Nothing's missing, but for starters you could get rid of fighters.

Thanks, I'll be here all week.

I'd like to see the various optional rules bandied about normalized in cost and published in an 'offical' product.  Redundant Sheilds, Odd-Ranged Weapons, 'fixed' screens, Three-Turn Weapons.

Dual-Mode weapons with ammo for one mode.

Some provision for stowage/carriage of craft larger than fighters.  FTL Tugs, if you will.

A look at how speed and weapon range interact.  Not really an 'add something', but are we sure that Engines 12 and Range 4 is as good as Engines 4 and Range 12?

Some way to shoot down seekers and strikers before they hit your ship, on the turn they hit your ship.  CIWS.

(I shudder to say this) Counter-based weapons that do not rely on seekers/strikers/fighters/mines/etc.  Some way to build something that works like the Romulan Plasma from "Balance of Terror"

Some way to add more decision points, and encourage use of those decision points.  Limited Arc Weapons, Ammunition, and Slow-Firing helps inform fire decisions... but more of this is always good.

Most of things I'd like to see have been related to the questions I've asked:

Armored Gun Batteries
Redundant Shielding
Interceptor
Bomber
Ranges 21 and 27

The first two I think would work fine using the Armor Plating mechanic from AE. The fighter options you said would be in the new compilation because they were in dreadnoughts. As to the Ranges, I'd only like them for completeness.

As to what else I'd like to see? Maybe rules for planetary assault and defense, more terrain options, and customizable marines with variable attack and defense values.

Oh, and boarding pods that aren't destroyed when they fail to penetrate the shields.

Super computer/A.I. run ships.        

Deckplans for boarding actions, with new 15mm miniatures to go with it.  (hey, I'm just trying to get more of those for my Traveller RPG games  ).

Cone-shaped AOE ability for weapons. (that will be expensive!)

Grappling hooks  (I kid.. I still think that was quite a silly thing on Enterprise)

Maybe not Grappling hooks for the Trek universe, but for those of us with Noble Armada ships that would be cool.

I did some very loose 'crew options' in my sailing orders stuff a while back...
What sort of crew options did you have in mind?

A lot of these sound oddly familiar....
:ugeek:

The fighter Defense value is based on the shield rating, where higher IS better (for the attacker, who is making the rolls).

Just didn't think anyone would need 'em. Silly me...

After sleeping on it I had another thought...a rule for constructing tender/battlerider type combinations. It could be as simple as Tender=+20% the SU of the battlerider or such. Tender would not add as much to the CR of a ship as Carrier I would think.  This would allow large jump capable ships that transport warships greater than hull 1, something that occurs quite often in sci-fi literature and shows.
Cheers.
Erik

Paul, I think you kind of missed the meat of the Tender idea above. I was specifically thinking of rules that would account for ships on a a per su basis and not set at 150 for SHF and Attack Boats. I know that has been around a while. I was talking about someting like large size motherships carrying parasite warships of varying hull sizes (including a couple big ones if you want!) for a Base SU cost. Again, I'm not talking about cutters/attack boats/gunboats, etc...I'm talking about cruiser sized ships (or larger) carried by a potentially HUGEMUNGOUS jumpship. If you want an example take for instance the Mothership & City Killers from Independence Day. I'm pretty sure no one would accuse the CKs of being 1 Hull, and I don't really like the idea of using 150 SU for every 1 Hull either, any more than I would say 50 SU for every fighter flight 
I know it is simple enough to just take 150 SU per Hull, but I would prefer a BSU %. To me it adds more variation/variety without being a complex. But then again, I have a lot of ships with odd numbered cargo and carrier and so forth...I don't like to round to the nearest 10  When I converted over the 2300 AD fighters into Starmada X, I originally used the Tender ability to model carriers (as the fighters we designed as Hull 1 ships), but it just didn't make sense that 6 Martels would use the same space as 6 of the much lighter Mistral fighters, and the it didn't jive with the fluff either, with the swap being something like 6 Martels=9 Mistrals. That to me pointed to using a % based system, and It's one of the the things I "mod" into the shipyard sheet using one of the spaces for the Aux abilities rather than the Carrier space. I use it to model the multiple-sized drop ships in the Full Thrust designs as well. First Design the Parasite to get the hull size, then add the % and you get the SU required to carry. I have designed a race of antagonists for a homemade campaign that uses jump capable scouts and motherships, but uses parasite warships of all different sizes as warships.
Anyway, I'm rambling.
To Sum Up: I would prefer a % of the Parasite's hull size to determine the Tender SUs required, rather than a fixed amount.
Cheers,
Erik
Erik

I'm happy so far with Starmada.

Some things which might be added:

- AFB hitting Fighters on 4+ and ships on 5+ & shooting them before fighters may attack.
- some kind of escort trait to grant other ships the afb-dice the ship has