1

(133 replies, posted in Starmada)

madpax wrote:

Unless your ship is broader than is longer. After all, in space, you don't care about aerodynamic. A cube is as good as anything.

Marc

Given my engines are in the back because I am using thrust and not a stutter drive or something, I will move in the direction of my front.  If I want to vaporize you and yours, I'll be traveling towards you.  I hella want my presented silo... silah... shooty target to be as small as possible.

2

(54 replies, posted in Starmada)

I would caution against using explicit lists like "Weapons with the catastrophic, diffuse, double damage, scatter, and triple damage traits" in a definition because it isn't expandable later.  The first expansion will have Mauve as a trait and you'll shakefist and have to errata.  You could change that to "Weapons with the Kleptork subtrait..." and then Mauve is "Mauve (Kleptork): Shoots rainbows."

3

(133 replies, posted in Starmada)

In regards to the "forward weapons cost more" sub thread:

Instead of making it cost more, how about capping the SU that can face forward.  In Sword of the Stars, other than dedicated lancer ships, ships fired most weapons out of their broadsides.  There is much less surface area to mount weapons on on your nose than on your flanks.

4

(1 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Playing with making my force of destruction I noticed that the only thing being a tank does is make you lose an MP.  And since MPs go in to the points calc, the points go down and being a tank means nothing.  You are a mech with no legs.

Something like "Tanks are immune to Stability checks, but get free pie."  I really have no idea.

And tanks should gain an MP over mechs if anything anyway.  If legs were a more efficient method of travel than wheels, we'd all commute in cool centipede trains.  So trade off could maybe be "Tanks get a better MP multiplier than Mechs, but can't move through anything worse than light forest."

5

(3 replies, posted in Wardogs)

The only place stability costs MP is the 2 you have to pay to reroll a fail in the movement phase.  Knocked down from fire happens later.  I can dig extrapolating the half-MP part of that sentence to cover next-move-phase after standing for free though.

6

(3 replies, posted in Wardogs)

You take a stability roll from getting hit a lot, which is cool.  But you only take damage from a fall if you fall off of something, and you make a standing roll (that you need a two on) before the next move phase.  It doesn't seem to do anything.

Looking for a mech game.  Battletech, Heavy Gear, Dirtside, and that one where you paint your own dice all fail me in various ways.  I HEART Starmada.  Played it for years.  Feel stupid I forgot he made a mech game.

So I'm playing with the spreadsheet from the Lord of All Things Spreadsheetable, and I must be misunderstanding something.  Started with PPCs, pressed a bunch of buttons and made the Warhammer from hell. 

Am I correct in saying that I don't care if my to-hit number is 10 if you need a damage 4 weapon to even think of attacking me?  No small weapon can wear me down?  No auto-hit on a crit to hit roll maybe?

Unit Name: Death      Nation: CWWTTOTG     (CPV:56)                                       
Type: PA Trooper                                       
Unit Size: Medium (6)                                       
Tech Level: Fission (5)                                       
Movement Points: 3                                       
Stability Modifier: +1                                       
Thermal Signature: 10   (Base 10)                                       
Armor Points: 9                                       
Construction:   Right Arm Without Hand x1,  Left Arm Without Hand x1,  Legs x2                                       
Equipment:                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
Weapons (Adjusted):                                       
1) Mega Zap   (Left Arm / Side)                                       
Range:5 (5/10/15)     RoF:2    DMG:d8                                       
Energy Weapon        Thermal Signature:3                                       
                                       
Mods: Inverted Range Penetration Modifiers, ,                                        
, ,                                        
                                       
2) Mega Zap   (Torso / Front)                                       
Range:5 (5/10/15)     RoF:2    DMG:d8                                       
Energy Weapon        Thermal Signature:3                                       
                                       
Mods: Inverted Range Penetration Modifiers, ,                                        
                               


[size=50]And going from armor 8 to armor 9 made me 7 points cheaper (Starmada overcosts movement too, but start a thread over there for that).
[/size]

8

(8 replies, posted in Wardogs)

Just a missing file link now.  Put it next to the DogYard to keep it company.

9

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

jygro wrote:

Of course, others have talked about a great counter for those strikers already so  I won't get into that!  When we were playing, we got 3 to 5 random weapon traits and 3 to 5 random starship traits and had to make a fleet with that.  It was a lot of fun to 'figure' out how to use the effectively.  You guys might try that!

-B

I second that.  Instead of 100% twink we each made a wishlist and rolled for 4 weapons and 2 systems to use.

But I disagree with the sentiment of it not being fun to want to do well.  If winning wasn't the goal you could just hug your opponent and watch TV.  It's a war game.  The whole reason you are each standing there is to crush the other's little plastic doodads on a space map.  And then have pizza.  Taking the attitude of "I didn't want to hurt you so I didn't bring missiles" is shortchanging your opponent.

10

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

Thanks for the numbers there.  Going back to my side-point for a sec, you fired 1200 out of your 4000 points in missiles.  30% losses before the fight starts is kinda pyhh... pyrh... lose-y for a win.  The reason this isn't off topic is that it shows there is a balance vector (number of shots/fights) that isn't being handled in a one-off game.

We banned Ammo our third game after we realized it was balanced to be even for ten shots and our fights lasted three rounds.  Strikers are the same way.  It isn't a handicap to super front-load your attacks if there is no long term to worry about.  Dunno what to do about it, but I've been thinking about campaigns a lot recently and strikers were on my mind.

Adding traits to a weapon makes it cost more in a perfectly balanced fashion.  Improving macro tech levels lets you put more stuff on one ship, but keeps the points at their perfectly balanced level.  [size=50](In fact, I think TL effectively hurts you by lowering your hull hitpoints per CR, but that's not the point.)[/size]  In the VBAM conversion, the VBAM cost is based directly on the Starmada cost.  So adding TL and weapon traits increases your cost there in a perfectly balanced fashion.

But I don't want tech to be perfectly balanced.  I want better tech to be better.  So a campaign's ships have motivation to improve instead of just change.  The first thing that came to mind was making all weapon traits 1.0, but then their original rating is how hard it is to research them.  Like a 1.2 mod takes 2 kleptorks, a .7 mod takes 3, and a 3.0 takes 20.  Should that be a straight progression, or have a curve?  (Starmada loves curves.)

Ship equipment is more complicated since it has many cost vectors.  Maybe leave the space alone, but have the sum of the Orat and Drat effects be what determine the cost, and then change them both to no effect.  A macro tech level solution just eludes me though.  Engines don't have a cost to shift their size modification to, but they do factor in to weapon costs.  Oy.


So I hope the general idea of what I'm going for is clear; tech make gooder.  Thoughts?

12

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

starbreaker wrote:

shields have been right out of the question since the Halves / Ignores traits were released...

Agreed, which is why we don't play with Halves/Ignores Shields locally.  Their departure from the core SAE was one of the best things in that edition.  Their return is close to the worst.  Very glad they didn't ooze into SFO, and hope never to see them there.

Do you feel the same way about Piercing?  Or is it mild enough to be okay?  (I use Pierce 3, Extra Shield Damage on mine and fights have trouble making it to round 3.)

13

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

Oh my.  And I forgot, in any kind of campaign those missiles don't grow on trees.  They spensive.

14

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

With a point build kit of a game, making the fleet is half the fun.  But I do agree that it can break the playing part of the game if you hit on a single note that is exactly what the other guy's fleet isn't ready for.  But only in a one-off game.  If this was in the context of some campaign (like the Simplest, which I love) then the losing side would have the ability to adjust their fleet.  A missile interceptor designed to just sit on a 100 point missile can be made for 15.  (4 12 6+ 0, No Hull Damage, Non Piercing, Interceptor)  Now that's a savings.  Then we'd see what happens to such a specialized fleet.

15

(19 replies, posted in Starmada)

Heavens, those are like 100 point missiles.  How many were in the air in a 4000 point game?  Anyway, I always carry 25 point baby fighters just to CAP-dogfight things like that; having no fighters means you deserve to eat a few missiles.

16

(5 replies, posted in Starmada)

If you are thinking about it, I am booked till the end of August but would love to after that.  Starship creator alone would be worth the time.  iPad game would be epic.  Have your people call my people.  (My people is just me disguising my voice so you think I have a secretary.)

http://www.codebunnygames.com/?page_id=3

17

(2 replies, posted in Starmada)

Playtesting this idle thought was an amazing success, so I'd like to see what y'all think of this before we add it to the List of Active Rules:


Sequential fire as in E5, but the order of fire is determined by a ship's current engine rating, highest first.  Fire within the same engine phase is simultaneous.  If your engines are damaged before you shoot, you will shoot in your new phase, ha.  If they are damaged after you shoot you don't get to shoot again, der.


We found this made 7-engine 2-gun ships like the Imperial Furious way more interesting.  Before this rule our average engine ratings were slouching towards 2 with 1's on the 18-range ships.  Engine rating factoring in to gun cost being the number one impetus.  This plus Searchlights (which we call Targeting to increase its awesomeness) and little zippy ships get to play more.

18

(3 replies, posted in Starmada)

Heh, 2nd edition VBAM has been coming out "real soon now" for like two years.

I ran a four player blind game for a few months.  The brain exploding part is accurate as it took me two complete readthroughs with a few pages of notes to comprehend the whole thing.  The galaxy creation is brilliant.  The only really weak bit is the Transport rules; it actually caused a fight that broke apart the game.  (Finishing the game was on track to take a whole year.)

As far as the integration with Starmada, it does the technology research very well, and it makes use of the more esoteric ship systems in very interesting ways.  You'll have supply ships and repair ships and scout ships which are awesome.  But the scale is off.  When I play Starmada in the Simplest Campaign System, the average fight is 1400 points and it takes a few hours.  Starting income in VBAM is 60, and a full 2000 point fleet costs 95.  Kinda huge to be churning out points that fast.

If I had it to do over again, I'd play Sovereign Stars on a VBAM map.  Or some other hybrid.

19

(10 replies, posted in Starmada)

We hella banned it because it breaks campaign systems.

20

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

I once got 14 hits off a ROF2 Continuing Damage roll.  I RULE at flipping coins.

That's D4 (sorry I mistyped it) and it blows for the reasons mentioned.  (Helps standing still, not moving around.)

I really like the directional shield rules.  Makes it important to move around and get a better shot.  But if the opponent doesn't use shields, or you have piercing weapons, the coolness disappears again.  So I'm brainstorming some kind of incentive to maneuver even in those situations.  Because brainstorming never hurt anybody.



1 point of G shields that can't be pierced: Besides defensive bonuses being less cool than offensive, this is actually good for the never-move turtler as well.  Don't want to help that side. 

So better a bonus to attack the back; that's where the engines are so it is more vulnerable...

+1 to hit from JKL: Judging by the price change of a 3+ to a 4+ weapon, this is too powerful.

Re-roll hit location to JKL hits: Rerolling hit location is already in as a cool rule.  Costs you -1 to hit to use.  So this choice is like a +1 to hit, but you are forced to spend it specifically on the rerolling locations ability.  What do you think?



A completely different direction is Battlefleet Gothic's idea of relative movement helping or hurting shots.  It is easier to shoot someone facing towards or away from you than moving perpendicular to the travel of your weapons there. 

I like the reroll-rule being a toned down +1, so how about you can force the attacker to reroll hit locations when you are hit in HIJK.  It is a defensive bonus, but at least it favors the ship that moves.  Especially if you add the requirement to be moving a certain speed to benefit.

In fact, maybe speed itself is what should be rewarded.  In Battletech, you make a penalty to be hit based on your speed.  Moving quickly but straight in to their guns isn't harder to hit though, so maybe this is just the exact same as the previous since you'd want to add facing.  I don't think this is the same as Evasive Maneuvers, because that works by moving slowly.  (I think I hate EM, come to think of it.  Just helps the never-move lobber.  I dub D4 off.  Yay modular rules!) 

This is the best spaceship game ever.  Just sayin.

Did my 71 point flak boat just become 327 points with Cricket's suggestion?

Longbow
Hull 4
Engine 3
Shield 4,1,1,0,0,0
Flak burst R21 4+ 3/1/1, Minimum range, Fighter Exclusive, Area Effect
Dualed with
Flak Slug R21 4+ 1/1/1, Starship Exclusive
6x [G]

I was hoping for something more subtle, like a SU mod of (R/100) + 1.

I was about to post this to the discussion on what people limit their guns to, but it seemed like a hijack.  That thread ended with Cricket pondering a linear increase to ORAT for guns based on range.


Okay, math isn't my thing, but this feels like an actual thought.

The number of hexes that a weapon of each range can reach is curved... fibonnoccily?, 6, 18, 36, 60...90... math failure... what's that formula?  Adding 6R each time...

Anyway, should SUs for weapons have a curve in them based on range?  Right now range 30 takes up 10 times a range 3.  But it can shoot hella more than 10 times the spaces.  Just feels right to have long range weapons accelerate in size.  ORAT actually curves the other way, and it seems like a weapon that gets you a whole extra round of attacks (at least) is hella more effective instead of only kinda more expensive.

Wow, I never even considered limiting max range, but y'all are totally right.  I've had much more fun with 12 and 15 guns than the 30 guns planned for our space stations.  Is a hard cap better than changing the range math to just "encourage" shorter guns?