Printable View
If you have never done so, check out the mod of the Fleet Action rules system (made by Agents of Gaming for its Babylon 5 Starship Combat game).
It can, in and of itself, be modified for more of a detailed ship to ship game akin to the Babylon 5 Wars rules set (also by AOG).
Check the mod out, including the pdf of a lot of TNG ships:
http://www.robertshome.org/trek/
SP,
Well, I guess FT wasn't so bad, I didn't get a real good look at. The rules seemed difficult to get used to. Also, money for a new system....
Starmada seems interesting. I never had trouble running a fleet myself in SFB. I found it interesting.
I knew when SFB added the Omega Sector SFB was running out of gas. When they pretty much have refused the fans the sublight rules and 2X ships, and they have pretty much exhausted every starship combo imaginable.... and really nothing new in years.... they are running out of gas.
If I understand right, combat stats represent how much firepower you can theoretically bring to bear at one time, not max firepower for the ship.
I'm wondering... If you figure max effective range of phasers at 300,000km and torpedoes at 3,500,000km (might have to rethink range/ penetration), I'm thinking a hex max might be possible for Starships. OV being Damage. Penenetration value, just that, does it penetrate defenses. Then, use indiviual arrays or weapon with arcs. (weapon stats for the individual arrays, Banks, or individual weapons) Shouldn't be hard.... I wonder how it would work out.
ImperialOne,
Unfortunately AOG went out of business.
I'm afraid, with these combat ideas I'm having for Starships, I'm going to have to right a netbook.
I'm thinking right now that I with use Starships for basic use. SFB as intermediary, and Spacedock for advance rules. Solves alot of problems.
By the way, Franz Josef Designs ships will take presidence in my campaign ove Starship Spotter.
Oh, I almost forgot...
Don,
What exactly does the space cost of a warp engine represent? the engine room, warp reactor, etc. it seems too small to represent nacelles.
Bump. Don, please look 7 posts up (my last post)...I'd like to get a clarification on that, if you please.
Thanks!
Davy
While we wait for Don to answer this question, as a suggestion here is how I would handle it:Quote:
Originally posted by Sea Tyger
Don --
A question concerning mixed torpedo launchers and quantum torpedoes presented itself today.
Say my ship has two Mk 95 DF launchers and four Mk 50 DF launchers (total OV = 44). This would yield a penetration of 7/7/7/7/7.
Now, since the ship is able to fire Quantum Torps with its 95s, would the quantum torp penetration be based solely on the OV of the Mk 95s, or of the total OV of all torpedo launchers?
Mk95 x2 have an OV of 20, giving you a Penetration of 5/5/5/5/5 for only those missiles. If you add quantum torpedoes to the launcher you get 6/6/6/6/6. The lowest OV to give you the same Penetration without the Q-torp edge would be 25.
Now take that as the "effective OV" of the two Mk 95s and add the 24 OV from the Mk 50 (x4) and check the regular photon penetration for this OV (59), giving you a total missile penetration of 8/8/8/8/8 instead of 7/7/7/7/7 without the quantum torpedoes.
How does that sound to you?
BTW, YES I have a copy of Starships as of today. Take cover while you still can. :D
Okay, before I start on my own designs I want to be 100% certain I get this edge/flaw just right.Quote:
Originally posted by Don Mappin
Prototype is the most complex piece of "Starships"......
Essentially, you take your base system and you're shifting 'rows.' Up or down has no meaning; the result of the shift--making an item better or worse--is what we're interested in.
......
If it improves a system its a positive shift. If its detrimental to the system its a negative shift.It moves along the chart.
Let's take deflector shields as an example and let's say that my design has the FSQ-1A system installed. So if up and down don't matter in determining if a prototype is an edge or a flaw, but only the good or bad effect I could change the protection to the rating 17 of the FSQ (one row below the FSQ-1A) for 2 spaces.
I could then further do a "one row positive shift" for the maximum threshold, again using the FSQ, giving me a max threshold of 4 for another 2 spaces - even if the Prototype table (1.25) says I can't shift down (-0), as this would be in effect an edge, for which I can do a single column shift (table says: +1)
Is this correct?
I hope it is. Having a 17/2 (BB) deflector on a size 2 craft for 7 spaces would be nice. ;)
Of course, that would be the same as taking the total penetration of all torps and cross referencing the q-torp penetration. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Now take that as the "effective OV" of the two Mk 95s and add the 24 OV from the Mk 50 (x4) and check the regular photon penetration for this OV (59), giving you a total missile penetration of 8/8/8/8/8 instead of 7/7/7/7/7 without the quantum torpedoes.
I'm personally thinking that it's probably the latter, just for ease of math and play...although it certainly allows for greater abuse of the system.
*begin gushing*I'm perched on the edge of my seat for my copy of Starships to arrive by mail. Everything I've read so far has sounded very encouraging, and I'm very much looking forward to this book. *end gushing*
Whilst flipping through my NG to brush up on starship construction, a nagging question popped up, and I didn't see an answer in the NG or after using the search to go through old threads...I'm hoping someone here can answer it.
Q: Why isn't there a Type IV Missile Weapon? I was wondering if this is covered in Starships, or if I'm overlooking something in the NG.
Okay, let's start off by thanking Don for providing us with the awesome book that is Starships (bowing humbly before greatness :) ).
Now, the questions:
1) The Akira class states it has Mk 80 torpedo launchers times 6. Table 1.16 states an OV of 8 per launcher (8 times 6 is 48 OV). Table 1.18 indicates an OV of 48 has a photon penetration of 8/8/8/8/8 and a quantum penetration of 9/9/9/9/9. Why does the listing for the class state a quantum penetration of 8/8/8/8/8? Would the error be with one of the charts or the class listing itself?
2) Where does the ACB jacket idea come from? I had assumed it was the Prometheus class since in that episode we see the Prometheus split into three and take out a Nebula class vessel at warp, but the Prometheus is not listed as having ACB jacketting. Am I missing something?
3) On page 10 of The Narrator's Guide, the book brings up the fuzzy pink elephant from the LUG version of the game called Engage! Now, if memory serves, there was some type of disc system involved when Engage! was actually released, however when I read about it during LUG and in the NG, I had visions of a variant of FASA's starship combat simulator dancing through my head. Does Engage! exist or is it just a twinkle in the eye of the Decipher Star Trek gods? ;)
Red Alert! was the disk game. According to Matt Colville and other Decipher posters on these boards, Engage is in the pipeline from Decipher but it will be a long while yet.
1) Typo...someone probably just replaced the quantum damage with standard torpedo damage in a weak moment. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Scott M. Macek
Okay, let's start off by thanking Don for providing us with the awesome book that is Starships (bowing humbly before greatness :) ).
Now, the questions:
(snip)
2) I believe ACB Jacketing was something that came out of Trekdom in the 80s (out of some fan-based material). I know that the "Ships of the Star Fleet" book of 1991-2 included a technical discussion of ACB jacketing. Since one of the sources for the Starships book was the Starship Spotter (which contains a lot of fandom information), it makes sense that ACB jacketing would be included.
Remember that while the class itself may not have ACB jacketing as an edge, individual ships of the class may have it instead (especially when you consider the starship experience rules). So, the Prometheus herself may have added ACB jacketing to her phaser system independent of the class.
3) Greg is correct. Red Alert! is the FFG-produced disk game for Star Trek (the game continues on under the name "Armada," set in a new universe). Engage was planned, but never produced, for Icon, and Decipher intends to revisit the game at some later date. :)
Actually, ACB jacketing was also explained in the DS9 Tech Manual (and I believe mentioned on the show as well during the Dominion War). If nothing else, it served as an excuse for being able to use phasers at warp speeds...Quote:
Originally posted by Sea Tyger
2) I believe ACB Jacketing was something that came out of Trekdom in the 80s (out of some fan-based material). I know that the "Ships of the Star Fleet" book of 1991-2 included a technical discussion of ACB jacketing. Since one of the sources for the Starships book was the Starship Spotter (which contains a lot of fandom information), it makes sense that ACB jacketing would be included.
First off good job on "Starships" to all. Overall I'm happy with the book although I do spot some problems here and there and wish there were more ships from the Trek universe.
I have noticed a graphical error with the Galor class on pages 152-153 though. That picture is a Galor with a modified super struture on its dorsal section making the graphic that of the Keldon class as correctly displayed for that class on pages 156-157.
The Dominion Warship or Battle Cruiser if you will has the graphic of the huge prototype Battleship which is 1285m seen in the DS9 episode where the USS Valiant is destroyed. Consequently the information on the list "Ships in Service" for Battlecruiser 59 is erroroneous. Also Dominion vessels do use torpedoes. There is no listing for the prototype Battleship in "Starships" amongst other ships as well (like the Miranda class, New Orleans, Steamrunner, Norway, Sabre, Oberth, Olympic, Cardassian Hideki etc.) I assume those ships may be presented in future publications though.
same feeling here- they spent too much space with redundant information on each ship entry. They could have trimmed that down and squeeze in a few additional designs. OTOH you can find tons of home-brewed ships on the boards.Quote:
wish there were more ships from the Trek universe.
Yep. How hard would it have been to correct that? Not only that but they also assuemd that the JH Battlecruiser and the JH Battleship were the same ship. They did the same mix-up with the Romulan scoutship from TNG and the Romulan shuttle from DS9.Quote:
I have noticed a graphical error with the Galor class on pages 152-153 though. That picture is a Galor with a modified super struture on its dorsal section making the graphic that of the Keldon class as correctly displayed for that class on pages 156-157.
yep they do. So do the Cardassians. But my theory is that they use torpedoes very sparingly (the Cardassians because they're resources poor and the JH because they use vast fleets of small beam-armed attack crafts). For JH or Cardassian ships with torpedoes I use the Federation (or Klingon) tables in Starship.Quote:
Also Dominion vessels do use torpedoes.
The Miranda, Steamrunner, Saber and Oberth are in th Starfleet Ops Manual (SOM). Those designs have also been posted on the boards and updated with Starship. There are also 'local' designs for the Norway, the Olympic and the Hideki.Quote:
like the Miranda class, New Orleans, Steamrunner, Norway, Sabre, Oberth, Olympic, Cardassian Hideki etc.)