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 → Starmada X. Too open ended???
I think of hull 12 ships as heavy cruisers, so obviously I'd say they're quite common. At least on my table...:D
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...
The "prohibition" against hull 13+ ships was just the last vestige of my attempts to rein in "hull creep". It failed. 
There is nothing wrong with larger ships -- the combat rating evaluates them fine. I just happen not to like really big ships.
I've always viewed it on economy... few space empires have the funds and shipyards to put out hordes of huge battleships..
In addition, with almost no exceptions.... most militaries tend to evaluate a situation, and use just enough resources to handle the situation. That's the criteria that I use to design my fleets, ect.
John
Hello everyone!
Cricket recently wrote:
"The "prohibition" against hull 13+ ships was just the last vestige of my attempts to rein in "hull creep". It failed. " .
I understand what you mean, and am following your view. In the Starmada Compendium games that I have played, I find that large (hull13+), fast ships are Not Cost-effective. My ships of 12 hull have Armor plating, and reinforced hull. This combination means that they can take c36 hull hits before they are destroyed. In the games we have played, so far here in Jacksonville, the moderate size of my ships has made them more cost-effective. Although to fit all this into a 12 hull, these smaller "Battleships" are Tech +6 (!). But, it works! <LOL>
The game we played here last Sunday was with 1800 points on a side, with my side escorting a convoy and the other side pirates who mostly had cloaking devices. Although one large escort of my ally's was destroyed, the attacking "Pirates" were ravaged. The survivors cloaked and fled. The pirate players are gonna try using Energy Leaches and larger amounts of Marine Boarding Pods to deal with the convoy. This Sunday's game will be very interesting...
Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA
Hmmm.
I'm using Starmada X, and primarily for Babylon 5, using both ships seen on the show and those added to the canon by AoG.
I'm finding that most of the races main-line ships (the ones seen most often on the show) are coming into the 14-16 range. It's not a conscious decision on my part to make them that size, but in setting them up with the capabilities they have to match their capabilities in the show and (to a lesser degree) the B5W stats they seem to naturally be coming out that way.
For instance my stats for the Narn heavy cruiser (G'Quan class) comes out at 15 or 16. Their destroyers/light cruisers are coming in the 8-10 range and their smallest ships in the 2 to 5. Their Dreadnought (not seen on the show) is right at 20 (the max size allowed in the SXCA).
I imagine a typical battle group at the size I'm going to be playing will have two of the heavy cruisers supported/escorted by an assortment of the smaller ships.
I think SX is versatile enough that the exact size of the ships doesn't matter as much as logical fleet composition.
And reading back comments in more detail reveal that most of the comments had to do with the Starmada Compendium.
I have no experience with that version of the rules - did the hull size range vary?
For my B5W conversions, I took the B5W Ramming Factor divided by 25 to average out the Hull for the Starmada versions of the ships. That put most small ships in B5W as Hull 2 Starmada ships, and the cruisers generally fell into the 12-14 Hull range.
I did modify the EA hull values downward, as I modeled their resilience not through Hull but through a gradiated series of PDS systems that represent the ships' Interceptors.
-Tyrel
For my B5W conversions, I took the B5W Ramming Factor divided by 25 to average out the Hull for the Starmada versions of the ships. That put most small ships in B5W as Hull 2 Starmada ships, and the cruisers generally fell into the 12-14 Hull range.
I did use the size of the ships in B5W as a rough guideline in my conversion, but I didn't follow it as closely as this. It was more like X is bigger than Y is bigger than Z. I was trying to give B5 (the series) more weight than B5W the game, because even though I liked B5W I didn't agree with all of their interpretations. Additionally Starmada simply isn't detailed enough to fully convert the different B5W weapons stats so rather than try I went for general feel.
My method was to outfit the ships that were seen on the show in a manner that would give them capabilities roughly equal to what was seen on the show and then make them whatever size they would need to be to meet those capabilities. Starting with Narn and Centauri I got a G'Quan at 16 and a Primus at 14. I then extrapolated the stats for the AoG designs based roughly on a combination of their B5W stats and how they should compare to their (mostly) bigger brothers.
I also kept the existing "Shield" rules in place exactly as they were except I'm using them to represent protection gained by armor instead of an electronic shielding type system. There are a few weapon abilities that don't really make sense under this paradigm (Shield Resonant) and I simply don't use them.
I did modify the EA hull values downward, as I modeled their resilience not through Hull but through a gradiated series of PDS systems that represent the ships' Interceptors.
I went with a combination of hull size and armor (shields in SX) to represent this. Most of my EA ships also have the standard SX PDS system as well.
Joe
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Starmada X. Too open ended???
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.