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 → Starmada → Admiralty Edition First Impressions
I'm not sure how the design math would work, but wouldn't a good solution be to assign Striker/Seeker carriers the option of "No Recovery"? That would seem to solve the problem. Or maybe an option of "Recovery X" where X is the number of squadrons of fighters a carrier normally loads out with? That would limit the number of squadrons a carrier could, well, carry? Or maybe it should be a capacity limit.
Either of the above options makes sense, as does any other that you might come up with.
As before, within the game, it is irrelevant what a "carrier" is carrying -- and since that means the only reason to care is if playing a campaign, it should be left up to the campaign rules to decide how to deal with the issue (if at all).
When I mentioned:
"I may miss over-thrusters because my main warships are WW2 battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc made into 14 to 4 hulled space ships", I was refering to my playstyle, in StarmadaX. When plotting movement, I did not worry if the aft turrets were going to be able to fire, because after movement I could Overthrust left or right and guarentee that I would have either "C" or "D" arc facing any ships that I wanted to shoot at. I was able to move towards or away from potential targets because I knew I could use the overthrusters to bring any ship into either arc where my WW2-style ship could fire a broadside of all its heavy weapons, be they FX or AX.
Sometimes I am not clear enough... (100% Blond here) :shock: <LOL>
Steven Gilchrist, Jacksonville, Fla, USA
Either of the above options makes sense, as does any other that you might come up with.
As before, within the game, it is irrelevant what a "carrier" is carrying -- and since that means the only reason to care is if playing a campaign, it should be left up to the campaign rules to decide how to deal with the issue (if at all).
Thank You! I love the open extendable nature of this edition, and its purity of focus on JUST game effects. This allows different campaigns and settings to adopt rules that fit the 'feel' of that setting.
For example... while in a traditional space opera ships carrying seekers or strikers probably wouldnt be equipped to carry fighters... it might be completely normal in a setting like andromeda where alot of fighters are just remote piloted craft.
Just thought I'd chime in again. After a game or two and a lot of playing about with the system, one of the things that has come to my attention as particularly useful in the 'bigger tech gap' option. It's very nice to have finer gradiations of Tech level available...it allows one to feel like ships don't come in "generations," where at TL1 ship can be worth twice as much as a TL0, but can instead move along with incremental innovations. For example, one can design a retrofitted old ship, a top-of-line new vessel, or an old warhorse with updated weapons equally well with the seperation of system tech values and the larger number of values available.
Great job on that option, Dan.
-Adso
Happy New Year everyone!
I am running several games of Starmada Admiralty at Broadsword Comics and Games this Saturday Jan 5th @ Noon. This store is in Orange Park, just south of Jacksonville. Hopefully I will have new players and some present Starmada X players there.
I was wondering if there is an updated Starmada Admiralty version of the StarmadaX Reference Sheet. I have used this in the past to assist new players with the game. I am building up a group of players down here in the Jacksonville - St Augustine area of NE Fla., and plan to introduce them to the Admiralty edition.
All are welcome. Bring your own designs or use Federation, Klingon, and Romulan designs I am putting together. 8)
Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA
BeowulfJB wrote: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 may miss over-thrusters because my main warships are WW2 battleships, cruisers, destroyers, etc made into 14 to 4 hulled space ships.
I'm not sure how those two statements are related (did WW2 battleships have overthrusters?
) However, I have been thinking of a way in which overthrusters could be put into the Admiralty edition.
Essentially, treat them as allowing a "free" pivot -- e.g. if a ship with overthrusters plots a +2 pivot, it only adds 1 to the thrust requirement.
NOOOOOO!!! No more overthrusters!!! :shock: :shock:
I want maneuvering to mean something. Overthrusters negated that a great deal in X.
(if only the Kra'Vak in Full Thrust had Overthrusters... *gets misty eyed*)
NOOOOOO!!! No more overthrusters!!! :shock: :shock:
I want maneuvering to mean something. Overthrusters negated that a great deal in X.
Then don't use them. 
I've tried to make it explicit as possible that none of the options are required, or even encouraged. Use the ones you want, discard the ones you don't. But if you happen to play against someone who wants to use overthrusters, their ships should be balanced against yours.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Admiralty Edition First Impressions
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.