SFU Unity

The Universal Game of Starship Combat
mj12games
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: SFU Unity

Postby mj12games » Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:51 pm

The SFU conversions are all based upon Federation Commander, not Star Fleet Battles. FC does not have Scouts, so there are no immediate plans to replicate them in Starmada.

(That's not a "no", just a "not yet".)
Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
www.mj12games.com

futabachan
Midshipman
Midshipman
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:27 am

Re: SFU Unity

Postby futabachan » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:19 pm

Eventually, I'd love to see non-FC things show up in SFU SUE: Scouts, non-Hydran carriers, possibly even PFs. Starmada feels like you could use F&E as a campaign system for it (which is way too time-intensive to do in SFB), and filling in the gaps for at least the unexpanded base game would be nice.

KDLadage
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:48 am

Re: SFU Unity

Postby KDLadage » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:28 pm

futabachan wrote:Eventually, I'd love to see non-FC things show up in SFU SUE: Scouts, non-Hydran carriers, possibly even PFs. Starmada feels like you could use F&E as a campaign system for it (which is way too time-intensive to do in SFB), and filling in the gaps for at least the unexpanded base game would be nice.

Yes. That right there.

mj12games
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: SFU Unity

Postby mj12games » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:33 pm

FWIW, here's the final ship list for the updated Klingon Armada. Shouldn't be any surprises in here.
Attachments
18119412_10155431238857871_4989176480516465874_n.png
18119412_10155431238857871_4989176480516465874_n.png (168.15 KiB) Viewed 717 times
Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
www.mj12games.com

MRCAcct
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:18 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: SFU Unity

Postby MRCAcct » Sat Jun 03, 2017 4:25 am

mj12games wrote:Preview of the "Weapons" tab on the Starmada Drydock construction tool.


I was looking at this again and noticed a couple of things that don't quite make sense:

Plasma F & Plasma G - for the PP requirements (which I'm assuming is a new SFU specific rule) it doesn't make sense for the Plasma G to cost less than the Plasma F; the F is the weaker torpedo.

Plasma F DMG - doesn't appear to be consistent. ROF 2 DMG 3 is rather on par with the Plasma G ROF 3 DMG 2 (okay, the math might suggest that the G is slightly stronger). ROF 2 DMG 2 perhaps?

I know that this is kinda late in the game, but at least you're not done any Plasma ships yet.

Also, was wondering why Phasers weren't Range-Based ROF (AE)/Diffuse (NE)/Scatter (Unity, logical progression?).

ericphillips
Sub-Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:38 am

Re: SFU Unity

Postby ericphillips » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:39 pm

mj12games wrote:Preview of the "Weapons" tab on the Starmada Drydock construction tool.


On first glance, IMO, shouldn't the PH-3 have the pinpoint trait?

mj12games
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: SFU Unity

Postby mj12games » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:50 pm

MRCAcct wrote:Plasma F & Plasma G - for the PP requirements (which I'm assuming is a new SFU specific rule) it doesn't make sense for the Plasma G to cost less than the Plasma F; the F is the weaker torpedo.

PP costs are the "extra" power required at the time of firing. I am assuming ships are automatically providing the non-firing-turn power as needed. Thus, the G-torp (2-2-3) requires 1 extra PP, while the F-torp (1-1-3) requires 2.

Plasma F DMG - doesn't appear to be consistent. ROF 2 DMG 3 is rather on par with the Plasma G ROF 3 DMG 2 (okay, the math might suggest that the G is slightly stronger). ROF 2 DMG 2 perhaps?

The ROF dictates how many turns the torp is on the board, as the Evaporating (Evp) trait removes one marker per turn. Both the G- and F-torps begin with the same damage potential, but the F-torp is weakened more quickly.

Also, was wondering why Phasers weren't Range-Based ROF (AE)/Diffuse (NE)/Scatter (Unity, logical progression?).

Because phasers were way too powerful at close range in those previous editions.
Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
www.mj12games.com

mj12games
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: SFU Unity

Postby mj12games » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:52 pm

ericphillips wrote:On first glance, IMO, shouldn't the PH-3 have the pinpoint trait?

In previous editions, Phaser-3s had the pinpoint trait to reflect their anti-drone role. However, now all phasers now have the Defensive (Dfn) trait.
Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
www.mj12games.com

MRCAcct
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:18 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: SFU Unity

Postby MRCAcct » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:32 am

mj12games wrote:PP costs are the "extra" power required at the time of firing. I am assuming ships are automatically providing the non-firing-turn power as needed. Thus, the G-torp (2-2-3) requires 1 extra PP, while the F-torp (1-1-3) requires 2.


*drags up almost forgotten SFB rules, grabs math degree just to be safe* Ah yes, now I see your logic in this.

The ROF dictates how many turns the torp is on the board, as the Evaporating (Evp) trait removes one marker per turn. Both the G- and F-torps begin with the same damage potential, but the F-torp is weakened more quickly.


Ah, so that's what Evp is. I thought it was Enveloping; things make more sense now.

Because phasers were way too powerful at close range in those previous editions.


Fair enough. Still, I (personally) think that Phasers could have been changed a little, namely making the Ph-2 ACC 4+ say? (Dunno about the FC background, but I recall that in the SFB background the real difference between the Ph-2 and the Ph-1 was more an issue of fire control than power; same mount, same power requirements [except for the Andros].) And/or maybe making the Ph-1/2/3 Ranges 12/9/3 or 9/9/3 (with Ph-2 definitely being ACC 4+, or diffuse maybe).

Then again, I'm a rules lawyer with a bad literal streak. :)

mj12games
Admiral of the Fleet
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:56 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Contact:

Re: SFU Unity

Postby mj12games » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:42 pm

Yes, the Phaser-2 could be range 9 with ACC 4+ and still generally fit the SFB/FC damage curve, but I opted for range 6 and 3+ for consistency (all phasers 3+, 9/6/3 ranges).
Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
www.mj12games.com


Return to “Starmada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest