Topic: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Looking around saw a thread about some players remarking about how they like the Compendium more so than X.
I can sympathize where they are coming from.
In an open ended system like X you can build any weapon your mind can come up with and your ship has space to mount (I personally love this aspect of the game).
Others in my gaming group though like "limitations" to an extent. That is, they liked that in the Compendium there were only so many types of weapons and options (specificaly weapons) to choose from. So there wasn't any real opportunity to create any uber combo's (I'm not saying the potential WASN'T there, it just wasn't as apparent).
  In this vein, with the war of the Boltians, we see the first of what I think is of great potential for MJ12, that is Campaign Settings where the weapons and tech for the races involved is already mapped out for you (A'la the Compendium races and ship sheets) and the other players.
  That said, it's time for you guys to weigh in with your thoughts on this.
Would you like to see campaign settings for the X universe with ships, weapons and tech levels set out? Or just weapons and tech levels set out with open ended ship design the players responsibility?
PS: If this is something that is already available, well,,,in the words of Rosanne Rosannadana, "Never mind".
Roy.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

First off, let me say that I would love to see (and would shell out money for) campaign books and background fluff for Starmada X. I first bought Starmada in 2004, looked it over and went back to Starfire, which my gaming group was heavily involved in at the time. After becoming fed up with Starfire in 2005, we began to look around for another campaign system, investigating VBAM. It was the VBAM/Starmada edition that got us looking back into Starmada. So we are really approaching Starmada from the campaign perspective and definitely like the campaign sourcebook idea. With the tech advancement rules already in place from the VBAM side it really makes for unique Starmada ships. I enjoy Starmada a lot and it is beginning to eat up a lot of my weekend time (much to my wife's dismay big_smile).

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

There's no such thing as "too open-ended" in a rules set for me, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy "setting" books if they were offered either.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

hundvig wrote:

There's no such thing as "too open-ended" in a rules set for me, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't buy "setting" books if they were offered either.

Yeah -- considering the open-endedness is the whole point of Starmada, I don't see the problem. But then, I wouldn't anyway... smile

Regarding "setting" books, I really believe that's the only place left for Starmada to go -- so I would think you'll see them sooner or later.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Ooh! Ooh! Dan! Pick me! I would love to write up a pure setting book!

But, with things like that, I tend to believe they are best done as collaborative projects (much as the BRIGADE Setting/Fluff was put together).

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

I'd be game to try and write a few up.... if and when I ever get a life again.

I'm working 6 day weeks, and about 12 hours a day or so.....

John

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Nahuris wrote:

I'd be game to try and write a few up.... if and when I ever get a life again.

I'm working 6 day weeks, and about 12 hours a day or so.....

John

Try working a 12 hour midshift in the wee hours of Saturday and Sunday, followed by 8 hours on Monday and Tuesday evening. Sometimes the energy DOES lag a bit. Not as many hours, but pretty deadly to my gaming hobby.

I've worked those long weeks in the past, and I know they aren't any fun at all.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Sounds like a potential follow-up project for Wardogs. wink  The space side of things...and some campaign-like scenario battles.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

cricket wrote:

Regarding "setting" books, I really believe that's the only place left for Starmada to go -- so I would think you'll see them sooner or later.

I vote for a fleshing out of the Imperial Starmada/Arcturan Federation/Donegal Alliance background first.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Hello Everyone from Jacksonville, Fla.

     Having played some of both versions, I have some thoughts on the Starmada Compendium game and the "X" version.  Now that I again play the earlier version of the game, I do miss being able to write about my designs, and such.  My friends here in Fla. & I may be among the few using the 'compendium rules.  I must confess, that I enjoy those compendium weapons such as the Antimatter Beams, Disrupters, & others a lot.  The unpredictability of these weapons' results is a lot of fun!     And allowing only laser cannons and a few other weapons shoot at fighters makes them less vulnerable to AA fire.  Also, I do like the way that Long Range Sensors lets you shoot out to 24 Inches.  It makes the battlefield larger, and also does not interfere with the {2+/3+/4+} to hit numbers, nor those that vary this: {strike missiles, scatter guns, energy lances, etc}.  I am also enjoying the combination of  Armored Batteries, Armor plating & Reinforced hull.   All of my 'compendium ships have all three of these. 
     Here is a possible home rule change for the compendium: In order to more simulate the damage chart of the newer "X" game in compendium games, we can make each weapon-hit, on a roll of 4 or 5,  hit a different battery:  For example, if the first weapon lost was in battery 3, the next needs to be in battery 2 or 1, then the next in 1 or 2,  the fourth back in battery 3, etc.  Overall, I find the 'compendium game easier & less cumbersome  to play.  These games seem to be quicker to play because of the smoother game mechanics.  For example, in Starmada "X", you have  to roll a dice for every hit if you have reinforced shields, reinforced hull, and armored batteries hoping for a 5 or 6.  In the earlier game, you just mark one slash on the hull point, shield, &/or weapon, then finish it into an "x" after the second hit on that system. Bad dice rolls in the "X" version can make the extra cost for either of the 3 just wasted points.  On compendium ships, having only every other hit cause damage, makes these special equipments reliable and useful. Finally, combining engines&hulls on compendium ships keeps a slow large ship from becoming engineless when it still has over half its hull and weapons left because they are combined, and because Armor plating and Reinforced hull protect both.. 
     If there was ever a "Next (?)Edition" [!] {gasp} <game designers groan> of the game, perhaps a combination of the best of both game versions could bring the smoothness of play the compendium has, as well as some of its fun weapons, with the greater detail that the "X" version has.  Or perhaps their could be a slightly more expensive form of Armored Batteries, Armored Hull and Reinforced Shields added to the "X" version that may cost more, but instead of only working on a roll of 5 or 6, they stop every other hit and there is No need to roll for every hit.
     If I am rambling or babbling, my apologies, {100% Blond here<LOL>}   0nce again, please do not take any of this as criticism directed at the makers of this awesome game.  You are Very Creative and have provided me with many hours of much fun  smile  smile  smile

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

BeowulfJB wrote:

<snip>.. in Starmada "X", you have  to roll a dice for every hit if you have reinforced shields, reinforced hull, and armored batteries hoping for a 5 or 6.  ...<snip>

If you do not like the die rolling just circle every third hull/shield/engine (whatever reinforced thingy) box before the game and declare that it takes two hits to destroy that box. Round as appropriate.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

japridemor wrote:
cricket wrote:

Regarding "setting" books, I really believe that's the only place left for Starmada to go -- so I would think you'll see them sooner or later.

I vote for a fleshing out of the Imperial Starmada/Arcturan Federation/Donegal Alliance background first.

I agree on this.  I'd love the chance to make a campaign setting for VBAM using the original Starmada races (like the popular: Stars Divided, The Terran Civil War book).   Heck, I'd love to just make a 'new' campaign setting for VBAM/Starmada anyway (just have to come up with some more original ideas and the okay from the makers, of course)...

-Bren

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

cricket wrote:

Regarding "setting" books, I really believe that's the only place left for Starmada to go -- so I would think you'll see them sooner or later.

So, what are the steps to writing such a supplement, legal wise; and to whom would it be submitted? To you Dan?

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

jygro wrote:

I agree on this.  I'd love the chance to make a campaign setting for VBAM using the original Starmada races (like the popular: Stars Divided, The Terran Civil War book).   Heck, I'd love to just make a 'new' campaign setting for VBAM/Starmada anyway (just have to come up with some more original ideas and the okay from the makers, of course)...
-Bren

That is a great idea Bren! I was actually planning to bother Dan about a campaign source book for the original setting at some point smile .

    -Jay

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Hell... I have been bugging Dan for some time to not only expand the original setting but allow me to help him develop a Role Playing Game around it as well...

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

I'd be happy to at least start writing a pure-setting supplement. I've got the basics--all I'd need is someone patient who can clear up my muddled notes and that can cope with a personality as stable as a bungee-jumper on a trampoline in an earthquake zone...

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Well I'd have to say that the open-endedness of Starmada X is the main reason I chose it over Full Thrust for Babylon 5 gaming.

I love both systems (and will probably use Full Thrust for Star Wars) but I found the multiple weapon options in Starmada more useful for coming up with different properties for the various Babylon 5 weapon systems.

I'd actually suggest a few more options - primarily options for indirect fire or area effect type weapons which the current system doesn't really do that well at the moment.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

KDLadage wrote:

Hell... I have been bugging Dan for some time to not only expand the original setting but allow me to help him develop a Role Playing Game around it as well...

Well, what I've been doing is trying to integrate Mekton Zeta with SX, myself. Mekton Zeta is a rather open system in and of itself, so I haven't had too much trouble.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

No VBAM, please, at least officially.

The setting books are a nice idea.  Have some ships designs, but also have a page for guidelines for designing ships for each race/nation/etc.  That way a player can make new ships belonging to the race/nation/etc with the same flavor(s) as the "official" ships.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

RiflemanIII wrote:
KDLadage wrote:

Hell... I have been bugging Dan for some time to not only expand the original setting but allow me to help him develop a Role Playing Game around it as well...

Well, what I've been doing is trying to integrate Mekton Zeta with SX, myself. Mekton Zeta is a rather open system in and of itself, so I haven't had too much trouble.

Always liked Mekton Zeta, very versatile system once the tech book came out.  Sadly under appreciated these days if you ask me.  It could use better balance in it's point system, but then that's one thing Starmada does well, isn't it?

Rich

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

japridemor wrote:
cricket wrote:

Regarding "setting" books, I really believe that's the only place left for Starmada to go -- so I would think you'll see them sooner or later.

I vote for a fleshing out of the Imperial Starmada/Arcturan Federation/Donegal Alliance background first.

excellent idea. The original races have been the best.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

GamingGlen wrote:

No VBAM, please, at least officially.

The setting books are a nice idea.  Have some ships designs, but also have a page for guidelines for designing ships for each race/nation/etc.  That way a player can make new ships belonging to the race/nation/etc with the same flavor(s) as the "official" ships.

Thats very good. You can additional include a series of battle scenarios and a very simple basic campaign system (could be even simpler than sovereign stars) to each book. Then you name it Starmada Campaign Book 1: Arcturian Federations Cry for Freedom. (or so smile)

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

Hello everyone,

In the Starmada Compendium, in sec [A.2.1], in the second paragraph (on page 20), there is the line
"...although ships with more than 12 hull points should be quite rare..."  Is this idea also in Starmada "X"?  Should ships with 13 hull and greater be rare in Starmada "X" games?  For the Starmada Compendium games we play, I have reduced all  but 2 of my ships to hull size 12 and smaller.  It wasn't easy...
(I had to join the support group: LHA = Large Hull Anonymous <LOL>)
I will admit, that I can still make my ships have the stuff I want on them.  And they are less expensive...

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

BeowulfJB wrote:

Should ships with 13 hull and greater be rare in Starmada "X" games?

Well from a campaign point of view, they are VERY expensive and kind of uneconomical for the firepower that you get. In my experiance, they are rare but a few get built as flagships due to their high command rating (not Starmada related). I very rarely have any ships over 12 hull.

Re: Starmada X. Too open ended???

BeowulfJB wrote:

Should ships with 13 hull and greater be rare in Starmada "X" games?

Well from a campaign point of view, they are VERY expensive and kind of uneconomical for the firepower that you get. In my experiance, they are rare but a few get built as flagships due to their high command rating (not Starmada related). I very rarely have any ships over 12 hull.