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 madpax
I can tell you that on Shipyard Nove, the Ship B158 value (ORAT) is now x2 instead of x5, and the B174 (DRAT) is now /5 instead of /10.
For example, a battlecruiser cost is 256. I replaced hal its heavy weapons by 8 figthers, and the cost of the BCV is now 299.
Marc
I agree with you, fighters are not worth the cost, especially compared to SAE. That's why I cheated and reduced the cost of carriers to give them an acceptable price. Either my opponent uses the same ships as I do, either I don't use carriers, but it would be a good thing to see the carrier price reduced drastically. The end result should be that carrier shouldn't cost a lot more than the same ship (same hull, speed, defenses) which exchanged part of its weaponry into fighters.
Marc
I suppose fighters exist in some universes mainly because they (the universes) center on personnal characters (like Star Wars) and it's better to have them fight on fighters, like knights on horses, instead from ships.
Personally, I don't know if fighters are truly a potent weapon in space. I don't think so, because they move in the same medium as ships, are vulnerable because even if small and maneuvrable, they aren't enough maneuvrable in order to avoid weapons the same way planes can do on Earth.
But they add an additionnal dimension to the game and just that entices me to use them.
Now, if you feel some ships have wasted SU devoted to anti-fighter weapons, just feel free to create your own ships.
Marc
So do I.
marc
Yes, thanks, that's what I supposed.
Marc
Suppose a ship is firing two different batteries (ie, different weapons) at a single target. The first one damages the target and you could roll damages to defensive systems like ECM, shields or others.
As those damages could influence the effect of the next battery, should we roll for them now, or should we wait for the fore of the second battery?
Marc
A new ship equipment should be in order: Anti-Spam attacks!!!!
Marc
The ESG is a super shield that is able to stop drone as if they hit a wall or damage other ships, including fighters.
ESG could be simulated with a range 3 weapon, possibly with overload (as if you put a lot of energy on), area, scatter, and maybe siomething else.
Marc
I feel the problem is not with the relatively short range (15 is long enough, I too like to have weapons under 15 hexes) but about the slow speed of such a ship. Suppose you have two opposing fleet of such slow ships. You will have to wait some turns to have both fleet within shooting range, with almost no maneuvering (how can you maneuver with speed 2), then they will have many turns of shooting before being very close to each other (say, the range between them between less than their speed). I suppose a lot of ships will be dead before that.
Personnally, I prefer medium to short range for weapons (not having to write move orders 'blindly' but knowing where the enemy will be before moving allow you to use any range for weapons) and medium to fast speeds (4 is the absolute minimum).
Marc
Some things could be included in that future annex, if there will be one. The scenario generator presented here, some new traits (weapons, ships, whatever) critical hits...
Marc
Andromedan wrote:Now, why Phaser-3s would get it (and why they have Anti-Fighter in SAE) would be because of the purpose of the Phaser-3s which is purely defensive.
Yes.
More to the point, it increases the defensive purpose of Ph-3. In FC, Ph-3 are defensive weapons not because they are better against fighters and drones than other phasers. In fact, they are less good than other phasers (not on a energy basis, though). A ph-3 may miss a drone at range 1 where a Ph-1. But a Ph-3 costs half the Ph-1 power and whatever, you usually use Ph-3 at very close range.
But, with opportunity, many Ph-3, or better, some Ph-G, may inflict heavy damage on enemy ships at point blank range. I remember a game of SFB where a Fed DD with 4 Ph-G (it was special rules from our scenario) destroyed a D6 at range 1, firing two turns in a row...
Marc
FWIW, I've tweaked the online ship drydock so that it shows the number of weapons in each battery.
Unfortunately, I can't use the drydock where I'm creating the ships and I had problems when using it. The shipyard nova is just what I needed.
Marc
If a target is in SR arc (i.e. includes both weapon arc), do I need to fire the Phaser-1 bank twice with a -2 modifier?
You can do that or you can use the rule p26, although sometimes, both don't give you the same result (but if different, it's usually +/- one AD).
Marc
Movement is easy. More to the point, how do you intend to take care of combat as those two editions have drastically different combat systems. In fact, AFAIK, it's impossible to use one against ship profiles of the other...
Marc
The only problem I have with designing SNE ships is when they are done and I want to come back to them for one reason or another. Although the weapon BAS is known as well as their traits, I usually fail to remember how many weapons I used for each fire arcs. With some training, I feel I could foun that, but at first, it was not easy.
Currently, I'm continuing designing ships for my own SFU/STU and that's pretty quick in the end.
Marc
Tender, Mothership, Hollow Asteroidal Base or Deathstar are all essentially the same except that the name implies a size.
Not necessarily. A ship housing many lttle ships would need at least as much SU than as the total of smaller ships.
A tender, in SFU, IIRC, is 'tracting' pseudo-fighters, so in essence doesn't need SU to house them as essentially, that's not what it does.
But I don't understand the 40% multipler. Why did you introduce it?
marc
For tenders, it's ok. But I was currently thinking about baby ships carried inside motherships. I designed the Andromedan Dominator, a truly big beast. Whereas dreadnought were on the side of 18 hull size, the Dominator must be roughly about 40 hull size to accomodate some 9 FF or 6 DD sized ships.
Marc
How should motherships, ie those ships carrying 'baby' ships, be modelized?
Currently, i would say that you have to let some empty SU in the mother ship in order to accomodate those baby ships.
Any other ideas?
Marc
Escort is an expensive trait. It seems the ideal escort should be weapon-less and full of defenses. A flying bunker...
Marc
madpax wrote:If all ships are slow, they will have a lot of time to suffer. I like when my battles end with a lot of swirling maneuvers, dogfights, etc.
If the fleet just move toward each mover in a more or less straight way and the game end before real maneuvers, games are not really interesting. Of course, I suppose terrain is minimal.Marc
Okay, good point. What do you think of the thrust ratings I posted above? The "average" value for heavy cruisers (kind of the mainstay of the SFU) is 6. I think that's decently fast don't you? The lowest I have for a fighting ship is 3 for the Fed/Gorn Battleships (which aren't even in Klingon/Romulan Armada) and the fastest is 10 (Orion Light Raider).
-Tim
For my own SFU/STU rendition (a mix of both), ships will be a bit faster. DN will usually move at 6, and the fastest one, pseudo-fighters or gunboats will move at 10. Gorns will be slower (but will have armour) and Hydrans will be faster, at least those with fighters as they don't need as much power than other ships to move.
The difference between Fed and Klingons will not be on pure speed, but Klingons will have overthrusters.
Marc
@Madpax - I agree with you, although I think the issue lies more with balancing firepower and defenses than with thrust - and to be honest I think the weapons are probably already "locked in" so it would be more a matter of just increasing the relative defenses and/or hull points of ships to compensate.
-Tim
If all ships are slow, they will have a lot of time to suffer. I like when my battles end with a lot of swirling maneuvers, dogfights, etc.
If the fleet just move toward each mover in a more or less straight way and the game end before real maneuvers, games are not really interesting. Of course, I suppose terrain is minimal.
Marc
Based on my (relatively) poor experience on Starmada, especially on SFU, slow ships tend to usually have a lot of firepower. Combined with poor defenses when using SAE facets, ships tended to die fairly quickly. Games were thus not really enjoyable.
I don't feel the thrust value should be viewed alone. I feel an interesting mix, for play purposes, should be ships with enough speed, not a lot of firepower, and adequate defense. I know it's not easy to do that, but it could ensure interesting games, where battle are not resolved when ships enter the medium range of most weapons. The SAE Phasers were the example of what shouldn't have been done, as a ship was easily shredded by the phaser fire of an enemy ship of the same size at medium range. And I don't event talk about torpedoes. When comparing battles in SFB, phasers weren't that powerful, and you usualy wait until you see the white of their eyes even when firing phaser 1.
Marc
I feel my 'problems' with fighters are of two kinds. First,, for the same price, I found them undergunned when compared to SAE. They no more shoot before ships, suffer from ECM and stealth (at least, in SAE, they weren't affected by countermeasures and stealth)...
Second, the price of carrier is very important. I can add some advantages (for example, they negate one point of ECM and are not affected by stealth) but it would make CV price still too important. And I'm really not sure they would be cost-effective. If I could reduce the price of carrier for my own use, that would be fine.
Marc
I know I'm ranting, but if fighters are still expensive as they are now, they are not worth the cost. Just look at the price of carriers...
Sadly.
Marc
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by madpax
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.