Hmmm, have to look up the "Anti-Fighter" trait. My only concern is, can it shoot down missiles? Spose I could just house-rule that it can. It would give me the stats that I want then... Thanks for the advice. I'll toy with the theory a little.
Well, if your plan is to consider missiles and torpedos to be seeker or drone fighters, then yes, the AF stat will be perfect for the GARDIAN lasers. I do, however, always wonder whether missiles need to be statted up as destructible attack craft at all. As a veteran BFG player, I do get nostalgic for the days of filling up the space between fleet lines with corridors of nuclear death, but it's a little absurd given the scope of space combat and the discussion of tactics in the ME universe.
ME2 changed that a bit though (which is reinforced in the novels). Ships definitely do travel to other solar systems, but just systems that are close by (less then a hundred light years or so). For my games purpose, it would be easier if they didn't though. I've considered overlooking that fact. The only problem then becomes the Mass Relays. Does 1 relay have multiple connections, or are their multiple relays in each system? Separating "major" (long distance, single connection) relays from "minor" (short range, multiple connections) relays would just over-complicate it. I'm considering just going with the "several mass relays, with only 1 connection each" scenario for simplicity's sake. It falls in line with VBAM's current "hyperspace routes" system with a few "minor" changes (instant travel and a physical object at each end). What's your opinion?
Actually, I think that if you simply inverted VBAM's standard hyperspace system, it'd work just fine. Make the minor jump lanes really long and geographically important to represent the primary relays, and make the short, localized jump lanes be major lanes to represent secondary relays. What this will do, strategically, is make it so that fleets don't move across the face of the galaxy suddenly, but they do have a good ability to mobilize forces from local systems to assemble a good defense. On the Starmada side of things, I'd suggest that you use the standard Hyperdrive rules for in-battle retreat, even if individual ships don't need to equip a subsystem to do so.
(And FYI, I feel fairly certain that the conceptualized flight between star-systems in ME2 is not ME cannon. The first two books never reference real-time travel greater than forty times the speed of light, which is treacherously slow for galaxy-spanning. I think most of the game just assumes you are taking secondary relays everywhere and wanted to get beyond the repetitive relay load-screen. Maybe.)
Sure, I could definitely use a hand. Here's something to think on:
1) I want Element Zero to be integral for ship building, but I have yet to figure out how to work it into play on the VBAM side (shouldn't effect the Starmada side). Any idea's?
2) I'm also diverging a bit and permitting mass accelerators to be turret-mounted. These would be strictly ship-to-ship weapons. Here's a quick breakdown of available weapons on game start:
Spinal-mounted Mass Accelerators - highest damage capability (dreadnoughts can 1-shot you with good rolling... :twisted: ), greatest range, less accurate at close range (cause WMD strikes on planets!)
Disruptor Torpedoes - high damage, medium-to-short range, shields have reduced rating against torpedoes, can be intercepted by GARDIAN lasers
Turret-mounted Mass Accelerators - medium damage, medium-to-short range
GARDIAN Lasers - low damage, short range, completely bypasses shields, only weapon that can intercept fighters and torpedoes along with full starships
1) Since Eezo is essential for virtually all space-technology in ME, I'd make it be a randomly distributed resource on planets. I'd make it necessary for 1 Eezo to be spent for every X number of resources necessary to build a ship. This way, the more technologically formidable the race's fleets are, the more Eezo they need. Off the top of my head, I'd say 1 Eezo for every 10 resources it cost to build a ship would be good. As long as Eezo is scarce, it won't need to be used for anything else--players would trade it around as a critical bargaining chip in building up fleets. Probably :roll: .
2) Hrm, well, I'd be all for keeping the mass accelerators on fixed arcs, but I'd say the rest of the weapons' guidelines look good. I definitely agree that main-line accelerator cannons should have a minimum range, to represent the fact that their limited aiming capabilities are worthless at a certain point. I'd say that the Disruptors can be statted out like regular batteries with short-range, since their weapon description in the codices seems to hold that they are so short-ranged that only fighters and frigates use them, in general.
Also, what software/play method are you planning on using? I have a good amount of familiarity with Battlegrounds, which I've considered trying for Starmada battles, and I'm vaguely familiar with Vassal, too, but I'd be happy to learn any new system to try this campaign out.
I'd like to see about playing the Quarians, if at all possible. I imagine they'd be statted up with a sizeable, out-dated fleet with a mass of support ships, transports, and trade ships to represent the Migrant Fleet. If the trade ships are in the right proportion and active, they should provide just enough to cover the maintenance cost of the Migrant Fleet. That way, the Quarians will be dependent upon diplomatic treaties and inter-species trade, and they'd be appropriately reluctant to mobilize their massive fleet in open war.
Oh, and if these exchanges through the forum get too cumbersome, feel free to pm me and we can exchange more in-depth ideas there or through e-mail.