1) I'm not sure what you mean, "How do seekers and asteroids work in Klingon Armada?" The same as in "regular" Starmada, I suppose...

2) Each probe fired counts as a separate "flight". (See below.)

3) A group of 4 drones is one flight. The number of flights you may launch in a single turn is limited by hull size.

So... took a look at the McAfee SiteAdvisor report for mj12games.com:

"McAfee TrustedSource web reputation analysis found potential security risks with this site. Use with extreme caution."

What the hell is "web reputation analysis"?

The rest of the report shows nothing but "green" -- so there is nothing specific I can identify that makes our site "dangerous"... The worst part is, as the site owner, all I can do is "leave a comment"; there's no link to contact McAfee and ask them for a detailed analysis.

This makes no sense: if there is something unsafe about my web site, I would be the first to want to fix it... Grr...  :evil:

http://mj12games.com/starmada/ssca.html

I would argue that the Starmada movement system IS a true vector system, minus the fiddly bits.

However, if you wanted to put the fiddly bits back in, I don't think it would have a detrimental effect on the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QI

Unfortunately, Romulan Armada is technically not an MJ12 product -- it is an ADB product, and ADB has to date been slow to embrace digital publishing.

When in London last fall, I did see Klingon Armada on the shelves of Orc's Nest on Earlham Street, so at least someone is importing the Starmada/Star Fleet stuff.

Glad you like it!

Correct on all counts, although remember the option for anti-drone fire.

The extra ship cards (and other stuff) can be downloaded here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/starmada.shtml

The number of drone racks is equivalent to the number of racks in Federation Commander... so if the Kzinti have fewer drones than they "should", the problem is with FC.

Yup. The major rules addition is for plasma torpedoes, which gave me quite a bit of grief. I think I've hit upon a solution that works pretty well...

Well, in theory, this is accounted for by using the number of firing arcs each gun can cover in the point cost formula.

No, the formula does not explicitly account for this -- but that's because all ships lose their guns at the same rate, proportionally speaking.

For example, Iron Duke has 24 hull points and 10 guns in its main battery, for a loss factor of 30%. When Iron Duke suffers 50% damage, in theory it will have lost 3.6 guns, or 36% of the total.

If you reduce the number of guns to 7, for example, the loss factor is reduced to 20%. When Iron Duke suffers 50% damage, in theory it will have lost 2.8 guns, or 40%.

Likewise, If you increase the number of guns to 15, the loss factor is increased to 40%. When Iron Duke suffers 50% damage, in theory it will have lost 4.8 guns, or 32%.

There's some variation due to rounding, but in general the rate at which guns are lost should remain constant.

Well, a couple thoughts come to mind:

1) The point value should reflect a ship's effectiveness in the game, not in reality. Obviously, if the simulation is accurate, the two should be closely correlated, but it's an important distinction to keep in mind.

2) The ROF modifier is based on the fact that a +0 scores a hit 30% of the time at medium range, assuming no modifiers (8 or better on a d10). A +1 ROF scores hits 40% of the time, and is therefore 33% more effective than +0; the point cost reflects this (factor of 4 versus a factor of 3).

3) The 5.9" gun is probably better than the 4.1" on a one-for-one basis, but note you're losing 42% of your damage potential in the conversion (12 guns down to 7).

IMHO, if anything, it's possible that the Penetration values are UNDER-valued, rather than ROF being over-valued.