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 OldnGrey
One last thing.
BeowulfJB, wish you would call them "Independent Fighters" instead of "long Range Fighters" which sort of gives the impression of their being able to fire further. 
Paul
New counter for Destroyer.
Continue with WWC ships?
Paul
[attachment=0]Sea Swimmer class Destroyer.png[/attachment]
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 CRAT addition for the 8 regular fighters is 200 (same as 4 flights in SAE).
If you used the shipyard, sorry a little bit of the extra was my fault (DRAT error found & Fixed), fighters have always been expensive fireworks though.
Paul
Actually, I don't know if the conversions work out really good. The Kussians are horribly 'overweight' - and some of their weapons converted really overpowered:
Rapid Fire Pulse Laser; Range 9, BAS 18.54, Accurate
Series II Laser Cannon; Range 9, BAS 16.12, Accurate, Double Damage
Warlord Lance; Range 18, BAS 5.77, Guided, Accurate, Double DamageCorrection: All their ships came in overweight. And overgunned. Even if I cleared out the tech levels.
Some of it is down to the combined range based traits, using the factors from the Starmada Rules Annex can bump up the BAS quite a bit as you have found.
Take the Rapid Fire Pulse Laser for example, if the range based traits were to be applied separately (or reworked/updated) it could look like:
Rapid Fire Pulse Laser Range 9 BAS 6.04 (2.99 x 1.08 x 1.87 [for "Scatter" twice]) Accurate Scatter.
A fair bit less in weight and not quite so overpowering.
No doubt Dan and Jay will look at this.
Paul
You might want to ask Jay.
Boltians and Kussians are due to make a come back. This I believe would be in the form of a second edition crossover.
Jay has been thinking on altering some of the weapons where the type does not directly convert to Nova traits and the ships will go beyond the period in the original book. This will be some time after VBAM 2nd edition is finished (soon I hope).
Jay has said that he would wish to keep the KEB shields.
Who knows, maybe the colour counters that I drew for every ship from the original book (and some extras besides) will get seen (about 28 pages).
Paul
Here is what I knocked together for a laugh as there have been posts about unarmed ships.
Take a break from wholesale destruction and have a go with these.
I'll add the counter graphics in a file of their own as well so that they can be printed larger if you wish.
[attachment=1]Waterworld.zip[/attachment]
[attachment=0]WWC ships.zip[/attachment]
Enjoy.
Paul
Climb aboard a luxurious shuttle to a holiday of a lifetime.
Take the newly commissioned Alpha Ray to places you have only imagined in your dreams.
[attachment=1]Ad1.png[/attachment]
[attachment=0]Ad2.png[/attachment]
More to follow...... 
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
Freighters, Space Liners in fact any ship which does not have anything adding to the ORAT cost 0 points.
Suggest adding a shuttle or any piece of equipment that adds an ORAT figure.
Alternative would be give an unarmed ship 1 point of ORAT to give a CRAT.
Paul
But can we please have some counters like this so that we can see the ship.
Mk II with better firing arc for dorsal Lightning Turret
Paul
[attachment=0]Belligerent Mk II.png[/attachment]
cricket wrote: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...
That being said...
I'd also say that if you really want, for whatever (moronic) reasons, to put the proximity trait on a range 1/2/3 weapon, then when you make the attack against the seeker at close range you should suffer the consequences.
In essence, by not having any penalty, it seems like you're allowing the proximity trait on range 1/2/3/ weapons at a slight discount.Kevin
Agreed.
Anyone putting Proximity on a range 3 weapon should take notice of page 24 which does state that if a proximity weapon is fired at a target one hex away the firing ship is affected.
My advice, don't have the trait unless the weapon is range 6 or better then there is no conflict when shooting at seekers.
Paul
<shrug>
I have NO IDEA what that is...
"The Wasserstahl hull option has not been included in any print source yet... it's a placeholder for future expansion."
To quote Dan from years past. Perhaps an expansion that never came to be.
Could it be that this became "Soviet Armor"?
I know that I started to put Wasserstahl in my Iron Shipyard and then changed it to Soviet Armor sometime before I posted it.
Paul
I was referring to the added cost in SU restricting higher amounts of ablative armor. Which in the case of your ship posted on 30th April would be an extra 305.5 SU. (If I have my figures right. )
39 hull!
"It's beginning to look a lot like Full Thrust, everywhere I go"
"With Battleships all aglow and Dreadnoughts starting to grow"
"And frigates in Christmas trees, with nowhere else to go"
Paul
The difference is only 5 which is c1%; Paul, I think your program is fine. 8-)
This ship has two weapons with TR arc and two with the arc RT. Do you have the correct modifiers for the RT arc and for the CD arcs the five Heavy Torpedoes have? Just a stab in the dark.
Cheer
I checked the modifiers, even kept the CD mod of 1.16 (Dan's figure) instead of 1.15,
One thing I did miss though (went back and to read the thread again) was the 1.17 added to the defence score for ablative armor!
I think that might restrict how much armor can be carried as ablative.
I may well add it to to the next version of Shipyard Nova.
Paul
Two things confused me, the first being 76 "boxes" of armour.
I get CRAT of 498. (ORAT 1559.15/DRAT 159.15) and "It tasks me", calcualtions are to two decimal places (as per thread),.
Even if it were a rounding thing I do not think it should be out by that much. I am 99.9% sure that my figures are up to date.
Paul
Would like to see the calculations for this.
Is the armour "Ablative"?
If so did you use 114 "Regular" armour to get the 76?
What ORAT & DRAT did it have?
Any tech levels?
Paul
Here is another question.
"Only remove a marine from the attacking ship for each hit"
Shields only get a chance to save after a "Hit" has been made so any marines that are stopped by shields are lost (removed from the attacking ship)?
Paul
Blacklancer99 wrote:I think Cricket is just trying to simplify the ship sheet by not moving all of the boxes to the first section. Mostly I think it's because OldnGrey will kill him if he has to add that to his Shipyard sheet.
Well, actually, I'm more concerned about messing with the coding behind the Drydock, but Paul's continued happiness is a beneficial side effect.
More to the point, however, is that this is an optional rule to allow players a desired effect when using existing ship designs. If you want to design ships from the ground up using this rule, we can work on that later. For now, I need to confirm the theory is sound.
Wot me? I might have screamed once or twice in the past....
Probably easy to add as an alternative with an "Ablative Yes/No", so get play testing and give it a final name!
Would some kind group play test the Marines being able to by-pass armor. I have been having some ideas with regards marines of late (need to apply K.I.S.S. though).
Paul
Of course, SAE shield can also be converted in SNE ECM (by the way, in the Nova conversion rules, you should say that SAE shields could be converted either as SNE shield, armor, ECM or a mix).
Marc
Have I missed a new rule book?
Conversions state SAE shields = Nova Shields, where did the rest come from?
House rules, wishful thinking or I Want?
Just add, "Take any ship from any previous Starmada and re-invent it". 
"Never in the field of game rules have so few said so much about so little"
Sorry, really bad headache, trying to process it all is making it worse.
Paul
13 flights with all three traits = 489.80SU
Well that took all of 10 seconds!
Is there a reason that you cannot use shipyard nova? It works with most spreadsheet progs.
Paul
madpax wrote:I'm not sure it will make a real difference from 10.000 klicks...
Marc
It doesn't matter in starmada and in many other games - but of course there are also many games where it does. Guess we won't be finding out the truth of that in this lifetime
Perhaps long thin ships should have a penalty to hit end on but damage is x10 when hit end on!
Men of War ships found out, a bow shot or broadside of cannon balls up the jacksy would completely ruin any captains day.
Confusing when fighting a sphere though "Where the eck is the rear!"
Paul
Makes sence that this CV should cost more. I wonder why the DryDock program under-pointed this so much.
Any ideas on what to do now with respect to designing a CV?
Bit of a mystery, even if the drydock is using older figures for the ORAT I would have expected the figure to have been higher (even though ORAT for Carrier increased from SUx3 to SUx5).
I would expect to see CVs having fewer flights right across the board as they really increase the CRAT.
Weak and slow ships having more flights than faster armored ones obviously.
I think you will have to ask yourself "do I need or can my fleet afford 25 flights?"
Paul
:idea: The {Steven's Fleet Admiralty} may need to slow down on building 400+ point DNs and focus more on CVs such the Yorktown class...
Hate to burst your bubble, just entered the details you give in shipyard (Yeah I know, not the Drydock). Unless there have been changes since the rules version 1.1:
Design is 300SU overweight.
CRAT comes out at 1170.
Paul
Edited, got overweight figure and CRAT a little too much.
Does not seem cheap, it is!
With an SU requirement of 812 they should contribute 4060 to the ORAT.
Paul
How about Tech levels (only changes end SU figures for space used):
Engines.
Defence Systems (except Fragile & Reinforced systems) based on defense score.
Offence Systems (including *AUX?)
Weapon Batteries.
Carrier.
*Auxiliary separate?
Paul
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by OldnGrey
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.