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 Saedor
Pages 1
Well, then let me fix this complaint!
Cool! that should make it worth while to add the Kzinti.
The Kayeshi Fleet I was designing also carried drones on a number of the ships in the fleet..... I would launch them and have them stick near the launching ship... finally, when I had enough to do what I wanted, they would all head off for the target......
Kzinti tactics in SFB are similar... Launch a wave of drones, then follow it at a slight distance. The drones will either a) tie up the target ships weapons so he can't fire at the Kzinti ship, or b) damage the target enough that the Kzinti ship can finish it off. 
Hey, when employed in HUGE waves, from multiple directions, they are much more than a 'harassment weapon'!
Very true. I have only been using them for the Klingons so far, but I can imagine what effect a task force of Kzinti ships would have....
Might consider having slow, medium, and fast drones - I dunno how all the options would work, though. A racks, B racks, C racks, Multiwarheads, Double endurance, etc...
This is my only real complaint about Starmada. There is little or no depth in seeking weapons (by which I mean weapons that are represented on the table as seperate entities). It would be fun to create the weapon types you describe, but at present there is no way to cost them.
How fast are drones going in your game, and what weapons are there to deal with them?
I have kept them at speed 10. This is not that fast when using the FT movement system, so, like in SFB, ships CAN outrun them.
Any weapon can fire at a drone, at a -1 to-hit. Also, I allow tractor beams to be used to 'catch' drones before they hit.
So... Like in SFB, they aren't very effective except in large numbers, but they can be very annoying and make good 'harassment' weapons.
Hmm... I don't know if the game would last indefinitely-- remember that hull hits cannot be repaired through damage control. Having said that, a more elegant solution to your concern might be to roll the same number of dice as currently allowed, but first roll for 4 (or 5+ if that's still too easy). Any dice that succeed are then rolled to determine repairs as normal.
Well, I may have been exaggerating a bit by saying 'indefinately'. But since I already downgraded the weapons so they cause less damage (to avoid one-shot kills), the rapid pace of damage control is just too fast. I'm sure it's just right when you use more potent weapons, but in the Star Trek version I'm doing, its too effective. I think your solution should work though.
But then, if you're saying an explosion in the vicinity would "potentially" cause damage, there's still the potential for no damage -- i.e., a "miss".
I think it's a matter of what you interpret drones to be in your universe. In my case, I'm thinking more along the lines of a homing torpedo. If it misses, it's either goingto explode close enough to cause a penetration roll anyway, or its going to swing around and come back. I think maybe your model os more along the lines of an air-to-air missile, which goes ballistic if it misses because it doesn't have the fuel to turn around and try again.
We did a playtest tonight... The Feds had a Constitution Class Cruiser and a Saladin Class Destroyer. The Klingons had a D-7 and an F-5.
The game ran very well using the 2.0 modifications. The Feds (played by my son) won (I was the Klingons). The F-5 was destroyed on turn 8 by a photon salvo from the Saladin (it had been partially damaged before). The D-7 disengaged by turn 10.
All the ships took a reasonable amount of damage, so I think the weapons in 2.0 are working well. However, several minor things came up which need tweaking;
1) Damage control. As written in the rules, it's too effective. We stopped using it after turn 5 or 6 as it became apparent that the game would last indefinately with it. A possible alternate rule; Divide the ships current hull points by 3 (round down, minimum of 1). This is the number of damage control rolls allowed per turn. So... a Constitution class starts with 3 rolls (11/3=3.67, rounded down=3) instead of 11.
2) Tractor Beams. I hadn't planned on tractor beams being used multiple times in the same turn, but my son needed them to fend off the Klingon drones. So we made an on-the-spot rule; Tractors work on 4+ the first time, 5+ the second and on a 6 the third time in a single turn.
3) Drones. The rules state that a drone must roll 4+ to hit. My son couldn't understand how a drone could miss, and I kind of agree. I would assume that even if they didn't score a direct hit, they would explode when in proximity to the target and still potentially cause damage. So, as an alternate rule; Drones do not need to roll to hit. They automatically explode when they come into contact with the target. They still must roll for shield penetration though (at shield rating/2, as per the fighter rules).
4) Maximum Speed. As written, the Warp Speed rules do not account for reduced maximum speed due to engine damage, only reduced thrust. since most ships have a significantly higher maximum warp speed than they have thrust, I propose this; For each engine hit scored, reduce the maximum warp speed and emergency warp speed by one. If the ships current velocity (after being damaged) exceeds the new emergency warp speed, immediately reduce its current velocity to the new maximum emergency warp speed.
5) Turning. The basic FT rules limit the amount of thrust used to turn to half of the total available. I propose allowing ships to use ALL their thrust for course changes.
I'll be updating the file to include these changes, as well as adding a few more clarifications.
Here are some reponses...
1) Armor. I may indeed add armor. I need to playtest the ships as is first.
2) Reinforced Shields. If you mean Redundant Shielding, I have been considering trying it. Although I didn't specify it, I do use the Directional Shielding rule G.2.
3) The low Engine ratngs in Version 2.0 are because I'm using Full Thrust's movement system. Thus, it represents thrust, not maximum speed. Ships can quite easily cruise around at a speed of 10 to 12 inches per turn.
4) As I mentioned above, I use Directional Shielding rather than Screens. I feel that Directional Shielding is closer to what we see on the show (and also closer to SFB rules) than Screens.
5) Weapons ranges are deliberately kept short, to create the "knife-fighting" style you referred to in #3. this style of high-speed passes is similar to SFB, as well as what is seen on screen.
6) I appreciate your comments and thoughts. A game like Starmada is designed to be tinkered with.
Okay, Here's version 2.0. It includes a new Warp Drive movement system, based on the FT movement system.
Weapons have been toned down a bit, and a few other minor tweaks were made.
If you watch the Original Trek, (and some of the subsequent ones) Photons indeed "Blow it to smithereens" in a single SALVO...
Well, I can only recall one TOS episode in which the Enterprise actually fights a D-7... "Elaan of Troyius". In that episode, the Enterprise fires a photon salvo and at least one hit is definately scored. If I recall correctly, Spock says that the D-7 has damaged shields, severe engine damage, and is retreating at a reduced speed. So it wasn't exactly blown to bits.
However.. I do see your point. But in the interests of making an enjoyable game I'd prefer it if ships can't be blasted out of existence in one shot.
You mean "in SFB" I think...
Yes, thats true. But it's also true in the show. The Enterprise routinely takes massive hits and has nothing but "reduced shield strength" as a result.
I'd stick with the number of weapons that are on the SSD if you're doing SFB ships, the number of weapons on the FASA ships in that case, and adjust the power to match your expectations.
I may go that route. I think by using the FT movement system there will be fewer opportunities for close-range mass salvoes, which will also reduce the chances of one-shot kills.
I like to see you continue on this course with the SFB ships - I'm not sure how you'd do ESG's, Hellbores, PPD's, Web, and so on. I'd sure like to see someone do a conversion where I could take a Amarillo Design Bureau SSD, and do a straight across conversion via a crib sheet of some sort.
I don't know if I will ever get that far into an SFB conversion or not. The main reason I started it was because I wanted to do a TOS Star Trek variant, and my son (my main opponent ) is familiar with the Starfleet Command computer games, which in turn are based on SFB. So it keeps things familiar for him (He's also watching TOS episodes on G4TV).
Anyway, I'll do some more tinkering over the next couple days.
A quick update... After a couple playtests I think the stats need to be re-done. The weapons are WAY too powerful at present. In one playtest a Fed CA fired a salvo of photons at a D-7 and blew it to smithereens in one shot. That's not the effect I was looking for.
In Star Trek shields have much more defensive power than Starmada shields do. To compensate for this I'm thinking of reducing weapon power.
I may reduce the number of weapons on ships as well. The SFB weapons were less capable of penetrating shields in that game than they are in Starmada. I'll probably cut the numbers in halves.
Also.. after some headaches trying to come up with a new movement system I've given up and decided to use the Full Thrust cinematic movement system.
This, together with the reduced weapons effects, hopefully will give the game the feel of the "warp speed dogfights" that SFB had (but without the rules headaches).
Okay, here's the first draft of my Star Trek SFB conversion.
Yeah, I'm familiar with Full Thrust (been playing it for years, actually ). But I've recently converted to Starmada.
But now that I've been thinking about it I think I have a better idea. I'll keep the standard movement system, but each movement point will equal 3" on the table. Thus, a ship using 6mp's to move straight forward actually moves 18". This should allow for more flying around the table and high-speed passes without requiring any extra record keeping.
I like the idea of the .33 and .5 ROF weapons. I don't think it will be neccessary to make the plasma torpedoes expendable, since their ROF will be reduced.
I was reserving the 18 range band for heavy, starbase-based weaponry like the Type-4 Phaser from SFB.
I like having most weapons ranges rather short, as this conforms to what is seen on screen as ships make multiple high-speed passes at each other, firing as they pass (I'm talking TOS here, not TNG).
Speaking of which... I'm also tinkering with an alternate momentum-based movement system. The ship's Engine rating would represent thrust which can be used to accelerate or decelerate. I'm still working on the turning procedure (I'm playing Starmada as a miniatures game, not a hexboard game).
I thought about using the spinal mount as plasma torpedoes, but decided against it.
I'll have to look for that 1/2 rate of fire post... That would fit well.
Currently my plasma torpedoes are increased PEN, range-based DMG weapons, as follows;
TYPE ROF PEN DMG Special Attributes
Type-R 1 1 3 Increased PEN, Range Based DMG
Type-G 1 1 2 Increased PEN, Range Based DMG
Type-F 1 1 1 Increased PEN, Range Based DMG
Yes, I'll post them when I get them done.
You are quite right. Here's my updated version;
THOLIAN WEB GENERATOR
A Tholian device, the Web Generator creates a strand of energy draining plasma. The strand must initially be anchored to a solid object such as an asteroid or ship, and is then extruded from the rear of the ship as it moves. Two ships carrying the Web Generator can anchor to one another and spin a single strand between them. Operating the Web Generator requires a great deal of power, so the operating ship's MP's are HALVED for the entire turn that the device is in use.
Any ship moving into contact with the web strand immediately comes to a stop and becomes 'stuck' in the web. In subsequent movement phases, the stuck ship can attempt to break free by rolling a 5 or 6 on 1d6.
Weapons cannot penetrate through the web strand. A ship that is caught in the web MAY fire out however.
SU Cost: 5%
OFF Rating: N/A
DEF Rating: (MP's x 15) x 10%
HIT?: Yes
TL?: yes
(the point values are a guess right now. Perhaps Dan can come up with something better)
Currently I'm not planning on using Lyrans. I'm staying with the canon races; Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Gorn and Tholian.
I'm working on Star Trek TOS ships for Starmada, based loosely on Star Fleet Battles designs. A few new bits of special eqwipment are neccessary though. Please let me know what you think about these;
Transporters; Kinda official already, although not in the rulebook. I'm using the rules from Dan listed on this message;
http://mj12games.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=499
Tractor Beams; I'm using the standard towing rules from the book with one exception; Drones and Shuttlecraft can be held in a tractor beam. To do so the tractoring ship must be at range 3 or less and must roll a to-hit of 4+. If successful the target is held in the beam, and moves with the tractoring ship. The to-hit roll must be re-rolled each turn to maintain the beam.
Shuttlecraft; small unarmed craft, they are launched/recovered and move like fighters except that their speed is 5. Two shuttlecraft can be carried in a 25SU Vehicle Bay. Each shuttlecraft can carry one Marine Squad/Security Team. Being unarmed, they do not modify OFF or DEF (Shuttlecraft are included for use in special scenarios).
Web Generators; a Tholian device, the Web Generator creates a strand of energy draining plasma. The strand is extruded from the rear of the ship as it moves (I plan on using orange yarn for the strand). Any ship moving into contact with the strand immediately comes to a stop and becomes 'stuck' in the web. In subsequent movement phases, the stuck ship can attempt to break free by rolling a 5 or 6 on 1d6 (I don't know what the SU cost will be for this yet).
Any comments?
Pages 1
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Saedor
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.