1

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:

I understand, but what I meant is, if a weapon with such a dual-mode (direct fire and seeker fire) is most of the time (if not all the time) better using direct fire, why design such a weapon?

Because it is more flexible than either a straight direct fire weapon or seeker, in addition to being less costly than seekers in terms of SU's. Without some sort of cost for doing so, everyone would design weapons with that option.



madpax wrote:

how do you determine the modifier if there is one?

That's what I'm asking. What should the modifier be?

2

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:
prader wrote:

I would view it as an unfair advantage.

How so?

Well, for one, if I have a choice of direct fire weapons that can be fired as seekers without any carrier capacity cost or  SU cost that don't count against my seeker limit, or spending SU's on actual seekers that I can only fire so many of, why would I ever choose the seekers? It seems like a waste.

I LOVE the concept of a direct fire weapon that can also be fired as a seeker (like Plasmas) and they work great as presented for RA, I just think there should be a reason why someone would choose seekers over a Direct fire/Seeker weapon in a campaign where players can design their own weapons. I'd even be happy with something like a straight modifier used for other traits (1.5, 2.0, etc), but I'm not sure what would be fair for that added capability.

The idea I had would be to first design the "Bolt" option, and then base it's seeker characteristics from that- I'll try to work an example later but right now I'm pressed for time.

3

(20 replies, posted in Starmada)

In Romulan Armada, the owning player of a ship with Plasma Torpedoes has the option of firing them in direct fire or seeking mode. But this option doesn't seem to "cost" him anything in terms of SU's, which I think is fine for Romulan Armada  purposes but in a homebrew campaign setting where players have the option of creating their own weapons I would view it as an unfair advantage.

What is a fair way for costing a weapon that can be fired in direct mode or as a seeker with essentially unlimited ammunition? I'm thinking some variation of "Dual Mode" but am concerned about it going too far the other direction and being prohibitively expensive in terms of SU's, which I'm not looking for either.

4

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

The VBAM/Starmada supplement uses the square root of CRAT divided by 2, I believe. (So a ship with a CRAT of 100 would cost 5 EP.) But that (along with maintenance cost) is modified by certain strategic and tactical special abilities.

5

(24 replies, posted in Starmada)

Sure.

A weapon with "extra shield damage" hits doing three damage dice. The results are 1, 4, and 6. Doing a point of Hull damage, a point of engine damage, TWO shield damage (one for the roll +1 for extra shield DMG), and one weapon damage.

6

(24 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:

I agree 1.5 is probably too low for Extra Shield Damage; but probably too high for Extra Engine Damage... maybe something like 1.8 for ESD, 1.6 for EWD, and 1.4 for EED. Multiply them together, you get x4.

I think 1.5 might be about right if you made it so that an extra shield hit occurred for each damage die that actually hit shields instead of for every damage die.

7

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

Like this

8

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

You could go here (or other places that have them)

http://www.spaceempires.net/shipyards-g-SE4.html

and download the shipsets you want. Then copy the top down view to a paint program to make whatever modifications you want and then copy them to wordpad in whatever ratio you want, to make a countersheet. Time consuming, but they look nice.

If you don't see a set that you'd like to have, let me know, I probably have it.

9

(44 replies, posted in Starmada)

thedugan wrote:

What seperates Orions and the WYN, if there aren't any Option Mounts?

If I remember correctly, the WYN use a motley mix of Kzinti and Lyran ships supplemented by various auxiliary craft (basically freighters converted to have an offensive punch)... that would be blown to space dust without the radiation zone.

So for purposes of Starmada- without option mounts- you could say the Orions use photons/phaser 1's and the WYN use Disruptors/ph 2's.

10

(44 replies, posted in Starmada)

I'm with bridgesy.

Especially the tugs. I've been trying to think of how to do them and the best I've come up with is set aside a certain amount of SU space for "transport" and have pods be like a smallish base.

With the addition of Strike Carriers.

11

(6 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:

BTW, I'm in the process of converting the Starfire universes in starmada terms, here:
http://www.mj12games.com/forum/viewtopi … amp;t=2449
I continue to update th etopic.

Marc

That is VERY cool. I just may "borrow" some of that for the early tech stages of the campaign I keep meaning to start. Lot of work left to do getting everything figured out.

12

(6 replies, posted in Starmada)

I just checked my rulebook- they do not have a damage chart (like a phaser or other weapon) so don't cause any inherent damage, BUT, ships going fast enough (speed 12 or greater)- if the web is strong enough (strength 12 or greater)- would take damage due to the violent deceleration.

Hmmm...

I think it (the original idea) could be tweaked to work for webs in some fashion or another.

As far as adding "speed based damage" as an enhancement for a direct fire weapon- do you think it would be worth about the same, more, or less, as "range based damage."

13

(6 replies, posted in Starmada)

I hadn't even considered the Tholians and their webs. Interesting. If I remember correctly though, their actual webs didn't do any damage, just trapped ships that entered the hex they were in. But they DID have web casters which I think did do damage.

Hmm...

I never really paid attention to the Tholians. Except to shudder at the thought of assaulting something they'd had time to prepare a defense for.

14

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
madpax wrote:

and I don't know why it had been decided that a ship could usually fire 12 drones in a starmada turn instead of 2 in a FC turn. Maybe the starmada turn lasts longer than a FC turn...

Mainly because in SFB/FC, dealing with each drone is a tactical challenge (where do I move, what countermeasures can I employ, etc.) In Starmada, dealing with one seeker is a non-issue. Dealing with a couple flights of 4 seekers each is a bit more challenging.

I understand people may disagree with some decisions made in the conversion, but there was some actual thought put into the process...


Yeah, the thing we SFB players need to take into consideration is that Starmada is NOT SFB/FC. The whole energy allocation process, for example, and the tactical implications that go along hand in hand with it are a non-issue. And, quite frankly, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make to able to pit task force against task force in a strategic scale engagement. Which is where Starmada definitely shines. Even a squadron level engagement (3-4 ships each side) in SFB would take FOREVER.

In Starmada it's like 20-30 minutes. If that.


I do have a question about seekers/strikers though. Are they limited by the same launch restrictions as fighters? In other words, if I have a ship that could launch 4 fighter flights per turn, but also carries strikers, does that mean it could launch 2 strikers and 2 fighters (or whatever combination) in a turn OR that it can launch 4 fighters and as many seeker flights as it wants?

15

(6 replies, posted in Starmada)

I am an old SFB player who also got into Starfire in the late 80's. One of the cool weapons that Starfire had in the "Alkelda Dawn" supplement was an "Inertial Sink" (I believe, not finding my copy at the moment) that did damage based on the target's speed. The faster a target was moving- the more damage the weapon did. So...

What would a "Speed based Damage" enhancement be worth?

Say,
speed 0-1  x1
speed 2-3  x2
speed 4-5  x3
speed 6-7  x4
...

And so on.

Ideas?

EDIT: In retrospect, would something like
speed 0-2  x1
speed 3-5  x2
speed 6+   X3

Be worth about the same multiplier as "Range Based Damage." And then just edit the name in the spreadsheets or whatever on the final ship design?

16

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

stryker wrote:

"gazes longingly at the hydrans and lyrans*

I can't wait to see how the Expanding Sphere Generator is handled in Starmada. Possibly a variation on the "Area Effect" enhancement combined with "Range Based Damage." Or something.

I've been thinking of doing a Starmada conversion of all the SFB weapons I have access to (For instance, I would have done the PH-1 as 6/12/18  ROF 1, ACC 4+, IMP 3, DMG 1 (Range Based IMP) and Photon Torpedos as 3/6/9, ROF 1, ACC 5+, IMP 2, DMG 4 (Slow firing) with the overload version adding (carronade/double damage) just for my own use in my own campaign and maybe posting it for other old SFB players (and FC players) to use if they'd like.

*Eyes that Omega Rules compendium at the local game store with, like, 50 additional SFB weapons he's never seen before*

17

(43 replies, posted in Starmada)

I am in the process of starting a solo VBAM/Starmada AE campaign (lot of rules to sort through, though) and have considered using a system/convention like this:

CT- 1
FG- 2
DD- 3-5
CL- 6-8
CM- 9-11
CA- 12-14
BC- 15-17
BCH- 18-20
BB 21-25
DN 26-30
DNH 31-35
JG 36-40
LN 41-45
BS 46-50
WS 51+

Carriers: Just a classification, a size class 12 ship is still a CA, just with carrier functionality
CVE 3-11
CVS 12-20
CVL 21-30
CVA 31-40
CVF 41-50
*A ship bigger than 50 is still just called a World Ship, even with Carrier functionality. Also note, the convention of just adding a "V" could be used: DDV, CLV, BBV, DNV, etc.

Bases
DEFSat 1-2
CP 3-5
SAMS 6-8
Operations Base 9-11
Mobile Base 12-14
Base Station 15-20
Battle Station 21-30
Sector Base 31-40
Star Base 41-50
Star Fortress 51+

Access to each range for ships and bases would be dependent upon starting tech level. For instance: Interstellar-1 (just achieved FTL capability and can expand from home system) would start out with ship size classes 1,2,3 and 6. They would have the option to further research the DD and CL range (4 and/or 7) as well as the Medium Cruiser range (9)- the ranges (or first size class) must be researched in order but different factions could have, say, a larger CA class capability than others who haven't researched further into it. So their research orders for the period (Per VBAM/Starmada X) might look something like this:
1- DD size class 4
2- CL size class 7
3- CM size class 9 (the largest a faction currently possessing CL's could research)
4- Anti-fighter batteries
5- Scout function (2)

Each range for ships (and bases) has the same maintenance costs. I'm also looking at the possibility of being able to refit ships/bases in the same range. So that a faction that successfully researches, say, BC size class 17 could refit its remaining size class 15 and 16 BC's to a new Size class 17 BC it designs. If it wanted to.