We talked about that once before.
Not sure I am in favor of that direction.

Overall, what we have works. It is just the leadership costing that throws it...

Oh, I had a thought on a change for the Rabble ability (or a new one) in the new version - does not have the 1 free command point for the unit.

Once upon a time I was the voice crying in the wilderness about how "uber pwnz" LRS/Stealth was. Very little can overcome the combination. And if you can use it with Ignores Shields weapons... *quiver*

OTOH, speed is key. The cost of the tech items really will restrict the movement speed and the arcs will generally be AB. High mobility to close to the rear - consider stutterdrive as another way to pounce beyond the opponents ability to turn.

The sunburts tactic above can work, but I found its use against me to vary in its success. Normally because the temptation to move to close outweighed the commanders desire to hide...

Fighters... the focus on the tech and the resultingly limited weapons will open a big fat vulnerablity to drones and fighters. Use it.

That sounds good!
Note, the Saxid are actually a desert lizard race so they'd have a foe with Arabian Nights types. cool.

At the time I started on it, I did some extensive web searches and found several sites with technical specs. I was starting from there and trying to adjust those values into Starmada terms. That is when I bailed out...

I started one once, but quit when I decided I wasn't geeked into the show enough to know what I was doing.  :oops:

I looked real fast before work and must have deleted my notes from that effort, or I'd post them...

Kevin, you did a great job of explaining exactly what I was going to say with this:

I think this quote does fully support option 1 or 2...

But now I think I see how the front arc restriction makes sense logically, even if I don't quite agree with it and my more loose, play to bash and have fun approach. But I would never pretend to restrict the other folks' fun by saying that they couldn't do it their way. Now that I better understand the intent of the original wording, it makes sense, and probably works better for the pure hexless crowd.

Still no pillbug wheeling... I won't give that up.

No, sir.

I'd agree if meant as ZOC - I think that is just about perfect.

Not in ZOC, you mean, right?

I have usually played with only 2, but have never had problems in games with 3 or 4 when we have done that.

Best game I have ever seen, in any genre for creating your own weapons. Equipment is static, but you can mix and match.

The Starmada rules themselves do not have officer rules. There are some attempts in the VBAM stuff to work in approximations.

I am biased, but think the VBAM stuff works well with Starmada. It isn't perfect, but given that they were two originally unrelated systems they match works out better than you'd think.

There are some balance issues lurking in there, varying depending on who you discuss with here. There are tactics and counters to most of them, however. So good play wins out, usually.

Starmada X and Starmada Brigade are exactly the same rules. Brigade you get many more ship designs to start off with. So neither is "better".

I leave in the hands of our fearless leader...

NP, and welcome to our little neck of the gaming woods.

We did well. Some nice sweeps by squadrons trapped some isolated opponents. But where we were evenly matched things stayed balanced. Given that our planes were "cheaper" that kept us ahead nicely and drove the Allies from the air.

I felt that that numbers - speed and hits - were a bit high, in that they could drag the game out some. Though, with fewer planes that may be just about right. Hard to judge from that crowded table.

The design intent of the system is that single individuals or monsters will be pulled down and overwhelmed by military units - it is mass combat. However, we did some testing once out of curiousity on how effective we could make a monster. The obvious abilities, such as undead, have the best chance of influencing things, and give a good account of themselves.

So, in my experience a well designed single monster will be pulled down screaming defiance and taking a large swath of enemy elements with it.

Now, that said, on the table in our games single monsters have proved consistently effective in that they invariably draw attention - often lots of attention - because it takes a committed effort to get the surrounding effect that Zerloon describes so well. And failure to address a large monster can result in it eating its way through units suprisingly fast with good dice. So the monsters are used to pin the enemy and then supporting units pounced on the force attacking them. Works a trick.
(I wrote a mini essay on that somewhere... I should dust it off.)

Boreal war mammoths have been some of the best examples on our tables, because I have two painted up and a nice horde at my disposal (though I have predominantly played orcs lately... hhhmmmm). The mammoths must draw attention or their trample will carry them right through a foe and cause no end of suffering (been there done that). And I am not afraid to pour command points into a single monster to run amok, to which Jim can attest.

Very cool, Rifleman.

I have some forces tucked away someplace that I could dig up and post...