1

(12 replies, posted in Starmada)

Why did I know this was a question about how the new release is coming...   Don't ya just hate it win RealLife gets in the way.   I know I do,  I can imagine all thing things I would have done by now if RealLife wasn't so demanding at times.  lol

2

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

First, i'd like to see the starmada book PDFs display correctly on the iPad.   I think they have example and art images stored in JPG2000 format which the ipad is unable to display.  This makes using the PDFs as a reference on the ipad less than ideal.

A ship builder, fleet manager would be great too.  Something that you can mark off damage as it occurs during the game and flip between ships in your fleet.  It would be nice if there was a version for all the pre-built ships from SFU as well since I don't think they can be built in the standard shipbuilder.

3

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

Good catch on opening and resaving in Preview to flatten the file out for iPad viewing, I'll have to give it a try.

Although i don't think its purely a mac issue or Preview wouldn't work either.  The PDF renderer used by the iPad is part of webkit which safari and chrome browsers are based on.   Preview is a bit more robust than that it seems.

4

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

I brought this up with admiralty edition came out.  for the most part pictures and example graphics don't show up on the ipad.  I've tried with the built-in viewer and a few add-ons although most of the add-ons are based on webkit like the built-in one is so I'm guessing any webkit pdf rendering would fail to show the pics.

I've generated a number of test PDFs in an attempt to determine the problem but everything ive sent to it has worked.    What are you using to do your PDFs?  and what format are your images in? 

I would love to get these PDFs on my ipad in a workable form.

5

(18 replies, posted in Starmada)

The original starfire was a beautiful thing in many ways... great for playing fleet battles and very simple.  I agree that its gotten WAY too complicated over the years and they have destroyed what was so good about the game.  On a high note I think even they realize this as I read on their site about work on a new simpler version.

Starmada is a nice alternative though, the ships take alot more room to represent but the game plays very well.

6

(10 replies, posted in Starmada)

The fast ships in both klingon armada and romulan armada have always been a bit of an issue with me.  They are faster in FC because they have slightly more engines AND half the heavy weapons of their slower counterparts.  The end result is more power to spend on speed and thus in combat they are considerably faster, often able to keep 24+ speed with weapons armed. 

I think when they were converted to starmada that probably only the engine total was taken into account and while slightly better than the average cruiser its not enough to warrant a speed increase...  but when you take the ships energy curve with its reduced weapons load out into account it should definitely be at least one faster than the average cruiser.

Just my 2 cents.   

Alchemist

7

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Sergeant Crunch wrote:

I think there is a PDF available for something like $5 at the Steve Jackson webstore.

I made my own files to print.

I'll have to check that out.  Thanks.

8

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Cricket,

Any chance of seeing PDFs of the ship sheets from KA and RA once its comes out?   Trying to flatten out a book and make photo copies or cutting the binding off and three holing the book just to make copies is so LAST CENTURY.   Having PDFs to print 3 of this and 4 of that on a moments notice is SO much more handy.   

Case in point, how lazy ive apparently become...  I really like KA, played the playtest, bought the game and read it cover to cover.   I have NEVER played the real game simply because its a pain to get ship sheets. once my friends and I get together, pick our fleets then have to run off the local copy shop and run copies...  then back to play...  we usually think about it then pull out another game instead.   Its a pain.  I know that TFG lives in this model but they thrive on selling laminated reusable ship sheets so PDFs are bad for their business, but for KA its REALLY needed.

Alchemist

9

(42 replies, posted in Starmada)

Dan/Cricket,

Is there any chance of getting updated ship sheets with the errata available on PDF in some way?   It would be really handy and for printing out fleets and for getting the ships with all the weapon errata included etc?    Even if its an extra cost item I for one would likely buy it.

Alchemist

10

(42 replies, posted in Starmada)

A couple of comments...

New Jersey Class BC
The only firing 4 photons at once is a carry over from the FC/SFB ship description and I believe in those games the new jersey can only fire 4 photons per turn.   This kept the new jersey from being pretty much a full on dreadnought firepower wise.  In KA you can just assume that its too much detail for that level.

Fast Cruisers
In SFB/FC the cruisers with the Fast designation usually had a wee bit more power available so they could afford to move faster than normal ships with weapons armed.  Im not sure that intent translated well to the new book as the 'fast' cruisers in KA have the same speed as the rest of the cruisers for that race.  Giving them a +1 to speed might reflect the role of these ships better.

Alchemist

11

(60 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

As they are now, they seem utterly bland (that is without any kind of racial flavor to their ships). Of course I intend to try it out on my own.  wink

Again, I was following the pattern established by Federation Commander, which included a couple of Tholian ships, sans their web generators. When we get to Tholian Armada (or whatever) rest assured the webs will make their appearance.

Yep,  there were not any webs in Federation Commander either, they come in a later expansion.

It should be 'interesting' to model them in Starmada,  even in federation commander they are considered the most complicated rule in the game and suggests that some players shouldnt even use them if they want to keep their games simple.

I got my copy yesterday and have spent a bit of time with it... looks great.   I really like how the tractors and shuttles were handled and the battle station assaults should be 'interesting'. 

My only complaints are minor,  I would have liked to see disruptor armed versions of the orion ships although they could come later, and I wish there was a PDF available for printing ship sheets.  In hindsight I should have ordered the loose page version of the book for easier photocopying although nothing beats printing the ships you need from a PDF.

12

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

I like the idea of a weapon that hits with a static or high energy discharge that arcs from hull to hull across adjacent hexes much like electricity arcs to ground.   It has plenty of combat applications... keeping opponents from using tight formations, possible backfires on friendly ships, etc.

Id treat it alot like the repeating trait, except it can hit multiple targets...   it would work like this...

- make an initial attack on a target ship.
- if the ship was hit, roll an attack against each ship in an adjacent hex (both friendly and enemy)
- for each of those ships hit roll an attack for any ships adjacent to them and so on.

Each ship may only be struck once by the attack to keep things from becoming a recursive nightmare to resolve.

Attack rolls on adjacent ships would continue to resolve all active arcs.

Alchemist

13

(29 replies, posted in Starmada)

japridemor wrote:
andyskinner wrote:

So are you and japridemor against the original, or against Alchemist's proposal, which is essentially spaceships as regular ships that don't choose engines, and suggesting that limits groups impose on ships might want to relax them for stations?
I'd vote for Alchemist's proposal (which is basically what I think Dan used to say, wondering why people wanted station rules, right?).
andy

I am against bases having any special rules, period. The decision to relax any restrictions imposed on starships should be made by the players in the group without any "official" sanctioning by mentioning it in the rulebooks. If a player wants to design a base; choose a HS and mount what you want within the options allowed in your mileau...just put on no engines.

I think at least a mention in the rules for Expanded ranges that you could apply the rule to bases and not ships, ships and bases or neither is in order.  There are countless settings where bases out range ships,  but if players view expanded ranges as ALL or NOTHING they lose the option of duplicating such settings without house rules.

14

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

Personally id like to see flight size be open ended on the low and high end.

Firing a single missile, launching a single missile or a 2 fighter CAP for example.

Id also like decaying strikers, not sure how to point it though...  for example a flight size XX striker flight that looses X strikers in the end phase of each turn after launch.   This would let things like plasma torpedos be created... powerful weapons that lose capability the longer they travel.

15

(29 replies, posted in Starmada)

japridemor wrote:

Against. Bases shouldn't have special rules. They are the same sizes and in the same medium as starships. SU saved by not mounting engines CAN be plowed into bigger guns and stronger defenses.

Im not for special rules either.   All of the items in my proposal are how the existing starmada rules work now if you make a ship that doesnt have engines.  The only addition is to typically allow bases to use C.3 expanded ranges to reflect the longer range weapons often available on such platforms due to the structural bracing allowing by a design thats not meant to move.

Alchemist

16

(29 replies, posted in Starmada)

cricket wrote:
alchemist wrote:

Thats my vote at least.  What do you folks think?

So, essentially... reinstate the space station rules from the Compendium? smile

Close.  Except instead of having a special rule doubling the long range band you just use the existing C.3  which allows for bases that dont have better weapons than ships, and those that do.  Its all depends on how the base is constructed.

Alchemist (aka another dan)

17

(29 replies, posted in Starmada)

Id keep starbase / battlestation rules simple and pretty much within the existing rules.

- Bases do not have engines.
- Bases can spin to any direction just like ships without engines.
- Engine hits dont do anything because there are no engines, giving bases more staying power than ships.
- Structural bracing allows bases to use C.3 Expanded ranges even when not allowed for ships.

This makes bases somewhat tougher than ships as they ignore 'engine' hits and have a bit more internal space for their size to use for equipment, again because they dont have engines, and the Expanded ranges gives them stand off weapons that bases typically have but at a cost instead of a tradeoff for ships versus bases.

Thats my vote at least.  What do you folks think?

Alchemist

18

(7 replies, posted in Starmada)

This would provide a nice way to subdue the usefulness of drones in the KA which I like, and gives tractors a valid combat function. 

I do think that if a ship moves more than five hexes away from the fighter during the movement phase the tractor should be broken and the token removed so the fighter flight could act normally in the fighter phase.   

Although there are extensive tractoring rules in SFB/FC all the ship versus ship interactions on movement,  death dragging fighters, etc. just over complicate things for a fleet based game.

Dan

19

(38 replies, posted in Starmada)

Dan,

I thought that was probably the case on the shield, and your right I much prefer this than the alternative, but had to mention it. 

The more I thought about the disruptor range it made sense so I edited it out of my post but you had already replied.  Your Fast!   

I agree with you on the third one more or less as well,  its not a direct conversion but should preserve the feel and balance pretty well, and its definitely preferred to the the previous version.

Moral of the story...  mull over the ship a bit before I post.  lol.

Thanks,

Dan

20

(38 replies, posted in Starmada)

Thanks for a look at the updated D7.  Everything else in FC is pretty much based on the balance of these two ships and their weapons so its nice to see how they compare.  I like the general layout of the new D7, but have a few comments when comparing it to the CA and when comparing the FC CA and D7.

1. The aft shield is too strong,  it should be 2-1 like all the other shields except the front.   Looking at the D7 in FC its forward shield is 30 and all the rest are 22.   

2. Not sure why the overload disruptor has a higher to hit than the regular disruptor, their targeting is identical in FC.  Id rather see the overload at 4+ and 2 Imp, 2 Dmg.   Same to hit as the standard disruptor and a little less damage possible overall.

Everything else looks good, I like it.

Dan

21

(38 replies, posted in Starmada)

Excellent!   I finally found carronade (thx OldnGrey) and thats the perfect solution for overloads.

Dan

22

(38 replies, posted in Starmada)

Thanks for the look at the new CA.   Looks like special equipment changes (tractors, etc),  phase I firing arc changes, photons reduced to 15 range.  Overloads reworked with carronade.   Can anyone point me to carronade?  I know it was in starmada X but for the life of me I cant find it in any of my books (starmada, imperial, dreadnoughts, hammer&claw).

Dan

23

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

I recently picked up Dreadnoughts and Iron Stars and they both have alternate movement systems which are slight but significant changes from the default movement system.    The dreadnoughts movement system is probably the simplest of all starmada movement ive seen...   I wont give details as im not sure if that appropriate but the dreadnoughts movement accounts for resistance and the difficulty in making sharp heading changes in water.  Overall I like it and have actually used it for some space games as well when im playing with players that I dont feel like explaining the new default starmada movement too, which isnt really much more complicated but can take a bit of explaining.

24

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

Can't wait to see some playtesting rules and available data cards to get started in my own group for playtesting.

The Fed CA and Klingon D7 data cards have been online for a couple weeks in this forum.  Look for the Federation CA datacard thread.   They use rules from the admirals edition and Starmada Iron Stars (faceted shields).

25

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

I really liked the playtest game I played at DieCon and will undoubtedly be picking this up as soon as its available.  The damage allocation and faceted shields worked really well for the most part (the best way to handle facing shield damage still being up in the air) but weapons felt off, especially disruptors and phasers which needed to do increased damage at closer ranges. 

So after playing a number of games since the con ive come up with updated weapon stats, trying to duplicate each weapons flavor and balancing them with each other.  disrupter slightly more accurate and longer ranged than Ph-1, overloaded disrupter slightly more accurate and better damage than a normal photon, etc.
 

Phaser I - (4+, 15 Range, 1 ROF, 1 IMP, 1 DMG, Range Based ROF)
Phaser II - (4+, 12 Range, 1 ROF, 1 IMP, 1 DMG, Range Based ROF, Non-Piercing)
Phaser III - (4+, 9 Range, 1 ROF, 1 IMP, 1 DMG, Anti-Fighter)

Disruptor
- Standard (3+, 18 Range, 1 ROF, 1 IMP, 1 DMG, Range Based Impact)
- Overload (4+, 9 Range, 1 ROF, 3 IMP, 1 DMG, Piercing)

Photon
- Standard (4+, 18 Range, 1 ROF, 3 IMP, 1 DMG, Double Range Modifiers)
- Overload (4+, 9 Range, 1 ROF, 5 IMP, 1 DMG, Slow Firing)

- Weapon mode selection made as part of movement orders as per Hammer & Claw
- Faceted Shields as per Iron Stars (modified for facing shield damage)

What does everyone think?

Dan aka Alchemist