains all of the rules options, additions, and starship designs necessary for players to include forces of the Romulan Star Empire in their Star Fleet Universe games.
Each of these products stands alone -- while ownership of the Starmada Nova Rulebook is recommended, it is not required. The essential Starmada rules are included in both Klingon and Romulan Armada!
Both books are available from the Majestic Twelve Games web site: http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/
Dan, are there any rules in these two volumes that are not in the Nova Rulebook? It seems that there are a lot of the "Trekmada" rules already built into the Core Nova Edition. So I guess, other than getting ships & specific weapons updated for the new system, what would be my incentive for shelling out cash for these? Gimme the pitch
Cheers,
Erik
cricket wrote:Here are some links:
Attack Dice: http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3579
Movement: http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3583
Defenses & Damage: http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3585
Fighters: http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3620
Am I the only one that thinks this would be a snazzy thing to "sticky" for those drifting in, new to the system?
E
Sorry to anyone who happened to be in my address book and got caught in the spam storm that my email account started spewing forth yesterday. :oops:
Erik
BeowulfJB wrote:I played Starmada:NE with my Dad, ephew and GamingGlenn. One of my nephew's ships fired/launched 33 seakers at one of my BBs. I had a DN & 2DDs nearby. All ships fired all of their Turbo-Laser cannon, which has Rpt, and other short-range AA at the salvo. I was able to shoot down 24 of them. It is a good idea for ships to have a short ranged AA battery...
This is my favorite thing about seeker weapons...in that one trait Dan has managed to make escort type ships work and be useful additions rather than just a way to pad out you fleet points.
The question I have is what did the other 9 Seeker weapons do to your BB
Cheers,
Erik
Posts found: 101 to 125 of 705