2,076

(21 replies, posted in Discussion)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

One question, though...why sox? Is there some meaning thats blindingly obvious to you but not to the rest of the world?

The term "Sox" was used in newspaper headlines during the early days of baseball as a contraction for "Stockings". The actual name of the club at the time was the "Chicago White Stockings".

Quite a few of the older baseball teams have names taken from uniform colors:

Atlanta Braves (originally the Red Caps)

Baltimore Orioles (originally the Browns)

Boston Red Sox (Stockings)

Chicago Cubs (initially the White Stockings)

Chicage White Sox (took the Stockings name when the Cubs abandoned it)

Cincinnati Reds (Red Stockings, then the Reds, then the Redlegs -- 'cause they didn't want to to associate with Commies in the '50s -- then the Reds again)

Cleveland Indians (originally the Blues)

Detroit Tigers (blue and orange stripes)

Los Angeles Dodgers (at one time the Grays)

St. Louis Cardinals (originally the Browns; renamed for the red trim on their uniforms)

2,077

(21 replies, posted in Discussion)

You know, you've got to really work hard to leave twelve men stranded on base, while only scoring twice. It takes dedication and commitment to get to that level of ineptitude.

But the most inconsistent strike zone I've ever witnessed makes things a little bit easier.

:evil:

2,078

(21 replies, posted in Discussion)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Thats the team from Boston, right? big_smile

Now, I know you're kidding...

'cause otherwise, I'd have to ban you from the forum. smile

2,079

(21 replies, posted in Discussion)

How 'bout them White Sox?

big_smile

2,080

(17 replies, posted in News)

MadSeason wrote:

Eeek! There is a painful (on the eye!) issue with all the L's in the PDF. Looks like they have been replaced with bold | marks.

Okay, the file has been corrected. If you did not get notice of the update from RPGNow, please let me know via PM or email.

2,081

(17 replies, posted in News)

MadSeason wrote:

Eeek! There is a painful (on the eye!) issue with all the L's in the PDF. Looks like they have been replaced with bold | marks.

It goes away when the file is printed -- but for some reason the page layout software used does some funky things when the PDF is viewed on the screen.

We are working to fix the problem, and you will receive an updated file once it is fixed.

(And we won't be using that software anymore, right Todd? smile)

2,082

(17 replies, posted in News)

Majestic Twelve Games is pleased to announce the release of our newest game, Wardogs.

The year is 3329, and the stars are trembling with the angry footsteps of men and machines. Earth has been laid waste -- an act of retribution and defiance committed by the colonies she spawned decades before. Although the horror of her death put a stop to all-out war between the colonies, reinforced by the sullen, crimson glow of her corpse, brother still battles brother. For power; for resources; for some other imagined slight or weakly-rationalized reason: it matters not. They send forth their Wardogs to do battle with their enemies on dozens of worlds and moons in a war that seems endless. Throughout the colonies, people look skywards to see a shooting star not in awe of the cosmos, but in trepidation of yet another battle to come.

Man has always been his own worst enemy.

Wardogs puts players in charge of mercenary forces hired by independent colonies, colonial militia, or the military of one of the four burgeoning multi-system nations that exist in the thirty-fourth century. Included in this book are record sheets for three dozen Wardog units, plus eleven standard infantry squad types typically found deployed among the twelve independent colonies and four stellar nations. The rocky road Man has traveled to reach the stars and the events that came after are given in enough detail to provide a feel for this default setting without being so detailed that the players cannot make it their own.

Nor are players limited to the units and timeline provided. Construction rules allow for development of mecha, armored vehicles, aircraft, naval landing and riverine craft, buildings, and infantry types ranging from steampunk to beyond the thirty-fourth century. In addition, players can create almost 900 different planetary environmental conditions in which to do battle with the Hostile Environment rules. Optional rules are also included for infantry morale, pilot skill advancement, and integrating Wardogs with Starmada.

For more information about this and all our products, please visit the Majestic Twelve Games web site: www.mj12games.com

2,083

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

There's a problem with the Excel sheet, in that if the number of weapons is too high relative to the ship's size, they don't all show up in the section where the Weapon Damage Chart is calculated...

2,084

(23 replies, posted in Discussion)

"Shut your noise tube, Taco-Human!"

2,085

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

The ships in Dreadnoughts (including the flotillas) were "built" to historical specs, without consideration to the SU costs.

The Combat Rating calculations, however, are accurate.

2,086

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

Well, in these situations, I like to go back and examine the wording in the rules... (if only so that I can remember what I was thinking at the time. smile)

-----
PIERCING [X]

Piercing weapons are more capable of pene-trating a target's defenses than normal weapons. The result of each impact die rolled in an attack by such a weapon is increased by an amount from +1 to +3; the higher this value, the more effective the weapon.

INCREASED IMPACT

The damage caused by a weapon with the increased impact trait is affected by the degree of success of the impact roll. The number of points of impact caused by such a weapon is equal to the amount by which each impact die exceeds the target's shield rating.

Against a target without shields (either by design or as the result of damage), the impact roll should still be made—the number of points of impact is equal to the result of each impact die.
-----

So, Piercing increases the result of the impact die, and Increased Impact compares the result of the impact die to the shield rating, so I would say your assumption would be correct.

2,087

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

BeowulfJB wrote:

One of these is that any weapon, even smaller guns, which penetrate the armor of even the best armored of DNs, can knock-out a main gun turret.  In one of the games I played, a barrage of 6" shells from the British DN Valiant knocked out 3 of the 4 heavy gun turrets on the German DN Baden.  Historically, this would not have happened.

Why not? (I'm always wary of pronouncements like "This would NOT have happened"... smile)

If a gun can penetrate the appropriate armor, it certainly can cause damage. And even if a particular shell is "incapable" of penetrating the main turret's armor, it can still knock it out of action.

Interestingly, no other navy's 6" guns have a +1 Piercing.  (Could this be an error?)  Perhaps +1 piercing should be reserved for 7" guns or higher.  I notice most 8" guns also only have a +1 Piercing and also only do one point of damage.  This makes them no better than the British 6" guns, which, historically, was not the case.

Couple things:

1) A certain amount of approximation was necessary in the Starmada conversions -- especially with only 3 levels of piercing to play with.

2) The British 6" guns were pretty durned effective. Compared to other contemporary 6" guns, they had a heavier projectile weight and a higher muzzle velocity.

The Piercing +3 will also make some interesting changes to the regular Starmada game ... This will make the heavy guns on my capital ships that shoot out to range 30 even more brutal. I have added this to my designs.  They did get a little more costly...

And, you're wasting that cost against any target with shields less than 4...

2,088

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

Matt, are you suggesting that the Starmada point costing doesn't work for the ships in Dreadnoughts?

If not, why not?

2,089

(43 replies, posted in Game Design)

Buckets of dice!

big_smile

jmpehrson wrote:

Summary:  It was quick and bloody and somewhat indecisive

Set-Up:  standard map, 22 x 23 hex board

The British arrayed their fleet evenly across their edge, with the Lion, Queen Mary, and Princess Royal taking up one third positions along the line.

Their starboard flank was anchored by the Invincible and New Zealand, their port was held by the Arethusa, Fearless, Falmouth, Southhampton, and Liverpool.  The center was held by their three Birmingham class light crusiers.

The Germans set up center of mass with the Stettin as the center piece and all others swarming around it.

Turn 1

The British surged forward at maximum speed, no imagination.

The Germans cautiously approached, putting nearly all their light ships on evasive maneuvers while banking to their port (the British starboard).  The Strassburg and Straslund foolishly did an extended turn forward before bearing port and ended up just within range of a number of lighter British guns (precisely range 9) while the remainder of the German fleet was range 10+ from the British.

Good for the Germans was that the ships that could fire got their broadsides off at the British.  Bad for the British was that they had only their forward guns to bear on the Germans.  Good for the British was that they had more ships that could fire within range.  The throw weight of the three British BB versus the single German BB became obviously apparent.

The end result of this turn was the sinking of the Straslund.

Turn 2

The British became a little more creative with their maneuvers and moved forward as much as possible while jinking left or right with every ship to bring their broadsides to bear.

The Germans has a slightly different strategy which was to pull the majority of their fleet (and the Stettin) towards the British starboard while sending their fast destroyers nearly into the center of the British line to cause as much havoc as possible and drop minefields to split the battle space in two.

Now things became really bloody .

The British combined firepower managed to decimate the German line by sinking three destroyers squadrons, the light cruisers Mainz, Kolberg, Strassburg, Ariadne, Danzig, and Munchen.  With the sinking of the light cruiser on turn 1, they easily exceeded the 600 VP goal with 825 VPs.

Well, the Germans didn't resolve their fire back yet and they did manage to plot brilliantly with their destroyer groups by getting one each within short range of the Princess Royal and Queen Mary.  To be quit honest, after the British fire we thought it was a foregone conclusion, but those 19.7" torps were murder on the British BB.  Twelve dice to hit on 5+ landed about 4 hits, resulting in 20 impact dice!  That was just the torpedoes .The other two destroyer squadrons were at medium range, needing 6's to hit their targets, which they managed to do rather reliably.  Lots more dice rolls.

When the smoke cleared, both the Princess Royal and Queen Mary were no where to be seen and the entire center of the British line was removed.  The Nottingham, Lowestoft, and Nottingham were all joined in a communal wreckage at the bottom of the sea.  The Stettin was down about a third of it's hull.

Also, the Germans managed to plop out a mess of mines.  We had no idea how BIG the combined minefield would become after laying the following:  two 3MF and two 6MF fields.  The entire center of the map became a sea of overlapping mines.

The German tally was 829 VPs.

Turn 3

We didn't play a turn three.  It was obvious the British firepower could take out the rest of the German fleet, but it may have been likely the Stettin could have crept off the board, probably not though.  The Invincible and New Zealand were in place to cause it some trouble, even though it's armor was relatively intact it had lost two of it's main batteries.

For those buying the drinks, the Germans won, but if you ask me, it was a bloody draw.

Thanks for the report!

Impressions of Dreadnought (Dan's thoughts welcome on game design)

When one DD squadron got hit with a 4 impact torpedo strike we realized the entire DD squadron was gone.  That surprised us and didn't feel quite right. Maybe each hit should destroy a single DD instead of each Impact (make it more ROF based instead of IMP based).  Also, historically, did a barrage from the big guns take out multiple destroyers?  I don't know, but we felt ROF should be the key factor (number of hits) not the power (impact) of each hit.  We realize impact represents extra guns in a battery.  Our opinion.

Yeah, this is a problem with flotillas. I set it so that IMP dice are still rolled, since an IMP-2 weapon should (for example) have an advantage over an IMP-1 weapon against flotillas with a shield/armor rating.

Perhaps stating that a weapon cannot cause more hits than its ROF value? E.g. if a ROF-1, IMP-4 weapon hits a flotilla, and 2 IMP dice get through the shields, the weapon only does 1 hit?

Although modeling WWI, we realized that the minefields used in Starmada are far more flexible in their placement (within 6 hexes of the laying ship).
We artificially restricted placement to the rear quarter of the ship (arcs E and F).  We probably shouldn't have done this, since mine laying ships are very expensive (91 pt Madgeburg light cruiser, 3 hull hits, speed 7) compared to non-mine layers (48 pt Chatham light cruiser, 4 hull hits, speed 6).  That's nearly twice the cost per hull hit for the mine laying ship than a non-mine laying ship.  Any idea how the point cost would change if the laying rules were restricted to rear arc only?  Or maybe only hexes moved through?

Something I hadn't really thought all the way through, I suppose.

I'll have to think on this...

Piercing was very deadly, since most of the targets had Armor 1, but a few times, the Stettin's heavy armor did bounce critical shots against it, even against Pierce +3.

You did remember that an IMP roll of 1 always fails against a target with a non-zero shield rating, regardless of modifiers, right?

2,091

(7 replies, posted in News)

If it weren't for D&D 4th edition, Dreadnoughts would be #1 over at RPGNow... wink

2,092

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

underling wrote:

Not that it makes much difference, but I thought I'd clarify that Dan's GF example is using data from GFII.

Actually, no it's not.

2,093

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

themattcurtis wrote:

Case in point -- you have a Weymouth class CL packing 6" guns with Piercing +1, versus an Austrian CL with Armor 1 and 3.9" guns with no Piercing attribute.

Weymouth's eight 6" guns (of which five can attack a single target) will score 2.5 hits in a given turn. Against the CL's armor 1, they will score
2.08 hits (at medium range), 1.04 of which cause hull damage. This means Admiral Spaun (hull 2) is sunk with two average broadsides. That may seem harsh.

But...

In Grand Fleets, the same scenario involves Weymouth's 6" guns (ROF +1, PEN 2 at medium range, DMG 2) scoring 2 hits (40% hit), penetrating 50% of the time (PEN 2 vs. Armor 7), for 2 points of damage. This means the Admiral Spaun (hull 5) is sunk with 2.5 average broadsides.

Not a whole lot of difference.

...and two or three hull boxes each, ships are gonna drop like flies.  I mean, the Weymouth's 6" guns are gonna tear through a lot of armored cruisers, and that wasn't the case historically.

Wasn't it? My data says 6"/50 guns would EASILY penetrate light cruiser armor at short ranges. (As shown in Grand Fleets -- PEN +3 at short range is pretty good; it nullifies up to 5" of armor.)

If anything, there might be room for a rule reducing the Piercing value of guns as range increases -- but that is outside the scope of the basic Starmada conversion I was trying to do.

We played two scenarios.  A meeting engagement between British and Austrian ships, then Brits against the Germans, and it just seemed bloody too soon.

Remember -- the focus of this (and any other dreadnought-era game) is likely not going to be the light cruisers.

2,094

(18 replies, posted in Starmada)

Something that hasn't been talked about, but that I was really happy with, is the scenarios. It was cool that the battles fit almost perfectly with the existing Starmada "generic" scenario types, right down to the Combat Ratings (with one exception -- Cape Sarych was horribly unbalanced in favor of the Russians without the addition of another battlecruiser to the German side).

2,095

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

OldnGrey wrote:
cricket wrote:

UK Canopus: 6" guns are non Piercing +1 (CR 86)

OH Poo!
NON PIERCING +1?

Actually, that should be "NOT Piercing +1" -- i.e. the guns are neither piercing nor non-piercing.

Thought I was seeing things. No, listed on page 9:-
Non-Piercing [X] (Weapon, varies) . . . C4 DRN

That was something in an earlier draft of the book that was subsequently removed -- but apparently remained in Appendix A.

2,096

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

I re-zipped it and uploaded the new file. Let me know if it still doesn't work.

2,097

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

Okay, with the help of Mr. Pehrson, I've found some more errors, for a total of 13 in all. Here's the updated list:

AUS Novara: 3.9" guns are not Piercing +1 (CR 32)
FRA Courbet: 12" guns are Range 9 (CR 306)
DEU Hindenburg: Misspelled as "Hindenberg"
ITA Nino Bixio: Torpedoes have Ammo 2 (CR 69)
JAP Ibuki: 5.9" guns are 4.7" with Range 9 (CR 145)
RUS Potemkin: 6" guns are Range 9 (CR 126)
RUS Rostislav: 6" guns are Range 9 (CR 87)
UK Canopus: 6" guns are non Piercing +1 (CR 86)
UK Dreadnought: 12" gun firing arcs are [ABCD][AC][BD][CD][CDEF]; 9.2" guns should not exist (CR 216)
UK Furious: 18" guns are ROF 1 (CR 159)
UK Invincible: 12" guns are 45-caliber
UK Iron Duke: Torpedoes are Range 6, Impact 3 (CR 382)
USA Pennsylvania: 14" guns are ROF 3 (CR 669)

The corrected ship data cards can be downloaded here:

http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/dreadnoughts.zip

Sorry for the sloppy proofing -- the responsible parties have been sacked. smile

2,098

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

Well, the good thing is that the errors are only in terms of historical conversion -- in terms of game play, the "incorrect" versions of the ships are still very much playable and balanced under the point system.

2,099

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Thats interesting.

"Interesting", good?

"Interesting", bad?

2,100

(25 replies, posted in Starmada)

bekosh wrote:

A couple more items.
USS Pennsylvania had 4x3-14"/45 but has ROF 2.

My source says  they were 2-gun turrets...

And, it would seem, my source is wrong. sad

USS Nevada had 10x14"/45, twins over triples, but has ROF 3.
I guess you would need to split the battery to do it right.

Yup. There were a couple ships where I "fudged" a bit in order to avoid having two separate batteries for a single size of gun.

HMS Furious, 18"/40's should be single mounts, has ROF 2.

*sigh*

Any others?

(Four out of 100 ain't bad, right?)