I rather like a more 'graphic' layout - it does make it easier to envision what weapons fire into which shield arc. You also get a basic graphical layout of the ship.

<insert "yeah, you would" about here....>

You don't need "5 million different icons", just an X,Y, or Z designator next to a 'box', and an arc designation. SFB is just a 3-letter acronym and an arc designator next to a box.

FT went overboard with the icons, IMNSHO....once you get all the mods and different weapon types, it gets to be too much. Ditto B5 Wars, I don't remember what SBFCS looks like - though I seem to remember having seen it once.

Heh, Dan, the graphics are really minor, but eye candy, like real candy, is delicious, but unneccessary.  I'm also (shame, shame) a GW and D&D player, so I get spoiled by that sort of art.  And a good point was made that such art is far less important in a 'core rules' than a 'setting' book.  Perhaps once some of the setting books are out, an agreement can be reached whereby some of their illustrations are poached for the next edition of the book?  It would spur the imagination to, say, have the section on movement accompanied by a dynamic picture of some EuroFed fighters, with a intruiging caption like "Delta Squadron demonstrates the importance of tactical velocity to the hapless crew of the Wisserschaft."

As far as the firing arcs goes -- letters are the best way to go.  There are already plenty of ordinal-number stats to remember -- Arc A, ROF 3, ACC 4, etc is already a mouthful without "Arc 9oclock, ROF 3, etc).  It helps to differentiate the areas.  Similarly, "four mounts in the four o'clok arc..."  eh.

I think a great idea would be an "Admiralty Reference Sheet" -- with firing arcs, a few common modifiers, and some of the more important 'options' and 'special effects'.  Printed and laminated, this would be a great way to keep those references handy without finding room for them on the datasheet.

-Adso

I believe the proper term is "gee whiz" factor.

I've already given up the idea of clockfaces for firing arcs.  Still I find the current arrangement kind of clunky.  Also having the the arcs listed left to right, top to bottom is counterintuitive for me.  I would expect them to rotate clockwise.  I'm sure time will take care of that, but for now it's annoying.

You're right. I re-did the math.

There are actually 8.93 million different combinations of RNG,ROF,ACC,IMP,DMG, and weapon traits.

It might seem clunky, but in actuality it's pretty cool.
For example (in Grand Fleets terms), most historical ships have one or more forward turrets, and one or more aft turrets. Typically, a forward turret would have an ABCD firing arc. Well, if the letter convention was strictly clockwise, starting with A as the forward starboard arc, that same arc designation would be: ABEF.
Furthermore, instead of the aft turrets having a CDEF arc, they would be BCDE.
And neither one of those are nearly as "aesthetically pleasing."

I guess it all boils down to what you're used to though.
Kevin

<sigh> Does that mean I need to adopt a more 'anime' feel, or Dan needs to stop applying filters to period photos? :cry:

Thanks for those kind words. I do sometimes wonder at the texturing though.

I did like the anime-ish pix you did in S:AE. Sometimes, less IS more.....

Heh..now I wonder if I've got to learn how to use Poser more...

Hello everyone,

I have just finished reading thru the New Starmada Admiralty rules and am very, very impressed with them.  There are so many good things here, that I almost don't know where to start.  I am pleased with  the simplification of game play & the new Data Card, as well as the greater ranges weapons can have. Also, I like the elimination of some of the more abused things of Starmada X such as:
{TDAR, halves shields, Ignores shields&Ionic Shields, PDS, expendables, etc}. 
Well done!

I may miss over-thrusters because my main warships are WW2 battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc made into 14 to 4 hulled space ships.  To compensate for no overthrusters, I have changed the arcs of the forward "FX" turrets from [ABCD] to [GHIJK], and the rear "AX" turrets from [CDEF] to [HIJKL]. this gives them 120 degrees of broadside fire instead of 60 degrees.  Those designs with center turrets such as my Texas, Iron Duke, and Arkansas class 12 hull ships  have these center turret's arcs changed from [CD] to {HIJK].  I think that with skillful maneuvering, I should be able to fire all heavy guns most of the time.  Neither Admiral Jellico nor Admiral Scheer had overthrusters @ Jutland in 1916...<LOL>.
I have made each ships turrets in thi way:  ROF=the number of barrels in the turret, IMP=1, DMG= 4 for 16"guns, 3 for 14"guns,  2 for 12' guns, and 1 for 8"guns.  These main batteries also have "Piercing" as their Weapon option.  The secondary 5", 4.5", 4", etc guns do not have any weapon ability and will be used to fire @ fighters, drones, etc.  All battleships & Cruisers have Armor plating also...
I am having a great deal of fun designing these ships and look forward to using them.
Splendid ship design rules!

I also like the new movement rules.  They seem fairly easy to use.  It helps to not compare them to other movement systems, but to just use them.  I especially like the idea of using "U-turns".  Sometimes in Star Trek, the Enterprise would rapidly make a U-turn to get away, (such as in "Balance of Terror" when the CA Enterprise makes a U-Turn and goes to maximum warp to try and outrun a Romulan type "R" Plasma torpedo). 
Excellent movement rules!

I look forward to playing Starmada, hopefully this Sunday, using this Awesome Admiralty Edition rules. 
For me, these are now  THE   Starmada Rules 

Steven Gilchrist, Jacksonville, Fla, USA

I think for our local group we will add a difference between pure Carrier ( x ) and the carrying of Strikers and/or Seekers. Call the new options Seeker ( x ) and Striker ( x ).
In a game last night, I blew away my opponents carrier that had brought his fighters, he then recovered his surviving fighters on board a ship that had brought Seekers and escaped by hyperdrive. As this is a campaign battle, I really wished he would have been forced to leave the fighters so I could kill them.
Seems a little strange to have a ship equipped for carrying the equivalent of drones or torpedoes to be able to use that same space to recover fighters.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that.

From a one-off game balance perspective, there's no reason why you couldn't fill the carrier space with whatever you wanted. But in a campaign setting, it might make more sense to specify what is being carried -- whether that's a simple distinction between fighters and strikers, or whether you have to specify the exact type of fighter or striker (if using the customization option).

e.g. "10 flights of standard fighters" or "6 flights of FA-6 and 4 flights of FB-21"