Yes, yes -- "hint, hint" indeed!
I'm working on it! Another week or so and I should be ready to finish up and playtest final changes to the exploration and NPE rules, and then I can start on layout of the CC.
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 Tyrel Lohr
Yes, yes -- "hint, hint" indeed!
I'm working on it! Another week or so and I should be ready to finish up and playtest final changes to the exploration and NPE rules, and then I can start on layout of the CC.
All that you should need are the VBAM Campaign Guide and the VBAM: Starmada Edition books. The Starmada Edition was written with Starmada X in mind, but the Admiralty Edition is close enough so as to still be compatible.
At some point, once any of us at VBAM Games has time in our schedules, we will probably revisit the Starmada Edition and get it reworked to be 100% compatible with the new edition. That being said, I think the biggest change not reconciled between SX and SAE is figuring out how to generate VBAM stats for fighter customizations. If fighting out battles in the VBAM CSCR is not an issue for you, though, then you are golden and shouldn't run into any problems.
-Tyrel
As an added post, for reference, the basic stat formulas I was working on back in December are as follows:
Construction Cost: ROUND(Hull + CRAT) ~ you must remove the ORAT and DRAT modifiers for Carrier capacity before figuring CRAT, however, as otherwise it breaks the formulas.
Maintenance Cost: ROUND(CRAT/100) over ROUND(Hull/CRAT*100) ~ as with above, the Carrier mods have to be removed from the CRAT first
Defense Value (DV): ROUND((Hull + AVERAGE(Shields[KEB])/2.5*Hull+Engines/5*Hull+DRAT/10) / 4 )
Anti-Ship (AS): ROUNDUP(ORAT/100) ~ remove Carrier mods from ORAT first
Anti-Fighter (AF): This one is more involved. Take the Arcs total times the base weapon SU, then divide by the accuracy modifier. Repeat for each weapon battery, then divide the total by 3 and round up.
Command Rating (CR): ROUNDUP(Hull / 2 + Hull ^ .4)
Command Cost (CC): ROUNDDOWN (Hull ^ .57)
Basing Capacity (BC): Total Carrier space divided by 10. This way each point of Basing is equal to 10 points of small craft, and each flight will then have a size equal to their size divided by 10.
Logistics Rating (LR): ROUND(Unused SU / (Hull * 5)) ~ this is the number of turns a ship can be out of supply before earning out of supply levels.
That should at least give you an idea of where I was headed. Once a finalized ship builder sheet is available (probably in May, again, since it is in the middle of tax season) I will test the values a bit more and see if they work or not. I just couldn't keep up with the errata updates when I was trying to get a solution figured out in mid-December, and after having to completely redo my modded sheet twice just gave up until things calmed down and all of the bugs were patched.
I was working on some conversion notes of my own when the game first was released, but the MJ12 ship builder sheet had so many problems in its released alpha build that every week it was getting updated, and I just didn't have time to keep up with the changes -- and I had other projects to work on that were more pressing.
The only real part of the new rules that needs a conversion solution put to them is the fighters, as they are wholly different. But, in those cases, you are still going to be dealing with a bracketing system where each fighter ability will raise or lower one or more stats by a step (0* to 0, 0 to 1*, 1* to 1, and so on).
After tax season is over I may be able to take a look at things again, if Jay doesn't beat me to it. Unfortunately, my schedule is going to be full until then -- and until I get the next two VBAM books out.
One question -- the VBAM Scout requirements. You could change them to requiring Fire Control and a certain number of Science units, since Fire Control fulfills many of the same functions as LRS used to.
Given the changes to equipment (or should I say the removal of equipment), I think the best option is to make all of the VBAM unit abilities into separate Auxiliary ship options that require X SU per level. I haven't got a good feel for how much space a ship will have available under S:AE at the various tech levels, but some multiple of 100 would probably work out.
-Tyrel
I would also kindly request adding at least 4-5 weapon slots to the sheet, if at all possible. That would make life easier for me, too, as I won't have to go back and add that in later (and possibly break something else in the process!).
I blame Jay for the vbam-esque page background decision
Don't blame Jay for that! That's all me! Likes me some gradient backgrounds, I do!
I just bought the book, too, and it looks good. There are a lot of options I will probably tweak, and others that I will add back in from Starmada X, but I am looking forward to giving everything a spin and see how the VBAM connections will work with this new edition.
On the surface, and having not played any games yet, I have to say I like the changes to Engine and Shield hits. I am still on the fence with some of the other changes, but Dan was kind enough to slap me around until I understood his logic (or was otherwise too dizzy and incoherent to argue any further).
-Tyrel
I am most interested in the rules for small craft. In trying to differentiate fighters and shuttles in SX, that has been one of my biggest obstacles.
I guess we will find out next month how this turns out!
If you want decidedly low tech ships, one good way I have found is to mod the S:X sheet to allow for TL -3. *That* definitely lets you build very low tech ships. They aren't very good, and they cut corners to get any weapons or equipment worth anything.
I haven't had a chance to game with any of the results of my fiddling, but it would certainly be interesting.
Of course, most of the ships I design tend to be TL -2. No heavy-duty weapons for me!
-Tyrel
One good shill post deserves another, doesn't it?
I just wanted to resurrect this old thread to let you know that VBAM is currently having a sale with all products being 10-25% off through May 18, 2007.
If you have been thinking about picking up some of our rule books or starship miniatures, now would be the time to do it!
-Tyrel
The hardest problem we had with Trek ships, was the Torpedoes.... one player wants to make them into drones, to simulate the range, and the other player wants them to be range 18 with high PEN and DMG to simulate the impact they do.......
My solution to that problem was to make them weapon systems, with a long range (whatever feels right to your group) and the Increased DMG trait; this helps to simulate what we tend to see on the show, where sometimes a ship can take several photon hits and still fight and in other cases all it takes is a single photon torpedo to destroy a ship. Also, given the mechanics of Increased DMG, it also makes it so that unshielded ships (low or no Shields on PEN roll) are the most vulnerable to torpedo attacks.
-Tyrel
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 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.
-Tyrel
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?
I haven't used the Shipyard utility here, but you should be able to just ignore the non-core SX equipment and concepts added in the VBAM Starmada Edition book. The KEB defense system, EDT drive, and Active/Passive Sensors (along with some name changes of existing equipment) are all that I think the Starmada Edition introduced.
Also, just to make it clear what it is, the KEB system breaks defense values into Kinetic, Energy, and Ballistic weapon types -- railguns, particle beams, and missiles, for example. Each weapon then has a stipulated type, and you use the appropriate defense value against each weapon type. So you could have a ship that has Shields 5 against Ballistic weapons, but only Shields 1 against Kinetic or Ballistic weapons.
It was just done to help capture the feel and necessity of the Boltian/Kuissian universe, from which ships were included in the Starmada Edition.
-Tyrel
Based on past conversations, I began messing around a bit to try and find a way to satisfy two problems I have had in the past with Starmada X fighters. First and foremost, as I am approaching it from a VBAM background, I was looking for a way to reasonably interface the VBAM stats with SX fighters. Secondly, I was looking for a way to create more varied and interesting fighters.
Now, I like how fighters work in SX. They are simple and to the point, and I like that in a pickup game... however, in a campaign setting (like VBAM) or in a universe with a greater focus on fighters, I would much prefer to see more exotic fighters flying around.
What follows are a set of rules that are based on rough notes of what I have come up with thus far. If anyone has any ideas on how to improve the concept, I would appreciate them!
Tech Levels
The central conceit to this line of thinking is that SX tech levels should be involved in designing the fighters.
First, and most obviously, the Engine TL of a fighter determines the fighter's base Speed. This speed can be increased or decreased using the custom fighter traits Fast and Slow respectively. You start at Speed 10 at Engine TL 0, decreasing the Speed by 2 for each Engine TL below it or increasing it by 2 for each Engine TL above it. This fix has been discussed here before.
Now that Speed is known, how to figure the VBAM traits for the fighter? I have created a bracketing system for Cost, Maintenance, DV, AS, and AF based on the system that Noel Weer used in the ground combat charts for Stars Divided. In this case, all fighters begin at a starting level at a combined TL 0 and are modified up or down accordingly based on the fighter TL. For instance, if an empire has a total combined TL of -5 right now, then that means that they would have to perform 5 negative bracket adjustments to the fighter, in one or more of the 5 fighter stats. If the TL was +3 instead, then 3 positive adjustments could be made.
One distinction that this system makes in regards to DV is that the number of hits a fighter can take is equal to its DV. The "standard" DV at TL 0 is 2, providing it the equivalent of the Heavy trait. As DV goes down, you can currently drop to 1 hit per fighter, 3 hits per 2 fighters, or 1 her per 2 fighters. Going upwards, you get more and more hits per fighter, and can improve this still if you apply the Heavy modification to the fighter. The custom fighter mods can still be added ala Starmada Edition because they typically come with bracket penalties to correspond to the bonuses they confer, thus allowing them to pay for themselves.
Now, to the case of weapons. For this I decided to look at the problem as converting VBAM rating into available Weapon SU. The Weapon SU available to represent a fighter's AS and AF are calculated separately, but can be pooled under certain circumstances (more on this later). To calculate the values, you take the combat factor times 5, minus 2 if the factor is astericked (*). So an AS 2 fighter would have 10 SU for weapons. You then take the Weapon TL of the fighter and go design the weapons, figuring the SU without regard to arc (as fighter retain their 360 degree arc of fire and halving of shields at the moment simply to keep things simpler). In the case of range, divide the max range by 3 to determine the actual range of the weapon. A RNG 3 gun would then be a RNG 1, RNG 6 is RNG 2 (Extended Range equivalent), and so on.
There are a few limitations for AS and AF weapons. AS weapons cannot have a ROF greater than 1, while AF weapons cannot have a PEN greater than 1 AND the weapon must be able to damage enemy fighters. If both these requirements are met, then the points from AS and AF Weapon SUs can be combined to allow for the mounting of either heavier guns or more guns.
That is the general idea in a nutshell. I haven't touched Special Equipment yet, though things like Drones and Mines should be allowable to be included within the allowed SU. However, I haven't even thought about that yet.
The tests I have conducted thus far have created some interesting fighters. The live-fire test of these fighters two types of fighters, one that was a slower analog to the standard Heavy fighter (Speed 6, Hits 2, 1 @ Autocannon: RNG 1, To-Hit 5+ ROF 1, PEN 1, DMG 1) and then a strange, older light fighter with missiles (Speed 4, Hits 3/2, 1 @ Light Autocannon: RNG 1, To-Hit 5+ ROF 1, PEN 1, DMG 1, Must Re-Roll To-Hit Dice; 5 @ Fighter Missiles: RNG 1, To-Hit 5+ ROF 1, PEN 1, DMG 1, Must Re-Roll PEN Dice, No Hull DMG, Expendable).
The fight didn't see the light fighters being all that useful, due to their lower speed (but, then, they were TL -3 across the board for the most part!), but they did get into a few dogfights. Their missiles suck, but it was definitely something different. The other fighters fought fine, as they were pretty normal.
I have not tested high end values yet to see just how broken things can get on that end of the spectrum; however, if the equivalent of Vorlon or Shadow fighters are mind-blowingly more powerful than normal fighters, I don't see anything wrong with that.
The biggest problem here is that trying to point cost these things is all but impossible, I bet. For my purposes that is not a problem, but for pickup games it definitely would be.
I just thought I would throw the idea out there and see what people had to say about it.
Thanks,
-Tyrel
Unfortunately, in the Starmada "X" system, there are too many "cheesy" combinations of 3 weapon enhancements made into expendable to defend against. I can give details of the ones I created later... (!)
The use of the Expendable weapons rule is entirely optional, as is screening and the like. So you could certainly opt not to use it, if expendable weapon abuse was the major problem you were encountering.
I realize that much creative thought and play-testing went into making Starmada "X and I am impressed with it. But my friends and I feel that the game is heading into excessive, unessary complexity; such as having to have specific shield types to defend against either ballistic, energy, etc. weapons.
...and that isn't necessarily even a mainline SX optional rule; it was something that VBAM Games introduced in the Starmada Edition VBAM book because it was desirable to break the three out to make things mash up with the VBAM background. So you can't fault SX on that one, since it is about as optional as you can get!
As for even SFB not having specific shield types, that is more of a setting issue -- just as the VBAM B/K setting kind of required them to get the right mix of values for what the universe is based around. But you certainly don't have to play with them, and the concept isn't a core component of the SX game system.
My friends and I played 4 games using the many weapons and special equipment in the Compendium. It was more enjoyable than our Starmada "X" games had become, went much more smoothly & was more playable.
I know I have read several of your battle reports before, but what do you and your friends see to be the biggest problem with Starmada X? I have never played the Compendium version, but have read through it a few times. I see some elements of the old rules that I think are interesting, but it all seems to come off as being nowhere near as streamlined and versatile as Starmada X is.
I will come right out and admit, however, that I use Starmada X as much as a "tech widget" for my VBAM campaigns as anything else. I really like the game, but most of what I do is tinker and play around creating new designs for campaigns. I create far more ships than I fight battles, and I have the advantage of having a very limited opponent pool (1-2) so that my direct exposure to the powergamer crowd is extremely limited.
The most important thing though is that you guys have fun. To that end, I wish you many a good battle using your preferred system. We all look forward to hearing the tales of battles hard fought!
-Tyrel
I still maintain that, barring some kind of special scenario rule (like an "arena" fight, or a vital fixed objective nearby) fixed tables are simply ludicrous in a spaceship combat game.
I had a horrible, horrible experience in a PBEM game of Babylon 5 Wars where a fixed map was used. My ships, who had been sniped at the whole game, had closed on the enemy and were two hexes away from them... but they were one hex off the map at that point, so they magically disengaged and were unable to be shot. Cheap, very cheap.
After that experience, I would never, ever play a game on a fixed map again. I also refused to ever play with that player again, because it was obvious that he was gaming the system to his own advantage (something that is all too common in the gamer community).
Luckily, for most of my in-person games, I have a big enough gaming space so that floating a map is rarely a problem. When it is, we just take note of how many hexes off map the ship is and then float as we can or else note how many turns it will be before the ship can return to the map (if the ship was not being pursued).
As to the Inverted weapon-equipped ship problems, there are several solutions to the problem, and in a campaign environment the advantage would be quickly nullified by a combination of those solutions.
-Tyrel
What would the holidays be without some good old fashioned spam from your friends at VBAM Games?
I just wanted to let everyone know that the first set of our Wave 2 miniatures are now up for sale at http://shop.vbamgames.com. Several fleet packages are also available, offering up to a 20% savings compared to the individual ship packs.
This shill post was brought to you by me. Aren't I shiny?
-Tyrel
1) Variable levels of ECM/ECCM. You could add an ECM II or even ECM III to the game or an EWS II, etc. I'm sure they would be expensive but could be useful.
It is an idea, though would have to be particularly expensive to keep it from being totally game breaking. It is kind of unfortunate in that regard that Starmada is based on a D6 instead of D10, as D10 would allow for more wiggle-room on abilities. This is certainly something to consider, though. Similarly, you could introduce generational Cloaking Devices, too.
2) Additional fighter strengths. Currently you get heavy, which takes extra damage to kill, and plain, which is....plain. Maybe light could be added to reflect more primitive fighters. Similarly more speed options would be useful. Slow, Real Slow, Real Fast, etc. While on the subject of fighters, add on some options for increased PEN as well. Or again, more primitive fighters that do not halve Shields?
I have been working on a laundry list of new fighter abilities, as this is the one area of the game that I think is really lacking. Here are a few of the more common ones on my list:
Light - For every 2 hits against a Light flight, a third fighter is killed.
Ultralight - Every hit kills 2 fighters.
Super Heavy - Haven't decided exactly how I want to handle this, but probably 3-4 hits per fighter.
Screening - Each fighter counts as two for purposes of screening.
Armor Plating - same as ship equipment. Could just be a pain in the butt, but I haven't had a chance to play with it yet.
Speed (X) - instead of Fast/Slow, just provide an operator to determine the Speed of the fighter, so that it can be anything. I have been using (Speed - 10) * .1 up to this point.
ROF/PEN/DMG - Breaking these out for fighters would be good, too. I have been tempted to, at their core, treat fighters like weapon systems with whatever extra modifiers as desired and using that as a partial basis for pointing them. That would make handling them a bit easier, I think: a weapon with a given range (speed) and special abilities. However, I still like the fairly limited range of fighters, so the range brackets would be different.
The list could go on an on. Since I am playing mostly from a campaign perspective, it helps to open up fighter abilities a bit more.
3) I've seen someone else propose a system similar to aArmor Plating or Redundant Shields but designed to protect Engines. I like that. I can Armor my gun batteries even but not my engines?
I have used this before, and added it to my own sheet. It is an obvious ability, given that you can have armor plating effects for Hull, Shields, and Weapons already. Add Armored Internals for Special Equipment, and you would be set
How about rules for differentiating between civilian and military hulled ships? I've played a couple of scenarios where a big lumbering 10 Hull freighter with decent shields and basically a pop-gun holds off a small fast raider because the raider has only a few hull. Even a massive 20 Hull freighter should fear a true warship, no matter what its size.
Easiest thing I can think of would be to add a fourth Hull hit to '6', representing the shoddier construction of civilian starships. That would increase the chance that the ship would be destroyed.
The other thing that should be done more often than it is would be to have civilian starships be one tech level lower than the current military standard in each category. That would force civilian ships to be less efficient, and you would more often see freighters with less "extras" onboard compared to comparably equipped military craft.
-Tyrel
Looking at the Campaign Guide again, the actual core campaign rules are only about 60 pages long (Section 3), and 9 pages of that is the CSCR combat example -- so the rules aren't all that long.
I won't lie that some streamlining could be done and rules sections broken out for clarity and reference sake, but the rules themselves are not too horribly long, and most cover eventualities (as all rules systems do).
How the VBAM campaign system works, the only way you could boil things down to a lower page count would be to remove entire sections of rules, namely removing the Tech, Intel, the CSCR Strategic Combat Resolver, and Orbital Bombardment. Rip those out and the rules that are left are pretty minimal: Economics, Movement, Construction, Morale and maybe Ground Combat. In essence, you are one step away from just assigning each system a set per-turn resource generation value and going from there. Distilling the rules down to that point would fit them in about 10 pages, but it wouldn't be much of a game at that point (IMHO). It is easy enough to whip together something like that fast.
Looking at Sovereign Stars again, it looks like it is mainly a distilled version of Twilight Imperium, which means it is aiming more at being a boardgame flavor than a campaign system. Similar beast, but different end of the spectrum.
The criticism is good to hear, though. What it sounds like you were looking for in a game probably isn't even close to VBAM. As mentioned, VBAM is a much closer cousin to Starfire than it is to Sovereign Stars or some of the simpler campaign systems out there.
What it sounds like you are after is a one-page system kind of like this:
Movement
Either hex based movement at 1 per turn, or jump lane based with Major Lanes (2 per turn), Minor Lanes (1 per turn), or Restricted Lanes (1 per 2 turns).
Systems/Economics
Roll d6 x 50 and assign it to each new system. This is the amount of points the system generates each turn towards new purchases.
All units are purchased using these resource points on a 1:1 basis to their point value.
Shipyards/Construction
Fighters and atmospheric ships can be built on a planet without the need of a shipyard. Larger ships require a shipyard.
Each shipyard at a planet allows an empire to build either a fixed amount of points per turn, or based on the local economy. VBAM uses the latter. For that reason, set the construction capacity of the shipyard equal to its location's resource output (ex: a shipyard at a system that produces 100 points per turn can build 100 points worth of ships per turn).
More expensive purchases can be paid for over multiple turns.
Ground Combat
As with most simple campaign systems, the best solution in this case is to use the boarding rules as a basis and have players purchase "Troops" that fit 1 Troop per Troop Bay on an assault ship. Resolving ground combat is the same as boarding.
You could also then say that 1 Vehicle Bay allows a ship to load/unload 1 Troop per turn. That would make having assaults ships with lots of Vehicle Bays desirable.
Then you could add in other abilities for your other Starmada specific equipment and away you go! As a quick rundown of quick ideas for effects:
Cargo Bays -- You could always have resource point accumulate at a planet and have to be moved via Cargo Bays, with the number of points a ship can carry being equal to 10 x Hull (for when Cargo Bays are 50% of Hull) or 10 x Military Cargo Bays (when using 100SU Cargo Bays). From experience I would recommend against this, as it adds a lot of micromanagement. It adds some flair to the campaign, sure, but the micromanagement (oi).
Construction Bay -- Turns a ship into a mobile shipyard with a construction capacity rating of 25 times the number of Construction Bays. In Starmada scenarios involving normal shipyards, you can just use Shield 0, Engine 0 units of the appropriate Hull size and Construction Bay total to represent them in combat.
Is that closer to what you were looking for, Enpeze? It is certainly far simpler, and throws out most of the more complicated VBAM rules -- mainly because the above is an entirely different beast and is simplified for those that just want to play Starmada battles and really don't want the burden of managing an interstellar empire beyond what it has to do with generating that next Starmada battle.
-Tyrel
The biggest pitfall in creating a "basic" version of the rules is how basic is basic? If you wanted to distill everything down all the way, you could end up chucking all of the rules and have the simplest campaign setup: rules for movement and each system provides X economic points to the owner each turn to build new ships wherever they want, ignoring shipyards, ground combat, supply, and everything else.
In order for a player to play in a VBAM Campaign, all of the core rules are necessary. If a campaign isn't using some of the rules, then they aren't necessary -- but otherwise they will be at a disadvantage because they don't know how the system works.
I will remember to try and include more examples. I am not sure how many we can add in without cutting out other material, but it will something that we will try to do.
-Tyrel
The writing and format of the Campaign Guide could be improved upon, and I have talked to Jay about that. There is the possibility that, sometime next year, we may begin work on a revised edition that would take the rules and reorganize them for clarity and integrate all of the existing errata accrued up to this point.
It sounds like the VBAM campaign system is probably overkill for what you were looking for. It is far simpler to use than Imperial Starfire or something of that fair, but is more involved than the most simplistic campaign systems (that boil everything down to simple resource generation based on zone control).
I think it is the reality of the beast that each set of campaign rules will not fit every single player. That is part of the reason that VBAM doesn't try to force every single rule imaginable upon the player. It gives you the "skeleton" on which you can add or subtract detail. It also provides different ideas for how you could handle elements in other campaigns or rule sets. To that end, most campaign rules can give you neat ideas of what you can do in other systems that you are preferential to.
The VBAM Campaign Guide was the first book that we put together, and so it does lack a few of the elements that our later books include. When we do get to the point of doing a revised edition of the book, we would appreciate any and all comments from customers -- especially those that have had problems with using the book -- so that we can correct it in the updated version.
As for if anyone has ever used VBAM for a Starmada campaign, I have played through a few, including a current solo campaign. Here are a few of the campaign diaries from VBAM/SX campaigns that I have played:
Twilight's Shadow: The Cardassian Campaign
http://planetside.firenebula.com/sx/cardassia.zip
The Fringe Campaign
http://planetside.firenebula.com/sx/fringe.zip
The Nova Campaign: Birth of the Terran Federation
http://planetside.firenebula.com/sx/nova.zip
The Solar Federation Campaign
http://planetside.firenebula.com/sx/sol … ation2.zip
-Tyrel
Don't worry; one of these months there is going to be a run on For the Masses and you will get back up there in the Top 10.
I see that Defiance has retaken #4!
What I have been most surprised about is how poorly the Battletech books have been selling over there. When they started selling them in the Miniatures category I was sure that we would all end up being buried by them in sales -- but it never happened.
-Tyrel
Depending on just how badly munged the old HD is (logical problem with the file structure vs. physical drive failure), you can buy a piece of software like Runtime's GetDataBack (for NTFS or FAT) and see about recovery some or all of it. I had to buy a copy of it a year or so ago in order to recover data off of a client's HD that died and reverted to a RAW volume during defragmentation.
It works pretty good. Just hook up the new HD to a computer with the software installed, then after it checks your drive for recoverable files you can go through and sort out what to recover.
-Tyrel
Ah, but now we have stolen #4 from you!
Of course, based on past experience, MJ12 and VBAM will battle for the Top 10 until the end of the month, when Fire As She Bears! sails out of the sun and beats us both -- that has happened so many times now, and it quite funny to see! One of our two companies will have the #1 slot and then, out of nowhere, there is FASB
-Tyrel
I posted my take on the WHI Kikoku ships to Star Ranger; they are in SX format, though based on a custom sheet, so the point values might be a bit off. I converted the B5W stats to SX to create the sheets.
It is at least a starting point until a formal contest or something better comes along
-Tyrel
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Tyrel Lohr
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.