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 mj12games
Unprotect the black areas on the Data Card sheet so people can alter the colors of those areas.
No reason to unprotect the sheet...
1) Go to "Tools > Options..."
2) Select the "Color" tab.
3) Select the right-most color in the "Chart Fills:" line.
4) Click the "Modify" button.
5) Select your desired color.
Done!
Well now, that's impressive! 
NOOOOOO!!! No more overthrusters!!! :shock: :shock:
I want maneuvering to mean something. Overthrusters negated that a great deal in X.
Then don't use them. 
I've tried to make it explicit as possible that none of the options are required, or even encouraged. Use the ones you want, discard the ones you don't. But if you happen to play against someone who wants to use overthrusters, their ships should be balanced against yours.
Should a ship, any ship, have some minimum CRAT?
No.
The combat rating is very good at what it does -- but it only does one thing; that is determine a ship's effectiveness in combat. If a ship has no weapons, it cannot do any damage, and is therefore useless in a one-off battle.
An observation: Did you know that a teleporter has an ORAT of 20? This is more than having a real weapon (even modifying the previous one to RNG 12, ACC 3+ : ORAT 18.7).
Oops. The ORAT of a teleporter is 10. And the ORAT of a (standard) boarding pod flight is 16, not 25. :oops:
It was left out because, with the ability to specify a different attack value for flights, I wasn't sure what point value to use for the +1/-1 shift.
But it can easily be put back in at a later date...
The nice thing about Denver, actually, is that the snow doesn't persist very long. It's annoying as hell when it's snowing, because (1) we don't use salt on the roads and (2) it keeps coming and coming and coming.
But once it stops snowing, the city is pretty good at clearing it up, and the weather almost always becomes sunny and warmer within a day or two.
I would assume that KEB defenses would "degrade" evenly as with the standard shield rating.
Having shoveled the driveway now FIVE times today, I think you can guess what my response would be...
REFUTOR-class CONJECTURAL SPACE NAVY CRUISER ( 566 )
I like the design, and the description, but I'm confused... putting this into my spreadsheet, I get a combat rating of 772?
Either of the above options makes sense, as does any other that you might come up with.
As before, within the game, it is irrelevant what a "carrier" is carrying -- and since that means the only reason to care is if playing a campaign, it should be left up to the campaign rules to decide how to deal with the issue (if at all).
I tried the "Triangle" method for a while, but found that I tended to prefer a lot more of the frigate and destroyer class ships.
Sorry... the "triangle" method?
Stuck at home, just shoveled the driveway for the second time. 
Have "Robotech" going on the new DVD upconverter/46" Hidef LCD TV... looks very pretty. But Minmay is still damned annoying.
I think for our local group we will add a difference between pure Carrier ( x ) and the carrying of Strikers and/or Seekers. Call the new options Seeker ( x ) and Striker ( x ).
Yeah, I've been thinking about that.
From a one-off game balance perspective, there's no reason why you couldn't fill the carrier space with whatever you wanted. But in a campaign setting, it might make more sense to specify what is being carried -- whether that's a simple distinction between fighters and strikers, or whether you have to specify the exact type of fighter or striker (if using the customization option).
e.g. "10 flights of standard fighters" or "6 flights of FA-6 and 4 flights of FB-21"
The limitation of only one range-based trait was imposed because many such traits do not combine according to their multipliers -- for example, a weapon with inverted range modifiers and range-based ROF is not necessarily 2.8 times more effective (my math says it should be 2.0)
So, range-based traits can be combined -- but the multiplier has to be determined for each combination separately. For the core rulebook, it was much easier to limit weapons to one such trait.
I have just finished reading thru the New Starmada Admiralty rules and am very, very impressed with them. There are so many good things here, that I almost don't know where to start.
I may miss over-thrusters because my main warships are WW2 battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc made into 14 to 4 hulled space ships.
I'm not sure how those two statements are related (did WW2 battleships have overthrusters? ) However, I have been thinking of a way in which overthrusters could be put into the Admiralty edition.
Essentially, treat them as allowing a "free" pivot -- e.g. if a ship with overthrusters plots a +2 pivot, it only adds 1 to the thrust requirement.
No, pivots and rolls only affect the thrust requirement for the current game turn.
is rpgnow even working?
edit, apparently they've fixed the database, but the speed still sucks
Yeah -- all the people buying Starmada have flooded the system.
Okay, now THAT'S cool...
Starmada is currently #1 at RPGNow. Not in the miniatures section, mind you, but in the entire site.
Update -- still there eight days later! 
But what if I wanted to give a weapon the Slow-Firing trait twice? How would that work out? You only fire once every four turns?
The rules do say "in any combination", but the intent is for a weapon to only take a given trait once.
Multiples of the same trait are not allowed. That way lies madness...
Looking through the new rules, is there anything 'balance-wise' that would be lost if just using the old movement rules over these new thrust-based rules? I like the fact that the new rules streamline damage allocation quite a bit but I fear that any time saved there would be lost in the plotting phase calculating the new movement system.
I would suspect that the first couple of turns might be a little time-intensive, but you should pick it up pretty quickly.
That being said, no, I don't believe there's any game balance difference between the new system and the old/basic system from Appendix D.
The art adds a good feel... some of it is a little low res... but that makes the PDF load faster :-). I much prefer it to the iron stars art for example... just personal preference. I thought there was a great assortment of difference scenes... its not repetitive and its interesting.
I would presume, Mr. Dugan, that he's referring to the "spot" artwork in both books. There's no way any sane human would say that my feeble efforts are preferable to the work you did on the Iron Stars ships.
I am surprised at the consensus against AFB -- I always found it an important deterrent when picking targets, as did my group.
So did I, frankly. I never designed a ship without 'em. But the forum here seemed pretty one-sided in their assessment...
1) I think the OP wanted something not merely to lessen the effectiveness of fighters, but to interdict and attrit them actively. So while I agree that the countermeasures is a good idea, it doesn't go to the heart of his question.
An active fighter defense is something that people have been asking about for years. And I don't have an answer. The only possible "solution" that seems to meet the demand would be to allow some weapons to fire in the fighter phase -- but that's a can o' worms I'm afraid to open.
2) How would you price such a 'Close Defense System'? SUs, ORAT, DRAT, etc. Would you consider it interesting and useful enough to include in Admiralty 1.1?
By "such a system" you mean forcing a -1 penalty to fighter attacks? I would think something close to AFB would be a good starting place; x1.2 to the DRAT and a 5% space requirement.
3) And one question of my own, in a similar vein: what happened to 'interceptor' fighters? There are two ways for fighters to get -1 against other flights in excahnge for greater vessel-damage, but no way to exchange vessel-damaging ability to flight-damaging ability. I assume this is intentional, but why?
It was sort of intentional... Allowing fighters to take "no hull damage" or "non-penetrating" without consequence would have left them open to abuse. But I didn't eliminate "interceptors" per se for any particular reason.
Ah btw, no need to reply right away, you folks enjoy your holidays for Elvis' sake!
This IS what I do for enjoyment...
Closer?
By frickin' George, I think he's got it!
One thing that really that got me astray was the "newtonian" phrase. That put me into vector mindset. I keep thinking: If i loose an engine while going speed 6. Then by accounts newtonian law says I will go speed 6 and not have to plot anything. <vacant look, waiting for self applause>
I don't want to sound repetitive, but remember that you WILL have to plot something.
The plot is the movement you're going to perform and NOT the activity of your engines.
If you're travelling 6 hexes/turn, and have no engine rating left, you'll still plot '6' every turn -- you just won't be using any thrust to do it.
Technically speaking, if you plot NOTHING, you'll drop to speed zero and have to spend 6 thrust.
In essence, the system is backwards from FT and other vector-ish systems. I wrote it that way because I think it's so much easier to think in terms of what I want the ship to do, and not in terms of what thrust I need to apply in order to get my ship to do what I want.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.