The rest of the files. One is the fourth of the supplements and the other one talks about weapon interchangeability on the Illuskor Federation's ships, which was the initial premise behind the supplement.

Thanks for the vote of confidence...:)

I think I need to spread myself more through both of the most recent iterations of Starmada to try and give myself more chance to realise a specific idea. For example, an idea I'd thought of last year (ships with modular turrets, based on idle drawings on square paper) didn't work in NE, but I've been able to do the framework for it quite easily in AE, where the rounding-of-weapon-SUs worked to my benefit.

OTOH, when trying my hand at converting the notes for my recent supplement from NE to AE, I realised the issue that has afflicted that setting ever since its first incarnation as a HV supplement--the fact that fighters have more weapon range than almost all rulesets allow for. That works fine with my NE Flotillas, where the fighter squadron is represented by a single vessel with multiple short-range weapons, but trying to convert them to AE didn't work, as the AE Flotillas were meant to represent groupings of identical vessels and didn't allow, for example, my recent thoughts of providing a squadron-wide anti-fighter battery to represent the total AF firepower of the group.

Minor errata:

The Bahnaran United Nations Lonkoran classification is 'Command Cruiser', not 'Assault Carrier'. As it is not something that affects gameplay, I won't release a new version of the supplement unless there is any errata that does affect gameplay.

The correct version of the Burh-C

While looking through some of my files, I noticed an error for the Burh-C with regards to their Capital-Scale Particle Arrays. Their second mode has a range of 3, as with every other Capital-Scale Particle Array in the supplement, not 9. I will be posting up a revised page 9 of the document for those who already have the document, and version 1.02 of the supplement at a later date.

Apologies all.

Interesting to see, and I always like to see other designs...:)

When you say +3/-3 tech levels, I assume you mean the SAE version, in which case these have ~80% that of a TL 0 vessel, am I correct? (Yes, that does mean I finally got around to crunching the numbers, and I'll post them up soon--I promise)

I'll have to look at them again, of course, but these look very interesting.

They should work quite well--however, I limited it to the SNE tech levels because of the way I operate now (i.e., inputting the designs into OldnGrey's shipyard, copying and pasting it into a notepad file until I eventually write-up the document) and because his shipyard TLs range from -2 to +2, that's what I work with...:)

I would think, though, that -3 for the lower-hulled vessels would result in a vessel 'armed' with a tractor beam or a single probe--when I was designing vessels in SX (where the -3 TL was initially introduced as an unofficial expansion of the canon TLs, I think) I found that a vessel with -3 in engines, shields, weapons and equipment was slow, poorly-protected and barely armed. Perfect for the VBAM games I was playing (it represented early space-faring race's ships very well when confronted with even low-interstellar ships) but maybe not fun to actually set down in a Starmada game.

Ah, the Starfire series is always a thing that can give you ideas (hell, I came up with the warp point rules last year). The Lost Fleet also helped me with my Eternal Quest setting, so if you haven't read them, they might be an interesting read for you.

As for the Diffuse/Scatter vs Mines, it could be explained thus: for fighters, seekers and drones, you're attacking a fixed position (i.e., you need to hit a specific area of space--where the fighter is), but for mines you're attacking an area of probability (mines could be anywhere in that area of space). The first option means you need precision, whereas the second requires volume of fire.

(yeah, not a very good rationalisation--I've had four-five hours of bad sleep and no coffee yet, so my brain is currently operating at ooh, about 40% efficiency, I reckon)

Sorry to necro this thread, but I'm missing these ships--silly of me to put 'em in a file that then got lost. Does anyone else have them?

Ah, okay...

Because flotillas are/were an attempt to give people a feeling of commanding smaller ships without too many new rules, they were designed to slot in easily to the existing rules. Each flotilla is in effect a hull 3 vessel, so they are represented by a Hull 3 vessel and are designed as a Hull 3 vessel--the only differences are:

1) Flotillas should generally have a 'hull strength' one level above their corresponding ships--thus if the standard ship types have neither Fragile nor Reinforced Systems, the flotilla would normally have Reinforced Systems. This is to represent that while some units got hit, they might have been less combat-effective units

2) Flotillas have a TL of 1 above their corresponding ships (to give the flotilla more space to work with)

3) After the flotilla-wide SUs have been calculated, each flotilla unit gets an allocation that they may fill with weapons, fixed-SU equipment, or even (though I haven't done this, I've considered it) additional thrust, defences or escort/scout ability.

I hope this clarifies matters. If not, then quite a few of my supplements (which has several examples of flotillas) might help...;) [SHAMELESS PLUG DETECTED]