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
Assuming you know how to run it:
Yeah... well... that would be the problem. I'm sure the thing is nice and intuitive once it actually starts.
All I can do is get my computer to open it as a text file. 
(I never said I was techo-savvy -- I just pretend to know what I'm doing... 
)
The movement looks interesting, but will take me a bit to get used to. I wrote a Java program to show the options, to get a feel for it.
That's nice.
How the heck do I make it do anything?
It took me a little while for my mind to register the change to the default fighter flights, but it's all right; The new small-craft options are going to be recieving some real playing with over the next few days, that's for sure.
I'm quite jazzed about that one, myself.
The change to default fighters was a necessary one -- for some reason, I didn't include the "reduces shields" effect into the point cost for X. By taking the ability out, it keeps the CR at 50, but you can always add it back in as a fighter trait (Piercing).
Consolidating all of the non-combat capacity of a vessel into one category really does make sense, same goes for marines. If you want them to go somewhere, you have to buy them a ride.
Indeed.
I can easily imagine that by this time next year being awash in settings ('skins' perhaps?) for these rules.
Toying with some thoughts on how to encourage settings... stay tuned.
The movement rules were a needed upgrade. The one thing I like about these vector rules is that the unknown I need to figure out is if my vessel has the necessary thrust. Most other systems you apply thrust and the unknown is where your ship is going to end up.
That was the intent. Glad at least someone likes it.
I do wish that ship sheets had the firing arcs on them along with the now retired diagram for screens. And a memo box for movement costs in the new system would have been good as well.
Yeah, I struggled with the layout of the new ship card for quite some time. Just didn't seem to find an appropriate place for the hex diagram, which I wasn't sure anyone was using, anyway.
I'll keep plugging away...
And unfortunately there doesn't look to be a way to damage specials or options. Granted Starmada X wasn't very satisfying in how it handled it and I'm not sure what a good answer would be to that problem. Maybe something like Full Thrust with crit checks at certain points in the Hull damage track.
Yep -- that would be a major change (or rather, rollback from X), and one the Admiralty debated a bit. But in the end, I felt the benefits of taking Q hits back out of the game countered the drawbacks.
But, remember, this is the Core Rulebook: the order of the day is "options, options, options". 
Okay, now THAT'S cool...
Starmada is currently #1 at RPGNow. Not in the miniatures section, mind you, but in the entire site.
Uhm, sorry Dan but you're gonna hate me for this one (or two?). :oops:
Yes.
I hate you.
One issue that popped up right away though. Is it just me or are the weapons being hit twice by the tech level SU Mod?
No, that's intentional.
You see, the weapons tech level is a special thing, where...
Oh, never mind.
You're right.
I'll release a "fixed" version in a day or two (just in case there are any other minor bugs to report). But for now, change as follows:
Cell J19: =ROUNDUP(J17*J18,0)
Cell J25: =ROUNDUP(J23*J24,0)
Cell J31: =ROUNDUP(J29*J30,0)And, the ORat calculation in H9 is being affected by the TL SU Mod of the weapon which rule B.12 Tech Levels says isn't supposed to happen.
Yeah, yeah...
Change:
Cell H20: =IF(D16="",0,ROUND(J19/G13*(B11+D16)/D16*IF(D16=24,1.25,IF(D16=30,1.5,1)),1))
Cell H26: =IF(D22="",0,ROUND(J25/G13*(B11+D22)/D22*IF(D22=24,1.25,IF(D22=30,1.5,1)),1))
Cell H31: =IF(D28="",0,ROUND(J31/G13*(B11+D28)/D28*IF(D28=24,1.25,IF(D28=30,1.5,1)),1))Where did you order a hard copy? I picked up the PDF on rpgnow... would get a hardcopy too if I could find it. ;-)
Looked on Lulu... but its not there yet.
Hard copy is available directly from the MJ12 web site:
http://www.mj12games.com/catalog/
Majestic Twelve Games is proud to announce that the newest version of Starmada is now available!
Starmada: The Admiralty Edition represents nearly a year of collective effort to update, streamline, and otherwise improve upon the Universal Game of Starship Combat. In addition to the essential rules, the Core Rulebook includes:
* Nearly 100 different options from which to pick and choose to create the type of game YOU want to play;
* A design system that allows for nearly five million different types of weapon;
* A fully-customizable set of rules for small craft, allowing for over one million different types of fighters, drones, and seeking weapons;
* Guidelines for converting your Starmada X ship designs to their Admiralty equivalents;
* A half-dozen sample scenarios; and
* The most comprehensive and flexible starship construction rules of any game available.
The 84-page Core Rulebook is available today through our online catalog for $16.95 (U.S.) A PDF version will also be available shortly through the major e-book vendors.
Today's release includes only the Core Rulebook--unfortunately, there is still some work to be done on the Imperial Starmada Sourcebook. Rather than prolong the agony of those desperate to see what we've done, while still ensure the best product possible, we've decided to release the rulebook today, as promised. The Sourcebook will follow within the next two weeks. This 48-page supplement will include:
* Detailed background material on five of the major factions in the Starmada Universe;
* Three dozen starship classes;
* Several new scenarios; plus
* A simple (but not simplistic) campaign system.
For more information on Starmada and all of our games, please visit our web site: www.mj12games.com
I take it since we have heard nothing yet... that it is a good sign and that some final last minute activies are being cleaned up??
No, actually... I'm cowering in a corner in fear of the lynch mob.
Which is sad, really, 'cause I'd rather be working on the last-minute activities to meet the deadline.
cricket wrote:Nice thing about electronic distribution and print-on-demand is that changes can be made pretty quickly. Sequential firing is now an option.
Does that mean changes might be made after the 17th? In other words, does it make sense to wait for a printed book until the dust settles?
Well, yes and no -- I mean, if people find errors or typos I will of course make appropriate changes as necessary. But I won't be adding new rules every other day or anything like that.
I just meant that, since we haven't hit the "release" date, I can still make content changes very easily -- and therefore I've added sequential firing as an option.
And Dan, it's not stupid.... but if you have a rules system, there will always be a way to circumvent those rules, and people who will look for those ways.
I'm not saying the IDEA was stupid -- I was stupid because I intended to do one thing and ended up achieving the complete opposite.
Considering how many variables are involved in a game like this..... These have to be some of the best rules written.
Aw, shucks.
Sequential firing was more a brainstorming idea.
Nice thing about electronic distribution and print-on-demand is that changes can be made pretty quickly. Sequential firing is now an option.
The 3/1/1 weapons will do around 50 DMG in the above situation while the 1/1/3 weapons will dish out around 66ish. That is really around a 30% increase in throughput. I see a need for high ROF weapons to take out smallcraft but with this formula, I bet you'll see a big increase in high DMG weapons because you'll get more bang for the (SU) buck.
Maybe... of course, there are Starmada X players who won't touch their weapons' PEN/DMG values until they've increased the ROF to 3, for the same reason (bang for the "buck").
And, as I hope I showed in my previous post, there is math to back up the approach that PEN and DMG are progressively (albeit slightly) less useful than ROF -- whereas the current situation exists because I was stupid.
This is why I wanted to weight ROF more heavily than PEN, and PEN more heavily than DMG.
Also, in the end remember that the differences we're talking about are minimal:
ROF 3/PEN 1/DMG 1 = 3 * (1+0.25) * (1+0.6) = 6
ROF 1/PEN 3/DMG 1= 1 * (3+0.25) * (1+0.6) = 5.2
ROF 1/PEN 1/DMG 3 = 1 * (1+0.25) * (3+0.6) = 4.5
Or a spread of ~15% in final point cost, if all other factors remain the same.
Will Admiralty change the way hits are rolled? From the way you described a weapon with high PEN wasting potential vs. weak/no shields, it sounds very different. Currently a high PEN vs. no shields acts just as a high DMG, more dice on the damage track. A PEN 3, DMG 1 weapon will do 3 DMG to a ship with no shields just like a PEN 1, DMG 3 weapon would.
No, no changes. And you're right -- on average, PEN 3/DMG 1 is the same as PEN 1/DMG 3.
However...
If you don't consider the averages and look at outcomes, there are major differences in how ROF/PEN/DMG interact.
*warning -- math ahead*
Consider the following (assuming 50% to-hit and 50% penetration):
ROF 3/PEN 1/DMG 1
Possible outcomes:
0 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (12.5%)
1 hit -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (18.8%)
1 hit -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (18.8%)
2 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (9.4%)
2 hits -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (18.8%)
2 hits -- 2 penetration -- 2 damage (9.4%)
3 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (1.6%)
3 hits -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (4.7%)
3 hits -- 2 penetration -- 2 damage (4.7%)
3 hits -- 3 penetration -- 3 damage (1.6%)
Totals:
0 damage = 42.3%
1 damage = 42.3%
2 damage = 14.1%
3 damage = 1.6%
Average = 0.75 damage
ROF 1/PEN 3/DMG 1
Possible outcomes:
0 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (50%)
1 hit -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (6.3%)
1 hit -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (18.8%)
1 hit -- 2 penetration -- 2 damage (18.8%)
1 hit -- 3 penetration -- 3 damage (6.3%)
Totals:
0 damage = 56.3%
1 damage = 18.8%
2 damage = 18.8%
3 damage = 6.3%
Average = 0.75 damage
ROF 1/PEN 1/DMG 3
Possible outcomes:
0 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (50%)
1 hit -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (25%)
1 hit -- 1 penetration -- 3 damage (25%)
Totals:
0 damage = 75%
3 damage = 25%
Average = 0.75 damage
So, the average is always the same -- but the ROF-3 weapon is most likely to score damage, while the DMG-3 is most likely to not score damage.
This is why I say that sometimes high-DMG weapons can "waste" their damage potential -- if a ROF-3 weapon scores damage 58% of the time, while a DMG-3 weapon scores damage only 25% of the time, that leaves one-third of attacks where the DMG-3 is doing you no good at all. That may be balanced out over the long term by the fact that the DMG-3 weapon does 3 hits over 15 times as often as the ROF-3 weapon, but in Starmada it is beneficial to get SOME damage early and often.
This is why I wanted to weight ROF more heavily than PEN, and PEN more heavily than DMG.
I was thinking I remembered from the previous conversation that PEN and DMG should be equally weighted, because the order didn't matter. (Needing 3+ and then 4+ is the same as needing 4+ and then 3+.) Does the new weighting reflect the changes you made to the damage tracking or something else? I remember you were trying to weight ROF more because of its effect on fighters, but I don't remember an effect that differentiated between PEN and DMG.
My reasoning was as follows:
ROF is always useful, because there's no guarantee that any single die will score a hit -- so the more dice you're rolling to start out, the better off you are.
PEN is most often useful, but in some cases will be irrelevant -- such as scoring several hits against a weakened target without any shields. In such cases, a weapon with a high PEN will "waste" most of its damage potential.
For similar reasons, DMG is the least useful -- once the shields have been penetrated, there may not be any difference between a DMG-1 and DMG-3 weapon, since some of that damage will be "overkill".
So, on average, there is no difference between ROF/PEN/DMG. But in many cases, PEN and DMG will lose some effectiveness, so there is some practical difference between them. The (PEN+0.25) and (DMG+0.6) factors were chosen because it means that PEN is weighted to 80% of ROF, and DMG is weighted to 62.5% of ROF (or roughly 80% of PEN).
Oh, and I''ll be interested to see both the inertial system and the damage tracking. Both are things that made me unsure about playing Starmade as an alternative to Full Thrust.
You'll have no excuses come next week!
But at the risk of being the first person with a suggestion that isn't actually in the game, these are the things my friends hope are in the Big List of Options:
Sequential activation (BattleTech style)?
Sequential weapon firing (Lightspeed style)?
I don't get the "Lightspeed" reference. :?:
However, to answer your questions:
Sequential activation = yes, as an option.
Sequential weapon firing = not sure what you mean. Weapons fire has always been sequential, with damage taking effect at the end of the Combat Phase. Are you wanting damage to take effect sequentially? If so, it's an easy thing to add...
Did you make the ROF point cost change? Did you use something that was mentioned in the discussion, or come up with something new?
The weapons point costs were changed to:
ROF*(PEN+0.25)*(DMG+0.6)
This weights the values progressively less as you move down the chain of die rolls, but still leaves a 1/1/1 weapon with a base modifier of x2, as with (ROF+1)*PEN*DMG
Oh you whiny twit!
You'll get down the mountain a lot faster by keeping the boards on than by walking (until you really hurt yourself).
That was the problem -- something was wrong with the binding on one of my skis... (at least, that's what I was telling myself... )
And Crested Butte is great. A long way out there. But great.
Kevin - who thinks that skiing right up there with mountain biking...
Crested Butte ain't bad, I'll admit -- they make a nice chardonnay 'round these parts.
But I'm thinking skiing is one of those things I'll check off my "things to do" list and never put back on.
I'm stuck in Crested Butte, Colorado. Two feet of snow, the pass is closed, and it's still snowing.
Thank God the Ski Patrol rescued me from walking all the way down the mountain.
I hate skiing.
But at least the lodge has internet access. How are all of you?
there I've been telling fellow gamers how good Starmada is and now I'll have to admit there is/was room for improvement as a newer (and better) version is coming out
I can only hope that y'all consider it better...
I guess I'm glad... But I just bought Starmada, and now I have to buy again? I didn't even play one game yet...
Sorry about that. Now you'll have even more reason to play! 
Are all of the cool suggestions in the rules now: the special equipment thread ideas like ecm(x) etc.?
Depends on what you mean by "all the cool suggestions"...
I remember that the tabletop epic space marines back in the 90ties had rules for a scenario type called "assault". One player had the role of the defender and got 50% fewer buy points. But he could buy also defense bunkers, razor wire and fortified weapon platforms for his points and set them up in a clever way.
Well, that makes more sense in terms of having "special" rules. I was thinking about "space stations" or weapons platforms -- which as far as I'm concerned would just be starships without engines.
Is it still based on d6 or has it moved to d10?
It is d6-based -- there's no way I could ever change, even if I wanted to. That's just part of what Starmada is.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.