2,251

(27 replies, posted in Starmada)

hexblade wrote:

we decided to ban 2+ to hit, ranges above 18, repeating, increase (all), variable (all), and extra hull damage, and we will try to implement minimum shielding based on a size of the hull (bigger the ship, more shields must have) , minimum engine rating on a ship, and all weapons minimum 120 degree arcs.

Nothing wrong with this approach. Starmada is made for tinkerin'. smile  The reason there are so many options is not to use every last one of them in every game, but to provide enough variety to tailor the game to your particular needs/tastes.

But at some point I would encourage your group to experiment with counters to the long-range weapon approach. I think you'll find that there are many possibilities... and we'd love to hear about the results!

2,252

(27 replies, posted in Starmada)

hexblade wrote:

the screen idea is ok, but I already had a battleship (hull24)with 5 shields and armour plating, and good quality weapons with range 18 and 15, I was destroyed by range 30 weapons on the first turn

Holy CRAP. How big was the battle?

It takes a lot to destroy a hull-24 ship in one turn...

2,253

(27 replies, posted in Starmada)

Another thing I would try if faced with a fleet that loads up on extreme-ranged, powerful weapons is to field as many cheap ships as possible.

By definition, the other fleet is relying on a smaller number of more expensive ships. Due to the nature of chance in the game, by outnumbering the opponent I make him make a choice:

1) Split fire among as many targets as possible (never a good idea), or

2) Concentrating on a few targets in order to assure some combat reduction, but leaving the rest of my fleet undamaged.

2,254

(27 replies, posted in Starmada)

hexblade wrote:

and you don't find that a problem?, it's all about who has bigger guns on his gun platform, moving ships is not important, nor are there any need for weapons outside the forword arcs, thats not a balanced way to play the game, there has to be a way to improve the play, right now firepower is cheap vs. cost of defence and movement.

I think you miss my point -- yes, I do find it a problem when two fleets stand off at long ranges and snipe at each other.

But I don't grant your premise that the game is predisposed to such tactics. I don't believe that firepower is "cheap" when compared to defense or movement; for example, in the combat rating formula, movement is weighted exactly the same as weapon ranges -- so theoretically, for the same cost as that fleet with all range-18 weapons, I can have a fleet with engine ratings of 18, and dictate the time and place of engagement -- and outflank your forward-only weapons.

Anyone has any ideas?

I think we've already discussed quite a few... smile

2,255

(166 replies, posted in Starmada)

The tech range is used with the "Expanded Tech Levels" option on p.42 of the Core Rulebook.

2,256

(27 replies, posted in Starmada)

Well, I think fighters are the best way to force an opposing fleet to "waste" space and combat potential on shorter-ranged weapons... however, several hull-1 ships with high engine ratings would also do the trick. Just be sure not to overload them with weapons, since they will die right quick, and you don't want to have all your eggs in one basket, as it were.

You also may see another option in the near future... big_smile

Other possibilities to consider are the judicious use of cloaking devices (always on cruiser-sized hulls or smaller; don't waste 'em on battleships); high shield ratings to weather the storm while closing the range; ammo-loaded weapons (get more shots in early, then use shorter-ranged "normal" weapons later on); etc.

But you're right -- a duel between two fleets using the same tactic (regardless of what that tactic is) can be a bit uninspiring.

I have generally found that once the force ratio exceeds 2:1, there's really no reason to fight it out... unless, as a previous poster suggested, there are some specific objectives that may reasonably be accomplished by the smaller force.

2,258

(28 replies, posted in Starmada)

go0gleplex wrote:

The obvious will always trip you up more than the obsure.

Is that Mark Twain?

Or Buckaroo Banzai?

2,259

(166 replies, posted in Starmada)

There is currently no option on the official shipbuilder to design fighters/strikers/etc.

2,260

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

I have a weapon that takes up 40 SUs. I place it on a ship with a Weapon TL of +1, which changes the SU to 28. I place on 10 examples of the weapon all in single arcs, so that works out to 560 SUs. When I calculate the ORat, I divide the weapons by the TL and then proceed with the calculation, right?

Yes.

2,261

(166 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

Changing the tech level of weapons changes the ORAT, but only when certain traits and certain ranges are selected.  I mostly checked going from TL 0 to TL +1 or +2.  I put in a negative tech only once and nothing changed.

How much of a change are we talking about?

There might be a rounding issue, since you round off the weapon SU costs, but then divide by the TL modifier when determining the ORAT.

2,262

(166 replies, posted in Starmada)

demster wrote:

Due to the rounding down I think you want to change the cells to 1, 4, 9 , 16, 25.  This should return the correct value that matches the ISS manual.
/quote]

Not only this, but the whole ammo calculation was wrong...  :oops:

I've fixed it, and uploaded v2.1 to the web site.

2,263

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

rafial wrote:

The Admiralty rules say that Tech Level adjustments have no impact on ORAT calculations, but my assumption is that you should calculate the ORAT of a battery using the space requirements BEFORE tech level adjustments are applied, rather than after.  Is this correct?  If, so the rules don't really make that clear.

Technically, the rules indicate that you are to determine the SU requirement, including the tech level modifier. This modifier is then removed when determining the CR value:

SAE p.42 wrote:

Note that the evaluative process (see rule 6.2: The Combat Rating) is unaffected by TLs, as the combat rating is based upon the actual capabilities of the starship; TLs simply change how much “stuff” a ship may fit into a given hull. Specifically, it is necessary to “un-apply” the Weapons Tech Level modifier when computing the offensive rating. This can be done simply by dividing the battery's total SU cost by the appropriate tech level modifier.

However, your method would work just as well, if not better -- i.e., saving the TL modifier until last and only applying it after the CR has been determined.

2,264

(166 replies, posted in Starmada)

GamingGlen wrote:

Some weapon traits (i.e., Piercing, Anti-Fighter Batteries) at some ranges (e.g., 3,15,18,24)  changes the ORAT, and CRAT, when you change the Weapons Tech Level.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. Weapon traits SHOULD affect the ORAT... ?

Seekers and strikers are a subset of fighters -- as such, they attack targets from an adjacent hex. The bit about detonating if they end in the same hex as an opposing ship is just a special case.

2,266

(5 replies, posted in Cheese)

go0gleplex wrote:

AND YOU DIDN'T COME SOUTH TO SAY HELLO!?!?!   :shock:

Well, I was in Portland for a funeral, so I didn't have a lot of free time on my hands...

But there's always time for cheese! smile

2,267

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

Cartman wrote:

You're coming out with a Brash Cardigan and the Hordes of Titania sourcebook, really? Any idea as to what the special rules might be? About when can we expect a release?

Well, negotiations with the estate of Mr. Goodenough are still underway, so it's not a done deal yet... but I'd put a 50-60% chance that we'll get the rights eventually.

Haven't really had too many discussions about game mechanics, but the most difficult thing to implement (and point-cost) is going to be the Titanian mind control; that's a bit outside Starmada's "comfort zone".

I would look for something by Christmas...

2,268

(5 replies, posted in Cheese)

...late last year, I took a tour of the Tillamook cheese factory in Oregon.

Not the most exciting of places, to be sure, but lots of free samples!

2,269

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

FlakMagnet wrote:

What I don't want to see is for Starmada's full set of rules to get broken up and spread out through a collection of supplements and expansions.
...  It's just that if Starmada's rules are going to be spread out through a bunch of books I'm not going to be too crazy about it.

Well, I'm afraid I can't promise there won't be a bunch of supplements and expansions -- because that was the whole point of the Admiralty Edition in the first place... smile

It's important to keep the product in the public eye, and that's difficult to do without follow-up releases. No matter how wonderful a game is, no matter how complete, go six months to a year without additional product and people start complaining about a "lack of support".

Secondly, the split of the "core" game into two books was absolutely necessary -- it allows us to "bundle" the rulebook with specific sourcebooks (like for SFB/FC) without confusing the issue with the "Starmada" background material.

Not to mention the fact that if I were to wait until I've thought of EVERYTHING for the game so that I can put it into a single, comprehensive volume, the book would never be finished...

Having said that, I can promise that future releases will not be in the CCG mold, in which each merely adds to what is necessary to play The One Game -- and potentially trumps what came before. Rather, each release will be distinct and self-contained; when combined with the Core Rulebook (or creatively intertwined by players) they will create what could be considered separate games with the same underlying framework.

Obviously, if a particular setting gets to be really popular, we might add an additional scenario book or somesuch, but for the most part, the intent is to explore all the possibilities of the Starmada game engine... and that's just not possible with a single, unified book.

Finally, if there's enough clamor for it, we might release occasional "compendiums" of rules-only material for players who don't want the "Brash Cardigan and the Hordes of Titania" background material but want to have the rules that go with it.

2,270

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

Enpeze wrote:

I guess you dont give this marines-stuff a high importance in Starmada, at the moment (at least compared to the new detailed missile and fighter design) But it would be fine if we could see in the future more about troops in space.  I would love to see boarding and troop action as an attractive optional way instead of weapon fire in order to bring an enemy down. Boarding actions have much tradition in SF operas.

It's not that I don't see marines as important -- just not AS important as some other things.

I would presume some more detailed boarding rules will be developed ... especially if someone wants to do an "Age of Sail"-type setting. wink

But does this approach hits exactly the athmosphere of SF operas which have great space bases like B5 or so?

I see your point -- but even in your example, what makes B5 different than a (really big) hull without engines?

2,271

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

Enpeze wrote:

Maybe its just me, but I think that the spinal mount was a special equipment piece.  It feels very "normal" in SAE. In previous editions spinal mounts could not be destroyed and the heavier the ship was the more range it had. I considered it more as "integrated" part of the ship design than the modern variant of SAE, where it is just another weapon. (although a big one) But of course I can live with it.

There's nothing saying the "special equipment" version of the spinal mount couldn't be put back into the game. It wouldn't break anything...

So why not having different troop types in order to portray the physcial/technological abilities of the different races? I even imagine that it could be fun to custom design troopers with traits like missiles or fighters.

Again, nothing saying this can't be done. But as a basic resolution system, it was easier (IMHO) to handle marines as described in the Core Rulebook.

To introduce real differences between space bases and ships, the bases could have special equipment ships cannot have. Or maybe a base has a to-hit-bonus? Or you can integrate some equipment cheaper? Or maybe a station has always a bonus on RNG because its a more stable platform? I think there are several possiblities to make space bases very interesting.

Sure. But this feels like adding things just for the sake of adding things. In the basic game, why can't bases just be ships without engines?

So a full fledged planetary assault scenario could include:
-setting up a planet or an asteroid (maybe with random environmental tables)
-space superority units (for attacker and defender)
-planetary defense installations for the defender which are worth VPs
-stationary orbital combat platforms (for defender)
-landing units (for attacker)

Now THIS would be cool... big_smile

2,272

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

Enpeze wrote:

I just bought the SAE and I really like it so far and jippie - I am again mentioned in the playtesters section.

You're welcome. smile

New movement system:
while I fully understand the necessity to introduce a new "realistic" system to please some grognards, I dont use it. The old basic movement system was one of the main reasons I played Starmada over the years. Its easy to play and offers enough options and preplanning.

Which is why we didn't take it away -- just moved it the options section.

-Why did you eliminate the spinal mount? (ok I know you can simulate it ot a certain extent with designing a special "spinal" weapon, but IMO its not the same)

What's not the same about it? (I'm not being argumentative -- I really don't understand...)

-why do all marines of every race have the same diceless combat effect? Wouldnt it be better to fight it out with 5,6 like in the previous editions? I always liked the suspense if I am able to capture a ship with my marines or not.

Yeah, I wondered about that. But one of the things that had happened to Starmada was the slow creep of extra dice rolls. With Admiralty, I tried to eliminate any rolls that weren't absolutely necessary.

-Unfortunately there are again no planetary assault and defense installation rules - for asteroids or starbases. Hm...

I've asked this before, but I've never gotten a good answer:

What makes a starbase different from a spaceship other than the lack of engines?

I'm not opposed to creating rules for bases/installations -- I just don't know what they would DO.

But all in all I think its the best Starmada edition ever.

Well, thanks! smile

2,273

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

VERY nice!!

2,274

(1 replies, posted in Starmada)

The tech levels (if any) are given in the Factions summaries on pp. 17-18.

2,275

(16 replies, posted in Starmada)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

New, yes. Improved? Not entirely sure on that score...

I like S:X because I can work with it. I understand it much better than S:AE, especially regarding the whole tech level issue--one of the reasons I haven't touched S:AE since I tried to design a ship with non-0 TLs.

Obviously, I won't try to tell you which version to prefer, but I am curious...

Why do you highlight the tech levels as being an impediment to using SAE? The system has not changed from SX... :?:

Posts found: 2,251 to 2,275 of 3,626

Pages Previous 1 89 90 91 92 93 146 Next

mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games