1,526 Reply by mj12games

(24 replies, posted in Starmada)

Enpeze wrote:

Last week I played a Axis & Allies Naval Miniatures game which is similar in some aspects to Starmada (at least you have single ships and fighter squadrons). It was simple, fun and easy to play. We could learn the rules in 20-30 minutes and we used all of them and not just the basic rules. One game lasted 1,5h and we played 3 of them in a row. This I call a good gaming evening. I doubt that I would have enjoyed the evening as much if the game had more complex rules.

It really sounds like you're looking for a different type of game than Starmada, rather than a simpler version of the existing game -- which, as others have pointed out, is exactly what the "essential" Starmada rules provide.

For what it's worth, I've long wondered what would happen if I went back to an earlier (simpler?) version of Starmada (version 2, perhaps) and redeveloped it along the lines of a game like A&A Naval or the tactical combat system in the Avalanche Press games... maybe one day I'll actually do that.

Go to forum: Starmada

1,527 Reply by mj12games

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Erik M wrote:

And it's a bit of a turn off to dish out for an edition as new and just then realise it's obsolete...

I'm sorry, but I'm confused... what's obsolete?

Go to forum: Starmada

1,528 Reply by mj12games

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

I never posted the conversion rules as a free download, for two reasons:

1) I wanted to encourage people to buy the rules. smile

2) The conversion isn't all that useful without the rest of the book.

Go to forum: Starmada

1,529 Reply by mj12games

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Yup. Pages 69-74 of the Admiralty Core Rulebook.

Go to forum: Starmada

1,530 Reply by mj12games

(24 replies, posted in Starmada)

Okay, so let me ask you: where's the fat? What needs to be trimmed?

(I'm not being defensive -- I'd like to know.)

Go to forum: Starmada

1,531 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

I guess it strikes me as odd that fleets can't control systems.

Why?

Think of SDFs (or armies, or corps, or whatever) as providing the necessary infrastructure to actually exploit a system's resources. Fleets can "control" in the sense that they can fight off potential rivals, but you still need the ground-pounders.

Maybe it's not worth distinguishing hyper-capable and non-hyper-capable fleets (at least not in the basic rules). Instead, allow each fleet to carry one army. On the planet's surface, armies fight each other the way fleets fight in space, except that:

I would REALLY prefer to avoid separate "space battle" and "planet battle" steps.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,532 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

What power do SDFs have that allows them to control systems where fleets cannot? Is it that they contain surface armies? If so, does it make more sense to separate the armies from the ships, rather than armies-and-control-oriented-ships from non-control-oriented-ships?

I envision SDFs as planetary forces as well as short-ranged space forces. I'm not sure I understand your choices: what are "non-control-oriented-ships"?

...but you have to do that every turn. This slows things down. Are there better ways to prevent turtling?

If there are, I'm listening.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,533 Reply by mj12games

(2 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

I refer here to Jesse Schell's excellent book "The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses". The "lenses" are different ways of looking at and thinking about a game design.

Wow. That's WAY more thought than I have ever put into game design... smile

I enjoy the block game mechanism used in games like Wizard Kings. It gives you high tactile and visual quality, but is much cheaper to produce than miniatures. Also, AFAIK, nobody has ever done a sci fi block game. I'm just sayin'. The only drawback is that it doesn't work very well with more than two players, but maybe if the players were in two teams...

You really should stop referencing games I've never played... smile

Why is more than two players difficult?

In terms of story and experience, keeping track of individual ships might be better than fleets. I won't be as attached to a fleet as I will to a battlecruiser. If it can have a name (e.g., "HMS Vicarious"), so much the better -- it almost becomes a character in the story of the game. What if ships gained some kind of crew experience bonuses for surviving battles? That would make hunting down the Devastator at long last much more satisfying.

Three reasons I went with 'fleets':

1) Maintenance costs are easier to compute.

2) It avoids too much specificity -- i.e. a 'fleet' can represent an indeterminate concentration of force, whereas individual ships are just that: individual ships.

3) Do you really feel the need to track each individual destroyer? I think it better to design the game around generic units, with the option to denote important ships individually...

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,534 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

I would argue for giving them all the same number of battle dice and just changing the prices. One parameter is easier to balance than two. When resolving battle, counting is always faster and easier than adding up a bunch of numbers, even small ones.

I perceive the logic in this.

If these units are all just abstract agglomerations of Starmada ships, it's easy to say that each one is of the same fighting strength. If the strategic value of their abilities can be balanced, making them all the same cost has an appeal, too.

Well, the strategic values/limitations are as follows:

1) SDFs are needed to "control" a system, but cannot move on their own.

2) Fleets can move on their own, but cannot exert control over territory.

3) Bases are needed to build new units, but again, cannot move.

Frankly, I think the 2/3/5 progression reflects this quite well.

Can you say more about why you believe supply and maintenance are essential? Are they worth the bookkeeping?

As envisioned, there's no bookkeeping... simply count your units and pay that much.

Maintenance is important to prevent "turtling". Supply is not as essential -- and perhaps I'm over-complicating the game in that respect.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,535 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

I admit I am going through a "minimalist" phase -- however, the concept of generic "bases" leaves me a bit cold, for some reason. Maybe it's the symmetry of the current system, with the progressive cost of units leading to a situation where outposts cost $1, space stations cost $5 and starbases cost $10.

Perhaps it could work like this:

SDF = $2 (1 battle die)
Fleet = $3 (2 battle dice)
Base = $5 (1 battle die)

Bases are needed to produce new units, one per base. Exception: a single base can be produced at any system where at least one SDF is present.

Maintenance is still $1 per unit.

Supply must be traced back to a friendly base, via a chain of controlled systems.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,536 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Note the following from the "Light Bookkeeping" section of OoM:

When resolving a battle using Starmada, each side chooses forces of up to the indicated CR. If several units of the same type are present, it is legal to include a ship larger than any individual unit. Thus, a stack of three bases might represent one gigantic station.

Ah... I missed that.

So you are correct. The three-in-one nature of starbases can be achieved with generic "bases". However, I firmly believe that some form of supply/maintenance rules are critical in a game like this. So the question would be how to maintain that if the outpost/space station/starbase distinction is eliminated.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,537 Reply by mj12games

(40 replies, posted in Game Design)

I wasn't necessarily thinking we should mash everything together -- rather, come up with a single background that can be plugged into each of our existing games and help drive the production of new ones.

Consider Games Workshop. Whatever you think of their games, their approach to rules writing, or their business plan, they have a very solid background that informs all of their products (well, two backgrounds that are very similar).

Go to forum: Game Design

1,538 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

1 and 2 can be accomplished simply by limiting base purchases to one per system per turn. I don't have supply in my rules, so I don't have much to say about 3. I would like it if the system (or possibly  the system including optional rules) would generate convoy raids as an emergent effect.

Limiting base purchases to one per system per turn might take care of (1), but (2)? (i.e. how does limiting base purchases provide multi-hit bases?)

Convoy raids are certainly possible.

As I've wandered around this design space, I've sometimes thought of doing a 4X game that relies primarily on the tile-laying mechanism of the board game Carcassonne -- hence, Starcassonne. There's a bit of that going on here.

Sorry -- I should have been more clear. I've never played Carcassone, so I don't understand the reference.

If VBAM is out there (and being revised) for those who want a deeply detailed campaign, maybe SovStars should focus on the simpler end?

That's the intent. SovStars is not a campaign system -- it is a board game that can serve some campaign functions if players want it to do so.

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,539 Reply by mj12games

(23 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

mundungus wrote:

Obviously, I'm a fan of Antoine de Saint-Exupery's maxim, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." I see no good reason to distinguish between, say, outpost, space stations, and starbases.

In my thinking, there are a couple reasons for the distinction... but I'm open to discussion:

1) It is a simple way of making starbase construction a multi-turn process.

2) It is a simple way of having starbases take multiple hits to destroy.

3) Outposts are just "supply points", while starbases allow new construction. I can see an argument that there is no difference between an outpost and a space station -- but there is room for expansion.

The "starcassonne" mechanism in OoM for galaxy building / exploration seems to work quite well. The reward for being connected to other players seems to help quite a bit; there is a backup "wormhole" mechanism in case someone is cut off, but I haven't seen it happen yet.

Please explain "starcassone".

I have one player doing their entire turn before the next player does anything. This seems the simpler thing to do, but I'd be interested in hearing the merits of the alternative.

One of the things I hate about empire-building games is waiting around for my turn... so it's really a personal preference rather than an objective "this is better than that".

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,540 Topic by mj12games

(3 replies, posted in Discussion)

"Wargaming is a fascinating and challenging activity..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNDe_JDew1E

Good stuff. wink

Go to forum: Discussion

1,541 Reply by mj12games

(5 replies, posted in Discussion)

FRICKIN' COOL!

If you go to the web site (yamato-movie.net) there's a countdown for 13 days from now. But it's in Japanese, so I can't tell what's going on...

Go to forum: Discussion

1,542 Topic by mj12games

(14 replies, posted in News)

Or at least, projects I'm hoping will see the light of day in 2010...

* Romulan Armada: The second in our series of collaborations with Amarillo Design Bureau.

* Starmada Brigade: Updated for the Admiralty Edition.

* Quantum Legions: Hex-n-counter based science fiction wargame.

* The Sovereign Stars: Third edition of our strategic space conquest game.

* ARES: Revised edition.

* Grand Fleets: Tsar & Emperor

Go to forum: News

1,543 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

thedugan wrote:

...I'd settle for not being distracted so easily....

Me or you? big_smile

Go to forum: Starmada

1,544 Reply by mj12games

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

RE: the Shipbuilder.

I had been meaning to update the "official" one with all of the current options... but that got sidetracked when I started work on an online web-based shipbuilder. Unfortunately, that too got sidetracked.

I need more time in the day...

Go to forum: Starmada

1,545 Reply by mj12games

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Centurion wrote:

1. What happens when taking shield damage and the 3+ check to see if the damage is taken on the facing shield results in excess hits to that facing.  Are the excess hits redirected to any desired facing?

Yes.

2. How do you damage items in the "special" box?  That is to say, how can the Feds knock out a few of those pesky drone racks?  How do you damage tractor beams or transportors?

You can't, unless you utilize the "Critical Damage" option, which can be found in Starmada: Iron Stars or the Rules Annex.

Go to forum: Starmada

1,546 Reply by mj12games

(40 replies, posted in Game Design)

I'm open to suggestions (even if the suggestion is "Do nothing at all" smile) but what I was thinking when I asked the question was whether there should be a single unifying background for all of the games, not a separate one for each.

Go to forum: Game Design

1,547 Reply by mj12games

(40 replies, posted in Game Design)

falstaffe wrote:

Of course, you could always come up with a NEW setting, one with cool characters, the possibility of miniatures combat... the whole shebang.

This brings up something I've wondered about for a while...

Whether or not it leads to an RPG, would you like to see a fleshed-out "default" background for MJ12 games?

Go to forum: Game Design

1,548 Reply by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

As an early Christmas present, here's the current draft of the rulebook. Let me know what you think.

[FILE REMOVED]

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars

1,549 Reply by mj12games

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

Nomad wrote:

Also, mathematically, Countermeasures is somewhat more effective than Armor Plating...  Armor Plating negates a fixed 1/6 of all damage inflicted.  Countermeasures changes a 5+ accuracy to a 6+, 4+ to 5+, and 3+ to 4+, negating 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4 of hits depending on the accuracy of the weapon (disregarding range mods), any of which is superior to the effectiveness of Armor Plating.

Probably true, but not by much.

All weapons and special traits are point-costed based on their impact on a ship's survivability. Although Armor Plating negates 1/6 of damage rolls, it more importantly negates 1/3 of hull hits, thus increasing the ship's survivability by 50%. Perhaps this could be reduced to a multiplier of 1.4 or something due to the fact that Armor Plating does not reduce the number of weapons/shields hits accordingly, but generally speaking it's hull hits that count.

Go to forum: Starmada

1,550 Topic by mj12games

(54 replies, posted in The Sovereign Stars)

I am REALLY trying to finish up an (alpha) playtest version of third edition Sovereign Stars... if anyone has any thoughts (or words of encouragement) now's the time. smile

Go to forum: The Sovereign Stars