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 Cartman
I think it was available somehow to those who had the Brigade version, but it was password-protected. And it had a prompt.
Ex: "the password can be found on P.7, third paragraph, second sentence, fourth word."
Well, no biggie. I'll just go downstairs and pull out my old copy of the Brigade edition.
I have a hardcopy of Starmada X (Brigade ed.) and a PDF copy of the basic Starmada X edition. Of course, I forgot the password for the PDF edition. Is there a 'prompt' (a clue really for the password) that can be found in the Brigade edition? Thanks.
Thank you for suggesting Open Office. I just installed it and I ran the SAE builder and it seems to work fine. I wish I had know about Open Office BEFORE wasting $160 on (yet) another flawed MS product.
Thanks for the tip.
I tried repair permissions but the file hasn't changed. I am using Mac Office 2008 (a legit copy; cost me $160...)
Thanks for your help.
I updated everything as suggested but I still have the same problem. What is really weird is that the problem only occurs with the SAE builder. The older S:X builder runs fine for instance.
Sometimes next week I will install Windows with Bootcamp. Most of the stuff I have ported over doesn't work anyways, so I need Windows.
I still think that Windows-based computers are POS, and Macs are expensive POS. If I had both the PC guy and the Mac guy from the Mac adds in front of me I would shoot them both in the head :twisted: The day the Japanese will come out with simple and reliable computers they will do to that market what they did to the U.S. auto industry.
In the meantime I'll use my GF's laptop to do my SAE designs.
I just bought a Mac (which sucks just as much as Windows, but for 4 times the price...) and I also got Mac Office. Now, when I try to run the Excel builder every time I enter in a value it takes like 5 seconds to get a response. For instance, if for range I click on the '12' value it will take about 5 seconds to register.
What's going on?
Quick question, and I'm sorry since I haven't thoroughly perused all the threads for the info, but: the shields work like fixed screens it would seem?
Can you play against the computer or do you need a human opponent? Or can you run both sides by yourself; I'm asking because it could be a useful tool for playtesting new ship designs very easily.
I FINALLY purchased Defiance. Among other things I intend to convert my extensive AT-43 collection to Defiance. I just looked over the various construction tables and all of this BEGS for a construction program or at least an Excel spreadsheet. I asked the question two years ago so I'm asking again: is there ANYTHING out there? Thanks!
I TOTALLY agree that giving fighters extra range is a very bad idea. It would indeed throw game balance out of the window.
Same here!
My regular opponent and I pretty much play 100% open sheets. We even roll for the other's damage. The only thing is when we have new designs, we don't go into detail as to which unit can do what, but we do give generic info: "ok these ships here don't have a lot of shields, but they go fast..." etc.
What I do also is that I take down every hit every ship takes, so I know how to better target my weapons. Since doing so I've upped my kill ratio significantly.
You're coming out with a Brash Cardigan and the Hordes of Titania sourcebook, really? Any idea as to what the special rules might be? About when can we expect a release?
...
In no particular order :
-you can build your ships; free and very easy to use Excel file available
-the pointing system is extremely well balanced
-the game engine has been thoroughly tested and tweaked over the years
-you have tons of options to choose from without turning into SFB
-the rules are intuitive
-the best system so far that can emulate just about any setting
-you can design your weapons, fighters and missiles (strikers)
-can be used with a full vector movement system, a "semi-realistic" vector movement system (default) or plain ol' "cinematic" system.
-it kicks ass :twisted:
How would that affect firing against fighter flights? I guess that a flight could only lose a single fighter :?:
I don' think there is such a thing as a "fighter problem", at least not yet so far. As I said my aversion to having fighters being significant is a question of personal taste, but not of game balance.
Yes, with SAE fighters have the opportunity to become much more powerful than their predecessors were in S:X but they've become much more expensive. While they may not be attacked anymore within their phase (ie anti-fighter batteries) they lost their shield-reducing advantage, and a "stock" flight costs the same.
What would REALLY be unbalancing is going back to allowing extended range fighters or strikers.
My sons play "rock-paper-scissors" sometimes when they're extremely bored. Often they start doing "rock-paper-scissors-hammer-knife-gun-grenade-machinegune-cannon-nuke... -whatever else they come up with".
SAE can't fall prey to that.
Absolutely. That is why I'm glad "ignores shields", "advanced ECM" and co have gradually disappeared in every iteration of the game.
Nevermind game balance for the moment. There's something that doesn't "FEEL" right about fighters launching from a ship in the movement phase, swarming in on a mighty ship of war and slapping it around a bit without answer from the warship.
I share that feeling as well. Ok, I'm biased in that I don't really like fighters in sci-fi; I see them as a somewhat effective weapon no more or less than other weapons. I guess that's why I'm not a big SW fan, where capital ships take a backseat to fighters. Anyways, digression over...
I really like Underling's idea; I might even playtest it. Basically have fighters shoot (and be fired upon) simultaneously as capital ships BUT they'd keep an edge by freely moving AFTER all capital ships have moved AND not requiring any planning.
With the current system my favorite anti-fighter defense is a range-3, wide arched (often ABCDEF), 2+ (3+ if there's FC) and range-based ROF weapon. The drawback is that you have to pull out the bucket of dice (for instance if I have 4 such weapons bearing on attacking flights with ROF-3 at short range, that gives 36 dice to roll...). Fighters may cripple a ship but they will most likely suffer heavy casualties. That in itself is a decent balance. If I expand on the example above, and say we use somewhat average fighters (6 per flight, 2 shields) and there are 3 flights attacking, on average there should be very few fighters left at the end of their attack run (36 rolls vs 18 targets, say 30 hits and 20 penetrating = no more fighters... on average). And then again such fighters will be much more expensive than the "default" fighters from S:X, which means many less will be fielded.
Something I like in other games is the concept of morale for fighters. A fighter group that has been decimated may not feel it is such a good idea to go back for another pass. That could blunt the effectiveness of fighters. But OTOH that would entail further bookkeeping... so I don't know.
you have not only canceled your momentum, you're also moving 1 hex/turn in a new direction. That's where the "extra" thrust comes from.
Interestingly, that is EXACTLY what my opponent explained when we discussed the issue.
Well the important thing is that so far the new movement rules are working incredibly well. After only two games we've completely absorbed the rules.
The thing I *really* like is that I can plot my movement and know precisely where the ship will go. And also, I find that the delayed turn & pivot rules (well especially the pivot rules) allow for much more possibilities and yet remain very easy to implement. The days of very slow battleship having predictable movement are over :twisted:
I just finished playing a game using the SAE rules. Despite some of my initial reservations now both my opponent and I decidedly prefer them over the S:X rules.
A small oddity however seemed to occur when attempting to move one of my ships; you decide - here's what happened :
-engine rating of 4 (undamaged)
-previous speed of 4
My order for that turn was : PP (two turns to port), for a thrust requirement of 4 (PP = the sum of the current turn' speed <0> and the previous turn' speed <4> )
But... If I had decelerated to, say a speed of 1 then the order would have been illegal (previous 4 + current 1 = 5 > engine rating of 4)
So it struck me as odd... basically I can do a dead stop but I can't decelerate.
Did I miss something :?:
I second Beowulf on this : I really, really liked the disappearance of "half-shields" and "ignores shields" in SAE but IF you bring back those then PLEASE no "Ionic" gizmos!
First of all, thanks to whoever designed the Fighter/Seeker Excel design sheet.
I'm toying around building new fighters and seekers (such as missiles, etc) and the feature I'd like to see would be the ability to get a capacity cost modifier according to the type of fighter being designed. For instance, if I want to design interceptors that will solely be used vs other fighters, I'm paying in terms of capacity for the ability to attack ships as well, which I don't want to. The other way around could be true : a flight of bombers that only attack ships could get a "rebate" in capacity terms given they wouldn't be able to attack other fighters.
I was toying with the idea of adjusting capacity costs per ability and/or trait (variable ATT/DEF or traits like piercing being valid only against ships or fighters but not both, etc ) but that would be too cumbersome. I think a "blanket" designation as either being anti-fighter/seeker, anti-ship or multi-purpose would be more apt.
Makes sense - on one hand it somewhat restricts some options I had in mind but as you say it does keep things simple for everyone, and the latter is more important than the former.
However it should perhaps be specified in the next rules revision.
I think that was answered for S:X but I can't remember what was discussed and I also wonder how this applies to SAE;
I do know that the traits marked by an * cannot be combined together.
But what if I wanted to give a weapon the Slow-Firing trait twice? How would that work out? You only fire once every four turns?
What about a weapon given the Variable DMG trait twice? If that is indeed allowed, how would it work? Take a weapon with DMG-1, do you roll twice before firing to see what will be the final DMG value? Say you're lucky and you roll a '5' and a '6' (one roll per the number of times the weapon has the Var-DMG trait) , then the final DMG value becomes 4. Is that right?
Can you do the same for instance for the Repeating trait? How would that work? If you buy it twice for a weapon do you re-roll 2 hit dice per successful hit?
Same here for a trait like Extra Hull Damage. Say you buy it 3 times (for a really expensive weapon), does that mean that for each successful hit you mark off 3 hull hits automatically (plus of course the given damage)?
and so on ...
By frickin' George, I think he's got it!
YESSS!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, no. The thrust requirement is computed for the movement orders AS A WHOLE, not for each component. This is why there are five "cases" for determining thrust.
Looking at the example on p.19: the previous speed is 3, the new movement orders are "2S2". Since this is a single one-hexside turn, the thrust requirement is the higher of the two speeds, or 4.
If the orders were "2S2S", with two one-hexside turns, the thrust requirement is now the sum of the two speeds, or 7.
Ok ... we're almost there
I know how to determine the TR for each of the 5 maneuver categories; that's easy. Going back to the perennial example - if we go the the 2nd game turn- I'll list a few movement alternatives to the given example, let's see if I get it :
engine rating = 4
previous speed = 3
-IF I don't turn I can move up to 7 hexes or not move at all (eg I move forward 0,1,2,3,4,5,6 or 7 hexes)
-IF I make a single turn to port, the NEW max speed (ie number of hexes actually moved that turn) is 4, because P = greater of the previous (3) and current (4) speed- like the example given.
-OR I could try P+P, but my max speed for that turn can only be 1 ; since P+P = sum of the previous (3) and current (1) speed ... = engine rating @ 4
-OR I could try P+S like this : P1S5 or P2S3 or P3S1, etc.
-OR I could go for a fancy U-turn as such : 1U or U1
Closer?
Ah btw, no need to reply right away, you folks enjoy your holidays for Elvis' sake!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Cartman
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
