I'd think against it. ACB-jacketing means more or less "transporting" the phaser beam. I don't see this for pulse phasers...
I'd think against it. ACB-jacketing means more or less "transporting" the phaser beam. I don't see this for pulse phasers...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Expanded Spacecraft Operations, a 100+ page sourcebook for CODA Trek
Unofficially, I'd say no. I'll do a little research and make a recommendation in my errata to Jesse.Originally posted by ImperialOne
Can I have both together?
It doesn't expressly forbid it in Starships, but I remember that Spacedock does specifically forbid this.
Hi everyone. I "think" I've answered all the big questions thus far. I'm still reverse-engineering a few ships. I've also compiled a list of corrections and errata to submit to Jesse and Doug. Once those are approved by TPTB I'm sure they'll be made available.
Keep any questions you have coming; I'll try to help out in any way.
So, um, Don, did you just miss my questions (top of page 6) or are you still formulating a response?
-Chris Landmark
"Was entstanden ist, das muss vergehen. Was vergangen, auferstehn." -Klopstock & Mahler
"Only liberals really think. Only liberals are intellectual. Only liberals understand the needs of their fellows." How much viciousness lay concealed in that word! Odrade thought. How much secret ego demanding to feel superior. - Heretics of Dune
Do you know how soon we'll expect it...not to sound impatientOriginally posted by Don Mappin
Hi everyone. I "think" I've answered all the big questions thus far. I'm still reverse-engineering a few ships. I've also compiled a list of corrections and errata to submit to Jesse and Doug. Once those are approved by TPTB I'm sure they'll be made available.
Keep any questions you have coming; I'll try to help out in any way.
BTW, what do you mean by reverse engineering the ships?
It was suggested to move my questions here...
What's the difference between an IF (indirect Fire) Torpedo and a DF (direct fire) Torpedo?
What is the reasoning behind using OV and then using a sliding scale for penetration instead of say a
chart where OV is the damage rating and/or a separate chart for range?
I guess I'm dense, but the weapons system doesn't make sense too me.
Flash
Flavor text. See Starship Spotter.Originally posted by Flash
What's the difference between an IF (indirect Fire) Torpedo and a DF (direct fire) Torpedo?Because that's the way the system works. The foundation is that we abstract the number of weapons array and calculate the overall amount of firepower a vessel is able to bring to bear. That determines what the vessel can do in combat (penetration charts). How we get there (through weapon systems) becomes immaterial.What is the reasoning behind using OV and then using a sliding scale for penetration instead of say a chart where OV is the damage rating and/or a separate chart for range?
There are multiple threads on this topic and the concepts behind the starship combat core mechanic.
Doug: Any chance of getting this into a FAQ? I'm getting tired of reiterating whats already in the book.
Rebuild to make sure their values are correct, they're "legal" (or at least real close), and spot any errors -- like the multiple propulsion reliability ratings on several ships.Originally posted by Space_Cadet
BTW, what do you mean by reverse engineering the ships?
When allocating personal picks for starship advancement: Do the player characters need to have the 5 picks at the time of advancement or can they save the points until they have what is needed for upgrades.
Don,
I understand that is how combat works. It is hard to adjust to for me because I'm used to powering up individual weapons and plotting movement accordingly. I guess abstractness in this case drives me nuts. I guess the OV value to me should be like the damage rating.
You guys went into a new direction in starship design and combat. That's fine and I except that. I do appreciate the ease in Starship construction. I just prefer power allowcation and a map.
Flash
Congrats Don on the book.
I have been toying for awhile now with a Romulan-based Delta Quadrant game and having finally picked up Starships I was amused to note that the Warbird Zokoras was missing, last position the Badlands.
Is this just a piece of flavor text or is there an episode that comments upon the loss of the Zokoras? If there is an episode could someone please supply me with the title?
Regards,
CKV.
then may I suggest Starmada or Full Thrust as wargame replacements? Both can easily be modified for Star Trek, especially Starmada.. I just prefer power allowcation and a map.
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?
Davy Jones
"Frightened? My dear, you are looking at a man who has laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe! I was petrified."
-- The Wizard of Oz
Snake,
Star Fleet battles allays work for me. FASA also had the Roleplaying and power allocation. I'm also getting interesting in Spacedock because unlike SFB you can create ships, but is far more complex ship wise than SFB. I do prefer sublight battles though. If I can create rules to use some aspects of SFB I will.
While it is unfortunate that SFB is confined to STTOS and animated series, they did make the best of it. In some ways the are running out of gas.
Starships does have a great weapons list. I applaud it. It has a great timescale for the equipment. I just want power allocation. It adds a new demension to combat. I realise it is designed for the roleplayer. That's fine. I can make almost any SFB ship into Starships.
I guess what really hurts Star Trek is inconsistency. While Cannon can be limited to on screen. Paramount did authorize all the novels and most of book info in print. Franz Josef's TM has one set of ideas in print and now Starship Spotter has new stats. It is enough to drive one nuts. Before someone else can say it... I know it is my game and I can do what I want. That is the beauty of Roleplaying games. (oh by the way, who owns FASA starship designs and are they public domain so to speak?)
So, I do like Starships construction for quick use. I do prefer a little more depth though. I did look at the other systems in the past like Full Thrust, they just weren't exactly what I was looking for, but thanks for pointing them out.
What is Starmada?
Flash
-they are IMVHO.While it is unfortunate that SFB is confined to STTOS and animated series, they did make the best of it. In some ways the are running out of gas.
-amen to thatI guess what really hurts Star Trek is inconsistency. While Cannon can be limited to on screen. Paramount did authorize all the novels and most of book info in print. Franz Josef's TM has one set of ideas in print and now Starship Spotter has new stats. It is enough to drive one nuts.
-Starmada, very much like Full Thrust, is a generic tactical space combat game at the small fleet level. Hence there is no power allocation. By contrast SFB is a starship duel-level game, where a single player will hardly be able to control efficiently more than one ship. That is why the level of details on individual ships is toned down in Starmada- the focus is on how you use different kinds of ships together. You can build your own ships and customize the rules as you see fit. Starmada, because of its very starightforward mechanics, lends itself very well to Star Trek conversions, to the point where I suspect the creator had ST in mind when he designed Starmada. But if you didn't like FT forget Starmada.What is Starmada?