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 Arrigo
Pages 1
Many thanks!
Hello,
I own and still play Grand Fleets 2nd edition (for some kind of engagement I like how it works), and was trying to do some new ships, but I cannot find my overall gun table anymore... it is not anymore online in the 'stuff.zip' file (now reserved for the 3rd edition). If it is still available can I get one?
Arrigo
I meant that in 1 and 2 there was a table with pre-calculated values for guns and torpedoes listed. It was quite exhaustive . You had all the stats already calculated and you just filled in. I can do math, I just did not like to do it, plus you could quickly compare guns and torpedo for everything rather than just for the ship listed. Yes, I know that I can do one by myself... but... I am lazy! 
Got it
first comments: I like it but... I miss the detailed gun and torpedoes in edition 1 and 2, they allowed for quicker ship creation. Yes I know, I am lazy...
I will go for cover2.png, I like the original photo more. So we are close to the launch of this "ship"?
Arrigo
Daniel,
I was literally thinking loud about the differences in the two differences. When I said "was a clear design decision" I referred to the ship constructors. Technically on the Exeter they were gun houses... I do not think it is a good idea to go into such kind of detail in GF3. sometime CaS made exceptions for particular design with special armor ratings for turrets, but on average you have only belt/deck armor. Usually you include the differences in turret armor in the likelihood of turret hits as critical. I can see this as a problem only if you have a crazy design where the turrets are massively armoured and the rest of the ship is not. AFAIK only Seekrieg and Stations Manned and Ready have gone down that road.
I am quite confident you do not need to just start tinkering with rules just for me!
compare quite well with historical specs. The main differences were guns (quite evident from the cards) and turrets. The Scheer had 5.5 inch at the turrets the Exeter only 1 inch. It was a clear design decision, but I do not know if this is the level of detail we can go into in GF3 (or how this can be really replicated except in CaS or Seekrieg).
and Daniel, game first, then pundits like me will argue about the colour cards with ease. But as a quick comment, probably having just a gradient rather than all the background "noise" will help ease of reading. The German card for example is more pleasant to my eyes than the Commonwealth one.
Daniel,
if you can get the game out before March 14... it will be nice, because I can print for free (B&W) in my College... later on I do not know... 
So B&W cards are incredibly attractive in this light... the color ones can wait... one thing I liked in the previous version was the ship profile.
Tim,
If you stop looking and the Deutschland class as battleships/battlecruisers and instead you think as "cruiser killers" the thing starts to make sense. Battlecruisers were, more or less, a failure out of the mind of Jackie Fisher. With the fast battleships coming into age (QE class for example) battlecruisers lost their primary purpose (killing everything else, running away from BBs). But... and here comes out Admiral Hans Zenker. Hw wanted something that could deal with French overseas trade.
TheThough called a “pocket battleship” in the English-language naval press, this term greatly exaggerated the ship's capabilities. She was about the same size as a heavy cruiser and armored on the same scale; the German Navy initially called them “armored ships” and reclassified the two surviving units as “heavy cruisers” in early 1940. designers gave Zenker four variants of what he considered politically feasible: a 10,000-ton armored ship with a speed of at least 26 knots and an armament of six 280mm guns. This would give her a gunnery advantage against the “Washington Treaty cruisers” then joining the American, British, French, Japanese and Italian fleets, as they were limited by treaty to 203mm (eight-inch) guns. The new ship would also be faster than existing battleships.
The Royal Navy and the Japanese Navy included battle cruisers with both heavier guns and greater speed than the new design, but Zenker considered this an acceptable risk. His new ship would at least have an edge over most of her likely opponents.
Though called a “pocket battleship” in the English-language naval press, this term greatly exaggerated the ship's capabilities. She was about the same size as a heavy cruiser and armored on the same scale; the German Navy initially called them “armored ships” and reclassified the two surviving units as “heavy cruisers” in early 1940.
If you look them this way they made quite a lot of sense. And Daniel has correctly rated them CA. I am curious to see the armor of the typical treaty cruiser and see how it works against the 1 rating. The Scharnorst class is a different beast as the WW1 BCs were. Remember they were designed to operate in conjunction with the battlefleet.
Arrigo
Tim,
Well, I like the approach of Stations Manned and Ready but... I have already Grand Fleets and Command at Sea, so I prefer to stick to them.
I did not like Naval Thunder because the damage models was weird. You accumulate damage but without effect and you get effects only from critical hits.
Now back in waiting mode...
I understand the printing issues, but giving full color cards in PDF with the PDF download (or as a demo pack) would be really nice, you can then print the one you needs.
But I really need GF3 out. I need a decent naval game when I am not in the mood of the Admiral Trilogy. I really like Grand Fleet 1st edition and I hope the 3rd edition will be spot on (especially with the air and sub add abstract add ons). I have tried VaS and I had some issues with it (well now David Manley seems to be more involved and it is a good sign for them), I tried NAval Thunder and I was not impressed in the least.
Arrigo (De-lurking after years).
Jay,
your game sounds intriguing. If you want a crack playtester (Empire of The Sun, Dropshot, Downtown, All is lost save honor and Alesia to cite some of my works) feel free to ask
Arrigo
interesting,
I will be pleased to give a look at it... I would save me the work on my idea if someone has already started to work on it . 
Thus an ideal player turn will be:
- Joint command and reorganization phase.
Players accrue their command points and expend them to organize new task force forces, increase intelligence level and buy activation chits. In addition they can transfer fighter units between ships in the same force, recombine depleted units, transer Admirals/Captains and reorganize ground troops.
- Intelligence Gathering phase
The detection status of units is checked and new detection rolls are made to detect undetected forces.
- Action Phase
The player with the best intelligence level select one of his chit and play it. then all chits are placed on the cup and drawn randomly. Activities are:
Coordinated Action The active player moves and fights with both naval and air units.
Naval Action The active player can perform operation only with his bnaval forces
Fighter Action the active layer can launch airstrikes
Ground action planetary bombardment and invasion, ground combat. It is the only chit that allow ground combat.
Limited Action only movement allowed is withdrawal of engaged formations, but the player can perform logistic action with his forces.
- Clean Up phase
Usual amrker removal phase and advance the GT marker...
Logistic:
Logistic is performed on the move. Every time he use limited ammo weapons (usually missiles) the player mark a box on his roster. Each ship/station has alimited number of ammo boxes, when these are all cheked up the ship is out of expendable ammo and must be resupplied. Resuplly is performed at spaceports, station and resupply ships. Carriers uses ammo also when launching strikes.
Map:
I agree with the nav point idea. It's clean, simple and allows for multiple situation (mapybe instead of numbering waypoints sequentially it would be better to code them to represent different orbits at glance.
Planetary invasions. Planet maps sound nice, but I think that they will end to only hamper playability. A planetary invasion is a game in itself if done in a reasonably detailed manner, and probably it's beside the scope od a single scenario. I will opt for separate palnetary display where the ground combat happens on a semi abstracted level. Each planet has a number of objective areas depending on its size and industrialization. The defender organize his units to defend them, you task organize your invasion forces and drop them on the the various areas. You can spread it hoping to gain more footholds on concentrate on one or twos to add punch... Ground compat is solved when the appropriate chit is drawn (and bought).
I still think my chit driven turn is the best combination between unpredictabily, player planning and simplicity. I hate preplotting movement, especially at task force/fleet level. Additioanly my ranged combat sytem allow the layer more freedom of maneuver than a simple line up and fire, I think players expect to be able to influence the outcome of the battles with their ability and not only with dice rolls.
nice idea, just I think that a more "fleet series" oriented system will be better. I hate the bookeping involved in Avalanche naval game (but I own them and play them regulary), and I don't lie their combat system (even if the variant system proposed in the Dreadnought supplement has finally solved the problem). What I really like is the mission based approach to task force capability and I have incorporated it in my proposals.
mhmm... let turn on some sci-fi stimulating music and write some ideas...
Mike, both rulesets you have pointed out are full of nice ideas (from your own one can even create a nice strategic game about WW3 in the seas 8) ). So let us rip off what we like...
I like the idea of assigning functions to task forces/division. I will even take it to the extreme and making their mission fixed upon creation (for example you create a missile ocmbat task force and the ships assigned will be linked to that mission until the formation is disbanded). Each mission will have strenght and weaknesses. For example missile combat ships will be able to use only their missile weapons in the attack, but will get a defensive bonus (representing the fact that they are trying to keep long range and not closing in).
if we go for a a system based hex map i would have the follwing range:
short range weapons: 1 hex (adiacent)
medium range weapons: 2-3
Long range weapons: 4-6
Using a 45x26 hex map will give plenty of maneuver space.
Counters will represent single capital ships, 4-6 of smaller ones and fighter/bomber squadrons or wing (depending on the fleet organization, I envision each counter being 24-30 planes).
The combat system must be simple yet comprensive. I like the fleet series one, it's numerical openess isgreat to represent the wide array of weapons system of starmada and thus it can still allow a tabletop conversion for a plain starmada game. For those who have missed this serie the combat revolves around the defender totalling his defensive value (according to the situation) and then rolling a d10 to obtain a modifier for the attacker roll (another d10 cross referenced with the sum of the attacker involved factors). the final results was a number compared with the damage value of the target. a competitive D10 roll (modified by tactical factors) who was then compared to the defense value of the target. is the result was less than half of the damage value the target was unaffected, if more than half but less than the number it was damaged and if it was more than the number the target was sunk. It looks complicted but it isn't and it allow for a paperless game with the right amount of detail.
In alternative one can use Starmada combat (modified for the new range system), but it will be slower and will detract from the flow of the operational game (especially if large fleets, dozens of ships, are involved in a sinlge battle.
The hearth of the system will be the command system. I think that a this level the hearth of warfare is command. Each player will have command points who will be used to form forces (with expenses linked to the misison), purchase activation chits and to improve (temporarily) intelligence level (intelligence level is used for detecting enemy forces). Command points are determined by scenario and modified by some tactical situation and the presence of admirals/captains)
The activation chits are the heart of the game. there are six types:
Coordinated Action (most expensive, allow the activation of both naval and air units)
Naval Action (only naval forces can be move and can engae)
Fighter Action (the active layer can launch airstrikes)
Ground action (planetary bombardment and invasion, ground combat)
Limited Action (engaged naval formation can disegnage and logistic functions can be performed).
Sequence of action will be randomly detemirned by drawing chits from a cup (I think that a limit of 2-3 consecutive chit per player will be necessary).
Detection is another importan issue. all forces start the game undetected. Detection is auomatic in engagement range. Otherwise the players roll on the detection table at start of each turn (cloaked forces still need to be rolled on detection table even if in engagement range). The detection table represent recon fighter and small ships, drones and long range sensors. The fact that detection level can be increased by command point represent the allocation of more assets and planning to resources.
Comments?
mhmm,
I can try to tackle the problem using my loong boardgame experience and my knowledge of naval warfare... but while I am good at painting miniatures I am awful in doing graphic thinghies so I would need a graphic artist to have some decent playtest materials done and, of course, some playtesters
Arrigo
I think that a similar game will fill an huge void in SCI-FI ones. I am a great fan of VG Fleet series (and never find them too complex, once you had played a couple of games the rules flow smoothly 
) .
VBAM is a great game, but is so epic in scale and so encompassing that the military part can often be masked by political, economics and research.
We lack an "operational" scale games who allow us to lead fleet in complex operations while still feeling the single ships under our command.
I would envision it as a map based game (with miniature conversion) with a a 22x32 hexed map with a star sytem in it (maybe back printed with a deep space version in the back). On the map will be counter for fleet, divisions, bases, orbital station, fighter wings, planetary contigents and the rare single ships. On appropriate off map displays the counter representing the single ships and ground units will be organized.
The basic combat sytem could be Starmada with adapation to fight in range bands instead than in hexes (but with the option to switch to a conventional Starmada game for people who want to do it) or a more simplified system more in line with the one presented in the fleet series (with undamaged, damaged and destroyed units) but with still rules for conversion.
I think that crew training and notable commanders had to figure in it.
I think that, in the spirit of maintianing the system more open, an utility to desing counters will have to be provided as supporting tool.
A campaing sytems can be created to allow linked battles (if you occupy system A you then moves to system B).
70 in total or 70 per side?
Btw it resemble the action at Briggs system I have just written...
Tyrel thanks for the answers. It seems that Starmade is just what I need 8)
BTW from what I have read here and in other places VBAM has a great potential for a "graphic" treatment 
But VBAM has a forum? 8) (remember stupid newbie, vandering around...)
And I was also interested in opinion form people who had played the combined version especially how is the transitionbetween "strategic" warfare and tactical (starmada) one...
a linked question is who his the usual size of a starmda fleet? I fear that if I go strategic my temptation to do space version of Jutland (or leyte) will be difficult to resist...
Again,
in my never ending search of the perfect game, I have stumbled on the idea of doing the combined Stamada/VBAM game... it looks interesting, it looks epic and it will provide a controllable setting for my epic space operas...
but as always some questions arise...
1) VBAM give you the way to resolve battles I don't want to play with Starmada? (usually too small, too uninteresting or too huge...)
2) VBAM is an entire book keeping affair or it allows/is more a boardgame (with maps and counters?)
3) Any one has tried to produce counters/maps for VBAM?
Arrigo
The Terran Federation Naval Reserve
Introduction:
The Terran Federation Naval Reserve is a separate component of the Terran Federation Armed forces (the others are The Terran Federation Navy and the Terran Federation Marine Corps). It's official purpose is to patrol the federation space, uphold tghe federation law in the federation controlled system, provide assistance to civialian authority and to support the regular Navy in case of National Emergency both as active duty force and as replecement/augmentation pool.
Unoficially it is also a way to restrict the navy political weight in peacetime while still providing a reasonable ceiling of ships.
Naval Reserve personnel come from sources indipendent from the navy and the majority of its ships are specially designed to meet its requirement.
Personnel serve on shorter stints than Navy one (albeit with accelerated promotions) and his ethnical balance tilt more toward Corporate worlda rather than Core and Border worlds who forms the backbone of the Navy. It's also more linked to political parties and promotions often are associated to wealth and political links rather than ability. A related problem is the greater turnover of ship crews and a lower combat efficency of its officer corp.
The ships are designed more for police and support duties than for battleline missions.
Still the organization as a whole is capable to fulfuill its constitutional tasks.
The ships:
Orion Cruiser
The Orion Mk I Patrol cruisers are the mainstay of the Naval Reserve. Designed to be long range patrol vessels and to perform a wide variety of duties under the naval reserve they are the newest vessesl to the Terran Federation equipped with the latest sensors, electronics and command and control facilities. In addition the carried a figter group composed of two VF (12 planes Fighter Squadron) and a 6 plane VS recon detachment (a sinlge VS control all the recon detchaments in a give sector fleet, making them in fact oversized wings).
The two main requirement of the design are a firepower superio to any pirate ship, endurance and exceptional speed (both maneuver and cruise). All these goal have been reached even if it sacrificing long range weaponry and shielding (Navy destroyers are better shielded than Orion class cruisers).
A secondary requirement is to serve a support ship for civilian emergency so there are included a oversized medical facility and scientific lab to assiste in relief or containment operations.
With such a combination of support facilities, armament and figther component they can operate as lone patrol/survey vessel, as flagships for escort group composed of lesser vessel (usually frigates) or as part of lager formations. Usually they are deployed in 6 vessels administrative grouping called Cruiser Division who are the mainstay of the sector fleet operated by the reserve.
THe cruiser Division rarely operate togheter normally sending 2-3 ships detachment supported by frigates on bigger operations and single ships in routine patrols inside fedeartion space. During emergencies the Orions can be attached to Regular Navy Task forces and Fleets and operate as part of the battleline.
Orion cruisers ar enamed after mythical and historical commanders.
Orion Mk I class Terran Federation Naval Reserve Heavy Patrol Cruiser (875)
Hull: 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Shields: 3 2 1
[a] Particle Accelerators [4/8/12, 3+, 2/1/1]
ABCD, CDEF
[b] ER Particle Accelerators [5/10/15, 3+, 3/1/1, No Range Modifiers]
ABCD, CDEF
[c] Fusion Nuclear Missiles [5/10/15, 4+, 1/2/2, Variable DMG]
AC, BD
Hyperdrive [O], Armor Plating, Anti-Fighter Batteries [O], Science Lab x2, Spinal Mount (9/18/27) [O], Medical Bay, Electronic Countermeasures [O], Fighter Bay [OOOOO], Security Team [OOOOOOOOOO], Marine Squad [OOOOOOOO]
1[HQ], 2[EQ], 3[HQ], 4[Ea], 5[Hb], 6[Sc]
TL: E: 1 S: 1 W: 1 Q: 1
Note:
This ship design is based on the Cold Navy ship of the same navy, but is the first porting to a whole new universe that, while maintaining some resembalnce with the orginal, will sport many, many additions and modifications. Thus I am in debt to Mike Hardy for the initial idea.
grabbed it. But where are the fighter options? And there is a way to generate a drake notation without recurring to typing it manually?
I am trying to create a serie of new ships to post in the Bourbaki basin section (and to play with, beacuse CN universe is dormant at the moment), but I cannot find the SXCA thing! I always find reference to a download section, but I am unable to find it... any help forthcoming?
Hi to everyone (being my first post this line is obligatory... )
Recently I was thinking exactly on the same lines about stand off weapons and similar thing (,maybe beacuse I have just read Stars at war?). But then I have noticed that these longer range weapons can be treated like drones, In effect the delay in targetting and the need to phisically move them are a way to show the close range limitations of these weapons (and the thing already exist).
About the other two proposed special attributes for weapons...
The Anti-Fighter one is good, but I will restrict its range. IMHO the increased effectiveness of such a system is acheived by fast response tracking and aiming system who will lose effectiveness at longer ranges.
THe increased damage option seems intrguing to me, but I don't see the rationale to associate hit to the TH roll instead of Pen; maybe an accurate weapon capable to actually exploit dead zones in shielding?
Pages 1
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Arrigo
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.