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 RedShark92
Never mind - starting to make sense of this - the modifiers to handle each weapon are built into the Arc Modifier.
:oops:
Figures, I stare at this thing for hours trying to make sense of it and then it all clicks right after making a long post asking about it.
OK, apologies if this has been gone over before, I did try searching the forum but didn't get very far and maybe I'm just overthinking this, but I'm starting to do some work in setting up my own designs (B5 conversion) in the drydock and I'm not quite "getting" BAS and/or Attack Dice (as they seem to be related).
First, let me be sure I correctly understand some of the terms and concepts:
A "Battery" is collectively all of the weapons of the same type, regardless of their facing, on any given ship.
A "Bank" is one particular weapon in the battery - it may or may not share the same or similar facings with other weapons in the battery.
Each bank can be fired independently of the others in its battery, at different targets, or not at all depending on the situation and the wishes of the player.
Good so far?
OK, if all of that is correct:
Is the starting value of the "Attack Dice" row referring to the Battery as a whole, or to each individual bank within the battery?
The original description of Attack Dice on p. 6 seems to imply that it refers to the Battery as a whole, but the example on p. 13 seems to imply that it refers to each Bank separately (because one Bank firing is starting with the full value).
How does this interact with "BAS" from the Drydock?
I'd assume that to mean the base value for each Bank, because in designing a ship with two identical weapons in the same arc (for reference, I am trying to build a conversion for the Narn G'Quan heavy cruiser from Babylon 5) the Attack Dice value that shows up in the print-out is double the value that I put in for BAS on the main screen.
This also seems to imply that "Attack Dice" does refer to the Battery as a whole (because it's the combined BAS from all of the banks in the battery).
If this is the case, though, how is it resolved when you fire only one of your weapons from your Battery, or if they're fired at multiple targets?
A fairly logical assumption would be that you would start as a fraction of the value (1/2 in this case as 1/2 of the total Battery is firing). In this case, there are only two of this particular weapon so this is fairly simple and easy, but it seems like it could get unnecessarily complicated and gamey* if there are many different weapons of the same type all firing into different arcs and there is no mention in the rules (that I have found) of starting with a fractional value if you split your fire, or if firing only a part of the battery.
It sounds like Defiance probably would handle vehicles a little better than No Limits does, OTOH based on the comments I've seen here I think No Limits integrates Jedi (and other "lesser" Hero-class models) into squad based battles more effectively.
I did download the demo version so I will be thumbing through it, at least.
Will check in if I have questions.
Well, thanks for the tips.
I think I'll be sticking with No Limits for now. It sounds like it's slightly superior for what I'm trying to do and I've already put a fair amount of work into it... Defiance definitely has a fair amount going for it, but doesn't fit this project well enough for me to throw away the work I've already done on it.
Thanks for the info! I have a few comments...
RedShark92 wrote:Looking for opinions and advice. I'm familiar with MJ12's work from Starmada and I like that system a lot
Well, Defiance is not "Starmada The 28mm Ground Combat Edition"... But it is a good game for such games generally, I'd even say very good.
Well I wasn't expecting them to be identical, they're simulating completely different things - just saying I've been happy with my experiences with MJ12 so far. 
However, I'm not entirely sure if it is really well suited to Star Wars. For one, it's pretty "realistic" as games go and Star Wars is anything but realistic. For another, the Jedi in particular may be difficult to portray, depending a little on how powerful and how "wacky" you want them.
I'm not sure this is a problem for me, for a few reasons, as long as it's not excessively gritty/realistic. Is it more or less gritty/realistic than Stargrunt?
The feel of WEG's SWMB is perfect, in this regard, my main issue with this system is that there's enough new elements in the PT era that it'd be simpler to come up with stats in a system that allows for force creation.
In addition, I'm definitely into toning down the Jedi. I want them to be powerful in close combat and difficult to hit at range, but I don't want them to be pulling anywhere near the level of stunts we saw in the Clone Wars cartoon (for instance). For what it's worth, No Limits has this problem as well.
I'd like to have and be able to field Jedi, but I don't want them dominating the field. I want battles that are primarily about the troopers. I may be compromising some of the more heroic aspects of the Star Wars feel with this, but I'm fine with that, and like I said, we have a precedence for this with the original miniatures rules for Star Wars.
All sorts of little tweaks can tilt the balance in their favour, but still they won't necessarily get far enough over the top or be flashy enough. The rest of the troops should be doable quite nicely, even the vehicles although that really depends how many different types of vehicles per force you see yourself needing -- this number is severely curtailed under the standard rules.
I'm envisioning forces composed primarily of squads of troops. A typical army might be 4-8 squads of troops (the exact number depending on size and quality), maybe a "hero" level character or two (probably leading a squad) and no more than 2-3 small vehicles (speeder bike/landspeeder level) and no more than 2-3 mid-sized vehicles (AT-ST, Tank Droid, etc.). Large vehicles (AT-AT scale) would be reserved for special scenarios.
I'm not familiar with what they've been doing with Starmada fleet generation in the last ten or so years, but I should think Defiance force creation tool is much more complex. It is certainly more complex than that of No Limits. Of course IMCO it also gives clearly better results when it comes to game balance, but you'll need to work a bit to get those results.
This is one of the issues I'm having with No Limits. Force generation for Troops in No Limits is great. Vehicles don't seem to be as well developed and both the rules and the point balances for them feel "loose" to me. It's not an insurmountable problem, but it does have me looking at other options.
With Starmada - there's a very well designed Excel sheet - you simply plug in the numbers and other info into it and it does all of the necessary game calculations on the fly. There are some similar tools for No Limits, but I'm doing most of the work for it by hand as they're all a little clunky. I was wondering if the tool for Defiance is similar.
Howdy all,
Looking for opinions and advice. I'm familiar with MJ12's work from Starmada and I like that system a lot.
I'm looking into a good 28mm game for SF battles. The bulk of what I'm working with so far is Star Wars and this project started when I decided I liked WotC's Star Wars minis but wanted something more from the rules.
I have used No Limits, a free 28 mm generic system and I do enjoy it, but I'm always on the lookout for anything that might be better.
Basically, what I'm looking for is something that can handle Star Wars well... That is to say, a certain amount of grit/realism is good, but overdoing it is definitely out of the question. In addition, it should be able to handle some of the fun stuff Jedi can do without making them over-powered and it should be able to handle vehicle scales from the lowly Speeder-bikes all the way up to the mighty AT-AT (though AT-ST sized is probably the most I'd see fielded without writing a scenario around it).
Any thoughts on how Defiance would fit this bill? I'm also curious for how it would compare with WEG's Star Wars Miniatures Battles and Wargames Unlimited's No Limits for those who have experience with either system.
Addendum: I've been able to play moderate sized battles with No Limits in about 2-3 hours with total newbies. Moderate = 3 or 4 squads of troops, along with several small to mid-sized vehicles per side. How does Defiance compare here?
I will also say that part of what attracts me is the prospect of a good way to generate profiles. Starmada's ship design template is an excellent tool and went a LONG way to making my Babylon 5 conversion much easier than it would have been otherwise. No Limits is a little trickier in this regard and if Defiance has something anywhere near as good as the one for Starmada, it'll make this decision much simpler.
This system seems to have no down side. In combination with long-range sensors and spinal mount, it seems devestatingly effective.
Another idea - why not just restrict the combination of Stealth and LRS?
It's easy enough to write something into the fluff about why it may work that way (like Star Trek's "rule" about most Cloaked ships being unable to fire their weapons) and if it's the combination of the two items together more than either one apart, then that may be a valid solution for your group.
Declare stealth off-limits.
Not the best answer if you're playing in a SF setting that does include it - i.e., Babylon 5.
Stealth, IMNSHO, should be either off-limits or keep it for a 'super-ship' scenario, where one massive high-tech ship is on the rampage, and several lower-tech, smaller vessels have to stop it.
I haven't played it enough to know whether it's a problem for my group or playstyle yet, but if it is a problem why not just increase it's SU and point costs?
Actually I do not think the "big heavy ships should be able to rotate as quickly as smaller lighter ones" thing is realistic. Rotational inertia is still inertia. The trouble is that with a time scale of around 15 minutes per turn, the "burn a thrust point per arc" rule may be an over-compensation, though it does address some game-balance issues. We haven't reached a consensus yet...
Of course a small ship can rotate more quickly, I worded that poorly. Considering, that many of these games use a fairly abstracted time scale, however, makes the amount of time a turn takes less important than the cost in thrust that it takes.
And, in an abstracted movement system like FT or SX* I think a set cost in thrust to go to whichever facing you want is probably the closest happy medium you'll get between realism and playability.
Of course, balance comes into play as well. 
*Compare FT or SX's generic thrust points with AoG's Babylon 5 Wars, for example, which tries to deal with it in a more "absolute" manner - big ships have more total thrust, but their maneuvers cost more. Small ships have less total thrust, but their manuevers cost less - as opposed to the "relative" FT or SX method where all maneuvers cost the same but small ships have more thrust.
The end result is (or should be) the same, or close enough to call - small ships can maneuver more than big ships, it's just a different way of getting there.
I recently purchased Starmada X after playing Full Thrust for a while, primarily to see if SX's ship design system would be a better fit with my group's custom setting. For my personal taste, if it's in space, it has to be vector, and I think FT's implementation is better, subject to the caveat that our house-rules do not permit manoevring thrusters to do anything but turn or roll the ship (FT's "thruster push" rule is ridiculous IMHO; I just don't believe in manoevring thrusters capable of delivering half the acceleration of the main drive!).
I tend to agree. Hence my initial comment (that started this whole mess!) of replace SX's move system with FT's Vector to capture the best of both...
Our experience is that vector movement does not inhibit manoeuvre, but it does make it very different from what we're all used to in the way wet-navy ships, aircraft etc. behave. Of course it's exactly the audience's unfamiliarity that leads the makers of most TV and movie SF to ignore physics and have spaceships banking into turns, whooshing as they
I tend to agree here. It is quite a bit different. Still Film and TV SF is getting better in this regard.
pass by etc. I don't think there's much point using anything but "cinematic" movement if you're playing in the Star W*rs or Star Tr*k universes. B5 is a bit better, but still has apparently reaction-engined Earth Alliance ships decelerating into orbit etc. while still flying "bows forward" as it were.
I'd say B5 is solidly a step in that direction. You're right that it wasn't perfect but it was one of the first shows of it's kind to even make the attempt.
I recall the Whitestars in particular were well done in this regard. I remember several battles where they were shown doing high speed passes against the broadsides of the big Earth ships raking them all the way across as they passed.
The "put all your weapons in the front arc and charge" mutual fly-by scenario is encouraged by "line 'em up and send 'em in" encounter-battle scenarios, but it's not the only approach. For example long-range weapons covering the broadside arcs offer interesting tactical options for holding the range open and circling the enemy's flanks as he charges. Think Saracen horse-archers rather than charging knights...
Well I'm working on B5 as my primary focus and attempting to be true to the source material limits my options here to some degree. B5 ships tend to have primary weapons facing forward with arcs usually (but not always) relatively limited (i.e., 30-60 degree) firing arcs with secondary and tertiary weapons spread through the ship giving at least some coverage all around the ship, though obviously less to the back.
Still, with Vector the type of tactic you describe can be done even with limited arc weapons like I have. Most ships will be able to apply thrust in direction Y and then turn themselves to face direction B.
An issue our group has discussed a fair bit is the "sit and spin" problem. FT's vector rules allow a ship to turn from any heading to any other by burning one Thrust Point (TP). As a result, even the most sluggish armoured behemoth can spin as nimbly on its axis as the speediest frigate, and bring even single arc weapons to bear on any chosen bearing. That doesn't really feel right, and we've experimented with adopting the Turn-a-TP-for-each-arc-turned approach. That means, for example, that Thrust 2 dreadnaughts take two turns to reverse their heading, and gives an incentive to fit them with multi-arc weapons to counter nimbler opponents.
I agree with you here in that it's a situation that is realistic but not conducive to balance between larger and smaller ships. Making ships pay more for rotations isn''t realistic but it solves a lot of potential problems.
Of course, the other factor is that even if that big dreadnought can turn itself any way it wants with that one arc weapon it still has to successfully guess where the smaller ship is going to be so it knows which arc to aim into. At long range this isn't too big a deal but at close range it can be tricky.
As for faster moving ships having to spend more MPs to turn, I disagree with that. The speed of the ship has nothing to do with changing the facing of the ship, because it should still cost the same amount of MPs (or take the same amount of energy), to turn the nose of the ship. Now when you start talking actual direction of flight that's a different story.
Well it depends - in FT Cinematic a turn is the same as a change in the direction of flight, the two are linked.
As to the movement costs - you are correct, half is available for maneuvering.
In my opinion the FT cinematic movement mechanic is an extremely good mechanic, and is easy to understand, from a game playing perspective. Fatser moving ships have a wider turning arc, which is the only difference there should be between two ships moving at different speeds.
I agree that it's a well built system, and I also agree that from a realism point of view the wider turning arcs are sufficient simulation of the effects of higher speed. Of course if realism is the goal then Vector gets closer anyway.
My concern with that system, and my reason for considering the addition of higher thrust costs at higher speed has more to do with feel. Based on recent discussion on the FT list it seems like the prevalent strategy is high speed passes - high speed being 20-30 MUs a turn. My problem with that has more to do with feel than actual balance because that doesn't accurately reflect the way ships move and fight in pretty much any SF or Film universe. As I am primarily interested in playing in existing SF universes (Babylon 5 and Star Wars most notably) this is of concern to me.
Granted, it doesn't allow for a facing different than the direction of flight, bit I don't see that as a problem. For me it's a non-issue, for I don't see any vector-based movement system as better. Just different.
Ultimately, it's about maneuver and bringing weapons to bear.
And no one's ever been able to convince me that a vector-based system is any more fun than a cinema-based system.
Nor should they try (and nor have I been). You should use whatever system you like. A good Vector move system is more realistic and for someone whose primary goal is realism, that's the clear choice. Other than that, it depends what you're looking for. I like both and would choose one or the other based on the setting and which one fit it better.
The problem with increasing high thrust penalties for larger ships is that there at at least a couple of weapons systems out there that'll kill you dead if you don't have a good thrust rating, like SMLs.
That is valid - I haven't played enough FT to see that effect as that particular weapon doesn't really fit the settings I've used it for. I would consider that to be a flaw or balance problem with the system, though; at least as it relates to using it to simulate existing SF settings.
Most SF settings do show bigger ships as being less maneuverable as compared with smaller ships without suffering extreme consequences for it; in Star Trek the Defiant or even the movie-era Klingon Bird of Prey are notably more maneuverable than any of the heavy cruisers; in Babylon 5 Whitestars literally fly circles around the bigger ships but even the less advanced mid-sized ships like the Centauri light cruisers (Vorchans) are seen to be more manueverable than the Narn or EA cruisers; In Star Wars we haven't seen the small ships manueverability as much, but the big ships are shown to be bricks in space and I'd say the same is true of both old and new Battlestar Galactica).
Basically - these are some of the biggest and best names for Starship combat settings from film or TV and in all of these settings the big ships are bricks, relative to the smaller ones. If the system doesn't work like that, then it fails at simulating these settings.
SX to my mind, does this right.
My gaming group has come to Starmada after a very brief flirt with Full Thrust.
I'd used Full Thrust for Star Wars in the past and I like the feel of it for that. When I started wanting to come up an alternative for B5Wars for B5 gaming I had considered FT. The main reason I kept looking was because I wanted a bit more variety in the weapon systems, which because of the very simple weapon system in FT was very difficult to set up with the right feel.
When we began to play Starmada we used the vector movement as it seemed more “realistic”. After several battles, involving just such quick fly-bys as you mentioned, we switched to Stamada's intrinsic “cinematic” system.
Well realism isn't the only thing I'm after (or I'd be playing Ad Astra's Attack Vector). As I've said, a lot of it depends on feel. I think B5's feel is captured best with a good Vector move. For Star Wars or Star Trek I'd probably use a variant of FT's Cinematic move - with changes made to reduce the high speed factor. i.e., a player could still attain those speeds if they wanted to, but there would be more drawbacks to doing so.
The vector movement reduced maneuvers in combat and all ships tended to have AB arc weapons as you were always turning to thrust at your opponent. With the regular Starmada movement, there is more maneuvering and it makes for a more challenging game as ships need side and rear mounted weapons. Again, one of the good things about Starmada is its ability to be molded to fit the playing styles of any milieu or setting.
I have this concern as well. I think FT's Vector won't favor high speed as much as their Cinematic does, but the possibility is definitely there. If I can't get it to work the way I want I'll probably use a variant of FT's Cinematic move.
The main thing I'd want is a system that does allow momentum to carry over from turn to turn, and would also prefer a system that "naturally" discourages super-high speeds without having to set an "artificial" speed limit, the way that SX's Vector move does.
The most obvious, and easiest, way to discourage high speeds is to do something similar to what AoG did with Babylon 5 Wars: The faster a ship is traveling the more expensive turns become (in terms of thrust/MPs spent).
In standard FT a turn costs 1 thrust per clock face no matter what. A 6-thrust ship can come about completely in one turn no matter how fast it's going. The only drawback is that the arc of the turn will be wider.
My initial thought would be to use a modifier to the thrust/MP costs at faster speeds. Something like an additional thrust for every 5-10 points of speed the ship is moving at (would need testing to decide exactly how much). As an example, something like:At 0-10 speed it costs 1 thrust/MP for each point of turning; at 11-20 it costs 2; at 21-30 it costs 3 and so on.
This would naturally reduce speed somewhat. That 6 thrust ship can no longer come about in one turn at any speed higher than 10. Past speed 20 it can only turn two points a turn.
Note that one of the advantages of this system is that it's easily workable with hexes or without. The only big change with hexes is that you have to buy turns in 2-point increments, because you have 6 hexsides instead of 12-clock face directions.
I understand the "feels right" thing. Heck, even *I* don't like the basic Starmada movement system -- but every time I've suggested changing it, I've met with fierce resistance!
Heh.Well it's easy enough to work up alternates and options. SX is a wonderfully versatile system and I'd say the fact that it's so robust as far as optional/alternate rules go is one of it's great strengths.
I can't say I'm a big fan of FT's movement tho... but then, I'm a bit biased...
I'll bet you are.
I prefer FT's Vector over it's Cinematic, which puts me in the minority as most FT players seem to be using the Cinematic.
It is simple and intuitive, the main thing I dislike about it is that it seems to encourage high speed passes as the primary movement tactic. Not a problem except that high speed is about 50-75% of total weapon ranges. This combined with the fact that the construction system doesn't punish large ships very much for packing in high thrust ratings gives it an incorrect feel for simulating most TV or Film SF universes, IMO. The fixes involve making large ships pay more for high thrust (something Starmada already does) and/or making turns more difficult at high speeds (a simplified version of what AoG did for B5Wars, for instance).
Anyway - I love their Vector move and I think that system gives a great feel for Babylon 5, which is my primary interest in space gaming right now. Happily SX has a good feel for B5 in general so I think combining those two elements will give me a great option. Simpler and cleaner than the old AoG B5Wars and hopefully more tactical than Mongoose's ACTA (I haven't played it but what I have heard about it hasn't impressed).
Thanks for creating such a great system...
Oh?
That's the 'White goes First, so it has an advantage' take on the subject?
Oh sure.
I've heard that one before. It can be argued that the fact that White is 'forced' to move first is a disadvantage that balances the equation, since the opponent, 'Black' gets to see and evaluate that initial move, before committing a single move of his own.
Well lots of things can be argued. Statistics of high level play show a White advantage and addtionally I've heard that many people who do play at high levels tend to play White to win but Black to draw.
More than one game allows the side that 'Wins' initiative to force his opponent to move first.
Of course they do but unless and until you get into the specifics of the mechanics of each game (and why it's an advantage or a disadvantage to move first within those mechanics) that's a vast oversimpliciation that's really irrelevant to this discussion.
Classic Battletech for instance has alternating movement and simultaneous weapons fire. In Battletech each side alternates moving units with the loser of initiative moving first.
In CBT that is usually a disadvantage (though not always). Part of the reason that it's a disadvantage is that it allows the opponent to respond to his position. (You make the same argument for Chess, but it's not that simple.)
Part of the reason it's not that simple is because once the first unit has moved into position, having failed initiative, the entire opposing force has a chance to respond to that unit's position before it will have a chance to move again.
The other factor is that weapons fire is simultaneous and follows movement, and by moving that around one can easily alter the balance of the game.
For instance if we keep movement the same and keep weapons fire after movement, but change it so that it resolves in initiative order then moving first can become an advantage because if I fire first and destroy your unit before it's had a chance to respond, it will never get the chance to respond.
Actually, I think perfect equality of fighting potential is possible; see chess.
Chess is actually not perfectly balanced because White has an advantage.
This discussion seems to have some legs so I thought I'd move it to it's own thread rather than derailing the New to SX thread.
I recoil in horror from trying to gauge clock-facings for every friggin' damn turn.... to each, his own, I suppose.
Heh. I don't see why clock facings should be so difficult? If they're printed or marked on the minis base they are very easy and fast to use (just put your finger or another marker next to one and then rotate the mini until you get to the one you want).
Not saying you should go that route (to each their own, and all) but I just don't see the difficulty in gauging the clock faces when you don't really have to gauge them when they're properly marked.
Also, any game that has ship-to-ship space combat in it is already wildly unrealistic, and anyway, what's so bad about abstracting movement orders really?
Well my take on it is that pretty much no matter what game you're playing, from the simplest (Sky Full of Ships maybe?) to the most complex (probably Attack Vector: Tactical, though I haven't played it) you are making concessions to reality somewhere - it's just a matter of where you want to draw the line.
For my purposes I mostly want something that "feels" right. Part of feeling right is that I shouldn't have to expend thrust to move every turn. SX's vector move does have a better feel than SX's Cinematic move, I just find FT's Vector move to be about as close to perfect as you can get in a space combat game.
It's relatively realistic, it takes into account your facing, your heading and your speed, and is simultaneously very intuitive and easy to use and by it's very existence proves that a decent Vector move system does not have to be complicated.
Not trying to start a fight, BTW. Just saying
Of course not. I'm perfectly happy discussing this as long as it stays civil - I think we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Any comments?
There's been a fair number of downloads so I know that somebody's seen them. Comments could help me make these existing ships better and also will be helpful when I start branching out to other races.
Thanks,
What, specifically do you not like.
and how does the vector movement system not work for you , if you don't like "cinematic"
OK, first let me say that "unplayable" is a bit harsh - I don't really think it's that bad and was just having some fun after the whole burning at the stake thing.
I don't like the Cinematic move at all. A Space combat movement system doesn't need to be overly realistic but should deal with at least the absolute basics of frictionless movement...
As to the Vector - it's better but if I'm going to use a Vector then FT's can't be beaten for striking a perfect balance between realism and ease of usage in play.
Plus I'm one of those people who "recoil in horror" from hexes so anything that makes it possible to play gridless is a step in the right direction.
Starmada? Weakness?
Well, since you asked...
I find the movement system to be pretty much unplayable (which is why I'm porting in FTs).
Yeah, that being the case, I think I'd scrap the hexes completely and start playing Full Thrust.
:wink:
Kevin
I actually am going to be running Starmada with Full Thrust's movement rules on a gridless field.
As I see it, the main advantage of Full Thrust is that it's gridless and has two great movement systems to pick from. The main advantage of Starmada is it's versatility.
By combining the best of elements from each system you simultaneously avoid the weaknesses of each one.
For my B5W conversions, I took the B5W Ramming Factor divided by 25 to average out the Hull for the Starmada versions of the ships. That put most small ships in B5W as Hull 2 Starmada ships, and the cruisers generally fell into the 12-14 Hull range.
I did use the size of the ships in B5W as a rough guideline in my conversion, but I didn't follow it as closely as this. It was more like X is bigger than Y is bigger than Z. I was trying to give B5 (the series) more weight than B5W the game, because even though I liked B5W I didn't agree with all of their interpretations. Additionally Starmada simply isn't detailed enough to fully convert the different B5W weapons stats so rather than try I went for general feel.
My method was to outfit the ships that were seen on the show in a manner that would give them capabilities roughly equal to what was seen on the show and then make them whatever size they would need to be to meet those capabilities. Starting with Narn and Centauri I got a G'Quan at 16 and a Primus at 14. I then extrapolated the stats for the AoG designs based roughly on a combination of their B5W stats and how they should compare to their (mostly) bigger brothers.
I also kept the existing "Shield" rules in place exactly as they were except I'm using them to represent protection gained by armor instead of an electronic shielding type system. There are a few weapon abilities that don't really make sense under this paradigm (Shield Resonant) and I simply don't use them.
I did modify the EA hull values downward, as I modeled their resilience not through Hull but through a gradiated series of PDS systems that represent the ships' Interceptors.
I went with a combination of hull size and armor (shields in SX) to represent this. Most of my EA ships also have the standard SX PDS system as well.
Joe
Howdy,
Just getting into looking at these now and have two questions:
Firstly - what is the difference between the docs? One includes "KEB" in the title and one does not.
Secondly - I notice these both refer to VBAM. I own and play the Brigade version of Starmada X, is the inclusion of VBAM info going to negatively effect my use of these?
Thanks,
Joe Reil
And reading back comments in more detail reveal that most of the comments had to do with the Starmada Compendium.
I have no experience with that version of the rules - did the hull size range vary?
Hmmm.
I'm using Starmada X, and primarily for Babylon 5, using both ships seen on the show and those added to the canon by AoG.
I'm finding that most of the races main-line ships (the ones seen most often on the show) are coming into the 14-16 range. It's not a conscious decision on my part to make them that size, but in setting them up with the capabilities they have to match their capabilities in the show and (to a lesser degree) the B5W stats they seem to naturally be coming out that way.
For instance my stats for the Narn heavy cruiser (G'Quan class) comes out at 15 or 16. Their destroyers/light cruisers are coming in the 8-10 range and their smallest ships in the 2 to 5. Their Dreadnought (not seen on the show) is right at 20 (the max size allowed in the SXCA).
I imagine a typical battle group at the size I'm going to be playing will have two of the heavy cruisers supported/escorted by an assortment of the smaller ships.
I think SX is versatile enough that the exact size of the ships doesn't matter as much as logical fleet composition.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by RedShark92
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.