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
...today!
I planned to play tomorrow but alas, my friend couldn't free himself. But I have hope and I plan to use vassal in a near future.
Marc
OK. I've done all federation ships of the 23th century. But I'm not pleased with the result. Most of the ships have about the same armament, whether they are destroyer or dreadnought. They vary mostly in speed and shield.
I prefer the usual classification, smaller ships being faster but lacking in every other aspect, whilst it's the opposite for bigger ship. In the end, I created ships using SFU classification (I reorganized the klingon names) and modified weapons. They are now a mix between SFU and Star trek. Every details still on the first message of the topic.
I will post ships as soon as I modified the value (thanks Oldngrey for the shipyard).
Marc
The slw on the missile launchers is perhaps a remnant from my time with B5 ACTA.
I know. Even there, I didn't know why.
Yes, presently they are. I'm still looking for something to make them more like a beam. Also, I quite not sure how to make a particle cannon significantly different to a medium laser
.
So do I, but I will try to think of something that would make them different.
Marc
I'm surprised at the cost of fighters (still in regards of their supposed - for me - lack of efficiency).
I used the same ship profile (hull 14, shield 5+, thrust 6, no ECM and armor, some miscellaneous things like hyperdrives, shuttles, tractor beams) for two different ships. The first one, a heavy cruiser, has no fighters and costs 215. The decond one traded part of its firepowers to include 8 regular fighters (thus 4 SAE fighters). Its costs rises to 445, more than the double.
I wonder if those fighters are worth the cost...
I should play next week and see that.
BTW, I decided to give them some bonus: They are able to negate one point of ECM (as they are not affected by countermeasures in SAE) and are not affected by Stealth (as in SAE).
Marc
The fire arcs on the Avengers are a bit cut.
I can see that missiles are 'slw'. I don't understand why, as they have fairly good ROF.
Unless mistaken, raking weapons like laser are Rpt?
Marc
Lost in the wrong location...
But tanks, I wll study that ASAP.
Marc
Look here: http://www.hotzmats.com/felt_purchase_mat.html
Marc
At least, it would make them useful...
Marc
And it seems some spammer posted here a lot...
Marc
I don't know where I read this, but in some rules, bases were either immobile either rotating. In the latter ases, they didn't need engines to rotate as they always rotate. In the former, they don't have engine too and can't rotate during a game.
Marc
It's just an upside down maneuver. Very easy to do in space.
Marc
:idea: 0ne player suggested that I put the FX2, PH2, and SH2 seperate in different lines to make the SSD a little easier for new players;
Funny, one of my opponents told me the same thing. I did something like this (stats are fictional):
........................[FF4]
Weapon X.......[PH4].....[SH4]
........................[AA4]
Marc
Maybe the stronger fighters should be represented in flights of 2 SNE fighters, instead of 3. Whatever, I don't feel you could translate exactly those fighters in SNE terms.
Marc
I tried that and it works. It opens a pdf file with picts of the counters. Send me you email via pm and I will send you the files. Tell me the files you need first, there is a lot of them.
Marc
Using a potential CRAT to rate fraighters seems wrong because their value is un-military. You are right about the campaign effect, but their usefullness can't be termed in fighting value (I wonder if what I said just makes sense... :? )
That's why, if ever I play such a 'catch the lowly freighters' scenario (I have some minis for them), I won't use their CRAT to determine victory.
Marc
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
Please, could you revert to english? 
Marc
Surely a house rule, but why not propose it: Thrust damage due to Emergency thrust should be random (for example 1-3 on 1D6) and not automatic.
Marc
The equation for speed would be nice.
Here it is:
(‘Rear Engine Power' / ‘Accel/decel Cost') + (‘Rear Engine Power' / (20x'Turn Cost')) + (10/(20x'turn delay'))
ie: A Heavy Phaser in Raking Mode is going to score multiple hits as opposed to single large damage (in SAE terms, it'd be an IMP 3 DMG 1 weapon, compared to a Standard mode Disruptor which would be an IMP 1 DMG 3 weapon).
I translated the 'non-raking' mode with good firepower by Prc, as the weapon has a greater ability to inflict damage than a raking weapons which will inflict many smaller ones.
Marc
MRCAcct, I modify the power of my weapons according to your way to determine BAS, although I uxsed 8 instead of 10.75.
Now, some hints about ships.
Defense: Currently, the B5W shield is translated as SNE shield. Currently, a value of 20 or 25 = shield of 5. As all ships have some armor integrated to each system, I gave ships some points of armor. ECM will be rare, mainly for scouts and some ships with very good sensors.
Speed: I found a way to compute speed according to rear engines, Accel/decel cost, etc. I don't have the equation at hand but I can give it is you want it.
Ships will have shuttles as in B5w, tractors beams, etc. Ships with the name 'escort' will have the escort trait. Idem for scout.
I will ad some marines, as they are always there on movies, even if most ships doesn't 'carry' them.
I've made some 'small' ships (destroyers, frigates, etc.) and they don't have a big firepower which suits me.
Marc
Our experience with marines has been exactly the opposite.
Maybe simply because we didn't face the same ships. And I have a single experience, so what I say is maybe not worth a lot.
If a defending ships has even a few marines, attacking ships have to come with so many they usually can't afford to, or don't want to run the risk of losing their own.
The enemy hadn't even one marine (it was Sssk vs Negali)
* Marines still have to eliminate armor, just as regular weapons do.
No armor in negali.
And yes, I realize they start with the hull boxes before moving to the armor. I believe the only armor they "bypass" is that in the first section.
Why only the first section?
BTW, I thought that we could try marines bypassing armor?
* Marines still have to get through the normal defenses of ECM and shields.
Agreed
* Once the number of marines successfully boarding has been established, the defending ship can immediately sacrifice their own marines on a one for one basis to eliminate those marines.
See above.
To be fair, though, we just haven't used them very much yet.
If ships are too powerful, battles end before reaching marine range (as in SFU).
Marc
I knew I forgot something.
When a ship exit from hyperspace, it gives half its value to the opponent. That's too much, as we suppose that you ould avoid exiting a crippled ship (usually, not enough to do that before being destroyed), and it's not worth to do that for a damaged ship or even an intact ship, tactical reasons wise.
I propose a modification here. A damaged ship gives 1/8th of its value, whilst a crippled ship gives a quarter.
Marc
Some comments following a game yesterday:
Drones: As they can be fired in very low number, they have great difficulties to damage anything. Add to that all possible defenses they can face, they usually are not good enough to deserve to take them.
Marines: The opposite, they can be sent en masse. Although they are 'equipped' with their own transportantion, maybe they should be limited. if allowed to send them, they can capture anything in one stroke, barring defenses (ECM and shields). BTW, the rules should precise that marines attacks are modified the same way as other weapons for modifiers purpose.
Hyperdrive: Battles are resolved so fast (maybe ships are too powerful and not enough protected) that waiting two full turns to enter hyperspace is two full turns too many. They should enter hyperspace at the end of the turn they trigger hyperdrive.
Otherwise, my friend, having playing two games of SAE, found SNE much much more interesting and playable. And so do I.
Marc
Thinking of hyperdrive:
Currently, escaping through hyperspace seems like a nonsense.
You give half the cost of the escaping ship to your opponent, meaning that you won't do that the ships is intact or damaged, unless the tactical situation prevails. Also, you need three movement phases to activate hyperdrive. Seeing that battle can be decided in two or three turn, that a medium ship could be destroyed in one turn, trying to esc ape this way seems to never happen.
Hyperdrive could be useful if a ship can escape during the end phase of the turn it activacted the hyperdrive, leaving the enemy to shoot him during one turn.
Otherwise, the B5 use of hyperdrive could easily be designed as a houserule, for a specific scenario.
Marc
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
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by madpax
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.