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 → Designer's Notes: Attack Dice
Similar question to Stealth - is Fire Control going to continue to exist? Negate a negative column shift from anything other than the bank arc modifier, maybe?
Similar question to Stealth - is Fire Control going to continue to exist?
Yes.
Here is an idea: Change the name of "Fire Control" to "Advanced Fire Control", Since all ships have fire control, the advanced version of this should have a different name. :idea:
Here is an idea: Rename "Fire Control" "Advanced Fire Control", Since all ships have fire control, the advanced version of this should have a different name. :idea:
How do you know?
Might be some poor ... sitting on a barrel going "Left, Left, a bit more..." 
My poor Anteatman gunners just stick their backsides out and hope for the best!
Paul
<RLOL> 
BeowulfJB wrote:Here is an idea: Rename "Fire Control" "Advanced Fire Control", Since all ships have fire control, the advanced version of this should have a different name. :idea:
How do you know?
Might be some poor ... sitting on a barrel going "Left, Left, a bit more..."
My poor Anteatman gunners just stick their backsides out and hope for the best!Paul
The other example that springs to mind is the Orks from 40k... not much for the aiming, those ones.
Not sure I like this new system, I enjoy making individual weapons.
I think Starmada AE is very intuitive, and seems logical.
Roll to hit...
Roll to penetrate shield/armor..
Roll damage.... seems realistic at this level of play.
Yes you roll your bucket of dice a few times but it goes pretty quick. Only when assigning damage to each location does it slow down but you are only playing with a few ships each not huge fleets.
When making a rules system for fewer ships the more detailed the system needs to be. Look at Star Fleet Battles a great systems for ship to ship duels VERY detailed. The more ships you add for each player to control the less detailed the game systems needs to be. Take Fed. Com. each players can or usually controls 2-3 ships, then you have game systems like Starmada and Full Thrust, that handle between 3-6+ depending your players and time alloted. Then you have SFO that can handle a dozen plus comfortably
This new system seems to be geared toward larger fleet battles thats not what I am looking for in Starmada. I like SFO or Starfire for the bigger battles.........
Not sure I like this new system, I enjoy making individual weapons.
I think Starmada AE is very intuitive, and seems logical.
Roll to hit...
Roll to penetrate shield/armor..
Roll damage.... seems realistic at this level of play.
Yes you roll your bucket of dice a few times but it goes pretty quick. Only when assigning damage to each location does it slow down but you are only playing with a few ships each not huge fleets.
When making a rules system for fewer ships the more detailed the system needs to be. Look at Star Fleet Battles a great systems for ship to ship duels VERY detailed. The more ships you add for each player to control the less detailed the game systems needs to be. Take Fed. Com. each players can or usually controls 2-3 ships, then you have game systems like Starmada and Full Thrust, that handle between 3-6+ depending your players and time alloted. Then you have SFO that can handle a dozen plus comfortably
This new system seems to be geared toward larger fleet battles thats not what I am looking for in Starmada. I like SFO or Starfire for the bigger battles.........
S III may or may not float your boat. I've been using the combat system, which originated in GF way back when, for a few years now. But the one complaint I usually heard was that it was rather dice intensive. It was the dice intensity I was trying to dial back when I started dinking around with the dice columns, and hoping to come up with a decent combat resolution with one set of dice rolls. Well, when I had come up with something that worked, Dan tweaked the numbers in a way that only he can do, and we then had a more consistent and logic based system.
And you know what?
Dan found that a lot of S:AE could be ported over with not too much tweaking and bazinga!!!
A new system was possible.
The movement system is a joy to use, with no plotting even required for the vector movement system.
Combat is alternating fire and is a breeze, with combat from one ship being resolved in typically ten to fifteen seconds.
So Inari7 at first glance it might not look like it's going to get the job done for you, but I'd urge you to give it try. ONce you get some designs pumped out with Dan's easy peasy shipyard, you'll start seeing the advantages of giving it a shot.
Not sure I like this new system, I enjoy making individual weapons.
Individual weapons are still represented. For example, one bank of four weapons firing into the forward-extended arc, one bank of two weapons firing into each of the forward-port and forward-starboard arcs, and one bank of one weapon firing aft would be represented as follows: [FX2][FP4][FS4][AA6]
(Heck, if you're really intent on it, you can delcare each individual weapon is a separate "bank" -- in this case, the arc displays would change to [FX6][FX6][FX6][FX6][FP6][FP6][FS6][FS6][AA6]. However, this is ugly, you lose granularity, and since there is a rule allowing you to split a bank's fire between two or more targets, there's really no reason for it.)
What's happened is an extension of Starmada's "effect over cause" philosophy. It doesn't matter whether that forward-extended bank represents a single large weapon or a cluster of smaller weapons -- what matters is the bank's ability to bring firepower to bear. Thus, the attack dice...
Anything you can do/have done in Starmada to this point is still possible.
However, the means by which you determine hits/damage is more streamlined. Also (and this was the biggest selling point for me) it is more consistent. As stated earlier, in SAE (and previous editions) a +1 modifier did not have a consistent effect, resulting in a 50% increase in overall firepower on a 5+ weapon and a 25% increase on a 3+ weapon. Now, +1 means the same regardless of other factors.
On a philosophical note, I don't agree with the premise that "When making a rules system for fewer ships the more detailed the system needs to be." Sure -- the fewer units on the board, the more detail/crunchiness one CAN add to the system; but that's different than MUST. If the same (or reasonably similar) effect can be achieved with a more efficient game mechanic, there's no reason not to use it, particularly if it means the same system can be used for 2-3 ships per side or 20+ ships per side.
While the original Starmada is quite directly in its approach to combat, (roll to hit and then roll for damage) the new combined system seems more abstracted. I am not sure if i like the new system but i surely will try it.
Please allow me 2 questions:
Is there still simultaneous movement plotting in the new starmada?
What is about the damage, once you achieved a hit? Will you first cross out the shield boxes and then the hull boxes?
I don't agree with the premise that "When making a rules system for fewer ships the more detailed the system needs to be." Sure -- the fewer units on the board, the more detail/crunchiness one CAN add to the system; but that's different than MUST.
Maybe I should not have said MUST, but for a SUCCESSFUL one-on-one starship combat game I think you should have ALOT of detail such as Federation Commander, squadron strike, Attack Vector Tactical or SFB.
How many people use Starmada for one-on-one starship duels?
Probably not many, I am not saying you cannot play games like that, but at Starmada's SCALE (3+ ships per player) the game is not as interesting as AVT, or Star Fleet Battles.
I think with this edition of Starmada you are changing the "Scale" of the of the game.
BTW I am not saying in any case whether this is good or bad game, I am just saying that I think the "scale" is changing to a game closer to "A Call to Arms" or SFO in the amount of ships used.
It doesn't matter whether that forward-extended bank represents a single large weapon or a cluster of smaller weapons -- what matters is the bank's ability to bring firepower to bear. Thus, the attack dice...
Thats what I am talking about, It does not matter mathematically it's true, but when I make a weapon that has a ROF 3 and a IMP of 2, fluff wise this means that my weapon is "Rapid firing and is armor pincering, or another weapon with a ROF 1 and DAM3 this is a big weapon that fires slower and does alot of damage. In Starmada III this might (probably not) have the same stat number.
You are abstracting the weapons, this is fine for fleet battle games, but Starmada I thought of being a more detailed game.
While the original Starmada is quite directly in its approach to combat, (roll to hit and then roll for damage) the new combined system seems more abstracted. I am not sure if i like the new system but i surely will try it.
Please allow me 2 questions:
Is there still simultaneous movement plotting in the new starmada?
What is about the damage, once you achieved a hit? Will you first cross out the shield boxes and then the hull boxes?
From the copy I got, no, simultaneous movement is being replaced by initiative movement. Of course, Dan knows my thoughts on such a movement option, and I don't mind saying that I often find it a turn-off if games have initiative-style movement rules. I know that some prefer them to simultaneous movement, but I'm not one of them.
With regards to 'shield' boxes for SFU, which I assume are armour boxes in normal Starmada: TFE, yes, you'd cross out shield, then hull.
Maybe I should not have said MUST, but for a SUCCESSFUL one-on-one starship combat game
In my vocabulary, "to be successful" translates to "must".
I'll say it again: there is no loss of detail in weapon design (or nearly so; as of this moment, there's no way to differentiate between IMP and DMG -- but that could easily change). It's just that once you've designed your weapons, and arranged them into banks, the manner in which they are represented on the ship display changes.
An example:
(SAE)
Pulse Cannons -- RNG 9 / ROF 2 / ACC 5+ / IMP 1 / DMG 2
[AB] [AC] [AC] [BD] [BD]
(New Edition)
Pulse Cannons -- ARCS [FF4][FP2][FS2] / RNG 3-6-9 / ATTACK DICE 10-7-5-4-3-2-1-1-1 (Dx2)
I think with this edition of Starmada you are changing the "Scale" of the of the game.
IMHO, you are over-estimating the amount of abstraction going on, or at least misidentifying where the abstraction is happening. (Frankly, I had expected more gnashing of teeth over the loss of the damage location roll than anything else.)
Look at what's happening: you're determining the appropriate number of dice (1), and then making a to-hit roll (2). If you score hits, and the target has shields, you must confirm these hits (3). Finally, the appropriate number of damage boxes are checked off of the target's display (4).
With SAE, you're determining the appropriate number of dice (1), and then making a to-hit roll (2). If you score hits, and the target has shields, you must confirm these hits (3). Finally, the appropriate number of damage boxes are rolled for damage location (4), and the results checked off of the target's display (5).
What are the real differences?
First, the number of attack dice is more fluid. Instead of always rolling 9 dice for a bank of three ROF-3 weapons, you might now roll anywhere from 1 to 12 dice. In other words, instead of altering the target number, you are altering the number of dice rolled. (If you want to simulate a more accurate weapon, there's a trait for that.)
Second, the option (not requirement) exists to eliminate one roll of the dice by concentrating ship defenses into armor and ECM, thus removing the shield roll.
Third, a roll of the dice (often two rolls, when you consider the weapon damage chart) to determine the effect of each specific hit has been replaced by system checks at 1/3 and 2/3 damage.
Thats what I am talking about, It does not matter mathematically it's true, but when I make a weapon that has a ROF 3 and a IMP of 2, fluff wise this means that my weapon is "Rapid firing and is armor pincering, or another weapon with a ROF 1 and DAM3 this is a big weapon that fires slower and does alot of damage. In Starmada III this might (probably not) have the same stat number.
"Starmada III"? By my count, this is at least "Starmada VIII". 
The ability to differentiate between high-ROF, low-damage weapons and low-ROF, high-damage weapons remains. I'll say it again: there is nothing you can do with the SAE weapon construction rules that won't be reflected in the new system. (Even the IMP vs. DMG differentiation will probably remain when all is said and done.)
Is there still simultaneous movement plotting in the new starmada?
As noted by others, the existing demo rules work on an initiative/alternating movement model; however, this may change. Even if it doesn't, the option for simultaneous movement would still exist.
What is about the damage, once you achieved a hit? Will you first cross out the shield boxes and then the hull boxes?
No. Shields will work as they always have. There is a new option for ship defenses, armor, that would work in the way you describe.
I'd vote for an initiative system myself. But going with one and providing an option for the other, either way, seems like a good route to go.
Dan,
On the ROF/IMP/DMG vs Attack dice argument I feel you miss the point. Yes in every measurable way you are correct. The attack die method is no less varied and will be quicker. However the old system allowed us to easily 'hook' our imagination into the game, when rolling larger numbers of ROF die we could 'see' the Defiant's gatling phasers firing, when rolling lots of IMP we could 'see' the Shadows cutting beam slicing through our ship, just as the control panels in engineering exploded when the DMG dice were being rolled. The fact that all these various die rolls might actually ended up with the same result did not matter. Yes all the attack die statistically give no different a result and the effects will be fast to play but our imagination will need to work that much harder ...
and to cap does Santa know you've postponed Christmas until January? 
Dan,
On the ROF/IMP/DMG vs Attack dice argument I feel you miss the point [...] Yes all the attack die statistically give no different a result and the effects will be fast to play but our imagination will need to work that much harder ...
All I can do is refer to you the post above, where I outline the attack process in SAE vs. the process in the new system. The differences are NOT what you all are latching on to:
There is still an attack roll.
There is still an impact roll (if the target has shields).
There is, however, no longer a damage roll -- instead, the effects of are deferred to the 1/3 and 2/3 damage points.
and to cap does Santa know you've postponed Christmas until January?
I have a signed consent form.
(Heck, if you're really intent on it, you can delcare each individual weapon is a separate "bank" -- in this case, the arc displays would change to [FX6][FX6][FX6][FX6][FP6][FP6][FS6][FS6][AA6]. However, this is ugly, you lose granularity, and since there is a rule allowing you to split a bank's fire between two or more targets, there's really no reason for it.)
One thing that could help us 'understand' the ship we are using is to indicate how many weapons there are per banks. I know it could clutter the weapon banks description but looking at the ship sample sheets from SFU, I fail to see what they represent in reality.
That's one of the things that c ould help us visualize what we are firing.
What's happened is an extension of Starmada's "effect over cause" philosophy. It doesn't matter whether that forward-extended bank represents a single large weapon or a cluster of smaller weapons -- what matters is the bank's ability to bring firepower to bear. Thus, the attack dice...
As I said, I (and maybe 'we') need to feel the weapons we are firing. If a bunch a high rof weapons let us roll the same number of dice than a big cannon, I fear we lose part of the game. Dice rolling intensity has never been a problem with me and my friends. The movement rule has, being a bit too complicated for its worth.
Oh, and if something can be done in order to make fighters cheaper (and thus more numerous), more the better!
Marc
One thing that could help us 'understand' the ship we are using is to indicate how many weapons there are per banks. I know it could clutter the weapon banks description but looking at the ship sample sheets from SFU, I fail to see what they represent in reality.
I'm not sure how to do this without making things less, instead of more, clear. For example, "[PB5][SB5][AP3][AS3]" tells you what you need to know (the port/starboard broadside banks have a -5 modifier, the aft-port and aft-starboard banks have a -3 modifier). If you add in the number of weapons -- like this: "[1xPB5][1xSB5][2xAP3][2xAP3]" -- not only does the display get more cluttered for the sake of useless information (the presence of two weapons in each of the aft banks is already reflected in the arc modifiers) but you risk players wondering if this means there are two of each bank, or whether those banks can be fired twice.
cricket wrote:It doesn't matter whether that forward-extended bank represents a single large weapon or a cluster of smaller weapons -- what matters is the bank's ability to bring firepower to bear. Thus, the attack dice...
As I said, I (and maybe 'we') need to feel the weapons we are firing. If a bunch a high rof weapons let us roll the same number of dice than a big cannon
Okay, this was probably an unfortunate thing for me to have said. I was trying to explain that the arc modifier is relative, not an absolute, but I ended up implying something else.
Let me say, once again, that THERE WILL BE A DIFFERENCE between multiple high-ROF weapons and a single high-damage weapon.
What I'm asking players to do is accept a paradigm shift in which what matters is not the number of individual weapons firing into a given arc, but the relative strength of the entire "bank". In this way, yes, there is a certain degree of abstraction. However, 90% of the time, if you've got 4 forward-firing torpedoes, these were going to fire at the same target, anyway. (For the other 10%, you can use the "split fire" rule.)
Oh, and if something can be done in order to make fighters cheaper (and thus more numerous), more the better!
We'll see.
Oh, and if something can be done in order to make fighters cheaper (and thus more numerous), more the better!
Marc
/mutters
Bloody fighter jocks, whats the matter with a big-gun battleship anyway...:P
Bloody fighter jocks, whats the matter with a big-gun battleship anyway...:P
Hear, hear!
If you add in the number of weapons -- like this: "[1xPB5][1xSB5][2xAP3][2xAP3]" -- not only does the display get more cluttered for the sake of useless information (the presence of two weapons in each of the aft banks is already reflected in the arc modifiers) but you risk players wondering if this means there are two of each bank, or whether those banks can be fired twice.
Totally agreed. Maybe some designer notes could answer that. Not necessarily for all ships. In the above example, you can explain that PB 5 means one phaser I, AP 3 means two of them, etc.
Marc
murtalianconfederacy wrote:Bloody fighter jocks, whats the matter with a big-gun battleship anyway...:P
Hear, hear!
Carriers make juicy targets!
Marc
Totally agreed. Maybe some designer notes could answer that. Not necessarily for all ships. In the above example, you can explain that PB 5 means one phaser I, AP 3 means two of them, etc.
And herein lies the paradigm shift.
[PB5] doesn't mean "one Phaser-2 firing PB"; it means "the PB bank contains roughly 18% of the total firepower of this battery." If a battery consists of six weapons, [PB5] indicates a single weapon; however, if a battery has 10 weapons, [PB5] indicates two weapons; and so on.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Designer's Notes: Attack Dice
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.