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 andyskinner
I didn't like the U-turn in AE, either. 
andy
Anybody think you'll limit moves to not allow multiple turns per hex?
That kind of movement just seems too free to me.
andy
I haven't spent enough time in the rules to know. But I did use the weapon tech level before, and might use thrust.
andy
Anybody willing to put a technology-specific tech level into their builder?
thanks
andy
Ship design in Starmada is complicated enough that I can only really do what the ship builders allow.
So while it wouldn't break, I won't want to figure it out myself.
Or am I missing something and it is easy?
thanks
andy
Just realized that the tech levels have been combined into one.
I liked the other way, and wanted to use it for things like making my Evil Empire ships (that's how I think of my GZG NSL fleet) have +1 tech for weapons, while the opposing fleet might have it in engines or something.
I don't know if this was intended to be a simplification, or if Nova doesn't have room to differentiate. But I'll miss it while designing.
andy
How similar is this to Starmada Fleet Ops?
While I appreciated the simplicity, I felt a bit constrained by this.
Will the variety of weapon traits still exist, even if the specifics have to change?
thanks
andy
How compatible with this version be?
Not sure I completely understand the question.
I was wondering whether optional rules would transfer over well. But you really answered the underlying question by saying you'd try to be as inclusive as possible.
Thanks
andy
Released in January, and you're still accepting playtesters?
Will things covered in the Rules Annex be covered in the initial book for this version? Those rules were built up over a few supplements, and I wonder whether the things they cover will get reset and have to wait for release again.
How compatible with this version be?
I think fewer steps/dice seems good.
thanks
andy
Neat. So do you do print on demand, or are these printed already? I was just curious whether it was worth waiting to see if there are any errata.
andy
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.
I agree with this. Another thing to consider also, that unless there is a max hull size limit in a particular game/campaign a starbase could be MUCH bigger than the ships...and without engines to pay for...have stronger (probably maxed) shields, a LOT more guns and missiles/torpedoes making them even nastier customers.
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
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
And even that exception could just be a guideline to groups that are choosing whether to use C.3, that they may want to allow this case even if they don't use it for ships.
andy
If you could apply it to spaceships, you would affect yourself as much or more as the target if you were close to the same size or smaller.
Assuming it is just a force between two things and the mass still matters.
(I'm not suggesting that--just more reason I'd leave it off.)
andy
The point about firing arcs definitely makes sense to me.
I obviously need to play more, too.
andy
Interesting, I didn't expect that answer. Do you have a suggestion as to why?
Does it point to an issue with offensive ratings or anything? I have an idea of the care you take with the point values, and I'm curious if these weapons are used in a way that it doesn't take them into account.
andy
I wrote up pretty basic designs for my GZG NSL fleet. The overall design was probably pretty boring. I just started with the smallest with hull 1 and increased the size and what was on each one. Not a lot of "purpose" in mind. The only real theme I had was lots of guns (increased tech level of weapons), low to medium shields, and I after fitting (or almost fitting) into the intended hull size, I increased the hull by 1, giving an extra check box in the damage tracks.
I played a time or two with them, and am thinking of going back and redesigning. I'd like to keep the overall feel (these are Evil Empire type ships), but use a bit more imagination and purpose in design.
I have a question about the relative balance between weapons with traits vs more generic ones. Most of my weapons had were 2/1/1 (ROF/PEN/DMG) or 1/1/2 or 1/2/2, I think. A friend with similar designs and I played together against someone who used a lot of weapon traits, and we got pretty well blown out of the sky. Now, I'm not saying we lost because things were unbalanced, etc. He designed his ships with a purpose and used them that way, and I imagine that's the main difference. (Just to be clear: nice guy, active in gaming, encourages folks to get involved. I'm _not_ hinting anything about powergaming.) But do you find that ships with generic weapons need to be used differently to keep up with weapons with traits? I haven't studied them to see, but maybe I have more weapons (because of cheaper weapons), and they are spread over more arcs, so some were less efficient. Or maybe it has to do with how long it takes to remove a ship from effectiveness. Would you expect a fleet with mostly generic (and by that I mean no or fewer weapons traits) to be as successful? Certainly the point system is intended to balance things out, but you still have to play to your strengths.
And there is still the matter of those teleporting marines, which I couldn't damage until the ship was destroyed (equipment). I guess we either have to have some marines, too, or take those ships out. But I do wish equipment wasn't invulnerable (while recognizing we don't want it used as ablative shield, either).
thanks,
andy
When we played this weekend, I was very aware of not being able to degrade teleporters and marines on the opposing side. We were getting blown up even without the marines, but it felt like a hole.
On the other hand, it is probably better than what I hear about the last version, where you chose which equipment to lose.
Maybe you could assign battery letters to special equipment. Then when your guns are gone, take those off. We shot all the guns off one ship, which was still able to dump a ton of marines on us.
andy
You might be (pleasantly) surprised when you see what we've got in the cooker...
I've got a lot of 6mm sci-fi rules, and would be pretty interested in another if it accomplishes what I've been after for a while.
thanks for the hint,
andy
I'd say this level of detail and the level of abstraction you're describing are mutually exclusive. Not impossible, but harder. Look at For the Masses to see how we handled that abstraction therein.
Sorry if I was unclear--that was my point. I don't want to think about all those things for 6mm figures. I want the abstraction, and just to put the figures down where they will look good. The tactics is in which hex I put them in, etc, not where they are in the hex. But in playtesting Epic A, all the things I mentioned above came into play, and it convinced me I wanted something else.
Whenever I tell someone I am thinking about hex-based 6mm sci-fi, I have to then say I'm not looking for something like battletech (one or two figures per hex), or anything where you just convert inches to hexes. As I said, 4" or 6" hexes.
andy
I've wanted to do something just a bit different than most. I wanted a hex-based game, where a hex was 4" or 6" across. An entire formation of figures move between hexes. I was in on playtesting Epic Armageddon, and realized I didn't like detailed positioning for itty-bitty figures. I wanted to pick 'em up and put 'em down. Instead, I was thinking about:
* cover (can that thing over there see this strip of figures between those buildings?)
* how close they were (barrage templates were 6cm)
* order (there are issues about which figures are closest or farthest from enemy)
* move distance specified to the centimeter
* line of sight to targets (am I just outside the cover enough that I can shoot out of it?)
* distance to targets and from things that want to shoot me
The approach I wanted to take would let the hexes regulate basic movement speed (the formation would move together at slowest unit's speed, unless I allowed it to break up over 2 hexes). The hex would regulate firing distances. But those things would be at a very high level. I could concentrate on making my figures look good in the hex.
I started off trying to vary the Epic 40,000 rules, which had more abstraction than Epic Armageddon. I got stuck on some things, though. If I allowed area affect attacks to potentially hit every unit in a hex, it was hard to balance them so that a missile-launcher tank accompanying a unit could have some affect, without an artillery formation with multiple area affect weapons completely decimating an entire target formation at one shot.
The whole hex would have one kind of terrain in it. LOS and move distances and firing distances would be to the entire hex. Giant units would be the only thing that had firing arcs (I was going to face them towards a hex corner).
Lots of people have 4" hex terrain. I have Geo-Hex, and was going to mark hex centers with small gravel pieces. Lots of them could be replaced by a building, or a clump of trees, etc, at the center of the hex.
I don't know if I'll ever finish. I've gotten Future War Commander, and am going to give that a try.
It may be that nobody else thinks the amount of abstraction I like is any good, so I'm not expecting folks to jump on this. However, when I hear someone say they want to do big games, this is what I think of.
andy
I shouldn't have used "rank and file" to mean the basic troopers, because I don't want them in formation, either. I just want large skirmishes, with a bit less detail for most figures and more detail for leaders and some special figures.wound.
thanks
andy
I'm interested in the level above a small fight (the typical Ares scale, as well as Song of Blades and Heroes, etc), and smaller than a mass battle (For the Masses, Hordes of the Things, Warmaster). I'd still call what I want to do skirmish--individually mounted figures, maybe grouped but not in formation.
There would be enough figures that I don't want to put markers by individuals in the rank and file.
So I'm looking at the fast play variant from the yahoo group (which if I remember correctly is just reduced wounds), and Kevin's conversions (he put them in for straight Ares and reduced wounds).
I think I remember John Leahy saying (a long time ago) that he didn't use some Ares rules for the rank and file. Would that have an effect on balance?
thanks
andy
Hi. I'm considering giving Ares a try with Lord of the Rings figures. I'd try the quick play variant (which is just reducing number of wounds, right?).
The rules for holding or borrowing actions seem interesting, but potentially cumbersome if any figure could use them. If I wanted to apply those only to heroes (who would be the few with an extra wound or two, mostly leaders of units, etc), would I want to apply some tweak to points? I didn't see a special ability to disallow any of those rules. If I didn't adjust, I'd be undervaluing basic troops, which wouldn't be able to use standard rules.
thanks
andy
I think I might buy a rules subscription. I'm glad I have the rules from the first supplement, but otherwise it is a nice-looking book with a lot of stuff I won't use. I don't know what the rules in the second book really are, but if I get it, it will be PDF this time. I'm not disparaging the work, but I just don't want any of it but new rules. I'd much rather buy a rules subscription with that money, and get whatever I need in the future.
andy
Sheesh... Don't publish anything, they complain there's no support.
Publish many things, they complain the rules are being sold in bits.
Can't win.
I'm happy to have a few more rules every now and then, but I think from now on I'll buy PDFs. I should have bought ISS in PDF, because I only really wanted a tiny bit of it. If you could help set expectations for how often you'd print, and maybe whether there might be a rules compilation (which I would like to get in print, without the ships and fluff that I don't want), that would help me know in what format I should get anything.
andy
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by andyskinner
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
