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 Blacklancer99
Well, I'm still interested...:D
Well I figured there was at least one...and I kinda figured it was you. 
I looked this morning and I am just less than half done, and since it's finally not rainy today it's yard work for this chump :x
What a waste of a day! 
Cheers,
Erik
Considering how the downloads have dwindled since the initial post I guess there are exactly 3 of you still interested? 
Oh well, either way I'll post up all of the Nova-updated fleets for this universe before I move on to other endeavors.
Cheers,
Erik
Next is the Federation and the Empire (not the SFU versions!)
The Federation is a wealthy second-tier nation and the Empire is quite simply the most powerful single force in human space.
Cheers,
Erik
Paul, that looks sweet. I'm beginning to think that you have too much time on your hands though
Cheers,
Erik
madpax wrote:Why giving them a CRAT?
Usually, freighters are used in scenarios, where they are given a VP value. No need of a CRAT this way.Marc
Just thinking ahead, campaign fleets having auxiliaries and everything has to be paid for eventually.
VPs seem to mean very little if you are suddenly without supplies and have to return to a base. Or get stuck at a base until another supply ship can be provided.
There was a little argument about their being free a while back.
Yeah I know, how many are going to be unarmed? In a certain universe even little freighters have guns!
What about medical ships?
It is just my take on things.Paul
Campaign specific construction costs should probably be based on their Auxiliary services total modified by whatever armament they mount. After all, those services are why you want them in your fleet anyway and it would seem logical that a "more capable" ship, whatever its purpose should "cost" more to build.
Just my 2 cents,
Erik
Cricket,
with the hardcopy cranking out of the printer is it a fair assumption that all of the counter sheets are done? I've got a sheet of foam-cor waiting for the application of artwork to transform it into counters and markers and I was wondering if you would be putting up them up on the Starmada catalog page anytime soon.
Thanks,
Erik
The assumption is the attack happens not at the moment the seekers are one hex away, but at the point during their travel most advantageous for the defender...
Since you're the guy wearing the big hat with all the gold braid on it I guess you're allowed to make assumptions 
Erik
diddimus wrote:A question came up though....How does a Proximity weapon target seekers? Do you hit yourself if the target is you and the marker is face up?
No. A proximity weapon fired against a seeker counter (face up or otherwise) ONLY attacks that seeker counter.
But my answer was far more complicated and verbose...that should count for something!
Thanks for the clarification Cricket.
Cheers,
Erik
Erm, does no one know how to target seekers with proximity weapons?
I was waiting to see if there was an official statement. If I remember correctly, way the rules are written it says that the weapon attacking the seeker is always considered at short range. My opinion would be that if your proximity weapon has an upper limit to its short range that allow the weapon to be employed without self inflicted wounds to the launching ship, then it should not hurt you (the gunner makes sure it gets far enough away before blowing). If, however, the weapon's short range values fall close enough to the firing ship that it would normally cause damage to the firing ship if fired in that range band, then it should do so in this instance.
Does that make sense?
Of course, this is just an opinion, and as my wife would tell you most of mine are worthless.
Cheers,
Erik
Thanks for these blacklancer, while I never got a real chance to look closely at the SAE versions, I liked the idea of the setting, and like that the missiles you had have now changed into seeker weapons (which is in common with what I've been doing...:D)
Thanks, I'm pretty happy with how the Nova designs are turning out. I haven't played with the seeking weapon version of attack missiles yet, but I have to say I really love the rules and think they will be more playable than the SAE drone versions. I also like how SNE allows me to design ships in a similar fashion but with different defensive schemes giving them a bit more of a specific flavor. I still have a lot of ships to go, so it will probably be a while before I get the whole set done, especially if my attention drifts to other projects :?
Cheers,
Erik
Next is another lesser light, the Confederacy...
This very creative, but seems to me to be an Unnecessary Complication. It adds more record keeping and will slow the game down. I like to think of my Starships as being powered by matter/antimatter engines with c5 years of fuel. Similiar to Nimitz class aircraft carriers today. In all honesty, I doubt that I will ever use this.
But if this adds enjoyment to you and your gaming friends, go for it!
Cheers
Hey, I can think of some settings that use antimatter drives that have a limited supply of reaction mass (usually water) as well as some that use fusion drives that convert reaction mass as well. In the 2300AD setting for example there are vessels that use hydrogen burning MHD turbines. These are the kinds of things a would like to see this for. Starmada is relatively simple enough that tracking a small number of fuel boxes is no real hassle (for me at least), and adds enough of an interesting twist that I would like to give it a whirl.
As you say, it's all about what each individual finds amusing/interesting/enjoyable.
Cheers,
Erik
Next up are a couple of the lesser powers, the multistellar Combine and the single system Avalon.
Cheers,
Erik
Next, one of the real major powers, the Commonwealth.
Cheers,
Erik
I've played a game today, Negali vsz Sssk, especially to try drones and marines. Unfortunately, drones never reach enemy ships, and Sssk ships never reach enemy ships too in order to send marines.
I would say that drones are fired in too low number to have an effect. Even a big Sssk ships would launch 3 of them. Against Negali, or any other ships with correct defenses, it just seems like a waste.
Marines seems very powerful because they can be send in any number. Why should we don't send all of them?
Of course, you need to close a lot and marines are sensible to some defenses (if I'm not mistaken), like ECM and shields.Marc
I did some testing (no games, just setting up scenarios and rolling through some attacks) and I decided to drop drones from the ships I am doing for my campaign setting in favor of seeking weapons. While the range and flexibility of drones is neat, they just didn't have the crunch-factor that I felt like they should (and you could get in the SAE rules). Fighters are limited to a degree as well, but being able to start with them on the table and then maneuver them to the best advantage makes them loads "better" than drones in my opinion.
Cheers,
Erik
Otherwise, the B5 use of hyperdrive could easily be designed as a houserule, for a specific scenario.
Marc
Oh, I know. It's just slightly less awesome to rely on house rules to fill the gaps is all.
Slightly.
But still awesome.
Cheers,
Erik
I exist in many realities. Some of them Starmada, some Squadron Strike, some Krugman, all 100% awesome...though they'd all be better with more redheads.
I have two redheads at home...I shudder to think of my reality with any more of them! :shock:
Cheers,
Erik
This is an additional advanced rule I've been looking at for making fuel a limiting factor. It's intended for more realistic hard science fiction universes where ships require lots of reaction mass and have a limited supply of fuel for manoeuvring. It is intended to be used with the vector movement system but could probably also work with the normal movement rules.
If this rule is used it must apply to all ships as it must be a part of ship construction. In addition a battle between ships requiring fuel and those that don't would be massively un-balanced. Those that used no fuel would both out gun and out manoeuvre those that did with ease.
Advanced rule - Limited Fuel Supply
When designed each ship must have the Fuel trait, devoting a number of SU to this determined by the designer. This is a munitions trait that generates a number of fuel points equal to SU x 10/Ship size. Fuel points are spent for the ship to manoeuvre. Each time the ship uses thrust to speed up, slow down or change course this costs one point of fuel per point of thrust used. Ships that run out of fuel may no longer manoeuvre but may still fight.
This option may be incompatible with fighters and drones as written given their speed and unlimited fuel. I'm also not sure how this should affect calculating the ships combat rating. For the moment until I get feedback or can test this I'm assuming that fuel has no cost. The SU it uses reduces the ships other systems combat capacity so a ship with more would have less combat power. I'd be interested if anyone could suggest an alternative for this or a more
I like the idea, and there are several settings that could use this. The first thing that came to mind was that maybe you could simplify the fuel usage to only occur when you accelerate or decelerate. You could always say that other maneuvers can be accomplished by various less volatile means. If you do that you could have many fewer "fuel points" to manage, and being more precious, using them could be a bit of a bigger decision. If you are playing in a setting that requires fuel you could easily have drones (they accelerate to their maximum speed at launch and inertia carries them to their targets), and you could give fighters an endurance rating in turns rather than assigning fuel points. This last part could simulate limited fuel and life support.
Just a few thoughts.
Cheers,
Erik
Nope, I'm not asking for a new Weapon Trait...I was thinking about alternate "hyperdrive" technology and how it could be incorporated into the game. Think of Babylon 5 in which not every vessel had a jump drive, but those that did had the ability to open a jump point that other vessels could then use to transit into/out of hyperspace. There are several other settings that use similar "Gate Drives" and such for moving vessels around the universe. I was thinking of using a process something like the Standard Starmada Hyperdrive for the activation, but then placing a Jump Point marker on the board anywhere within 12 hexes of the ship opening the gate. Each ship that enters the hex while the point is "open" enters hyperspace and is removed from the game. The point remains open until: 1. The Ship opening the point enters the hex 2. The ship opening the point moves more than 12 hexes from the point 3. the ship opening the point decides to close the point 4. The ship opening the point is destroyed. I'm thinking that the ship opening the point should be able to maneuver as normal, but cannot fire any weapons and keep the point open.
Any thoughts? Ideas on how to "cost" something like this?
Cheers,
Erik
G'day
I'm 50% tempted to use the fighter rules and note that each "flight" is really a single Gunboat/superheavy fighter.
I'm trying this right now, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, I feel that Hull 1 gunboats should eventually find their way into the game as platforms that can mount "real" starship weapons.
HC1 calculates the cost of the hyperdrive for the embarked ship
HC2 calculates the cost of the carrier system as if the space was a fighter.hull Sus H Su HC1 HC2 2 1 60 0.43 13 0.43 2.6 2 147 0.43 21 0.86 4.2 3 250 0.43 28 1.29 5.6 4 363 0.43 34 1.72 6.8 5 486 0.43 40 2.15 8.0 6 616 0.43 45 2.58 9.0 7 753 0.43 50 3.01 10.1
hmm, if nothing else this is a really interesting place to start for ships that can "tender" smaller vessels.
Thoughts, comments (such as, HEY, shouldn't you be taking your medication?!)?
-Stephen
Forget the medication, just play Starmada until that becomes your reality and everything else becomes a game!
Cheers,
Erik
Here is the second batch, the Association Corporate fleet. I have 2 more completely redone, I just have to combine the ships with the fluff before posting, maybe tonight.
Cheers,
Erik
Nobody wants to guess at the size of a Battlestar or Star Destroyer? They seem like really big ships, like much bigger than Star Trek ships, but thats just my feeling from looking at them. I'd think a Battlestar might be large battleship size, 20-24 hull.
In Starmada terms of size there is no right answer. Hull size is always going to be determined by the context of the designer. If you (designer) want to have huge fleet battles using battlestars by the score, maybe you scale them at 8 Hull and everything else in perspective to that. On the other hand, if you choose to have your lone surviving battlestar be a hero ship dueling with at most a handul of foes, you can make it a max Hull beast. All too often people want to create a "universal" size chart/list so that they have a way of comparing designs, but it really should be done on a case by case basis; nobody's right and nobody's wrong as long as the game is fun.
Cheers,
Erik
So I have re-engineered the fleets from my campaign setting. I'll start posting them up as I have time to do them up in the shipyard.
Cheers,
Erik
When/how did the idea that a "dreadnought" is a "large battleship" come from?
I want to blame Starfire for this.
But, I do seem to remember coming across the term "Dreadnought" as a super-powerful ship in a Golden Age of Sci-Fi book a long time ago, possibly from the Lensman series?
Besides Dan, it just sounds cool.
Cheers,
Erik
It would be simple to have Marines only need to "take over" all of the hull to force a ship out of the battle. Marines who are teleported onto another ship should be able to ignore the presence of armor in a ship. This is how it works in SFB. Only shields, and I guess ECM or Stealth should interfere...
This would make players who design ships with lots of this Ablative Armor (like me) take marines to have to defend against this danger.
:idea: If you have to deal with an opponant's ships with lots of Armor of either type: Board 'em and take em over...
Not only does it "feel right" for Marines to ignore armor, but it would make them something more than "just another gun" and therefore more interesting, and on top of that would add another design consideration.
Cheers,
Erik
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Blacklancer99
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.