Instead of "armour plating" there is "armour" as a major ship defense.  This was a necessary change because of the way damage is now being allocated (i.e. there are only damage rolls after certain thresholds not for each point inflicted).  But definitely armour is still there and IMHO better than before (mostly because you now can have a little armour or a lot of armour).

Our group never used pivots - probably because we were a bit intimidated by the calculations and order writing required to use the vectored movement system in AE.  Now that vectored movement is easier to execute, I could see some of us dabbling with pivots - but it wouldn't be a disappointment for us if it wasn't included.

-Tim

I have to say Nova Edition is turning into a dream for Eldar players - ECM as a main defense - stealth with a rating - solar movement!  All you need to do now is to come up with a negative ship trait where they have a penalty to the damage threshold rolls (i.e. to simulate how they were critically hit more easily in gothic).

Nomad - I think you'd have to be careful as to what movement modes you allowed - I don't think any two just work together - but solar seems to be fairly balanced with the basic movement. 

I've seen some other systems that allow you to purchase different drive types that simulate different physics models.  In those systems the ones that are clearly superior cost more/take more space or whatever.

Etheric seems a bit balanced, because while it doesn't allow you to reach the same breakneck speeds of the basic movement - it gives you some free breaking so keep things under control a bit better.

-Tim

Would it be balanced to have a battle where on force uses one mode of movement and the other force another?  I'm thinking specifically the "solar" (say for an eldar force) and "regular" for something else?  But even then etheric could just represent a different type of drive system...

Also, just want to mention again that for the eldar in battle fleet gothic, they when fastest when their port or starboard was facing the solar wind direction and not when their stern was - much like real life sailing.

-Tim

Looking very cool Dan.  I really like how the ship data is presented in a concise band of information.  Should be able to fit 3 or 4 of those on a sheet of paper. 

Looking forward to finding out about some of those new weapon traits (diffuse, telescopic, focused, ballistic, guided, scatter and volatile).

-Tim

@Nomad

I guess we'll have to see exactly when fighters move.  I had assumed based on the outcome of that poll that they would have their own movement phase... but even then I can see some instances where you can force your opponents to move an interceptor type fighter first - which is suboptimal at best!

-Tim

I'm getting the shakes from starmada-withdrawal.   Help me Dan!

Sounds like a 4th type of defense to me!

1) ECM - make target harder to hit reducing the # of attack dice
2) Shields - act like deflectors giving a fix save (subject to modifiers from enemy weapon traits)
3) Armour DR (i.e. hard shell) - Reduce damage of shot coming in (or something like that)
4) Armour Ablative (i.e. more stuff in the way) - allow ship to absorb more damage

I think there is room in the game for both 3 and 4 - 3 is more like conventional armour - where 4 could be extra bulkheads or better structural integrity or layered armour.  One thing that bothered me a bit about the last version of Starmada was the only way to get more "hit points" was the make your ship larger - sure you could imagine it to be smaller - but having a higher hull affected the relative cost of shields/engine and gave you more space to fill up with weapons. 

Of course the problem with 3 is that you might have to layer on a new mechanic you were not planning.  One thought is to bring back DMG - except of course this time DMG wouldn't automatically be the "cheap" way to add more damage as it has utility in its ability to get past armour (3).

-Tim

I can't agree with the ship vs. ship because of sfb.  In sfb you have to do energy allocation which needs your full intention when you start changing speed and juggling reserve power or playing around with ECM or tractor beams.  Starmada handles (or ignores) those in much simpler ways. 

For me Starmada doesn't feel right unless I have at least 6 ships.  If its going to still do that AND add more fleet support options (command etc) at the expense of weapon detail fine by me.

-Tim

It will be interesting to see how you pull off "no hull damage", since, from what you've shown, the only way to damage systems is to first damage the hull and force a threshold check.

My design thought would be to have a suite of weapons that don't do hull damage, but instead force threshold checks on one or more of the systems with each successful "hit".  Not sure how that would work with "armour", but it should interact with shields and ECM the same way.  It would of course be quite an expensive weapon - instead of less expensive.  I could see also breaking it down so that it only forced threshold check on one particular system.

-Tim

Abstract is all good with me.  You will still be able to use aircraft miniatures to track them - but you won't have to deal with the minutia of moving them around on the table.

So just some more questions:
1) Is there any difference between aircraft between the nations - do they have stats or all they all just generic?
2) Are there limits as to how many bombers can be allocated to a single enemy craft?
3) Can ships in close proximity to another craft assist it with AA fire?
4) Are there both land based aircraft plus carrier based?   Are they treated differently?

Oh, and just because I haven't asked enough - are there subs in the game?

-Tim

We're all gonna buy the book, but we're just like little puppies who want to tear it from his hands before he's done with it!