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: weapon conversion example
Ooh, a cunning plan...:P
I am curious, one the larger Naval-style BBs I use (HMS Valiant) has this as its main weapon:
"15 Inch Plasma Cannon" 6/12/18, 1/3+/1/4 The weapon traits are Piercing +2 & Starship exclusive.
The ship has four mounts: [abcd] [abcd] [cdef] [cdef] These are the heavy weapons
What would they be when converted to Starmada 2012?
the Secondary/AA weapons are "4.5 Inch Laser Cannon" 6/12/18, 1/3+/1/1 No weapon traits.
This battery has Five mounts: [abcd] [abcd] [abcd] [cdef] [cdef]
This is an odd # of mounts...
The Valiant has Speed/thrust 4, shields 4, 18 hull, with Fire Control, armor plating, some marines & teleporters. Its CV is c620.
I like this new system and find it clever and facinating. 8-)
Assuming I did the conversions correctly...
I am curious, one the larger Naval-style BBs I use (HMS Valiant) has this as its main weapon:
"15 Inch Plasma Cannon" 6/12/18, 1/3+/1/4 The weapon traits are Piercing +2 & Starship exclusive.
The ship has four mounts: [abcd] [abcd] [cdef] [cdef]
6/12/18, [FX2][AX2](Prc), 8-6-4-3-2-1-1-1-1
the Secondary/AA weapons are "4.5 Inch Laser Cannon" 6/12/18, 1/3+/1/1 No weapon traits.
This battery has Five mounts: [abcd] [abcd] [abcd] [cdef] [cdef]
This is an odd # of mounts...
6/12/18, [FX1][AX3], 5-4-3-2-1-1-1
Since the mains are "symmetrical," they have the same arc mod of -2.
You could also get very close to the same effect by halving the dice in the starting column and eliminate the -2 mods.
Because the secondaries are non-symmetrical, they have the -1, -3 mods for fore and aft.
But again, in the initial design you could simply reduce the dice in the initial column accordingly, and go with 0, -2 arcs, and have nearly the same effect. Once you all start playing with the designs, you'll see that it's possible to simplify things somewhat to reduce the number of arc mods.
Reducing the number of arc mods streamlines combat resolution even further.
Kevin
This is great. Math teacher here. :geek: I completely understand the numbers and how they are done. Kewl!
One use of the secondary/AA battery is to shoot at fighters, strikers, seekers, etc. This Valiant could shoot down up to five of them in the SAE version. How will this work in the Starmada 2012 version? How would AA be handled?
BTW, I presume (prc) means piercing. How would that work in the new game?
How will this work in the Starmada 2012 version? How would AA be handled?
BTW, I presume (prc) means piercing. How would that work in the new game?
Again... gotta save something. 
Kewl! I look forward to the release of Starmada 2012
cricket wrote:I've gotta save SOMETHING for the rulebook, right?
You know what Cricket, if you just post the complete rules with detailed examples and full color graphics, it would make it easier for everyone here to decide if they like the system and if they want to buy it!
Erik
They do that for boardgames and I still buy the game so I'd still buy the book from Dan...
What does that say about me?
-Bren
We're all gonna buy the book, but we're just like little puppies who want to tear it from his hands before he's done with it! 
Question on firing arcs:
I have been wondering for a while if it's not time to start "weighting" arcs based on their usefulness -- setting up the point-costing system such that the A and B arcs are worth 3 points, C and D are worth 2 points, and E and F are worth 1 point.
This would mean that a weapon in the [AB] arc would be 120% as expensive as the same weapon in the [AC] arc, and three times the cost of the same weapon in the [EF] arc.
Thoughts?
Dan,
Yes I agree, some arcs are more useful than others. This concept is actually in Defiance for vehicle weapon arcs. We had a problem with "G" arc spamming in our last campaign. It was just too efficient - it let people pack way too many forward firing weapons on a ship.
I don't have specific point value recommendations, but I think in general more forward firing arcs should be more expensive, side arcs should be neutral and back arcs cheaper. I also think that you should get a slight discount for multiple arcs. A 360 weapon should be a viable option (again from defiance).
-Tim
I agree with Tim.
I believe arcs in the direction of travel are more valuable.
Just how much, I don't know, but you're suggestion is probably as good a place to start as any.
Weighting the forward arcs would probably also reduce, to some degree, the big dice, forward only weapons we've seen in our playtests.
Kevin
Ah, and then come the ships that travel stuck in reverse!
Paul
Nope. Its hard enough designing the ships by hand as it is...:(
Nope. Its hard enough designing the ships by hand as it is...
Not sure it would make things any more difficult. It's just a question of putting together a chart, like this:
[AB] ..... x2.27
[AC], [BD] ..... x2.00
etc.
The most useful arc is that in which the enemy lies at any given time.
In other cases it could be the C and D arcs as in the HH universe where there are no forward weapons.
Tough call but someone somewhere won't be happy.
Paul
The thing about port/broadside weapons is that you have to duplicate them (unless you're gonna play NASCAR ships, always turning left. ). With the forward arc, you can load up on a single bank of weapons.
Will you still continue to use the usual letters (A, B, ...G, H,..) or, as can be seen in ship sheet samples, abreviations of 'zones' (FH for front half, etc.)?
We are used to the former and it was IMHO simple enough. I'm not against a new arc designation method, but I'm thinking about my opponents. They could be disoriented with this, unless a graphic is created (and I know I'll do it).
Marc
In order to reduce "clutter" on the ship display, we're moving to two-letter abbreviations for all arcs.
FP = Forward-Port (old AC)
FS = Forward-Stbd (old BD)
AH = Aft Half (old JKL)
etc.
Question on firing arcs:
I have been wondering for a while if it's not time to start "weighting" arcs based on their usefulness -- setting up the point-costing system such that the A and B arcs are worth 3 points, C and D are worth 2 points, and E and F are worth 1 point.
This would mean that a weapon in the [AB] arc would be 120% as expensive as the same weapon in the [AC] arc, and three times the cost of the same weapon in the [EF] arc.
Thoughts?
From a game-play perspective I can see the justification for this, but I would be opposed to it on the grounds that it seems that ships should have the greatest firepower concentrated as much as possible. There is plenty of really good science fiction evidence ( ) to back up the notion of massed forward firepower.
I think the real problem is that so many games of Starmada are played with opposing forces arrayed head on, meeting-engagement style, no matter the scenario. Maybe the answer is to mix up the scenario generation a bit to introduce some randomization of headings and placements.
I have no idea how to mechanically accomplish it, but I think that if something like that was introduced and Player X builds his battlewagon around a Supermegamondo-gun, he runs the risk of starting the scenario with Player Y on his port quarter out of arc or worse yet on his six. Historically speaking and even taking Sci-fi as our lead, there are many many examples of ships (or even fighter aircraft if you want to use air combat as somewhat analogous) either stumbling upon each other or otherwise in a less than perfect aspect at the opening of an engagement...and then speed and maneuver become important along with the raw firepower you mount. Just a thought.
Erik
murtalianconfederacy wrote:Nope. Its hard enough designing the ships by hand as it is...
Not sure it would make things any more difficult. It's just a question of putting together a chart, like this:
[AB] ..... x2.27
[AC], [BD] ..... x2.00etc.
Seeing as the arcs as they are now are standardised, I can divide the SUs by the weapon SU of a weapon to get the number of (arcs+weapons) I can have. For instance, wih a 9SU weapon, if I have 162SU remaining, I can fit 18 (arcs+weapons) into that space, which works out as six two-arc weapons. With the weighting of the arcs to penalise forward weapons, it would involve a lot more number-crunching.
Faux Edit: Re-reading your statement, it seems as if the ORat would be affected, not the actual SU cost. In which case, my main objection would disappear, although it would be obviously advantageous to play Spathi rather than Klingon...;)
I'd suggest maybe a penalisation for vessels that mount the majority or totality of their weapons forward, but not for every forward-firing weapon.
There is definitely something to be said that weapons in the arc of travel are a lot easier to bring to bear and might need some modifier. I couldn't even begin to tell you what that is.
On the other hand in a vector movement system a fleet showing in the aft of my ships isn't much of an issue as with sailing ships since at low speeds, I can just turn about relatively quickly. A single turn is probably the most issue. Now if it was a stern chase and my ships needed to make it off board, then there's something there...
-B
I still have my copy of the Starmada Compendium game. It seems that the Starmada 2012 game (Starmada Task Force) will be using the terminology for the various weapon arcs that Starmada Compendium uses. My friends and I used that version of the game for a long time before finally moving to These arcs are not too difficult to get used to. If you print them out and place these into a plastic sheet protector, it makes an easy player aid. :ugeek:
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → New edition: weapon conversion example
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
