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 → What now?
So... Starmada X is still selling strong, but it concerns me that we've seen nothing new for the game in a while. The problem is, I see little need for additional rules, and 'X' has plugged most of the holes. (That's the problem with being all flexible and customizeable... 
)
The question is: what do people want to see? What should be in the future for Starmada?
If the original Starmada "universe" is still viable, I would love to see a campaign set up... leveraged on the VBAM stuff.
There is so much that can be done to introduce "historical" ship designs, or even what designs and approaches come next for the Starmada and its foes. Exploring any of that could offer opportunities for new rule or equipment twists, also.
Or even the Brigade universe if that had more legs.
Again, EVEN IF NO ONE LISTENS OR CARES 
, crew quality modifiers. The Enterprise run by cadets should be no match for the Enterprise with Kirk and co.
Also I think I had something going with unreliable or weakened systems. I said "I think"
Hey, I'm listening man!
Green Crew (x): Sometimes a ship must leave dry-dock slightly ahead of schedule and long before the crew is ready.
I dunno, just some thought starters
Crew modifiers would be interesting. I know that Jay's VBAM/SX book touched on that for purposes of VBAM conversions, but I have been tempted to sit down and try to match up the Companion officer abilities to SX to get an idea for how that would work. A dedicated system of rules specifically for SX would be a nice addition, though.
A "black book" supplement that included expanded technologies in areas wehre it is viable would be nice. As Cartman mentioned, unreliable/weakened technologies would be a nice addition, though mostly I see it being beneficial for campaigns. Similarly, looking at the systems I can see generational PDS, drones, and mines being a possibility. Again, their utility is limited to campaign play, so as a stand alone supplement is probably would not constitute enough material.
I think the one avenue that SX has for new releases is likely in the form of universe books and ship lists. Put together a nice, full supplement with background, ships, and scenarios and you would probably have it made.
I have talked to Dan about doing a SX crossover for the Escalation Wars stuff, particularly getting things ready so that there could be a SX ship book release at the same time the VBAM war history is released. In a book like that, you would be looking at a good 250+ ships, more than likely, covering a three-hundred year period in the setting.
The only other thing I would have on a wish list is an even more advanced, detailed method of designing fighters. Setup a system where fighters are considered a weapon system maybe, so that they could potentially have variable Movement Range, ROF, PEN, DMG, and maybe some special effects. The basic and custom fighter rules are nice, but I am still left wanting something a bit more meaty so that fighters can be more variable in abilities.
-Tyrel
The only other thing I would have on a wish list is an even more advanced, detailed method of designing fighters. Setup a system where fighters are considered a weapon system maybe, so that they could potentially have variable Movement Range, ROF, PEN, DMG, and maybe some special effects. The basic and custom fighter rules are nice, but I am still left wanting something a bit more meaty so that fighters can be more variable in abilities.
-Tyrel
I did post such a detailed fighter construction spreadsheet to the MJ12 Yahoo Group, but I never saw anyone comment about it 
.
Jimmy
> Ooh! Ooh! I'll comment!
>
> The detailed fighter sheet was truly excellent, and I have
> made some heavy use of it. The only problem? You're really
> designing 'mini-statships' rather than fighters, and the
> whole concept of fuel and range means one has to adopt a
> whole new set of rules to use it. However, both the idea and
> execution are quite cool.
Not to be purposefully dense, but how else would you handle it? In a way, you have to picture fighters as "mini-starships" in order to make sense of the construction process...
I did post such a detailed fighter construction spreadsheet to the MJ12 Yahoo Group, but I never saw anyone comment about it
Jimmy
I feel like I am going around and killing everyone's best friend today... two frowny emoticons so far today!
I had forgotten all about that, Jimmy. Found it again now, and will put it in a safe place. One question, though; the range seems to be independent of size, or at least it breaks beyond a certain size. Any ideas why? I make the fighter bigger and the available "fuel" doesn't increase.
I am probably just using the sheet wrong, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
-Tyrel
I had forgotten all about that, Jimmy. Found it again now, and will put it in a safe place. One question, though; the range seems to be independent of size, or at least it breaks beyond a certain size. Any ideas why? I make the fighter bigger and the available "fuel" doesn't increase.
I am probably just using the sheet wrong, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
-Tyrel
No, you aren't using the sheet wrong. The formula I created gives all engines the same efficiency rating, but since larger ships have proportionally larger engines, there is less fuel space.
Also, I don't actually show the amount of fuel on the sheet, I just show the duration and the range (duration * Engine).
I probably need to create a sliding scale to make larger engines more efficient.
This is the kind of feedback that I was hoping to get, but didn't. Any other comments?
Jimmy
Get in bed with more minis manufacturers and do more books like Brigade X, maybe? I'd bet even Ground Zero Games might be willing to consider such a thing...he makes all his real money off figures, not rules, and having his models statted out for Starmada would only help those sales, while "official" Starmada fleet books for the Full Thrust ranges would probably sell pretty darn well for MJ12. Other companies that might be worth talking to about that sort of thing include Holistic, Monday Knight Productions, Valiant, and maybe even Amarillo Design.
My two cents. Of course I'm assuming that the Brigade X thing was a win-win product for both companies...right Dan?
Rich
RE: Fighters as Small Starships
I would actually prefer if fighters were done as small ships, but that is just me. It would make the rules largely consistent between the two, and allow players to create more flavorful fighters. You could still have the fighters destroyed in a single shot, or optionally use the normal hit system, which would result in them dying half the time anyway.
In playing with the formulas on the spreadsheet, I have found that the Engine SU formula would have to be changed, as likely would some other options, but other than that it could work (maybe). I think as long as the "average" TL still had a fighter of Engine 10, Weapon AB arc 1/1/1 about where it is now, it should stay relatively balanced, but who knows?
I readily admit that fighters in SX are abstracted as they are for playability purposes. That's fine, but for some settings it would be nice to have the fighters be a bit beefier (Wing Commander is one great example).
Another option that might be easier to introduce would be to fractionalize some of the existing bonuses. Instead of just having Slow or Fast, you could apply the modifiers based on how slow or how fast the units are. That allows you to be a little more flexible in terms of setting a fighter's range. You could likewise add PEN and DMG modifiers alongside the current ROF advantage (Assault). Add a few opposing abilities as well (Light, where 3 fighters die for every 2 hits, vs. Heavy) and repackage the fighter rules, and you would have a more extensible fighter system that is still virtually the same but with a bit more meat to it.
Again, as always, I must add the caveat that my comments are coming from my VBAM / B5W background, and don't necessarily (if at all) apply to what the goal of the SX game design is.
-Tyrel
Again, EVEN IF NO ONE LISTENS OR CARES
Also I think I had something going with unreliable or weakened systems. I said "I think"
My idea was add the different die type for the different crew ranks. All to-hit values and the like stay the same, but the difference for combat is:
green crew: roll d4s
regular crew: roll d6s
Experienced crew: roll d8s
Expert crew: roll d10s.
How's that?
-Bren
See, there are plenty of ideas left to explore out there.
My $0.02 is just that I think following a campaign - seeing them developed and applied would be more enjoyable than just providing a list and saying "have at it".
Even in the Compendium and X books, the history (as much as I like what is there) is provided sort of "as is" and doesn't show a progression... it lacks depth cause the connections aren't there.
> My idea was add the different die type for the different crew ranks.
> All to-hit values and the like stay the same, but the
> difference for combat is:
> green crew: roll d4s
> regular crew: roll d6s
> Experienced crew: roll d8s
> Expert crew: roll d10s.
> How's that?
> ==========
>
> The downside I can see is that you're introducing different
> die types to a game that doesn't use dfferent die types.
True.
Also, with the expert crews this means they will hit 50% of the time at long range with a 5+ weapon. Yuck.
I'd always felt the best way to handle crews in Starmada would be in a manner similar to how Man O' War did-- with specific 'skills' or abilities that didn't necessarily run the gamut, but gave individual crews bonuses for particular actions.
See attached.
http://mj12games.com/forum/files/manowarcards_110.pdf
Same basic approach used for the elite officer abilities applied in the VBAM/Starmada book.
I would say that is a more reliable approach, that doesn't change the mechanics of the game.
Thinking about this a bit, I have the following short list of
suggestions for design modifiers for a future release:Weak Hull Design (as suggested earlier, rolling to take an extra hull hit
whenever a H is scored is a very reasonable mechanic)Inferior Engines: Either increase the engine multipler to make them
less efficient, or apply a flat "-1 move speed" to the ship.Inferior Flight Control: Make the ship move 1 extra space forward
before being allowed to change facing because of design flaws that
make turning it harder.
There have been a few things that I have seen that I think would be nice additions here and there along the lines of new Weapons Enhancements or Special Equipment:
* Weak Hull Plating (as above; opposite of Armor Plating)
* Armored Engines (armoring or engines)
* Exposed Engines (weak hull plating for engines, so on a '5' or '6' an extra engine is destroyed)
* Area of Effect (weapon enhancement that would be like repeating, but the weapon would hit every target in the hex)
Those are the major ones off the top of my head.
In regards to ballistic packages and drones, I had the epiphany that drones are considered ballistic weapons in the VBAM/SX book, so you could easily just have Drone Packages analogous to Ballistic packages to get added effect at an extra economic cost there.
Since this post is becoming a rambling mess anyway, another thing that I got to thinking about was in relation to some of the material that evidently was in the old Compendium version of the game. Thumbing through there I found references to energy-draining type weapons. Any reason why these were pulled or omitted from SX? I could see Energy Draining being a weapon effect similar to how Extra Crew Casualties effects Hull. Energy Draining + No Hull Damage could then create a weapon that, when it hits an enemy system, shuts the system down (draw a line through it to show it is offline). The system could still take hits, but would otherwise not be able to use that system again until it is repaired (if applicable). I am not sure how much of a benefit it would add to the game, but it might better fit some weapon effects in certain setting.
-Tyrel
For 'weak' systems' I would also extend this to weapons and shields. It would allow for smaller units to cram in more weapons or defences but with a price.
Well, it seems as though there's a clear need for some additional (minor) additions to the rules, but people clearly want to see more background material and ships...
Should we have another contest, like we did for Brigade, or what?
Well, it seems as though there's a clear need for some additional (minor) additions to the rules, but people clearly want to see more background material and ships...
Should we have another contest, like we did for Brigade, or what?
Depends...whose ships are you/we going to stat this time? I think you finished all the Brigade ones already, didn't you? Well, maybe not the Iron Stars ones...or does Tony have another big batch in the works?
If you can get Jon Tuffley to play in your sandbox, I call dibs on translating Phalons to Starmada. I may need the "area effect" weapon extra, though...
Rich
> One could hold several design contests, and here's why:
>
> 1) The usefulness of counters. My friends and I play
> Starmada mostly with very very pretty (public-domain, now!)
> ship graphics culled from plug-ins for the computer game
> Escape Velocity, photoshopped for hexing and either printed
> off or moved on the computer screen.
Public domain, you say?
Where might one obtain these graphics?
> 2) The endless opportunities for new equipment. Though
> Starmada is excellent in terms of its balance between detail
> and ease of play/understanding, there are always those who
> want an appreciate more opportunities to crunch numbers of
> twiddle with more and more characterful ships.
True.
> 3) The possibilities of alternate rules. Does someone want
> to make, say, an extra-detailed fighter combat and design
> system? Let it be put in edited, black and white formulas
> here! How about a specialized rules variant for 'space
> submarine' style combat, dogfighting, or even simple
> alternates that push the existing game towards more
> cinematic, realistic, operatic etc. styles.
Okay. So let's say that the next supplement should be a "genre-specific" sourcebook -- any suggestions?
Depends...whose ships are you/we going to stat this time? I think you finished all the Brigade ones already, didn't you? Well, maybe not the Iron Stars ones...or does Tony have another big batch in the works?
Dunno that I'm looking to do someone else's ships -- I mean, we have the Brigade book, and as far as I know Cold Navy minis still ship with the Starmada data cards... so we've got mini support for the time being (although, the idea of a Full Thrust book might be too juicy to ignore forever... )
I was more wondering where the game should go from here -- and it seems like there's plenty of ideas about that...
hundvig wrote:Depends...whose ships are you/we going to stat this time? I think you finished all the Brigade ones already, didn't you? Well, maybe not the Iron Stars ones...or does Tony have another big batch in the works?
Dunno that I'm looking to do someone else's ships -- I mean, we have the Brigade book, and as far as I know Cold Navy minis still ship with the Starmada data cards... so we've got mini support for the time being (although, the idea of a Full Thrust book might be too juicy to ignore forever...
I was more wondering where the game should go from here -- and it seems like there's plenty of ideas about that...
I suppose you could stat up the Iron Stars ships, but that'd be ...a bit odd, perhaps. Though the idea has some merit simply from the point of view of capitalizing on existing graphics, a (as yet unfinished IIRC) minis line, and some people that were introduced to MJ12 through Iron Stars having a chance to see how their favored 'universe' might look through another 'lense'... :-)
You could always accomodate the Iron Stars minis by reaching 'back in time' and giving it a 'pulp' point of view, also...
Rules-wise, I'm rather in favor of the fighter-intensive optional rules supplement with the FAQ officially getting published in 'hard copy' and adding all the suggested 'new material' to the rules that Dan can accomodate in the framework of 'officialdom'...
A totally new 'universe' is:
- more work
- potentially a show-stopper if it flops badly (though that's a distant reality with this group of talent)
- potentially capable of bringing in more 'new blood' if it's amazingly good.
If there is 'another universe' to add, what shape should it take?
Okay. So let's say that the next supplement should be a "genre-specific" sourcebook -- any suggestions?
Defiance! :wink:
I second that!
Wait, it would mean I would be tempted to buy not only Starmada books but also a load of space ship minis... On second thought, I move to strike my above comment!
<IMG src="http://herosgames.homestead.com/files/hitme.gif">
</IMG>
I think a starmada/defiance cross-platform sourcebook would be a great addition to both lines.
Count me in!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → What now?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.