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 → New edition of Starmada coming in January!
But those are CV/CVL, not just missile ships, no?
Marc
Looks like... Maybe fighters work like they do in BFG, where they carry enough ordinance for a single attack, and after that you don't particularly care whether they make it back to base or not, in which case they could behave more-or-less like strikers...
Still, mighty odd, and kind of unexpected.
I kinda wish Kevin hadn't posted that. It's gonna confuse people more than help.
For example, listing fighters as "weapons" with firing arcs is NOT the default for the new version. This was a conscious choice made by Kevin for his particular setting.
Instead, here are two PRELIMINARY ship displays for the SFU -- note that these may (will) change before the release versions. However, they give you an idea of what to expect. Also, note that the "Shields" on these displays act like "Armor" in the new version of Starmada.
Ah, excellent. That's something of a relief. Are fighters going to work more-or-less similarly to how they work in AE, then?
What do the numbers in the weapon arcs mean and how does the attack dice chart work?
-Tim
I kinda wish Kevin hadn't posted that. It's gonna confuse people more than help.
For example, listing fighters as "weapons" with firing arcs is NOT the default for the new version. This was a conscious choice made by Kevin for his particular setting.
Yeah, that's my bad.
I completely forgot about our group's different way of simulating fighters.
We don't like having to maneuver a bunch of fighter flights on the table, so we're using the Seeker trait on a weapon to simulate fighters.
In our opinion, it adequately simulates wave after wave of fighters being launched.
But that is not the default rule for fighters. There are fully fleshed out fighter rules, and I believe similar to the AE edition.
So everyone's pulse can come back down now. 
Kevin
What do the numbers in the weapon arcs mean and how does the attack dice chart work?
-Tim
The weapon dice available start in the left most column, with negative modifiers shifting the dice column to the right, and positive modifiers shifting the dice column to the left.
Weapon arcs that have numbers represent negative column shifts (and represent fewer dice in a particular arc).
Dan can elaborate more, but the "basics" are determine the dice column through applying modifiers, and roll the number of dice indicated with fives causing one hit.
The absiolutely great thing is that ships don't have to be designed with a bunch of arc modifiers in the firing arcs at all. If you want to keep things simple and "symmetrical," every firing arc can simply be the two letter designator representing the firing arc, with the dice in the first column representing the weapon strength in that arc.
Easy peasy.
Kevin
Interesting, I'm very eager to see that.
One of the problem with SFU ships during play was the ratio firepower-defense being too important, ending battle too prematurately (in fact, probe, transporter and thus marines, and tractor were never used). Have you witness the same problem with the new rules?
My sole complaint about the SFU ships is that, although I love the universe, they are not enough racial oriented, to my taste, of course. But that will not prevent me to redo the ships as I want.
BTW, I like the picture of the ship on its sheet. 
Marc
I kinda wish Kevin hadn't posted that. It's gonna confuse people more than help.
For example, listing fighters as "weapons" with firing arcs is NOT the default for the new version. This was a conscious choice made by Kevin for his particular setting.
Thank goodness for that! I noticed that and I have to admit that I kind of "ugh" moment thinking that fighters were no longer going to be independent, but rather treated as just another weapon system. I'm back to really looking forward to the Shiny New Version
I haven't seen anything other than what has been posted here, but I am particularly interested in the addition of an EW component with the inclusion of ECM as a defense "layer". I think this will greatly enhance certain setting conversions in which Electronic Warfare is a major component of the combat system, which was difficult to model in S:AE.
Cheers,
Erik
I do like that in FC shields act as armor....
I think this will greatly enhance certain setting conversions in which Electronic Warfare is a major component of the combat system, which was difficult to model in S:AE.
Cheers,
Erik
Countermeasures (and to a different degree, stealth) was ECM. But, AFAIK, ECM is used in the SFU. Was is the case for FC ships?
BTW, it seems that phasers, photon and disr have no special trait?
And that photon has a better range...
More and more intriguing...
Marc
Thank goodness for that! I noticed that and I have to admit that I kind of "ugh" moment thinking that fighters were no longer going to be independent, but rather treated as just another weapon system. I'm back to really looking forward to the Shiny New Version
Heh, you'll be thinking "ugh" when you're trying to maneuver 10+ ships, and 10+ fighter flights around the board, alternating movement one at a time. Using the Seeker trait is simply the way that we in our group agreed upon to simulate and streamline fighters.Blacklancer99 wrote:I haven't seen anything other than what has been posted here, but I am particularly interested in the addition of an EW component with the inclusion of ECM as a defense "layer". I think this will greatly enhance certain setting conversions in which Electronic Warfare is a major component of the combat system, which was difficult to model in S:AE.
Defensive capability is now handled in one of three ways: Armor, ECM, and Shields.
Armor is simply additional hull hits, which increase the number of hits a ship can take before it must take damage checks.
The ECM rating is simply a negative modifier to the firing ship, which reduces the number of dice on a given attack roll.
The shield rating is a saving throw against hits that are suffered.
In my opinion, one of the best things about the new system is the quickness of combat resolution. If the target ship has no shields, each attack roll is resolved on ONE die roll.
Everyone has their own opinions on what makes a rules set good, and one of mine is quick combat resolution. I don't mind rolling buckets of dice, IF IT'S QUICK.
And this is.
Another is the movement system. It's extremely easy to understand and use.
It gives a great nod to momentum, without having to plot movement. The only thing that is tracked is current speed.
Now that being said, it's been a little frustrating for us trying to design ships that rely solely on speed and maneuvering for defense, similar to the Eldar in Battlefleet Gothic. We've found that once the thrust gets up around six or so, going much beyond that will be really somewhat of a "diminishing return of investment."
But it's also my understanding that's the way the game is now, so this isn't any new limitation or change from the current system.
I've been following the system for about ten years now, and this is the first edition that I've actually really enjoyed playing, and have started designing ships for.
I'm kinda partial to the dice column mechanic, though.
Kevin
Armor is simply additional hull hits, which increase the number of hits a ship can take before it must take damage checks.
Is armor plating treated so (in the same way as in SFO, thus?)?
The ECM rating is simply a negative modifier to the firing ship, which reduces the number of dice on a given attack roll.
Different but similar to countermeasures. Unless CM still exist?
The shield rating is a saving throw against hits that are suffered.
That didn't change.
Everyone has their own opinions on what makes a rules set good, and one of mine is quick combat resolution. I don't mind rolling buckets of dice, IF IT'S QUICK.
In fact, rolling buckets of dice if very satisfying on an emotional POV... Not so if you end up with a major failure
But it makes for simple fire resolution.
It gives a great nod to momentum, without having to plot movement. The only thing that is tracked is current speed.
SNIP
We've found that once the thrust gets up around six or so, going much beyond that will be really somewhat of a "diminishing return of investment."
I'd like to say that in my games, whenever a ship is moving more than its engine rating, you can be sure it will suffer a lot of engine damage (say Murphy?), and end its next move outside the map.
Almost the same result if the ship moves up to its speed.
In fact, I feel it would be enough to note if the speed is either within the engine rating or above. And above means usually less than double as it is usually enough to cross vast distance on the table and then you need to maneuver as soon as possible. To note the exact speed is, AFAIK, not really useful in game terms.
I'm kinda partial to the dice column mechanic, though.
I wonder which weapon traits have been removed or modified, if any?
Marc
In fact, I feel it would be enough to note if the speed is either within the engine rating or above. And above means usually less than double as it is usually enough to cross vast distance on the table and then you need to maneuver as soon as possible. To note the exact speed is, AFAIK, not really useful in game terms.
Marc
What I was meaning is that we haven't found it useful to design ships with a thrust rating of much above six or seven, if any. It is entirely within the scope of the rules to accelerate and have a speed well above a ship's thrust rating. A ship may not perform any turns, however, as long as its current speed rating is above the ship's thrust rating.
Kevin
Now that being said, it's been a little frustrating for us trying to design ships that rely solely on speed and maneuvering for defense, similar to the Eldar in Battlefleet Gothic. We've found that once the thrust gets up around six or so, going much beyond that will be really somewhat of a "diminishing return of investment."
But it's also my understanding that's the way the game is now, so this isn't any new limitation or change from the current system.
To be fair, alternating / non-plotted movement as 'core' introduces the possibility of a double-move trait (kinda like Grumm pivots, except for a second move), much like the Eldar have in BFG. Expensive? Certainly. But it's now a lot more viable than it was under pre-plotted. I was also thinking that high ECM scores might more-or-less simulate the holofields in a better way than CM + Stealth did. I found that my Eldar conversions in AE got shafted royally until I started putting Cloaking on them, and then they became a viable fleet.
underling wrote:Now that being said, it's been a little frustrating for us trying to design ships that rely solely on speed and maneuvering for defense, similar to the Eldar in Battlefleet Gothic. We've found that once the thrust gets up around six or so, going much beyond that will be really somewhat of a "diminishing return of investment."
But it's also my understanding that's the way the game is now, so this isn't any new limitation or change from the current system.To be fair, alternating / non-plotted movement as 'core' introduces the possibility of a double-move trait (kinda like Grumm pivots, except for a second move), much like the Eldar have in BFG. Expensive? Certainly. But it's now a lot more viable than it was under pre-plotted. I was also thinking that high ECM scores might more-or-less simulate the holofields in a better way than CM + Stealth did. I found that my Eldar conversions in AE got shafted royally until I started putting Cloaking on them, and then they became a viable fleet.
We've suggested several things, but so far, we can't seem to get the designer to bite on anything.
The SFU does have electronic warfare (ECM). Star Fleet Battles has extensive ECM rules. Federation Commander does not. I would not expect Star Fleet Armada to have "official" electronic warfare rules. The lack of power allocation in Starmada makes it difficult to model, because when you use ECM in SFB you have to give up something else, either movement or weapons fire, or less of any of the bajillion other things you need power to do. I think the proposed system models the Star Fleet Universe pretty well. Armour in the new system works pretty much the same way as shields do in SFB/FC/ACTA.
Wowzers! Been away from starship combat for a while, and this might just draw me back in. Like the direction of the new edition. Suprised Dan was willing to change the core multi-dice roll mechanic, buuuut I think "short n sweet" is the way to go. Simplifying movement is a BIG bonus. Love that the samples include a graphic of the ship (never underestimate the power of this.) Looks like it could easily be done on laminated cards (Starmada the CCG?)
What I was meaning is that we haven't found it useful to design ships with a thrust rating of much above six or seven, if any. It is entirely within the scope of the rules to accelerate and have a speed well above a ship's thrust rating. A ship may not perform any turns, however, as long as its current speed rating is above the ship's thrust rating.
Kevin
I'm aware of all that. What I was meaning is that usually, you avoid moving the ship at a speed above your engine rating, and if ever you do that, you never move at more than the double of your engine value. At least, that was what I did during my game. Better, I usually ended moving my ship at one or two point of engine less to take into account the possibility of engine damage and still be able to maneuver. So, I feel that usually, you can indicate that either you are moving up to your engin value, or up to twice (as in SFO).
No need to record the exact speed, you just have to chose each turn which speed you use (normal or fast i.e. more than your engine value).
Marc
No need to record the exact speed, you just have to chose each turn which speed you use (normal or fast i.e. more than your engine value).
In most cases, yes. However... If my thrust rating is reduced to 5 due to damage, it matters very much if my speed is 5 or 6.
Of course, you are right, but I was talking for simplicity sake. Of course, you could simply place a die or a marker to indicate the current speed.
Marc
Any hint about its name?
Marc
The SFU does have electronic warfare (ECM). Star Fleet Battles has extensive ECM rules. Federation Commander does not. I would not expect Star Fleet Armada to have "official" electronic warfare rules. The lack of power allocation in Starmada makes it difficult to model, because when you use ECM in SFB you have to give up something else, either movement or weapons fire, or less of any of the bajillion other things you need power to do. I think the proposed system models the Star Fleet Universe pretty well. Armour in the new system works pretty much the same way as shields do in SFB/FC/ACTA.
For me the ECM that is being portrayed for the new version of starmada is bigger than what you could do in SFB. Its more like what you are doing with a Holofield. Of course in the end its up to your interpretation of the rules as to what it simulates.
-Tim
Of course, you are right, but I was talking for simplicity sake. Of course, you could simply place a die or a marker to indicate the current speed.
Marc
Which is what we've been doing.
A d12 behind each ship marking speed has usually covered about every situation.
And most of the time even a smaller die would suffice.
From looking at the sample ship displays, it looks like the number of weapons is trimmed down. I assume it is for better fleet action. Is this the case? Will the 4 Photon Torpedos be trimmed down to a single weapon with a single die roll for firing it?
If this is the case, it will help fleet play and be a replacement for "Fleet Ops" but it will lose some of the tactical flexibility that the "larger" scale ships have.
From looking at the sample ship displays, it looks like the number of weapons is trimmed down. I assume it is for better fleet action. Is this the case? Will the 4 Photon Torpedos be trimmed down to a single weapon with a single die roll for firing it?
If this is the case, it will help fleet play and be a replacement for "Fleet Ops" but it will lose some of the tactical flexibility that the "larger" scale ships have.
I don't believe that'll be the case at all.
If you want to design ships with numerous weapon banks, you can still do that.
I believe there are also rules for splitting fire (meaning splitting dice) from one weapon bank at multiple targets in the same firing arc.
The primary difference you'll find between editions is that combat is simply resolved quicker.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → New edition of Starmada coming in January!
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.