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 KDLadage
I have done a couple of attempts at using STARMADA as a core for creating a Mecha-combat engine. The problem is that each time it feels *too much* like STARMADA-converted-to-Mecha-Combat.
I have a couple of ideas on how to make it feel unique and still use the wonderfully solid core that Starmada has to offer. I will keep you all posted if anything develops.
Thanks for the testing!
Yes, you are correct -- my shipyard sheet was calculating this incorrectly. I found the prooblem (it was in the template sheet) where it was not putting in the oRAT and dRAT modifiers for multiple pieces of the same equipment (on the same line). This has been addressed and corrected.
Version 1.1 is now available for download.
The one I am working on is a stand-alone program (written in VB and in JAVA) to that it can be very fast in a native Windows environment (VB) and functional in other environments (JAVA) -- while having the ability to export files so that you can share them with other people using the program.
I am working on it...
It might be possible to decouple size from durability.... but it would require that the system have an effect based upon the bulk of the ship. I have often thought Signature was a place where it might be possible... but Dan dropepd that idea.
Yes I can. I have the Shipyard v1 completed -- if you look on the TABLES tab, you will see that it will be very easy to customize the whole sheet for any given race of the B5W universe.
So who is in charge of this project (I really think you need a leader)? Once we have a point of contact for setting direction, I will work with them to set up the baseline spreadsheets for the races -- that can then be disciminated to those that are going to handle the conversions of the ships based ont he rules that are established by the group.
For example, in the Master Weapon Data, the previous organizer had some weapons with a 1d2 or 1d3 ROF, PEN, or DMG values -- which seemed odd given the fact that the game already has the Variable ROF, Variable PEN, and Variable DMG options.
Uploaded the v1.0 of the Shipyards tool. I corrected the calculations for expendable weapons, stopped the sheet from auto-adding basic flights to fill in for flights not used by other types of fighter (due to a problem in calculating hangar-bay space for small and large flights), and made some minor cosmetic changes.
Overall, I am quite pleased with the final product.
Hi Tyrel!
So I like it. It has a little more detail than Starfire (which is part of the reason I never could force myself to play that game, mainly because of its linear damage resolution system), but is less detailed than Babylon 5 Wars. To me that is a pretty good median.
-Tyrel
I agree with you about Starfire. I never could get into that game. Ever. I had friends that played it and tried to get me into it -- but it was not for me.
As for Babylon 5 Wars... I really like the game. But it has so many faults that it is a good game despite the rules, not because of them. My opinions on it (and the recent Mongoose game) are well known and documented on the net, so I will not get into any details on that here.
But I did want to state that I would disagree with you in one respect: Babylon 5 Wars is not really all that much more detailed than Starmada. It is vastly more complicated, but that complexity (as well as the relative number of hits the ships can take) can often give rise to the illusion that additional detail is present.
With the exception of the fact that their are a few tactical options (shifting power from one set of systems to another; multiple turn weapon readying, etc.) the game has few real details that add to the game. And those that it does have effect the game in such minor ways, or so infrequently, that one can become hard-pressed to say that those details were worth the effort.
If you want detail (and complexity, for that matter): Star Fleet Battles.
Again, I am not saying that Babylong 5 Wars is a bad game. I have spent far too much on that game, and still play it far too often to feel that way. I actually like the game *a lot*.
I am not saying that Babylon 5 Wars does not have any more detail that Starmada -- I am saying it is not as much as many believe, due to the illusion created by overly complex rules and number-inflation in the various values in the game.
While I'll be the first to agree that Starmada has an excellent ship construction system, your argument that it's superior to Full Thrust would be a lot more effective if you weren't talking about A, B, and C batteries, which pretty much went out of style with the release of the first FT Fleet Book half a decade ago. Not that I'm arguing your contention that FT's design system is more limiting in many ways than Starmada's...it's just that it makes you sound like someone who looked at the (badly outdated and overdue to be replaced) core FT rules way back when and haven't followed it since.
Actually, this is pretty much the case. I played with the primary book (Full Thrust), and the secondary book (More Full Thrust) "way back when." I liked the game (and I still like it). But it is not what I was looking for, and so I moved on. If they have improved upon this aspect of FT, then I may have to look at it again -- but to be honest, it would have to have a *lot* of improvements before I would even put it in the same class as Starmada. No offense -- as I said, I like the game.
But I like a hamburgers, too -- but that will never mean that it is in the same class as a good Porterhouse Steak.
I like everything about the sheet right now -- except the fact that I need to have fighter flights recognize "large" and "small" flights as taking up more or less room in the hangar-bays...
Hi! And welcome to the world of MJ12 Games! My name is David. Although I do not work for MJ12 or represent them in any way, I am a huge fan of Daniel Kast's work (he is the guy that wrote Starmada). So, let's see if we can answer your questions about Starmada.
You Wrote: So I read the sample rules. The game seems okay. Yes, that was pretty much my reaction when I first read the sample rules from the old Starmada (pre Starmada X). Starmada is a game with some beautiful subtlety built into it -- in other words, you really have to play a few games to truly appreciate the amazine engine that Dan has created here. Give it shot -- I think you will see the wonder that I saw after only a few short games.
You wrote: How complex is the construction system? How complext is it? Not very complex at all. But the more important question is this one: How robust is the construction system? And the answer to that one is: Very, very robust. Virtually anything you can think of can be simulated with the rules as presented. Using some very simple guidelines (and the resources on these pages -- namely the people who frequent these pages) you can easilly find yourself able to simulate any sort of universe you want to.
You wrote: The rules kind of remind me of Full Thrust. Although the simplicity of the rules can be very reminicent of Full Thrust, the depth of the rules far surpasses those of Full Thrust. In other words, Starmada is (as the back cover text explains) a simple but not simplistic game. Full Thrust is, in my opinion, a simple and simplistic game.
Let me explain:
For the most part, Full Thrust has three types of weapons. "A" beam batteries (which are all alike); "B" beam batteries (which are all alike); and "C" beam batteries (which are all alike). Granted, there are some other things available, but they all require their own special rules to deal with. This approach limits the ability to have new weapon types as the rules for each must be writen individually.
[size=75]It was pointed out below that this is not the way FT works these days; I appologize if I caused any confusion. -- KDL[/size]
Starmada, on the other hand, offers you a deep, and (nearly) comprehensive weapon design system allowing any weapon to accurately pointed out against any other weapon. This system allows you to set the weapon's range, accuracy, rate of fire, shield penetration, damage, and special characteristics -- such as having inverted range modifiers, or perhaps ignoring shields, or even dealing damage turn after turn, after turn -- all without becoming overwhelmingly complex! The system is consitant in its application, so that when you see the various values, it quickly becomes intuitive as to how this all works together. In the end, you have the ability to create weapons that all use the same systems of rules, but all feel very, very different from one another.
The same is also true with the rest of ship design. You can make the ship as large as you like; you can set the engine speed, and shield rating -- and you have a wide array of special equipment and ship upgrades (from Anti-Fighter Batteries to Stealth Generators) to make your ship feel different from all other ships on the playing field.
You wrote: How many figures are in an average game? How does the game compare to ther starship games? An average game of Starmada is hard to pin down. I know that in my games, I have had about a 6-12 ships on each side (not including fighter flights). A couple of friends of mine and I are about to test out some ships from my ACE fleet (part of a project I am working on), and the NEST carrier for that fleet carries some 50 flights of fighters... should be fun!
How does Starmada compare? Quite simply, Starmada is, by far, the best starship combat game on the market. It beats out any starship game I have ever played (see below); and I find it hard to believe that anything will ever top it. It is, and I do not want to sound like a broken record here, an amazing engine.
[size=59]Starship Combat Games I have played include: Aerotech, Babylon 5 Wars, Battle Rider, Fleet Action, Fleet Action 2, Full Thrust, Star Cruiser, Star Fleet Battles, Starfire, Star Trek Tactical Starship Combat Simulator... and whole slew of them I have forgotten the names to, as they were so badly written...[/size]
OK... I like the way the sheet is now (with some very, very minor asthetic changes, such as making the font usage more consistant, that sort of thing).
Assuming I have nobody telling me that their is some major error in the sheet by Nov 4; I will make some tweeks and release the "official" v1.0 on Saturday, Nov 5.
At that time, Dan can (if he would like) put it up for downloads on the main website for MJ12, and he will become the official co-owner of the tool (think of it as an early merry christmas). He can make any changes to it he wishes at that point.
Thanks guys!
(PS: Dan, would you like me to make a non-fleet version of this to replace the current SXCA so that both tools use a common interface?)
OK guys... I have updated the sheet again -- this one is very, very minor but something that would bug people I am sure. I added a bit of space for the names of the pieces of equipment in the print form, and made those cells able to wrap text, so that the equipment names are not lost in the shuffle.
This is officially release 0.1b -- and it can be found at the same location as the previous link (for those on the YAHOO group) -- I am finally figuring out the whole "upload an updated version" thing in the message boards.
Once again, I am sorry that this thing is not more stable right now -- but this is a beta-release... a playtest release if you will ...so be patient with me!
From: Faustus21
To: KDLadage
Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:37 am
Subject: Shipyard
Hi,I noticed the shipyard spreadsheet you had built and I have started playing around with it, I don't have a huge amount of experince with Starmarda yet and I was wondering on the table workpage where the ship equipment table is what do the various coloums mean?
Thanks
Paul T.
No problem! And for anyone else that does not know... here we go:
[*] TECH? this indicates to the spreadsheet that it should ("X") or should not ("") apply the tech level multiplier for the nation's equipment tech.
[*] oCR and Base: These two colums work much like the SU COST and BASE columns. The oCR is the multipler and the BASE is the code for the value to multiply by to determine the adjutment tot he ships Offensive Combat Rating. The various formula are:
[*] dCR(x) and dCR(+): These are the Defensive Combat Rating (multiplicative) and Defensive Combat rating (additive) repectively. In other words, the first of these two colums is for values that are multiplied by the base dCR, the others are then added after the multiplying is done.
[*] CRIT?: this is the number of "Q" (equipment) hits that are used to calculate the damage track for each piece of that equipment. Anything that has a value in this column also gets a damage box on the record sheet.
Hope this helps.
I have posted an update (again; sorry about that) -- 0.1a -- because two minor errors managed to crop in while I was formatting things for the 0.1.0 release.
The first is the fact that the OCR was only calculating part of the weapons (not sure how that one happened; most likely it was while I was moving things to make room for the new print-segment.
The other is the fact that the Equipment tab was counting HYPERDRIVE as a piece of equipment effected by the Tech Level... again, not sure how (or why!) that would have changed -- but it must have been me! I am assuming it was while I was verifying the data on that page, and marked all of them as affected, then removed the ones from the list dan posted -- not thinking about the fact that I treat Hyperdrives in this sheet a little differently from the way he does in his...
Sorry for the inconvenience. The file has been updated.
For those of you on the YAHOO group, the latest version is located here:
http://mj12games.com/forum/download.php?id=62
The updates in this release include:
Attached to the first posting of this thread is the Shipyard 0.1.0 release. This one handles two thinsg that previous editions did not:
In order to pull of this little bit of magic, I had to use macros -- i know, I can hear the grumbling from here, and I can feel your pain, but this was the only way to get the bahviors of the sheets to be correct. All the macros do is format certain fields to ensure that the data entry is correct.
For example: If you select "KEB" as your defense option on the NATION tab, then the KEB field for weapon design is available, and then when you open the TEMPLATE tab (or a copied version of that tab storing a ship design), the macro will check the value of the NATION tab's defense against the value being used on the sheet; if these do not match, then the area where you enter the defense (shield, screen, KEB) data is updated to the format for that defense (and so is the print-area). The macros involved are small and harmless, so they should not prove to be problematic.
Please ... more feedback!
OK... I will leave them unrounded. It seems "more natureal" that way to me for some reason.
I have a version on my hard-drive now (0.0.8a) that corrects the equipment table so that all of the "official" equipment that does not get affected by the Q Tech Level is reflected as such (I also improved the printout section of the ship design form). I am not going to post it just yet, however -- as this is very, very minor and I am looking for some more feedback on the sheet...
...so tear it appart guys! Tell me where it needs improvement!
16 downloads (from the message boards) in one night -- of the *latest* version... I am happy!
http://mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=287&highlight=
This is the thread where I asked about it some time ago... and I was given an answer. The list indicates that Security Teams and Marines would be affected; but Troops would not -- which is something that makes no sense to me.
So... I can correct the Tables tab of the Shipyard sheet to reflect this... but I am not sure that I will use that rule in my games.
Where do I find this?
I would like to see about giving the Shipyards file the ability to handle this sort of thing (meaning the split shield ratings, etc.)
On a related note, I'd love to see all those pieces of special equipment split into two categories, say "Equipment" and "Upgrades", with "Equipment" being all the stuff that counts toward (and is lost from) Q hits, and "Upgrades" being everything else (for ex, Armor Plating). Making a formal division would save a lot of confusion.
Rich
Excellent Idea!
The most recent version ( 0.0.8 ) is located here (for those on the yahoo group):
http://mj12games.com/forum/download.php?id=61
As the guy that did the Centauri conversion for that project, I would love to see it completed.
On a side note, I am working on a fleet-design system (see the Starmada: X Shipyard thread for more details). Once completed (meaning, once all the biugs are worked out), I am more than willing to customize racial spreadsheets for the B5Wars races to make the design conversion much, much easier for everyone.
First, let me say that I am very, very sorry that this thing is still getting edited as much as it is... but I discovered that the base Defensive Combat Rating was adding the Shield Modifier, not multiplying by it. I have corrected this. Version 0.0.8 is available in the first post of this thread.
Also...
A question for you Dan: the Engine and Shield factors that are used in the book... these are rounded off to the nearest whole number. It appears that the SXCA is doing this also. I am not doing this in the spreadsheet as it stands... so the final numbers can be off by a few SU in either direction from SXCA. Is the rounding off an "official" rule, or was this simply something done to make things easier when doing it on paper?
I can correct it with little effort, really.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by KDLadage
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.