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 underling
Since no one else is answering, I thought I'd try to help.
The link to the Drydock is on the home page.
Is that what you're looking for?
Doesn't look like there's much traffic on here anymore.
I don't believe there's an "official" one, but if you're still looking for one I'd be more than happy to send you one I put together.
Let me know.
Kevin
ksmith19@cox.net
So, I did some brainstorming, and came up with a houserule that should accomplish the goals of the initiative rule, without having to call out each rank/suit combination individually. First, my assumptions about the goals of the initiative rule (which are hopefully correct):
A) Neither player knows for certain who will activate next, except in very rare circumstances (such as having the highest suit ace).
B) In spite of not knowing for certain, both players can make educated guesses about who will activate next, based on the strength of their hand.
C) The player with a greater number of unactivated units has a higher chance of activating next.
With these goals in mind, I have come up with this process:
1) Both players are dealt a number of cards equal to the number of units they have, as normal.
2) Both players reveal the highest card currently in their hand.
3) The player with the higher card out of these two activates a unit.
4) The player with the lower card draws a new card off the top of the deck.
5) Repeat steps 2-4 until all of one player's units have been activated, then the other player finishes activating his remaining units.
What do you think? As I said, it seems to accomplish all the goals of the original system, unless there are any goals I overlooked. And it should move things along much quicker.
Based on my experience I'm not sure whether this gains you anything, but I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work.
The nice thing about ARES is that it works with any number of initiative/activation mechanics.
Kevin
Kevin
This seems like a lot of effort, and still doesn't fully accomplish the intention of "cards are not revealed until they're played," since cards of the same rank are revealed simultaneously. Do you find that all this adds a lot to the gameplay? I wonder if there's an easier way to accomplish the same thing.. obviously a third person looking at the cards would work, but maybe a computer program could work too...
Note that cards don't have to be revealed until they are played.
I just do it that way to expedite things.
You could certainly start with the aces, and call for your first suit. If no one has it, call for your second suit. And so on. I've played and/or run numerous games of ARES, and never had it be an issue.
Keep in mind that each player is only going to have a number of cards equal to the number of units and individuals.
Most of the games I've run I've tried to cap the number of units commanded by each player at three to five.
Kevin
I know this board hasn't been updated in over a year, but hopefully there's still someone keeping an eye on it.
The rules talk about dealing cards to determine things like initiative order, and having the highest card in "hand." Terms like "dealing" and "hand" imply that these cards are kept secret, but that makes it a lot harder to determine who has the highest card. Are initiative cards meant to stay hidden until discarded, or is your "hand" public knowledge?
Typically the way I've handled initiative is as follows:
For starters, I rank the suits differently (spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs) than the rules call for, but that simply boils down to preference.
1) Deal the cards from the deck.
2) Call for each rank of card, starting with aces, but one rank at a time.
3) If there is more than one ace, activate by rank of suit.
So the only cards known will be the current rank that is activating.
Repeat steps 2 and 3 until all cards have been played.
The cards should remain hidden until they are played, but if more than one of a given rank has been dealt that's a little more difficult to do.
Kevin
I find the attack dice mechanic to be "unrealistic" and I dislike it, but.. not much I can do about it except not to play at all.
I realize everyone's opinion differs, but I'm curious as to what you don't like about the dice columns?
Kevin
underling wrote:Keep in mind, though, that per the design rules you're technically not supposed to have multiple identical weapon banks.
If you want to be able to fire into the same arc multiple times, then I believe the rules intent is to have a lot of dice, and then use the rules for splitting fire.
During playtesting, we did design ships that used multiple identical firing arcs, and it certainly didn't break anything.
For example, if you want to use a [TT][TT][TT], it works.
snippage
My take for weapon battery/bank design is the following, and certainly take this with a grain of salt:
* Always set the BAS set at 1.
* Decide how many starting dice you'd like the battery to have.
* Decide how many banks you'd like the battery to have, and what firing arcs to assign them.
* Decide what mods to assign to those banks, which will simply be a reduction from the starting dice of the battery.
Note that you're not really supposed to duplicate banks in the same battery, but I don't believe it affects the point costing, and it certanly doesn't affect game play if you do.
Hopefully the above helps.
KevinWhere does it say that? I've skimmed through the design rules and it doesn't say that, and I'm now a bit concerned about some of my designs... :?
I don't know if this is actually stated in the rules, or if it's something that was said to me verbally by Dan.
But I got the impression that his intent was to not allow multiple identical banks.
My understanding is he'd rather see this: [TT] (12 dice)
Than this: [TT][TT][TT] (4 dice each)
I prefer the multiple bank method, as it's less fiddly, and easier to understand.
Instead of having to split the dice from a bank, you simply use multiple banks at full strength.
I haven't looked at the numbers yet, but it may be slightly more efficient (either cost wise or dice wise) to run multiple smaller banks than one large bank and split the dice. When we first started playtesting we did have a lot of ship designs that used multiple identical arcs, and it played just fine.
My guess is that, regardless of intent, the point costing and game play would be the same, or nearly the same, using either method.
Maybe Dan can weigh in on this one.
Kevin
It sounds like you're starting to get it figured out, and it's been a few months since I've designed any ships, but I thought I'd weigh in with a tip or two.
A "Battery" is collectively all of the weapons of the same type, regardless of their facing, on any given ship.
A "Bank" is one particular weapon in the battery - it may or may not share the same or similar facings with other weapons in the battery.
Each bank can be fired independently of the others in its battery, at different targets, or not at all depending on the situation and the wishes of the player.
Check, check and check.
Keep in mind, though, that per the design rules you're technically not supposed to have multiple identical weapon banks.
If you want to be able to fire into the same arc multiple times, then I believe the rules intent is to have a lot of dice, and then use the rules for splitting fire.
During playtesting, we did design ships that used multiple identical firing arcs, and it certainly didn't break anything.
For example, if you want to use a [TT][TT][TT], it works.
Is the starting value of the "Attack Dice" row referring to the Battery as a whole, or to each individual bank within the battery?
The battery as a whole.
Each weapon bank in that battery may then have firing arc mods to reduce the starting dice.
The firing arc mods may be the same, or may all be different.
If this is the case, though, how is it resolved when you fire only one of your weapons from your Battery, or if they're fired at multiple targets?
Each bank may fire at a different target, and each bank may also have its dice split up to fire at different targets.
Note that it's probably simpler to not split weapon bank fire.
My take for weapon battery/bank design is the following, and certainly take this with a grain of salt:
* Always set the BAS set at 1.
* Decide how many starting dice you'd like the battery to have.
* Decide how many banks you'd like the battery to have, and what firing arcs to assign them.
* Decide what mods to assign to those banks, which will simply be a reduction from the starting dice of the battery.
Note that you're not really supposed to duplicate banks in the same battery, but I don't believe it affects the point costing, and it certanly doesn't affect game play if you do.
EXAMPLE:
Main Beam [FF][FP2][FS2], 10 dice
This means, assuming no other mods, that the beam can fire three times, and will have 10 dice in the FF arc, and 5 dice in each of the FP and FS arcs (because of the two column shift).
Hopefully the above helps.
Kevin
I don't feel this is the problem, Kevin.
In non simultaneous play, seekers are fired during the turn N and attack during the turn N+1.
In simultaneous play, seekers are fired during the turn N, but exactly when?
Per the rules, or at least my interpretation of the rules, they would fire at the end of the combat phase of turn N+1.
I don't think anything in the rules changes this.
As enemy ship can fire at seekers when they are fired, simultaneous play poses some problem. If you suppose any enemy ship may fire at them, then seekers are disadvantaged over simultaneous play (more ships ie opportunities to fire at them).
And at the end of turn N+1, they attack, giving the opponent more ships to fire at them.
Marc
Yep, they appear to be at a disadvantage due to the fact that they can't fire early in the combat phase.
One factor that might make it not quite as disadvantageous as it appears is the fact that during sequential play you can be more surgical in your attacks against a seeker. One ship can fire at it, you can see what damage it causes, and then subsequent ships can choose to fire at it or not.
During simultaneous play, I believe all fire would have to be pre-plotted. So you might end up with some overkill if you've allocated a bunch of fire at it and it gets destroyed.
The flip side is you might not have directed enough fire at it, and so it has most of its dice remaining when it attacks.
All of our playtesting involved sequential play, so I don't really have any frame of reference for how effective they are or aren't in simultaneous play.
Kevin
I just reread the rules, and I don't think the rules change much from sequential to simultaneous play.
During the End Phase of the turn that the seekers are fired, they flip face up.
For sequential play, seekers resolve their fire against the target ship immediately after that target ship fires during the combat phase of the following turn.
For simultaneous play, seekers resolve their fire against the target ship after all other ships have fired at the end of the combat phase of the following turn.
It seems fairly clear to me.
Kevin
IIRC, seekers attack in the same turn they are fired, after all normal ship and fighter fire has been resolved.
I don't believe this is correct.
We use seekers to simulate fighters, and I believe they attack in the turn following the turn they are launched.
Kevin
For weapon systems which have penalties for all arcs, why not remove the minimum penalty and shift the attack dice list to the left by the same amount? For example, why have a weapon system with arc "[FF2]" and attack dice "A B C D ...", and not "[FF]" with attack dice "C D E ..."? It's simpler and less confusing.
My local group has been involved with this from the playtest stage and on, and what you've suggested is exactly the way we handle the dice columns. The amount of variance you get in a column or two, in our opinion, that occurs when simplifying the modifiers isn't worth worrying about.
So with any given weapon, we always set the smallest modifier at zero, and go from there.
Kevin
However, I don't know how to "encourage" players to avoid such abuses without arbitrary design limits.
How about the following:
The game will probably be a more enjoyable gaming experience if you limit weapon traits to two per weapon.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Kevin
underling wrote:If a weapon attacking a seeking weapon has the double damage trait, then it has an additional -2 to hit.
No, he had it right to begin with. The modifiers on p.25 all apply to traits possessed by the SEEKER (i.e. the target) not the firing weapon.
I looked at page 25 again, and yep, it looks like I misinterpreted the rules.
Although I'm not sure I understand the logic behind having minuses to hit just because the target has the double or triple damage, or catastrophic damage traits.
The week before last I played many games of Starmada with my Dad, Nephew, & Gaming Glenn at his store near Ft Lauderdale. My nephew used strikers on two of his support ships. These strikers were formitable; their weapon traits were: {Acr,Dx2,Fcs,Tls} They were range 18 in a FF arc battery. While the striker-carrying ships stayed at long range, his other ships and my ships (I was on his side) entered into medium & short range of our opponant's fleet. Am i correct in calculating that any weapons that fire at these strikers get a -4 to hit? (-1 for being strikers, -1 for Acr, -2 for Dx2). Very few were shot down by the target ships. Even ships with Shields 3+ were ravaged when c40 of these hit them.
Do fighters get the same minuses to hit strikers, etc. that ship weapons have, or do the ignore the -1 for shooting at strikers.
I have installed "AA Batteries" in my ships to deal with fighters, strikers, etc. These are range of only 3, and since Sct & Dfs don't affect fighters, etc. these AA Batteries have {Acr,Pnp,Rpt}. At short range, and with Fire Control, which all my ships have, this gives a +3 to shoot at strikers, etc. I have these in TT mounts of up to TT8. Is there anything I could add to these "AA Batteries"? Are we handling strikers correctly?
When you say strikers, I assume you're meaning seekers?
If so the following applies.
If not, just disregard.
Attacks against seekers are at a -1.
If a seeking weapon has the accurate trait, attacks against it are at an additional -1.
If a weapon attacking a seeking weapon has the double damage trait, then it has an additional -2 to hit.
So in your case the modifier to hit, just taking into account the seeking weapon, should have been -2.
Kevin
It sprang from here.
And I like it.
Anybody think you'll limit moves to not allow multiple turns per hex?
That kind of movement just seems too free to me.
andy
I believe the Nova movement system is merely replicating what ships can do in S:AE.
So I think you would be restricting the movement a little too much.
Kevin
A ballistic proximity weapon avoids that whole, "Hit myself at range 1." issue. It's the best way, right now I can use to represent an attack such as a flame-jet projector.
Expanding on this a little, the way I interpret a weapon with ballistic is that it couldn't shoot at a face up seeker, due to face up seekers being considered at short range (and ballistic weapons not being able to fire at short range).
Don't know what it is, but it's fun to pronounce...
VOSSER * shtall
vosser * SHTALL
WOSSER * shtall
wosser * SHTALL
The assumption is the attack happens not at the moment the seekers are one hex away, but at the point during their travel most advantageous for the defender...
That being said...
I'd also say that if you really want, for whatever (moronic) reasons, to put the proximity trait on a range 1/2/3 weapon, then when you make the attack against the seeker at close range you should suffer the consequences.
In essence, by not having any penalty, it seems like you're allowing the proximity trait on range 1/2/3/ weapons at a slight discount.
Kevin
Why only the first section?
underling wrote:* Marines still have to eliminate armor, just as regular weapons do.
When marines attack, any marines that aren't eliminated start marking off hull boxes in the following order:
Third hull section
Third armor section
Second hull section
Second armor section
First hull section
Once all of the hull the in three hull sections has been eliminated, you could potentially be left with the first section of armor intact, but with the ship captured.
Assuming I'm reading the rules correctly, that is.
Kevin
Marines seems very powerful because they can be send in any number. Why should we don't send all of them?
Of course, you need to close a lot and marines are sensible to some defenses (if I'm not mistaken), like ECM and shields.
Marc
Our experience with marines has been exactly the opposite.
If a defending ships has even a few marines, attacking ships have to come with so many they usually can't afford to, or don't want to run the risk of losing their own.
Here are a few of things to keep in mind:
* Marines still have to eliminate armor, just as regular weapons do. And yes, I realize they start with the hull boxes before moving to the armor. I believe the only armor they "bypass" is that in the first section.
* Marines still have to get through the normal defenses of ECM and shields.
* Once the number of marines successfully boarding has been established, the defending ship can immediately sacrifice their own marines on a one for one basis to eliminate those marines.
I can't speak for everyone in my group, but I try to put marines on ships on approximately a three or four to one ratio of hull to marines. I don't carry enough to capture ships, but I try to have enough so that others might think twice before trying to capture my ships.
My thinking is that marines are probably going to be be useful in capturing small ships that don't have a lot of hull or armor to begin with, or larger ships that have already been damaged to a certain degree.
To be fair, though, we just haven't used them very much yet.
Kevin
Would like to see the calculations for this.
If 503 is supposed to be the point cost, I'm a little dubious...
Here is another question.
"Only remove a marine from the attacking ship for each hit"
Shields only get a chance to save after a "Hit" has been made so any marines that are stopped by shields are lost (removed from the attacking ship)?
Paul
We rarely attempt boarding attacks, so I can't remember if this ever came up in playtesting.
Until we get an official interpretation, that's the way I'd play it, although this is just my preference.
I've got a sneaking suspicion that the intent of the rules is to not have marines eliminated by shields, but have them returned to their ship.
Kevin
underling wrote:I'm not sure what the multiplier or SU cost will be, but I'm guessing they will both be fairly large.
I'm thinking x2 would about cover it.
I was thinking x1.5, but I could probably live with x2.
Jeez...
The good stuff seems to always be a bit overpriced.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by underling
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.