Topic: Damage control (?)

I played a game last night and an issue came up; I was using damage control rules with my ships and my opponent had a different opinion on how to use them.

Basically, I always thought that the rules meant that you rolled one die per remaining hull pt. With EACH roll you get to pick ONE letter per group PER ROLL. For instance, a ship with 8 hull pts gets to roll 8 dice. Say they come up  H,H,Ha,Eb,Sa,Q,Qb,H; you get to repair EITHER an engine pt OR a 'b' weapon (the Eb roll) AND another 'b' weapon (Qb), a shield pt (Sa roll) and 'a' weapon (Ha) and so forth.

My opponent was saying that while you roll 8 dice, you get to repair only ONE  SINGLE system per turn regardless of how many dice you roll. In other words, you couldn't repair 2 engine pts, 2 'a' weapons and 1 'b' weapon within the same turn. It would be EITHER a single 'e', 'a' or 'b' hit per turn.

I'm confused now :?

Re: Damage control (?)

Cartman wrote:

Basically, I always thought that the rules meant that you rolled one die per remaining hull pt. With EACH roll you get to pick ONE letter per group PER ROLL. For instance, a ship with 8 hull pts gets to roll 8 dice. Say they come up  H,H,Ha,Eb,Sa,Q,Qb,H; you get to repair EITHER an engine pt OR a 'b' weapon (the Eb roll) AND another 'b' weapon (Qb), a shield pt (Sa roll) and 'a' weapon (Ha) and so forth.

My opponent was saying that while you roll 8 dice, you get to repair only ONE  SINGLE system per turn regardless of how many dice you roll. In other words, you couldn't repair 2 engine pts, 2 'a' weapons and 1 'b' weapon within the same turn. It would be EITHER a single 'e', 'a' or 'b' hit per turn.

I just re-read the rules, and I can see why the differing interpretations would come up.  sad

Anyway, you are right -- you may choose ONE type of damage to repair PER die rolled.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Damage control (?)

On a vaguely related note, does anyone else find that Damage Control unbalances the game in favor of larger ships?  We've tried using it a few times and found that big ships essentially shrug off non-hull damage with little difficulty, at least until they've been badly shot up.  It's not totally game-breaking, but it is noticeable, especially with sever size disparities...strikeboats versus superdreads, that sort of thing.

Rich

Re: Damage control (?)

hundvig wrote:

On a vaguely related note, does anyone else find that Damage Control unbalances the game in favor of larger ships?  We've tried using it a few times and found that big ships essentially shrug off non-hull damage with little difficulty, at least until they've been badly shot up.  It's not totally game-breaking, but it is noticeable, especially with sever size disparities...strikeboats versus superdreads, that sort of thing.

I guess the intent there was twofold:

1) Larger ships should have more damage to repair;

2) Larger ships have more crew to spare for damage control.

So I think larger ships should get more DC rolls -- but maybe a linear 1:1 ratio is too much...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Damage control (?)

samuel i. ulmschneider wrote:

> Yeah, it does a bit -- it's also a bit powerful, to tell the
> truth.  Taking ships out of the fight becomes almost as hard
> as taking them out of action, thus limiting your tactical
> option significantly.  I'd suggest a piece of special
> equipment -- damage control teams.  Like marines and security
> teams, they take up a set amount of space (say, 10 SUs each)
> and for each team, the player may make one roll on the DC
> table at the end of each turn.  Thus, how effective the
> (powerful) ability to self-repair is depends on the amount a
> player is willing to invest in it, like extra armor or
> armored gun turrets.

'tis an idea...

> On an unrelated note, will we ever see more of the adventures
> of the Solar Federation?  I thoroughly enjoyed the chronicles
> from the first few years...

If you're talking about the background in the basic Starmada rulebook (i.e., the non-Brigade version) then you and I are the only ones who like it, apparently... smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Damage control (?)

John Lerchey wrote:

> Not to argue with officialdom in any way, but perhaps if this
> is a rule that throws balance off a bit, allowing only ONE
> system to be reparied per Damage Control roll would be more
> reasonable.  The larger ships, or less damaged ones with more
> Hull would still get more dice, and thus have a better chance
> of giving the rolling player a better selection of possible repairs.
>
> <shrug>
>
> smile

That's always an easy fix if you think the DC rules are too unbalancing... but I still believe that larger ships should get some advantage, even if only a slight one.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Damage control (?)

Hay, now,

I liked the background material, and I think we've got similar stuff with the brigade book.

I just thought it wasn't the most important part of the game. And some of it was sorta goofy smile

jim

Re: Damage control (?)

cricket wrote:

If you're talking about the background in the basic Starmada rulebook (i.e., the non-Brigade version) then you and I are the only ones who like it, apparently... smile

He might be talking about the VBAM/SX campaign diary I posted, but I can't say for certain smile If it is the campaign diary, then there will likely be an update to that diary this weekend.

-Tyrel

Re: Damage control (?)

Tyrel Lohr wrote:

He might be talking about the VBAM/SX campaign diary I posted, but I can't say for certain smile If it is the campaign diary, then there will likely be an update to that diary this weekend.

Bah.

And I thought I'd actually found a fan...

sad

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Damage control (?)

cricket wrote:

Bah.

And I thought I'd actually found a fan...

sad

Don't despair, Dan! I am sure there are several people (dozens! scores!) that like the existing Starmada background. It just hasn't been at the forefront for awhile.

-Tyrel

Re: Damage control (?)

samuel i. ulmschneider wrote:

> The biggest flaw of said background?  The names.  Somehow,
> despite the neat tounge-in-cheek manner of the narration, the
> cool storyline that slots into 'real' history in some ways,
> and even the heroic ideals of the opposing factions, having
> something called the Imperial Starmada battle the Donegal
> Alliance in the name of Mohjari or whatever seems a tad...off.

Huh... it never seemed 'off' to me, but then I'm likely too close to it to notice.

I will admit that the history developed after the factions-- so it was a case of trying to meld them all together as an afterthought.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Damage control (?)

So, let's set it up and play it out, see how it really turns out, and then put out the supplement to support what comes next!   big_smile

Re: Damage control (?)

Tyrel Lohr wrote:
cricket wrote:

Bah.

And I thought I'd actually found a fan...

sad

Don't despair, Dan! I am sure there are several people (dozens! scores!) that like the existing Starmada background. It just hasn't been at the forefront for awhile.

-Tyrel


When I started writing the VBAM: Starmada book I had quite a few people request access to campaign information for the Starmada and Brigade ships.

   -Jay

Re: Damage control (?)

Sam wrote:

Starmada: Expanded or something like that, including things like exposed engines, weak hull plating, ballistics packages from VBAM, strike and advanced and stealth fighters, teleporters a la Star Trek, etc, etc.

I think that a book comprised of all of those extra options would probably be a nice addition to the game. Right now it is those kinds of extra or generational technology steps that would be nice to have formalized, even if it wouldn't have much utility outside of a campaign environment. For example, few people would probably waste the space on a first-generation PDS that only blocks on a PEN roll of '1' when they can just buy the full PDS instead. In a campaign though, it could be interesting if you had to develop *levels* in said technology, and couldn't just jump to full effect. Or if there were more options that became available once the core technology was researched.

Ballistic packages I have put some thought into, but so far I haven't decided what would work best. For a few of them, the results are fairly obvious:

Heavy: +1 DMG
Long-Range: +3 range
Piercing: +1 PEN
MIRV: +1 ROF

And so on. It wouldn't be too hard to tie all of them into a specific statistic, but tying it into the SX combat rating system might be difficult from the standpoint of having to modify the sheet to figure the increase in capabilities.

Teleporters/Transporters -- I started converting a few of my old Babylon 5 Wars Star Trek ships over this last weekend and in theory have the Transporters acting as Range 10 marine delivery engines. I haven't completely fleshed out my concept, but the level of shields would likely determine what number would have to be rolled to deposit the marines, or simply a lack of shields completely. Of course, the Starmada Compendium had rules for those I believe -- I just haven't gotten around to looking at them yet to check smile

But I think there would be a market for an expanded equipment book and updated XLS sheet that incorporated them all into it. As for an application that was more friendly to add things to, that would be nice but it would require some development funds to do, and though nice probably wouldn't be entirely worth the cost. That being said, it would be nice to have such a program that loaded its equipment list from a tab or comma delimited text file and would then allow for a greater range of options. However, on the flipside, the XLS currently let's us make all of the modifications we could like, whereas a stand-alone app would have limited modability for those of us that could barely get C++ to display a DOS box in Windows. smile

-Tyrel