I like Hobson - more accuracy effects are always welcome. I feel like the title for that ordnance card should be "Fire AT maximum range" instead.

For what it's worth, There are a few Free Virgillia-class on KDY. I'm a fan of Samukai777's version.

F@#$@#%!

They're talking now. Time to shine.

loosen up? I'm tuned in to that stream. They are just standing around, but soooooooon™

I imagine that the folks who streamed it on Facebook that Dras linked earlier will as well, but chances are we'll have to find a stream as it comes up.

I'm on my commute home, sadly. Lemme know if anything exciting comes up? I'll tune in as soon as I get to mine.

That's 9pm Eastern on Tuesday the 13th? I'll keep an eye out.

I like the @Wes Janson approach. change cloak to this: You are only hit by (crit) results. reduce the phantom to 3 hull give the phantom Grit2 then, you turn the current cloak into SLAM for future use.

There is a lot in Star Fleet Battles I very much enjoy. It's been a measuring stick that I use to compare to other games as far as tactical depth... but I cannot stand the pacing and heavy rules. If I could find a middle-ground between the tactical richness of SFB and the ease-of-play of Armada, I'd play that in a heartbeat.

I've been thinking about casting and pouring myself some new acrylic bases, to be honest, but I can't get seem to get the mold right.

I very much like Armada. I think there are a few decisions here and there that have made me go "I wouldn't have done that ...". - Making max speed 4 for ships, 5 for squadrons. - Making medium distance such a narrow bands - I think they should have made the sliding scale a bit steeper (ie: keep the CR90 the same size, but make the ISD about 60% the size is currently is, adjust everything else so suit) - gives more room for larger ships in the future. - not dealing better with activations (Initiative-system would've been preferable to the current system). I have a few things in mind as far as a new game based off of the armada engine, but I'm not there yet. Gotta finish KDY first. The only game I enjoy more is Firefly the boardgame, but that's a completely different type of game and you can't really compare them.

Fair enough - just so long as you aren't beating yourself up over anything.

No worries man, this ain't a job - this is for fun. You owe no one anything, least of all some kind of justification.

Here's my hangup on internationalization: Permissions. I don't speak German. Do I let just anyone add a translation to a card I create? That feels like it would conflict with the existing permission system where only creators (and admins) can edit their content. A submission system would be tough to implement, I think - plus if I don't speak German, how would I know which submission to use? It also gets pretty hung up on the rendering system. Not only would a card render at 600dpi for just english, (actually it would be 512dpi because of reasons - suffice it to say that rendering a card is no easy task on the server), but now they'd render one for per language per renderer chosen for each piece of content - cubing the load on the server. I hate to say it, but I don't know that KDY is the platform to really handle internationalization like this - on the flip side, there is nothing stopping people from making their own internationalized cards. I may add a column to the common content table to flags languages so that people can filter them in or out, just in case.

@elbmc1969, @Indy_com I've added the Sith Fury Interceptor, the TIE Striker, and the Rogue Shadow to the silhouette list. Edit: even though no one asked for it, the TIE Reaper has been added as well.

Ugh. This new schema is even more complex >.<

@Ken-Obi For my own edification, when it comes to internationalization, do you tend to support separation of languages by LCID code (en-us, fr-lu) or by simple language code (en, fr)?

if vendorProperties can exist on the item-level instead of on the list-level, I'm cool with that.

@elbmc1969 This should be fixed, now. Let me know if it's still an issue. @DScipio - I saw you were struggling to add content to an expansion. I'll admit that the method that I have currently isn't the most intuative (ie: I hate it and it will be revamped in KDY2). If you want to add content to an expansion, you can either go to the detail view of that piece of content, or you can click on the Database icon next to a piece of content in a list-view (looks like a 4-tier hamburger?). --- Continuing with development of KDY2. I'm revamping a lot of the database schema to better support internationalization. I'll need to work out exactly how I want to add support for submitting translations of cards. This may also be an issue with the rendering engine unless I can figure out a fallback system where if the font you select doesn't support a given set of characters, some defaults take over. We'll see how it goes.

Alternative to the -swm25 thing is just "darthvader_2" with the number incremented each release. I know it's less ideal, but it lends itself to be uniform. I have no strong opinion one way or another, so long as consistency happens. My own proposal for the standard. A small modification to those that exist already, but all items that are in arrays are instead objects in stead of just string values. { "title":"My Fleet", "objectives":[ { "name":"blockaderun" }, { "name":"capturethevip" }, { "name":"minefields" } ], "ships":[ { "name":"assaultfrigatemk2a", "upgrades":[ {"name":"leiaorgana_2"}, {"name":"clusterbombs"} ] }, { "name":"cr90corvetteb", "upgrades":[ { "name":"adartallon" } ] } ], "squadrons": [ { "name":"wedgeantilles_xwingsquadron" }, { "name":"xwingsquadron", "count":2 }, { "name":"bwingsquadron", "count":1" } ], "metadata":{ } } Another idea related to this is to allow for vendor-specific fields by doing a xyz_ prefix to the key. For example, let's say I want to embed KDY's id to that assault frigate in my example. { "name":"assaultfrigatemk2a", "upgrades":[ {"name":"leiaorgana_2"}, {"name":"clusterbombs"} ], "kdy_itemid":"12Afef" } Obviously the addition to the standard benefits me greatly, but hey - I figure if I say it, it may get adopted

For KDY, i use a 8-character base62 string for my primary key, so there's that. I also agree that internationalization would be nice. realistically speaking, I cannot support i18n on KDY itself (there's already a lot going on and the burden on the rendering engine would get ridiculous - maybe for version 3?). Let me mull it over and see if I really want to add that to my already extensive DB Schema.

It was originally my intent to format the fleet builder on KDY to do the simpler format here for exactly the reason you mention here. I think the "type" field in the upgrade is also extraneous for the same reasons as "text" and "cost" was. Yeah, my vote is for the condensed layout of the above.

In principle, I'm okay with this. I will need to add a few fields to my back-end to be able to allow KDY to support this (a unique field in the table). I'm not sure text is necessary on the upgrades. Same goes for cost on ships. I feel like if this standard is designed to be a cross-platform communication protocol, then stats aren't necessary. For example, if someone were to import this into KDY, I would just use the names as a cross-reference to content that exists on my back end. for example "assaultfrigatemarkiia" in this standard is cross-referenced in my system as content_id "25xYkava" which I can then use to describe everything such as Point Cost, and so on.

Regarding the auto-spawner. I can't do anything with Vassal, but I'm working on a spawner for Tabletop Simulator already.