Would be cool to see a version with a plasma rifle and an Assault Trooper helmet. :-)

I e-mailed Iron Mammoth a few days ago to ask about progress, but no response so far.  I assume the figs are still being master cast.

-Demian

Sorry about the delay in response, I've been awash in things to do.

I have been considering dropping ad hoc as a SR consideration altogether, and just having a standard number of units that aren't standard being allowed per game (1 per 1000 PV?).  The reasoning being that, given troop quality restrictions, ad hoc units can't be all *that* disparate.  Plus, unit splitting and joining are (as mentioned) very rare, and it is maybe a bit harsh to make the command card restriction.

This would allow for much more flexibility with standard units.  To answer the statistical question: as long as units follow the primary and secondary firing restrictions, there isn't really an easy way to "cheese out" this rule, assuming forces are large (>500 PV) and varied.

Any way, thoughts are appreciated.

Now that's cool!  I've been eying those Suggy guys for a while now.  I wonder if there wuld be trademark/copyright issues if we posted these on the MJ12 website?

I'm not familiar with how UWZ removes the to-hit procedure.  Could you summarize it for me?

size 6 anime mecha with a killer HTH rating?

Hey Tim,

Thanks for the thoughtful input!  My guess is your opinions might change after you see suppression fire in practice (it's a bit complicated as it is, so I don't want to make it more so).

These ideas are great!  I'm thinking of incorporating them.  One thing I've learned after trying out suppression fire myself a bunch of times is that it's rarely better than covering fire from an "enemy dead per turn" standpoint.  I'm therefore actually thinking of making two types, based on your suggestion:

1)speculative fire - same as written, only no placement restrictions (other than obvious ones, e.g. not past a visible enemy unit, etc.)

2)unit suppression - must target a specific member of an enemy unit and template must contact that member.  +1 to damage rolls.

My guess is that this will get a bit too fiddly in practice, but am willing to consider it if other folks think it's a good idea...

I'm gonna let this one mull around in the back of my head for awhile.  I think it has some definite advantages, but from the perspective of most players, I think that the opportunity to split unit fire into suppression plus covering might be a better choice in almost all situations. 

Again, thanks for your input.  I will most definitely take your points into consideration when I tackle the new release.

-Demian

Flakmagnet,

Thanks for your well-reasoned and experience-based questions!

To preface them, first I'll let you know abut a few things with which I struggled when writing the suppression rules:

1. Balancing reality vs. playability; if I make them too powerful, players will tend to be overly static in basic (non-scenario) games.  If  don't make them powerful enough, players will start to forget a bit about position and maneuever...

2. Given the high variety of weapons in most squads, it is difficult to come up with a good way to "combine" them without making players suffer through too much in-game math.  I chose the splitting of primary and support weapons for two reasons:
    a. there is typically less variability within these classes than beween    them
    b. covering fire (what's done by the "other" weapon type) still provides some ability to prevent enemy movement through a given area, and with a template already laid down, the morale benefits are already in place.

Onto your points:

I was in fact concerned with weirdness that could come about due to the fact that layers tend to "know" the position of enemy squads and could therefore have a given unit shoot at an area that predicts enemy movement in a fashion that would be highly unikely if the enemy weren't in line-of-sight or otherwise tracked.  I do think you're right, however, in that a few simple rules might suffice:  how about requiring templates to be within a certain number of inches of a sighted enemy squad?  That way players can still help deny enemy movement, but must respect the fact that the suppressing units need a "bead" before they can do this.

As mentioned above, this is difficult to do quickly (i.e. on a unit level, not an individual level) and without a lot of math.  I'm quite open to any suggestions you might have, however.

At present, there is no way to build an AOE weapon with a FR of greater than one.  I understand that such weapons exist, but in the context of the relatively simple move and fire orders system, I felt that they were too complicated to model realistically.  I instead chose to make AOE templates force morale tests, meaning that they can still "suppress" figures within them, even if tey have little chance of hurting them.  Therefore, firing an AOE round at the same target area again and again could keep much of a unit shaken.

I also allow for cone weapons (essentially AOE weapons with a limited range and no indrect fire or scatter) to suppress areas, to represent flamethrowers being swept back and forth, etc.

Thanks for the constructive input and let me know if you have any ideas about modifying things as they stand now.  I am at a point where a slight overhaul of the rules fits the next stage of potential releases for Defiance.

-Demian

Hmm, not sure why the post was doubled. [shrug]

I don't think that any current Starmada rules need be "trimmed back" to fit the Defiance universe, which also includes more standard cloaking devices and such.

The issue was more one of "feel".  I wanted Defiance to be a game of standard units fighting standard units.  I have, however, backed off a bit from this perspective, since it is a science *fiction* game and all. :-)

Yeah, the scale of Starmada makes phasing through objects a rare phenomenon; probably only worth modeling in a fighter vs. fighter game.

I was thinking maybe -2 to hit and be hit?  That would be a bit more pronounced.  The idea would be that there would be no counter to this, unlike other ways of imposing penalties on enemy fire.