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 6 of 29)
Pages Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 29 Next
cricket wrote:1) The objectives should not depend upon a player having specific types of ship in his/her fleet (e.g. cargo, transport, etc.) since the intent is to only determine objective AFTER fleets have been selected.
2) I prefer objectives that have a percentage effect on VPs, rather than adding or subtracting a set number of VPs, so there's no need to change/scale the objective based on the size of the battle.
I did mention that I over-complicate everything, right 
I can't suggest anything simple if I am threatened with a gun and have all afternoon to think about it! Thank goodness for people like you though, or people like me would have a real rough go of it :cry:
I look forward to whatever more comes of this.
Cheers,
Erik
cricket wrote:Yes, I agree. However, "breaking" has nothing to do with winning or losing... only with when the game ends. Your fleet might "break" before your opponent, but if you scored more VPs, you win the scenario.
If the breakpoint was to play a role in winning/losing, we'd have to come up with some point-costing implications.
I wasn't necessarily implying that the break-point would change the victory conditions, but rather keep your fleet fighting longer. Theoretically, a fleet could decide to bug out, but achieve victory, but a fleet with higher morale might also stay in the fight longer leading to the possibility of a different outcome. Also, a fleet could have better morale, fight longer/harder, and still lose but inflict greater damage on a foe...a particular benefit if you are playing some kind of campaign where damaging and crippling ships has an effect or value beyond the bounds of a particular scenario.
cricket wrote:Speaking of, one thing I didn't include because it's not complete yet is the idea of defender objectives. Each objective would alter the way in which the defender gains VPs, and subsequently changes his VP modifier.
For example, if a defender has the "breakout" objective, he gains VPs for destroying enemy ships and for exiting his own ships off the attacker's edge. This would factor the VP modifier by 50% -- thus, if Dan had the "breakout" objective in the above example, he will need to have scored 692 VPs (71 more than Kevin!) in order to claim victory (692 x 1.80 x 0.50 = 622).
Other ideas for defender objectives:
* Hit & Run: double the VP value for damaged/crippled ships, but score VPs for destroyed ships normally. (x70%)
* Delaying Action: Beginning on turn 2, the defender can exit one (and only one) ship off his own board edge during each Movement Phase. Every ship exited in this manner awards the defender 50% of its combat rating. The attacker still receives VPs for having damaged or crippled escaping ships. (x80%)
* Others?
I'm glad you are thinking in terms of objectives, to me they really spice things up.
Most of my objective ideas are too complicated for this type of elegant system 
I have yet to write any them down, but a few I have tried out are scenarios based on Auxiliary systems. ie where the defender had to protect cargo ships trying to get to the far side of the board while the enemy tries to destroy them; The defender gets VPs for Cargo SUs that survive, the attacker for Cargo SUs destroyed. Also tried an "Evacuation" scenario where transport ships had to start in planetary orbit in the center of the map, and remove (X) number of Transport. Other defending ships had to be within 6 hexes of the planet and the attackers held the Edge that the transports had to cross to survive. VPs were based on Transport SUs that survived or were destroyed.
Cheers,
Erik
cricket wrote:OldnGrey wrote:My understanding was that the seeker's attack dice are calculated at launch which would include such things as flares.
When the counter is flipped is is considered to have already reached the target but not yet made the attack, which is why ships other then the target use their range to the target to calculate any firing at the seeker.
Yes.
Thanks!
OldnGrey wrote:My understanding was that the seeker's attack dice are calculated at launch which would include such things as flares.
When the counter is flipped is is considered to have already reached the target but not yet made the attack, which is why ships other then the target use their range to the target to calculate any firing at the seeker.
Paul
This jives with my thoughts as well, I just wanted to make sure.
Cheers,
Erik
Cricket,
I was wondering about the interaction between weapons with the Seeker trait and Flares. My belief is that face up Flare markers are only considered at the time that the seeking weapon is "launched", much in the same way that range and arcs are. My argument is that the Flares only disrupt the initial targeting.
However, I have a friend that has made the argument that since the seeking weapon has to "pass" or move through Flare markers that are placed face up on the turn the seeking weapon makes its attack (like modern day aircraft flares/chaff) that they should be counted instead. His primary reasoning is that Attack Dice aren't determined until this point, so this is where Flares should have their effect, which I can somewhat see as making some sense. If this is the case, it would tend to make Flares more effective as they could be deployed somewhat "reactively"
Please resolve our disagreement oh Great and Mighty Final Arbiter of all things Starmadish. 
Cheers,
Erik
cricket wrote:Working on this for another project, realized it might be easily cross-fit to Starmada.
Haven't you been warned about working on things other than Starmada? :evil:
Just kidding. This looks like an interesting "Free Form" scenario generator for pickup games. I personally like defined missions/goals for a scenario, but I can see a place for this in Starmada. The "Bid" process adds an interesting bit of pre-game gamesmenship.
I particularly like the "Break Point" component, which seems like it could even be a stand-alone addition to games even if you don't use this scenario generator. After a couple of quick read throughs it seems like it would be easy enough to modify the final break point number to include fleet morale (the better the morale the less likely to "break"). Could be a way to squeeze in a command modifier somewhere as well.
Overall, it looks like an interesting optional alternative to the standard way of doing business. I'm hoping to get some games in this weekend and I think I'll try this system and let you know how it goes.
Cheers,
Erik
Marauder wrote:Dan,
I think earlier you mentioned something about a compendium for those who already have S:NE and wanted to just by ALL the SFU ships plus the SFU specific rules. Is something like this still planned?
This is actually what I was looking for when I posted the question initially.
Erik
Marauder wrote:Great Topic! Thanks for giving us the opportunity to give you some input cricket.
In Starfleet battles (I'm not so familiar with the newer Federation Commander) the speed ships could attain was a complex relation of how much warp power they had and how much they were willing to dedicate to just movement. Trying to port that over to another game would be painful at best. However the extreme cases should probably be considered (e.g frieghters on the low power end and fast cruisers on the high end).
Perhaps though the more pressing issue is maneuverability. SFB (and I believe FC) ships have turn modes. This is generally related to the class of the ship, but varies from race to race. I think this is actually the most important aspect of movement to capture, given that most warships had similar speed limits.
So here's my two proposals:
1) Base thrust on turn mode
This should be quite straight forward since all the SSD's clearly list the turn mode:
Mode Thrust
F 2
E 3
D 4
C 5
B 6
A 7
AA 8
Ships with lots of spare warp power (e.g. fast cruisers or X-ships) should get some bonus thrust. Ships that have less warp power than they need to go "full speed" (e.g. monitors, frieghters, tugs - but not battleships or dreadnoughts) should get a bit of a penalty on thrust.
This would give a Fed CA a thrust of 4 and a Klingon D7 a thrust of 6 - which I think speak well to their relative turning ability.
Any ship listed as "Agile" should probably get overthrusters. I wouldn't want overthrusters to be a really common thing on ships.
2) Add new Ship Traits for Maneuverability
Definitely a more complicated option as it requires coming up with sensible new traits AND finding an appropriate cost for them. If this could be pulled off then I'd have some much different "thrust" suggestions - probably based on the ratio of warp power vs. warp movement cost - which would actually land most of the fighting ships in about the same area - but with some exceptions (e.g. new Romulan "hawk" series ships have lots more power than the original "eagle" series ships).
-Tim
I like option 1 a lot. There are times when I wish Starmada had a way to handle maneuver versus straight line acceleration, but I have come to the conclusion that it isn't really worth the headaches.
Cheers,
Erik
Hey Dan, just wondering if there was any firm timetable yet as to when the SFU update material will be available. Thanks, Erik
OldnGrey wrote:madpax wrote:...today!
I planned to play tomorrow but alas, my friend couldn't free himself. But I have hope and I plan to use vassal in a near future.
Marc
My vassal changes are sort of getting there.
Added Drones (3 types white and green - for two sides)*
Generic fighters - a few types.*
*Full strength and damaged shown for all faction fighters.
Flares added to Terrain.
Mines updated.
Move type markers (can just show order given) if wanted.
Reload added.
Still need to change/delete AE charts.
[attachment=0]Starmada N Vassal.zip[/attachment]
Suggestions?
Paul
Looks good Paul, just a couple of things...how come planet 2 appears to be Mars, but the rest are just the shaded hexes? Also, I recall that you had done a bunch of counters and markers that were pleasing to the eye for the earlier SAE version...is there a chance that you could add that stuff into the SNE version you have posted? It would be nice to have additional faction art to choose from if nothing else. Either way, I'll be putting this to use! Thanks, Erik
Poliorcetes wrote:Ok, just got the book today and I'm trying to sort out the new system.
It is not clear to me what the arc numbers are doing.
Example I have a FF1 and an AA2 weapon (which seems to represent 1 FF gun and 2 AA arc guns). When I shoot in the FF arc, step one is arc modifier which would seem to be -1. Shooting in the AA arc would give me a -2 modifier.
But from what I understand from the construction rules, AA2 means I have 2 guns in that arc, yet if I shoot in the AA arc its a -2 modifier (and the more negatives means less attacks generally). So I THINK I really should be taking the arc modifiers from all guns that CAN"T shoot, thus shooting at the FF arc target is a -2 (from the AA2 weapons) and the AA arc target has a -1 modifier.
Is this close to being right?
Poliorcetes
You had it right in the first part. The number after is arc designation is not the number of guns, but the arc modifier with the minus sign omitted "for clarity."
So for your example above, the arcs would read FF(minus)1 and AA(minus)2. In the example above the FF battery would have more weapons in it than the AA, therefore it will have a higher base chance to hit on the chart as it only moves -1 right while the other battery would move two places to the right. Does that make sense?
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Erik
Sergeant Crunch wrote:I've always seen them more as scenario-specific equipment rather than another weapon, especially for Klingon Armada. However, I have yet to play a game that would require their use as an actual probe.
I did play a "recon" scenario a while back using the SAE rules. The "attacker" had to successfully launch (re:"Hit" with) Probes at an enemy planet. The attacker got only 1/4 VPs for destroying a defending ship, but 100 VPs (I think) for a successful Probe deployment. We figured the distance to the nearest planetary hex for range, and attacked as if there were no shields or other defenses. We did a similar scenario where shuttles had to get to the planet to land commandos/agents. Come to think of it I should right up these and other scenarios we have come up with and post them up...
Cheers,
Erik
[attachment=2]Franklin.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Bellona.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Pomone.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=2]Niobe.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Diane.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Nutmeg.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=2]Leopard.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Ariel.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Worcester.PNG[/attachment]
Since I can only do 3 Attachments per post, here is the next bunch, starting with the Ship nearest and dearest to Jack's heart.
[attachment=2]Surprise.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Boadicea.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Raisonable.PNG[/attachment]
I needed to take a break from another project I have been working on in my free time (sheesh, a break from a hobby???) so I decided to do something a little different than anything I had done. Since I just finished reading Blue at the Mizzen, I decided to make SNE representations of all of the ships commanded at one time or another by Jack Aubrey. All of these ships use the Solar Wind + Naval movement rules and Directional Defenses: Port & Starboard. Disclaimer: I did very very little research on the ships themselves and absolutely ZERO on the weapons...No comparative ballistics or nuthin', just total spit-balling. These were just run out for pure fun, so please don't yell at me if you think that I have misrepresented the sailing qualities of the Surprise versus the Pomone or the properties of a 32 pound carronade. Hope You Enjoy.
[attachment=2]Sophie.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=1]Polycrest.PNG[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Lively.PNG[/attachment]
evanmiller70 wrote:a question. what tech level did u choose for your ships?
Hi, there is a range of tech levels in use. The bleeding edge designs of the most technologically advanced nations are TL+1 (and there are darn few of those). Current, modern warship designs are TL 0, while old types are TL-1. Really obsolete warships even range as low as TL-2 (there are very few of those as well). When I get around to the civvies (already have the basic designs on paper) those tech levels will vary as well with current civilian tech levels at -1 while old/obsolete ships are TL-2. There are a few advanced civilian types that can be TL 0 or TL +1, but the bulk will be at the old "tried-and-true" tech levels.
evanmiller70 wrote:also i rielly liked the whole concept.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Cheers,
Erik
BeowulfJB wrote:This sounds like a great idea.
Thanks. And now for the part where somebody else posts and explains why it's a dumb idea and can't work! 
Erik
murtalianconfederacy wrote:Thanks for these Erik...:)
My pleasure! :geek:
Erik
Here is the last of the national fleets (I think). I'm going to do some bases and then generic civilian vessels, but I think I'll take a little break to do some other stuff first.
Cheers,
Erik
Here's another batch...Erik
Well because Murtalianconfederacy is still interested, here are some more ships!
Oh, if anyone else cares, the Missile Batteries in use on the ships throughout are all expendable, but for some unknown reason, the trait doesn't show up in the statistics that transferred to the cards. I assure you it does everywhere else, otherwise the designs would not work at all. I noticed this last night while working on the last batch of fleets and I'm not going to go back and try to correct all the cards.
Cheers,
Erik
So I have never been really thrilled with Probes since their introduction. As they are now, they are just another expendable weapon. Reading the description in the rulebook it states (and I paraphrase) that probes are used for various purposes including scouting etc… That got me thinking, what if they had a Scout related function as well as or even instead of their attack function. My thought was something like this: launch however many probes you want/have at a target within 12 hexes exactly as you would a seeking weapon (placing a probe marker on the table). The probes are then resolved as a seeking weapon before other weapons fire from the launching vessel, “hitting” on a 5 or 6. If a probe “hits” a target, place the probe marker on the target ship and it does no damage but that target's ECM is reduced by 1 for all other attacks against it by the ship that launched the probes. ECM may only be reduced by 1 no matter how many probes hit. Think of it as something like a targeting drone. After the probe “attacks” are resolved they are removed from the game. Any thoughts?
Cheers, Erik
PS My next project is a setting with no shields, just armor and ECM, so I might try this as a reason for probes to exist.
toddwag wrote:Hello,
Does any know whether or not the printed copies have been sent out yet?
Thanks,
Todd
Check out Cricket's most recent post here: http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3633&start=50
Cheers,
Erik
Posts found: 126 to 150 of 705
Pages Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 29 Next