Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
Foxphoenix135
Shrew
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:08 am

Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Foxphoenix135 » Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:43 am

DISCLAIMER- I have not playtested these rules, thought through my actions, or considered the ramifications of this post. Use at your own risk :P

INTRODUCTION:
These rules are not designed for balance. They are designed to give players a way to have fun and memorable games, and to be able to use whatever models they may have available. With these rules, it is possible for players to use their starship models from other games using the Noble Armada rule set. This is also great for resolving starship combat in futuristic RPG settings. I have broken the process down into a number of steps, detailed below:

1) Choose Hull Type
2) Choose Speed/Maneuvering
3) Choose Hull Points, Damage, and Shields
4) Choose Troop Capacity
5) Choose Components and Traits
6) Choose Crew Quality

Once these steps have been taken, the ship should be ready for use in the game. Again, these designs will not be balanced, so no system for figuring points-values will be provided here.

STEP 1: CHOOSE HULL TYPE
The first step you must undertake when designing your ship for Noble Armada is to select the ship’s hull type. This will determine the ship’s access to a number of components, attributes, and so on. The available hull types are-

Raider (AKA Explorer or Scout)
Frigate
Galliot
Destroyer
Light Carrier
Cruiser
Heavy Carrier
Dreadnought


The table below outlines the minimum and maximum values for each hull type’s attributes (min-max, when only one value is given, assume that it is the maximum):

(Apologies for the frelled up copy/paste table)

SHIP TYPE (SPEED) TURNS (HP) SHIELDS (TROOPS) RAMMING (DAMAGE)
Raider (8-16) 2/45 - 2/90 (3-4) 2-3 (1-2) 1-2 (9/3 - 12/4)
Frigate (8-12) 1/45 - 2/45 (4) 3 (6-9) 2 (18/6)
Galliot (12-16) 2/45 - 2/90 (4) 3 (10) 3 (21/7)
Destroyer (8-12) 1/45 - 2/45 (5) 4 (8-10) 4-5 (30/10)
Light Carrier (8) 1/45 - 2/45 (4) 4 (6) 4 (30/10)
Cruiser (8) 1/45 (5) 4 (10-12) 6 (42/14)
Heavy Carrier (4-8) 1/45 (4) 6 (12) 8 (75/25)
Dreadnought (4-8) 1/45 (5) 6 (16-18) 9 (75/25)


STEP 2: CHOOSE SPEED / MANEUVERING
Once you have selected your hull type, refer to the hull chart. You may then choose a speed for your vessel, as long as it is equal to or between the maximum and minimum values listed. Furthermore, it has to be an even integer (8, 10, 12, etc.).
Once the speed of the vessel has been determined, the turning ability can be chosen. Most vessels have two values listed; you may use either the first or the second value.

STEP 3: CHOOSE HULL POINTS, DAMAGE, AND SHIELDS
Most vessels only have one value for Hull Points and Shields. For these vessels, you may choose to add or subtract one point from the value to fit the theme of the ship. For example, if you wanted to depict a light cruiser, you could subtract a hull point from the listed number for cruisers. For Damage, if two values are listed, you may select either value.

STEP 4: CHOOSE TROOP CAPACITY
When choosing a troop capacity for the vessel, denote which quality of troop is carried on the ship.

STEP 5: CHOOSE COMPONENTS AND TRAITS
This is the most complicated and involved part of the ship design process. Some components are only available for a limited selection of hull types. Furthermore, many hull types have a limited amount of hardpoints for weapon mountings. Each hull type may have up to the following number of weapons:

Raiders- 1 Grapple Gun (F) -or- 2 Grapple Guns (P, S) and 1 AD Light Weapon (One each arc)
Frigate- 1 Grapple Gun (F) -or- 2 Grapple Guns (P, S) and 8-10 AD of Light Weapons (Any Arc)
Galliot- 5 Grapple Guns (1F, 2P, 2S) and 12 AD of Light Weapons (Any Arc)
Destroyer- 1 Grapple Gun (F) and 18 AD of Light to Medium Weapons (Max 4 AD in the Turret)
Light Carrier- 1 Grapple Gun (F) and 10 AD of Light to Medium Weapons (Max 4 AD in the Turret)
Cruiser- 4 Grapple Guns (2P, 2S) and 6 AD of Heavy Weapon (T), 20 AD of Light to Medium Weapon (P,S)
Heavy Carrier- 4 Grapple Guns (2P, 2S) and 20 AD of Medium to Heavy Weapons (P, S, T)
Dreadnought- 4 Grapple Guns (2P, 2S) and 24 AD of Medium to Heavy Weapons (P, S, T)

Carriers and Light Carriers may have Attack Craft. Light carriers may have up to 8 Craft with Carrier 2, while Heavy Carriers may have up to 16 Craft with Carrier 6.

Dreadnoughts and Carriers of either type automatically have the Lumbering special rule. Some cruisers may also have this rule, if they are especially heavily armed or armored.

Dreadnoughts, Cruisers, and Carriers of either type may also have the Thinking Machine special rule, as well as Command +1 or +2.

Raiders may have the Agile and Scout special rules.

Destroyers may sacrifice 6AD of their weaponry to take the Stealth +4 ability. Frigates may take this ability without sacrificing firepower.


(Omitted to protect Mongoose IP, but Rockets are considered Light, Gremlin Guns Medium, and Tractor Beams are also considered Medium weapons)

*Meson Weaponry can only be mounted on Dreadnoughts
** Rocket weapons may have 2AD for every 1AD allowed by its hull type. For example, a Raider hull type may have 2 AD of rockets, rather than the usual maximum of 1 AD of light weaponry.

STEP 6: CHOOSE CREW QUALITY
As per the normal rules!

CONCLUSION:
Most of this is rough draft at best, so please just view this as a fun diversion if you have miniatures lying around from other Void-Navy tabletop games. I like to think of it as a compliment to Mongoose on their solid and fun set of starship rules! Make up some basic stats for some ships, and roll some dice, see how it plays out! This quick-and-dirty set of design rules is not for power-gamers or munchkins, because it is VERY easily abused. Casual and friendly games only!

Given enough feedback, perhaps the community could help me to polish and refine this into a complete set of design rules. To that end, I invite these rules to be freely shared, perverted, and twisted to your own ends. Thanks for taking a look!

--Foxphoenix
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:24 pm

This is relevant to my interest. I have tried something similar with a fleet from Bergstrom to fill in for one of minor houses. I would appreciate a critique. They are based off of what the mini looks like compared to my NA minis. The particle shotgun was meant to give them a unique weapon, which mostly acts as a point defense weapon. Not sure how it plays out yet.

Glaive class Frigate 100 points

SPEED: 14
TURN: 2/45
HULL: 4
SHIELDS: 3
DAMAGE: 21/7
RAM: 3
TROOP: 7
CRAFT: NONE
TRAITS: Scout

WEAPON _______________RANGE___ARC___AD___SPECIAL

Grapple Gun x2 F

Missile Launchers 28 F 3 Guided, Slow
Light Lasers 24 P 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 S 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise

AEGIS CLASS DESTROYER 150 points

SPEED: 12
TURN: 2/45
HULL: 4
SHIELDS: 3
DAMAGE: 30/10
RAM: 3
TROOP: 9
CRAFT: NONE
TRAITS: ESCORT

WEAPON _______________RANGE___ARC___AD___SPECIAL

Grapple Gun x2 F
Particle Shotgun 6 T 4 Weak
Particle Shotgun 6 T 4 Weak
Light Lasers 24 P 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 S 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise

Gladius class Light Cruiser 250 points (?)

SPEED: 10
TURN: 1/45
HULL: 4
SHIELDS: 4
DAMAGE: 36/10
RAM: 4
TROOP: 10
CRAFT: NONE
TRAITS: NONE

WEAPON _______________RANGE___ARC___AD___SPECIAL

Grapple Gun x2 F
Missile Launchers 28 F 3 Guided, Slow
Missile Launchers 28 F 3 Guided, Slow
Light Lasers 24 T 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 T 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 P 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 S 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise


Spatha class Cruiser 400 points

SPEED: 6
TURN: 1/45
HULL: 5
SHIELDS: 4
DAMAGE: 41/14
RAM: 6
TROOP: 12
CRAFT: NONE
TRAITS: Lumbering

WEAPON _______________RANGE___ARC___AD___SPECIAL

Grapple Gun x2 F
Missile Launchers 28 F 3 Guided, Slow
Missile Launchers 28 F 3 Guided, Slow
Light Lasers 24 T 4 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 T 4 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 P 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 S 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise

Scutum class Carrier 450 points

SPEED: 4
TURN: 1/45
HULL: 5
SHIELDS: 6
DAMAGE: 51/14
RAM: 6
TROOP: 12
CRAFT: 12
TRAITS: Lumbering, Carrier 3, Command+1, Escort

WEAPON _______________RANGE___ARC___AD___SPECIAL

Grapple Gun x2 F
Missile Launchers 28 F 3 Guided, Slow
Missile Launchers 28 F 3 Guided, Slow
Light Lasers 24 T 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 T 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 P 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Light Lasers 24 S 2 Accurate, Burn-out, Precise
Particle Shotgun 6 F 4 Weak
Particle Shotgun 6 F 4 Weak
Particle Shotgun 6 P 4 Weak
Particle Shotgun 6 S 4 Weak
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:34 pm

The fighters I have all 3 types, but have played much with them yet. Sorry I couldn't load pics but they are here. I was using Terran fleet.

http://studiobergstrom.com/index.php?categoryID=87
Allerka
Mongoose
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Allerka » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:21 pm

I could see this being pretty easily adapted to Star Fleet as well, just replacing all the weapons. Good job!
Foxphoenix135
Shrew
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Foxphoenix135 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:27 pm

Allerka wrote:I could see this being pretty easily adapted to Star Fleet as well, just replacing all the weapons. Good job!
Thanks! Eventually, I might try to use it to calculate a points-buy system of some sort to bring it in-line with the other fleets as much as possible. Ideally, it would make custom fleets just slightly more expensive than standard fleets to prevent abuse, but allow for players to adapt whatever miniatures they have lying around without having to switch to different game system.

Let it be said though, that I have both the Hawkwood and Decados fleets and love them both. I looked into this game because it had the best models (IMO) at the best price, and I later learned, with the best ruleset.
Allerka
Mongoose
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Allerka » Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:12 am

Sounds like the old Vehicle Design Rules for 40K. Custom vehicles, but more expensive to prevent excuse. Those went a little too far, though, I think. A slightly customized vehicle, say a tank with a different weapon its turret, would wind up costing nearly twice as much as a standard variant, and just wouldn't be worth it at that cost. I would say a cost of 10-15% more than the standard, maybe 20% at the upper end, should do the trick. Even just that will definitely show up in larger-scale games, when even just an extra 20 points per ship will start to take its toll on your numbers.
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:46 pm

Thought I would bump this threadgiven the way ACTA: NA went.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3062
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby locarno24 » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:59 am

Interesting.

I must say that since it was mentioned in the thread below, the idea of a more-or-less open design system for ACTA is tempting.

If anything, I feel it'd be nice to see it built on the space station rules (with a core hull and modules), just with engine modules and manouvre modules added into the rules, plus noble-armada style boarding actions (because that's one of my favourite things in the system).

Having 'module' blocks on the hull - weapons modules, armour modules, etc, etc, also gives you a leg-up on an issue that ACTA has had (and largely solved) over its history: critical hits. If the ship's systems are divvied up into blocks that you can damage or start escalating criticals on (one of the best bits of SF/NA), all you need is a random table to determine which module gets hit by a critical, and the ship design rules will do the rest; you get a critical 'table' which is unique to your custom ship. If it's a 2D6 table, you even get a bit of designer's intelligence, by figuring out which modules you're prepared to make vulnerable ('7' slot), and which you want to be protected ('2' and '12' slots).

So a ship with its weapons in a big turret might put its manouvre drives in '7', because losing them is an annoyance but not catastrophic, whilst a ship with a much bigger, fixed-forward battery would be paranoid about losing the ability to turn and would put its manouvre drive module in '2'

I dunno. It sort of ends up partway between traveller ship design and ACTA, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If I've got some pre-printed cards (for speed, I've been a fan of such things all the way back to man'o'war) then my 'ship design' could be something like:

Hull: Raider. Gives me X hit points, Y basic manouvrability and Z hull value inherent to the hull, and a fixed number of module spaces (let's say 3, which was the size of a patrol-priority Way Station in P&P), and I pick from a list of existing modules to make a ship that feels like the concept I'm after.

Module 1: Manouvre Drive Module - gives me X extra hit points and reduces my Turn score by a bit. (I think the 'turn' stat used in SFB was a very good mechanic). I could stick with the 'basic' manouvrability, but I want a small ship to be quite agile. This doesn't exist in the P&P rules, but is about all that's missing (aside from rules updates)

Module 2: Missile Rack Module - A fixed missile rack, giving me long range hitting power in one arc of my choice. I could take a missile turret module, which fires any which way, but I'd get less attack dice.

Module 3: I could take a second Missile Rack module, giving a matched pair of broadsides (note: I'd put a limit into the 'core hull' about how many weapons modules could be fixed on the same facing), but something defensive seems better. Either an Armour Module or a Point Defence Module (or shields, but I'm trying for a B5/BSG feel). Deciding that not getting hit in the first place sounds better, especially since I should be staying at range, I go for the Point Defence module, giving me more interceptor dice to shoot incoming seeker missiles/drones/gunfire/etc.

The resulting ship is agile if not fast, and hard to engage with its long reach and ability to shoot down incoming fire (at least, until you concentrate enough fire to overwhelm its defences).

Instead, I could have taken an Engine Module, Armour Module and Barracks Module - resulting in a literally unarmed, fast, tough ship whose sole purpose is to speed in, grapple and deliver a whacking great wodge of troops onto bigger ships than it - essentially a Noble Armada style galliot.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:46 am

locarno24, thank you, this is exactly the type of creative ideas I was hoping for. The module idea is pretty cool. I would be very interested to see where this train of thought goes. My own attempts at ship design involves eyeballing the miniature, and putting in what "feels" right. This has made balance and assigning point value difficult. I really like your ideas a lot.
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:21 pm

I dont have P&P, so I have never seen those design rules. Now in the original Holistic game each class of ship was its own size class. So a Wayfinder was a class 3. A Reaper was a class 4. I was thinking you could either let each class size have X number of modules, or you could say that each class size could have so much "mass" of options (sort of like Full Thrust). A light laser in a 90 degree arc would be x, in a turret y. so on and so forth. In theory things would be more or less balanced, though I realize it could (and would) be open to a certain level of abuse. In real life it would just boil down to mutual consent between players.
locarno24
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3062
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:46 pm
Location: Wildly Variable

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby locarno24 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:30 pm

Which is why I'd suggest introducing modules gradually.

If the B5 version of ACTA had a key flaw in balance*, it's that Mongoose released the whole range of fleets at once. That was...what? fifty-to-a-hundred ships at once? I know the playtesters were nowhere near as slapdash as they often got (quite brusquely and unfairly) accused of being, but no-one can realistically playtest all the combinations of ship at once, and invariably one ship that didn't get enough attention would slip through the net and turn out to be horrific.

I'm more a fan of the modules, just because I'd rather assemble a ship out of a 'hull' and three 'modules' rather than spend half an hour trying to spend every last point of space. The priority system in B5 ACTA made fleet selection a lot faster - it had issues but those were to do with it being an exponential system, not a linear one.

The idea that "yes, this ship might be worth 205 points and this one is only worth 195, but seriously guys, get a grip, we're scaling the whole thing down by 100 and calling both of them 2 points" seemed nice and simple to me.

Stations varied from a patrol priority Way Station (about 40 damage and 3 modules) up to the war priority star fortress, at 16 times the value, with 250 hit points and 24 modules.

Note that the difference in statlines is even more than it appears, most modules add an extra 10 hit points, whilst armour-type modules added much more, and some modules required more than one slot. Big guns would take 2-3 modules whilst popguns take 1, and Armour modules specifically (which increase your hull value in addition to supplying a whack of hull points) required a number of module slots depending on the hull it was bolted to (so it took 2/3 of a way stations slots, but 6/24 of a star fortress' slots). I'd work engine/manouvre modules in the latter fashion, since the amount of engine to improve a dreadnought's manouvrability must be proportional to its size.


Also, because it was stations, not starships, it used a different critical table and all the weapons were turreted. But that's easy enough to modify. Have some of the modules be a 'laser turret' whilst some are a 'laser battery', and limit by size of ship how many batteries can face the same way - so a small ship might only be allowed one weapon in a given arc, but a 'fortress' equivalent ship might have six-weapon broadsides (plus another six weapons in turrets, theoretically).

Some troops, gatling lasers and grapples would be in-built to the hull, whilst others might sit on certain modules.



Rules-wise, ideas are best fleshed out on a 'generic hull'. This is what Mongoose did with ACTA - they got the Hyperion right and then used it as a yardstick for everything else. Destroyers in NA were the same yardstick.

using the P&P rules, the middle-of-the-road station was the 'border station' - whatever you want to call it - was 90 hit points, 4+ hull, 15 troops, Antifighter 4 and Interceptors 5**, plus 10 module slots to improve the above and to add actual weapons (which, given by what we said above, would top out at three weapons per arc).



* aside from the 'boresight' mechanic, but let's ignore that for now.

** Did like the interceptors rule - especially for stations, since you could control how you divided your point defence between attackers and it worked quite well.
Understand that I'm not advocating violence.
I'm just saying that it's highly effective and I strongly recommend using it.
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Sat May 10, 2014 4:02 pm

It has been rather quiet in here. Did interest in this project die off?
pasuuli
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:53 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby pasuuli » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:05 pm

It's only sleeping.

Before I read locarno's "modules" post, I had reduced your table a bit to this:

Code: Select all

SHIP TYPE      (SPEED)  TURNS  (HP)  SHIELDS  (TROOPS)  RAMMING  (DAMAGE)
-------------  -------  -----  ----  -------  --------  -------  ------------
Raider         (4-8)    2/90   (3)      3     (1)          1     (9/3 - 12/4)
Corsair        (4-8)    2/45   (4)      2     (1)          1     (9/3 - 12/4)
Frigate        (4-8)    2/90   (4)      3     (3-4)        2      (18/6)
Galliot        (6-8)    2/45   (4)      3     (5)          3      (21/7)
Destroyer      (4-8)    2/45   (5)      4     (4-5)        4      (30/10)
Light Carrier  (4-8)    2/45   (4)      4     (3)          4      (30/10)
Cruiser        (4-8)    1/45   (5)      4     (5-6)        6      (42/14)
Heavy Carrier  (2-8)    1/45   (4)      6     (6)          8      (75/25)
Dreadnought    (2-8)    1/45   (5)      6     (8-9)        9      (75/25)
The major changes include dividing speed and troops. That might have been a mistake. My apologies.

Also my table makes a different assumption that you might not use: dreadnoughts could be just as fast as raiders. But, they're still not as agile.
pasuuli
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 711
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:53 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby pasuuli » Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:12 pm

Now thinking about locarno's modules + hit location post:

This is just blue-sky thinking. I haven't thought it through fully, yet.

Select your ship class. That carries a base rating, typically used for components, but could be used in other places as well.

Code: Select all

Size Class  Rating
----------  ------
Raider       -1
Escort        0
Destroyer     1 
Cruiser       2
Battleship    3
Armageddon    4
Assign components to eleven slots. The position of each slot indicates the rating modifier for the component, plus the probability that that component will be damaged (e.g. roll 2D to determine the component hit).

I'm sure there are all sorts of problems with this method.

Components

There are a bazillion things you could shove into a hull, but off the top of my head here are ones I can think of:

Armor
M-Drive
FTL Drive + fuel
Power Plant + fuel
C&C
Weapon
(Magazine?)
Defenses
Troops
Fighters
Repair Dock

Considering that a capital ship will always have at least 8 of these (armor, drives, power, C&C, weapons, defenses, troops and/or fighters), it seems like this is about the right level of abstraction.
Last edited by pasuuli on Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:17 am

sorry, it is 11 p.m. here so this is just babble. my rough draft idea before lorcano's module idea ran something like this. In the Holistic game every ship was a class size. Frigates were 6, destroyers were 10. So on and so forth. So first figure out the base cost for each hull size. Each hull size would be able to hold so much total mass or SU or modules or whatever we want to call it. Then, there would be a cost modifier for hull value. Also some modifier for assigning speed and manuverability. Then a matter of assigning mass (or whatever) and point cost to different systems. Weapons, traits, shield rating, marine capacity, andfighter capacity would each have a value assigned to them.
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:23 am

Here is a VERY rough draft of what I have in mind. Parts are unfinished, but it should give an idea of the direction I am going. I made all base hulls Hull 4, mostly because I think with the armor rules hull rating is redundant and armor rules work better. I will give an example of why. My dreadnaught fires a heavy meson cannon at two ships. In example one, a frigate with a hull 4 and a hull 5 destroyer. Under the current rules, hull rating is supposed to show how strong the armor of the hull is. So the Dreadnaught roles a 4. The frigate gets hosed by the massive power of the meson cannon. The destroyer doesn't even get the paint scratched. In example two, both the frigate and the destroyer are hull 4, but the destroyer has Armor 2. So in this example, both ships get hit, the frigate still gets hosed, and the destroyer gets hit. Since it has armor however, 1 in 3 hits are nullified, as opposed to 1 in 6 for the frigate.
Bellicose
Stoat
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Horribly Imbalanced Custom Ship Design Rules (NA)

Postby Bellicose » Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:25 am

ACTA House Rules:

*Change Weak trait to only effect Attack Table roll. Whatever effect that weapon has on shields is dependent on what type of weapon it is. So for example point slug guns are still weak, but if that individual fighter has enough to overpower shields, then it can damage the ship. Each individual fighter would have to do this, not their firepower combined.

*EM Pulse Guns: Change to a light weapon. Range 24. Traits: Double burn, weak.

ALL hull ratings for ALL ships is 4.


Class Size Damage Speed Turn Ram Marines Grapple gun Trait # Modules

Scout 3 9/3 12 2/45 1 1 1 Agile 5?

Raider 4 12/4 12 2/45 2 2 1 Raider 6?

Light 5 16/5 8 1/45 2 4 1 8?
Frigate

Frigate 6 18/6 8 1/45 2 6 1 10?

Galliot 8 21/7 8 1/45 3 10 3 12?

? 9 26/8 8 1/45 3 6 16?

Destroyer 10 30/10 8 1/45 5 8 1 20?

Light Carrier 10 30/10 8 1/45 4 6 1 Carrier 2 20?

Light Cruiser 12 36/12 8 1/45 5 8 1 24?

Cruiser 14 42/14 6 1/45 6 10 1 30?

Strike Carrier 14 42/14 6 1/45 5 10 1 Carrier 3 30?

Heavy Cruiser 16 51/14 6 1/45 6 12 1 Lumbering

Battle cruiser 20 54/18 6 1/45 7 12 1 Lumbering

Dreadnaught 25 75/25 6 1/45 9 16 2 Lumbering

Heavy Carrier 24 75/18 6 1/45 8 12 1 Lumbering,
Carrier 6

Heavy 28 90/30 4 1/45 9 18 2 Lumbering
Dreadnaught





Shields : 1 module per Shield point (up to max per hull)
Speed: 1 module for every 2 speed
Armor: 1 module per armor point (up to 3)
Barrack: 1 Module every 2 marine
Craft: 1 module every 1 craft

Weapons:

Size AD Arc # of modules

Light 2 1 1
Light 1 4 1

Mediun 1 1 1
Mediun 1 4 2

Heavy 1 1 2
Heavy 1 4 3

Heavy Meson 1 1 ? (5 maybe?)


* Rockets are light and get 2 AD instead of 1.
** Gattling Lasers and Grapple Guns are light weapons.

Traits: # of modules

Agile *if base hull is Lumbering, cancels it out
Scout
Raider
Stealth * one module per level
Carrier *adds or increases carrier trait to a hull, one per level
Command * one module per level
Escort
Think machine


Fleet can take a % of total points for upgrade options (troop, fighter, psychic) much like commander options from SFB.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests