So--and I'm saying this sincerely--[b]please sell me on this.[/b]

Around the time the Admiralty Edition first came out, I'd been searching for a rules-lite starship combat game with a cohesive ship-construction system, and Admiralty fit the bill perfectly. So I bought a few books. Then, a few years later, the Star Fleet Battles deal was struck, and I was in heaven. Official Trek content for Starmada? SIGN ME UP! So, I bought more books.

Buuuuuuuuuuut then Nova hit, and I felt like everything I bought was now worthless. Now, if that's not the case, maybe I just blew my Perception roll. Or, maybe the Starmada crowd simply likes learning and playing new rules. That's OK if that's your thing--but it isn't mine. (This is, what, the third edition in a decade?)

So, I like what you did before, and am intrigued enough to ask: why I should give Starmada another go? What does this edition do better than any other? Am I missing something about the different editions? And most importantly, what's the future for Starmada?

Wowzers! Been away from starship combat for a while, and this might just draw me back in. Like the direction of the new edition. Suprised Dan was willing to change the core multi-dice roll mechanic, buuuut I think "short n sweet" is the way to go. Simplifying movement is a BIG bonus. Love that the samples include a graphic of the ship (never underestimate the power of this.) Looks like it could easily be done on laminated cards (Starmada the CCG?)

Before KA came out, I wrote up a Kirk vs. Khan duel. To simulate the element of surprise, I monkeyed with the movement rules (using non-vector, old-style movement.) From my notes:

Each starship gets its movement split into two halves: random and directed (round any fractions in favor of directed movement.) “Directed movement” is simply whatever movement you think will best position your ship for the turn: look at the map, make tactical decisions, and chart your course.

“Random movement” represents the unexpected nature of trying to second-guess an opponent, and is accomplished as follows: number the directions your ship might go, from 1 to 6. Roll a die. Attempt to move in that direction: first turning, then using up any leftover movement points, travelling in a straight line. Each ship may choose to take the random segment either first or second.   

---produced just the right amount of "whoops, guessed wrong" without becoming a wild goose chase.

Oh, I'll be buying ROA alright, I just wish the Hawks looked more like this:

<IMG src="http://www.aovi93.dsl.pipex.com/space_1999/hawk/Space%201999%20Hawk.jpg"></IMG>

and less like this:
<IMG src="http://store.starfleetstore.com/merchant2/graphics/00000003/0421-Romulan%20Skyhawk%20Seahawk-L.jpg"></IMG>

This reminds me of a groovy design from Space Opera's "Seldon's Compendium of Starships." It was a large mothership that carried four patrol cruisers.

<IMG src="http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/seldonsstarcraft.jpg"></IMG>

One advantage to carrying a ship on the exterior would be a fast breakaway speed--if the mothership was rotating (in whole or just the carrier portion.) The further you get it from the central axis, the higher the initial velocity.

Plus, it's more room for weapons!

I don't care how kewl these units are on paper, I just can't get past the visuals. ("Space whale on attack vector!") I'm an art teacher and lifelong Trek nerd, so I feel like I've got some authority on the topic. Adam Turner's cover for Klingon Armada was quite nice, and I looked up some of his other stuff online--he's a talented chap. Looks like he does a fair bit of cgi-based art, too.

Hawks and other raptors bring to mind shapes that are sleek and sharp, (think of wings, talons and beaks) not rounded and bulbous. And those forward booms look too much like...er...um...broomhandles. If Hawks are the inspiration, they could go much more beaklike without wandering too far astray from the minis.

Other than the general outlines and shapes, my only suggestions would be to go dirtier, darker and maybe introduce some hull patterning to make them darker and more menacing.

There's a company that makes party novelties, US Toys (ustoys.com) that has two assortments of small, plastic ships. Under "keywords" type in "spaceships" or "space cruisers". The designs are pretty good for something so cheap.

I'd do an RPG only if it made sense, if you had a compelling reason to do so. I can see two reasons.

First, there are few games out there that have integrated rulesets for characters (rpg), miniatures combat AND and tactical/campaign rules. Having ALL of these would enable players to dabble in the game-world at a number of levels, from microscopic to macro. A definite plus.

Second, an rpg makes sense if you have the possibility of cool characters. Players like having lots of powers, abilities, etc. Unfortunately, most of the established settings for m12 games feature realistic humans with few (if any) powers.  (Which reminds me of a novel I just finished, Leviathan, by Scott Westerfeld. It's an alternative WWI fought with steampunk mecha and genetically-engineered beasts. Cool setting. Dull characters.)

Of course, you could always come up with a NEW setting, one with cool characters, the possibility of miniatures combat... the whole shebang.

Hmmm...a contest?

And finally, to throw out yet another possibility, you could licence your setting to an established RPG. I'm biased in favor of our own home-brew:

http://www.fastrpg.net/

I have to (respectfully) disagree about shuttles. In the playtest game at Archon (fun, btw), the last remaining Klingon ship, highly damaged, faced a flight of suicide shuttles (6 of em?)  and an undamaged Fed defender. The shuttles would have turned the tide, if we hadn't run out of time. (So says Admiral Sour Grapes.)

Anyway, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with providing players guidelines for scaling down the importance of drones. They did tend to dominate the play-tests at Diecon and Archon and will cheese off folks who are coming at this from the angle of wanting an experience more like the tv/movies. You're looking at maybe three additional pages of material: a page of sage advice, and a few sample drone-free versions, say two different Feds and two Klingons.)

Go ahead and scratch the last two--I'm in both. Hadn't thought it would drag out this long and school is about to start for me again. Sorry.

Overall--mixed impression of Vassal. Think it might be fun to do a game hosted on a server, but the pbemail gets slowed down due to the simultaneous nature of Starmada. What Vassal could really use is a series of automated turn-by-turn prompts rather than the "delayed note" mechanic.

Not to turn this in a different direction, but it might be nice to have an official ship-construction app, one that's updateable, so you wouldn't have to re-enter everything. (Spreadsheets are nice, but they have their limitations. Whenever we update our home-brew rpg, I have to re-enter everything by hand. Tedious.)