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 mj12games
The problem with moving anti-drones over to non-SFU settings is that drones in KLA and RMA are a constant -- whereas in Starmada at large, incoming seekers could be really cheap or really expensive, thus making the value of anti-drones a variable.
I would be tempted to set an arbitrary value for the "anti-drone" capability, and then allow natural selection to determine whether players find it cost-effective to load up on really expensive seekers...
If you're looking for a way to simulate small craft that operate in the same way as starships (i.e. don't have special movement and combat rules) the flotilla option is available (see Dreadnoughts or the Rules Annex).
You understand correctly. Fighter damage is applied immediately because it gives them a "bite" that such small units might not otherwise have.
OK, I cannot attach the pdf to the email or anything else, so PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you
You can ZIP the pdf and upload it here.
So the points values in KA are wrong and the ones calculated with f.ex OldnGrey's shipbuilder are correct?
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2187
And there was this post from somebody named "cricket" back in Oct09
"...Yes, the values are "wrong", and yes, it's frustrating to those of you trying to recreate the ships on your own -- ..."
This wasn't an admission that I fudged any CR values -- it was related to an error I made when computing the ships for Klingon Armada.
If I can find the time this weekend (yeah, right 
) I may take a second look at this. I suspect that for most ships it will make little (if any) difference -- but there may be a couple outliers.
I am not an experienced SFB player, so I can't get too involved in that side of the discussion. However, in Federation Commander (which is the source for the Starmada conversions) the War Eagle has a higher engine-to-mass ratio than the Klingon D7 (49% to 45%) and they both have the same speed cost (1:1).
I do understand that larger ships pay more for movement and smaller ships pay less -- however, I felt that was accounted for in Starmada by the logarithmic engine SU curve.
The two things I did not take into consideration during the conversions were: (a) turn mode and (b) power needed for other systems. In the case of the former, I thought it irrelevant since all ships move in the same manner in Starmada. I did some experimentation with the latter, but it didn't seem to make much difference in the grand scheme of things...
Couple things to note:
1) The basic Starmada limit on space units is an effort to retain some amount of consistency and "realism" in construction. It can be ignored so long as the combat rating is computed appropriately (q.v. tech levels). This is what has been done with KLA/RMA, in order to ensure that ships have all the stuff they are supposed to have.
2) In SFB/FC, "hull" boxes are not an accurate reflection of the size of a ship -- all of the boxes on the SSD contribute to overall mass.
3) I did not "fudge" anything.
Initiating a dogfight on CAP is perfectly legal (assuming both options are in use).
Is there something about the flotilla rules you dislike?
Indeed. Before legislating against "doomsday" weapons, I would suggest exploring all possible counters.
Honestly, I think the biggest issue with Starmada over the years has been the players' inclination towards larger and larger ships, which then allow for super-duper-weapons. Instead of messing with weapon design rules, how about setting a limit on hull size (12?) or putting a surcharge on larger hulls?
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1302
With continuing damage, you are sure that each damage will inflict one hull damage. And a potentially illimited number of everything else.
Actually, I wish I could find my notes to tell you why Continuing Damage is x1.7 -- at first blush it would seem it should be x2. However, in the end the change would be minimal (a net increase of 8% in Combat Rating).
BTW, I think that ROF, IMP AND DMG values shouldnt cost the same value for designing weapons. A big ROF, for example, is more interesting against fighters than a big IMP. But that's another story.
They don't cost the same. They are weighted so that ROF is worth more than IMP, which itself is worth more than DMG.
Perhaps we need some sort of "Drake Notation" equivalent for GF?
Nice work, BTW.
In such cases, invalid targets within the area of effect are simply ignored.
The exact cost of auxiliaries would depend upon the overall economic system in your campaign... however, I do like the theory here. It's certainly better than attaching an arbitrary Combat Rating to them.
Another thing about ship design, mainly to understand the basis of design. I can see that F5 and E4 have shorter ranged disruptors. Although in FC all disruptors have the same range, I can understand why it is not so in starmada. But why small kzinti ships dsruptors doesn't have the same reduction of range?
This is not true. All disruptors do not have the same range in FC -- those on the F5/E4 are explicitly limited to range 15.
Based on a thread over at starfleetgames.com, I'm wondering if someone knowledgeable on the subject can give me a rundown of how fighters work in SFB?
I suppose there is an error on the Gorn CC ship sheet, as the plasma S should have the following fire arcs: GIK GHJ instead of GIK GJL.
You are correct.
BTW, I was wondering some things that seem weird. Why 'fast' ships are not necessarily faster than their 'slower' counterparts.. For example, the klingon fast D7 and the D7 have the same engine rating. Same thing for the Gorn. Also, the same gorn BC is describved as almost maneuvrable as a brick, but has better engines than a fed CA, and the same engine rating as a D7 which is fairly maneuvrable.
All ships have engine ratings based on the amount of power available in SFB/FC.
Also, why the fed CL (old design) doesn't have 'armor plating' as it is considered to have some armour?
Again, Starmada stats are based on an analysis of SFB/FC characteristics... The amount of armor in relation to the overall number of damage boxes just doesn't merit use of the Armor Plating trait, IMHO.
Plasma-D was added because I had overlooked it initially (it's not specifically mentioned in the Romulan Border book that I was using as a reference).
I'm confused... what is the issue? That weapons with the same name have different stats, or that two ship classes have identical capabilities?
I'm not sure if you're reading it "wrong" or not ... but eight attack dice in the Fighter Phase seems like a lot to me. 
Also, the potential damage of plasma torpedoes is consistent with that of other weapons in the SFU.
Actually, MadSeason, while that's a perfectly reasonable attempt to cover my ass (whether you meant it to be or not ) the fact is I misspoke. Originally, I wrote probes as "seekers", but was told by ADB that when used as weapons in the SFU they are more like direct-fire weapons, so I changed it. And then I forgot about the change when answering this topic.
So, the answer to the OP is, you may fire all of your probes in the same turn.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.