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 Inari7
Are Modulating Weapons affected by screens?
Don't forget empires are big, you can't build a hundred battleships to send to every little problem your empire or federation may have to deal with. You need fast scouts and explorer craft for the outer fringes. You also need frigates and destroyers to fend off pirates or smaller annoyances. When a larger battle is offered you need everything you have so the destroyer is there too. In the larger battles you can send your destroyer escorts to the fringes of battle and harass from the sides or rear while your bigger ships give battle on the main front. I've played games where my opponent has a bunch of bigger ships, so I break off a few destroyer escorts to their flank and my esteemed opponent will break off a couple of his big ships to deal with them. Now my main force has less ships to deal with while my escorts may get hammered, I now have an advantage in tonnage in the main battle.
I like it sounds great, love the new movement system.
Will there be optional rules for cinematic movement?
This method, is best for new players at conventions.
It doesn't matter whether that forward-extended bank represents a single large weapon or a cluster of smaller weapons -- what matters is the bank's ability to bring firepower to bear. Thus, the attack dice...
Thats what I am talking about, It does not matter mathematically it's true, but when I make a weapon that has a ROF 3 and a IMP of 2, fluff wise this means that my weapon is "Rapid firing and is armor pincering, or another weapon with a ROF 1 and DAM3 this is a big weapon that fires slower and does alot of damage. In Starmada III this might (probably not) have the same stat number.
You are abstracting the weapons, this is fine for fleet battle games, but Starmada I thought of being a more detailed game.
I don't agree with the premise that "When making a rules system for fewer ships the more detailed the system needs to be." Sure -- the fewer units on the board, the more detail/crunchiness one CAN add to the system; but that's different than MUST.
Maybe I should not have said MUST, but for a SUCCESSFUL one-on-one starship combat game I think you should have ALOT of detail such as Federation Commander, squadron strike, Attack Vector Tactical or SFB.
How many people use Starmada for one-on-one starship duels?
Probably not many, I am not saying you cannot play games like that, but at Starmada's SCALE (3+ ships per player) the game is not as interesting as AVT, or Star Fleet Battles.
I think with this edition of Starmada you are changing the "Scale" of the of the game.
BTW I am not saying in any case whether this is good or bad game, I am just saying that I think the "scale" is changing to a game closer to "A Call to Arms" or SFO in the amount of ships used.
Not sure I like this new system, I enjoy making individual weapons.
I think Starmada AE is very intuitive, and seems logical.
Roll to hit...
Roll to penetrate shield/armor..
Roll damage.... seems realistic at this level of play.
Yes you roll your bucket of dice a few times but it goes pretty quick. Only when assigning damage to each location does it slow down but you are only playing with a few ships each not huge fleets.
When making a rules system for fewer ships the more detailed the system needs to be. Look at Star Fleet Battles a great systems for ship to ship duels VERY detailed. The more ships you add for each player to control the less detailed the game systems needs to be. Take Fed. Com. each players can or usually controls 2-3 ships, then you have game systems like Starmada and Full Thrust, that handle between 3-6+ depending your players and time alloted. Then you have SFO that can handle a dozen plus comfortably
This new system seems to be geared toward larger fleet battles thats not what I am looking for in Starmada. I like SFO or Starfire for the bigger battles.........
Looks like you are having a great start!!
Looking forward to your AAR's
I have always been hesitant on BSG because the genera is so fighter centric.
This is off topic but this is the most active board.
I have a message stuck in my "out box" for a member on this forum.
How do I send it, I have tried just about anything.
Thanks....................Doug
BeowulfJB and I will be getting together later this month send me a play test copy and we will give it a go.
A more streamlined movement system
Three distinct and layered types of starship defenses
Tell us more......
According to ADB coming out this month in the CAPTAIN'S LOG #44 "Starmada: Four new ships and a preview of the new edition of the rules."
New edition of the rules???
Or is it just another printing?
BTW I do agree in a tournament environment TEC levels should be the same.
@Nomad
My problem with Tech is that it allows you to conveniently break the ship design limits on a whim.
-Tim
But using Tech, makes you ships more fragile right?
If you cram enough weapons/systems that could fit into a size 10 hull into a size 5 hull, the combat value stays the same, but your ship dies after 5 hull hits rather then 10.
Sounds like it evens things out a bit.
Maybe after a week or so I can take all the suggestions and have the members of the forum vote on what to keep and what stays.
any thoughts?
"But the bigger the ships, the longer the games would be."
Not to sure I agree with that.
If my Destroyers were Hull 10
My cruisers were Hull 20
and my Battleships were hull 40
Would the games go longer or stay the same?
It was suggested on another thread that we should have official tournament rules for starship construction.
So I thought a topic on the subject might be in order.
I would suggest
one weapon trait for each weapon Battery
Basic fighters and strikers only, no customized fighter flights.
No expanded, ACC, Firing Arcs, or Ranges.
Limit Ammo in some way.
Limit Tec levels.... Maybe.
Just some suggestions, add or delete as little or as much as you think.
I have to agree, the game win goes to the player with the best design rather then the best tactics.
Maybe give names as to the ships job
Escort
Battle-line
Scout
Defender
Attacker
I usually base this on Hull size.
Torpedo boat
Frigate
Destroyer
Lt Cruiser
Hv Cruiser
Battleship
Dreadnought
Carrier's are a class unto themselves as they can be HUGE or small.
You could just do
Destroyer
Cruiser
Battleship
Carrier
I don't see much difference between a frigate, and a destroyer. Or a heavy vs a light cruiser.
Hull size
Random traits sounds like a cool idea. Can't get exploited, but might get lucky.
@madpax, In regular Starmada you can make strikers pretty nasty. You can change their defense, speed, and how much damage they can inflict.
Having each facet have a different shield strength when hit is scored on the shields, all the shields go down a shield strength. of if using fleet ops half the shields when the ship is crippled.
Or
The shield rating is the strength of the forward shield all other shields are a point less maybe make the rear two less. When the shields are take damage the forward shield is lowered and the others follow suit.
In the movies or tv shows the shields all go down at the same time. In the SFU you can drop one shield while others could be at full strength.
Against what is in that book it's hard to beat the Negali.
Starmada can be very Rock Paper Scissors. From the games I have played, weapons with ammo, long range weapons (longer then your opponent), shields of 5, Piercing weapons 2+ seem to unbalance the game too. There always options that you can use to mitigate these advantages but you have to know what you are going up against, if don't you may decimate or get decimated.
It's hard not have a Rock Paper Scissors type games when you have so many options, but if everyone is on the same playing field without huge advantages or disadvantages then you will get closer games.
Perhaps before players design their ships you will have to let you opponent know what traits you will be using with your fleets. Then the players can pick two more traits so they can counter their opponents traits. Just a thought.
I think if you took out the Negali you would have a more evenly matched games.
What has always bothered me was that
Three Lasers with RNG 4/8/12, ROF 1, ACC 3+, IMP 3, DAM 3
Has the same SU cost as
One Laser with RNG 4/8/12, ROF 3, ACC 3+, IMP3, DAM3
Mounted on a ship one hit will take out your one weapon while one hit will only destroy one of the three lasers.
I think that the larger the weapon the less SU cost for the weapon (not including weapon traits) just the basic weapon. I think as player should have some sort of advantage for having one big weapon that may be destroyed by one lucky hit. then someone who has three weapons. Each weapon does the same thing the only difference is that a single hit can destroy the large single weapon. Maybe some sort of incremental system can be used maybe -10% SU cost for each ROF IMP and DAM after the first.
Just a thought.
Not to take anyting away from what cricket said, you also have to take into account what the opposing ranges are. If the enemy has a range 30 weapon then the chances of getting within 3 are slim to none. If the opposing fleets weapons have a range of six then your chances are better. Its all a matter of proportion.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Inari7
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.