Ok, well I posted well after everyone else had.  That's what I get for trying to make a fancy pic.  Thanks Dan for the correction!

I think the problem is that realistic solar sailing is very boring because you can only accelerate directly away from the sun.  Since there is no ether to push against, reaching is not possible.  While this is a very fuel efficient way to change your orbit, in tactical situations it is not very useful. 

Perhaps make solar wind sailing require etheric movement?

Damn, was hoping I influenced the rules in some way...:(

ECM looks pretty promising; it's basically just a negative shift on the 'gunnery table' for each weapon...  You're not going to get the same effect against lances and fighters that you do in BFG, but against most battery weapons, a couple points of ECM is a non-terrible simulation.

Also, Cricket, I'd argue that sometimes different movement rules for different fleets would provide an advantage.  In AE, at least, Naval Movement is strictly better than Basic Movement, for example, since it allows more turns without any loss of function (unless maybe you're not allowed to move in reverse?  I forget...  it's been a while).  Solar vs Normal looks pretty entertaining, though.

I have to say Nova Edition is turning into a dream for Eldar players - ECM as a main defense - stealth with a rating - solar movement!  All you need to do now is to come up with a negative ship trait where they have a penalty to the damage threshold rolls (i.e. to simulate how they were critically hit more easily in gothic).

Nomad - I think you'd have to be careful as to what movement modes you allowed - I don't think any two just work together - but solar seems to be fairly balanced with the basic movement. 

I've seen some other systems that allow you to purchase different drive types that simulate different physics models.  In those systems the ones that are clearly superior cost more/take more space or whatever.

Etheric seems a bit balanced, because while it doesn't allow you to reach the same breakneck speeds of the basic movement - it gives you some free breaking so keep things under control a bit better.

-Tim

Did I forget to mention the "fragile systems" ship trait? My bad...

Damn swanky!

I'm sure there's plenty of ways to build those the old-fashioned way.   8-)

They have been removed -- at least from the core rules. See below.

This is true, so long as the ship doesn't change its velocity or direction of travel, which would require it to pivot accordingly, and then "re"-pivot back to the desired facing.

I have removed the "pivot" option for now, because I thought it was inelegant. I am open to suggestions.

I would not miss pivots at all.

Regarding optional rules. What I like about Starmada is that there are only a few core rules and lots of optional rules. Usually I take a fat yellow marker and do mark the optional rules I want to use ingame, after printing out the whole pdf. I would prefer only to print out the rules I marked, but this is not possible because often there are rules I like and dislike on the same pdf page.

So my question to Dan: Is it possible to release a special pdf where each single optional rule chapter is layouted on a seperate page? So one can buy the "classic-one-sausage" version and/or such a segmented special version? Or has someone an idea for another solution for this (admittedly rather small) problem?

Instead of "armour plating" there is "armour" as a major ship defense.  This was a necessary change because of the way damage is now being allocated (i.e. there are only damage rolls after certain thresholds not for each point inflicted).  But definitely armour is still there and IMHO better than before (mostly because you now can have a little armour or a lot of armour).

Our group never used pivots - probably because we were a bit intimidated by the calculations and order writing required to use the vectored movement system in AE.  Now that vectored movement is easier to execute, I could see some of us dabbling with pivots - but it wouldn't be a disappointment for us if it wasn't included.

-Tim

I suspect the difference will be in what weapon traits there are that counter the defenses. 

Its by design that their effectivnesses are equivalent though - much easier to assign a point value to them.  Overall your choice of defense(s) should be based on what the background for the race/faction you are designing or emulating is - or perhaps you just like a particular game mechanic - but I think its correct to essentially have all the defenses be on equal footing.

-Tim