Jump to content
DScipio

Custom card/ship yard: Star Trek (Armada)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Noosh said:

Yes, wizkids did not deliver a stellar product

Why not? I mean it's not a GREAT game but it's good. my brother is a huge Trek fan so I bought it to him and we both agree that if we want to play shorter, simpler games, we play Attack Wing, if we want more complex games we play Armada.

 

Also according to some Star Trek game (was it Starfleet Academy?) Thre were Constitutions already refitted and newly built when Kirk was still at the Academy teaching after resigning from the command of the Enterprise.y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2015 at 4:23 AM, DScipio said:

Fine but leaky shields.

Almost no fighters, hardly point defense

Transporters and cloakers

No side shpuld be overpowered, so that everything including crossovers are possible.

The eye in the upgradebar indicates that it has a cloaking device.

Quite the thread necro, but going back to these assumptions...

...the 'fighters' in Star Trek tend to be quite a lot more independent than the 'fighters' in Star Wars.  Indeed, all of them have rather larger crews.  So...more like the Falcon/Decimator/etc?  (IE., all 'Rogue', by definition?)

Wouldn't it make more sense, then, for the ships to just not have a 'squadron' section, entirely?  It doesn't really feel very 'Trek' like...

Instead, perhaps substitute a (different) fourth command there?  Not sure what that might be, but some options that might provide a Trek flavor...

  • Reinforce shields.  Rating for strength of effect, typically 2-3.  As a dial, you can place that many 'reinforce' tokens on hull zones, and any attack coming in from a 'reinforced' hull zone is treated as obstructed.  As a token, you can only place one 'reinforce' token on a hull zone.
  • Transporters.  Rating for ?range?.  As a dial, if you are in range and have a down shield facing an enemy down shield, you can remove one of their upgrades.  As a token, just exhaust an upgrade.  (Or maybe the range is locked at 'short' and the rating is commonly 1-2 for number of upgrades so effected, maybe 3 for dedicated troop ships?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that would need to be changed for Trek Armada is the speed 0 rule.  Most ship-to-ship combat in Trek consists of absolutely minimal manouvreing.  Granted, that’s budgetary constraints for you, but thematically you should be able to use defence tokens while at a standstill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Norell said:

Why not? I mean it's not a GREAT game but it's good. my brother is a huge Trek fan so I bought it to him and we both agree that if we want to play shorter, simpler games, we play Attack Wing, if we want more complex games we play Armada.

 

Also according to some Star Trek game (was it Starfleet Academy?) Thre were Constitutions already refitted and newly built when Kirk was still at the Academy teaching after resigning from the command of the Enterprise.y

To be fair the star trek games PC and on the table top, had so much more depth. The system works for xwing because it's more themeatically fitting. But for large ships I expect a few more layers of depth to the mechanics. Also I will mention the scale....that they abandoned after wave 2 or 3 for the best honestly. Honestly it didn't really scratch that itch for me.

BUT, my itch may not be your itch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, xanderf said:

Quite the thread necro, but going back to these assumptions...

...the 'fighters' in Star Trek tend to be quite a lot more independent than the 'fighters' in Star Wars.  Indeed, all of them have rather larger crews.  So...more like the Falcon/Decimator/etc?  (IE., all 'Rogue', by definition?)

Wouldn't it make more sense, then, for the ships to just not have a 'squadron' section, entirely?  It doesn't really feel very 'Trek' like...

Instead, perhaps substitute a (different) fourth command there?  Not sure what that might be, but some options that might provide a Trek flavor...

  • Reinforce shields.  Rating for strength of effect, typically 2-3.  As a dial, you can place that many 'reinforce' tokens on hull zones, and any attack coming in from a 'reinforced' hull zone is treated as obstructed.  As a token, you can only place one 'reinforce' token on a hull zone.
  • Transporters.  Rating for ?range?.  As a dial, if you are in range and have a down shield facing an enemy down shield, you can remove one of their upgrades.  As a token, just exhaust an upgrade.  (Or maybe the range is locked at 'short' and the rating is commonly 1-2 for number of upgrades so effected, maybe 3 for dedicated troop ships?)

You are right, but replacing the squadron value at all would be the next step. however its difficult to do. Perhaps I just create some Transporter and "Trekish" updates that just need a squadron command (and not a certain value).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Noosh said:

To be fair the star trek games PC and on the table top, had so much more depth. The system works for xwing because it's more themeatically fitting. But for large ships I expect a few more layers of depth to the mechanics. Also I will mention the scale....that they abandoned after wave 2 or 3 for the best honestly. Honestly it didn't really scratch that itch for me.

BUT, my itch may not be your itch.

But at least the scale is easily fixable:

687474703a2f2f6661726d362e737461746963666c69636b722e636f6d2f353439312f31313033393532343832345f663761326265653663342e6a7067

 

in lenght:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1035436/definitive-scale-thread-everything-you-wanted-know/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 4/2/2016 at 3:00 PM, Lord Tareq said:

Is the D'deridex supposed to be so humongous? I always got the impression it was just a little bigger than a Galaxy and of comparable power. At that depicted size it should be able to handle a small fleet on its own.

yes. it has always been that big. though it is not quite as bad as it looks. its about twice the size of the Galaxy class.. but when you factor in the large empty space in its middle, the actual useable volume is not much higher. but the D'deridex is a dedicated warship, unlike the galaxy class which is as much cruise liner as it is a warship. (if not more. plus there is the heavy science focus)

 

On 4/3/2016 at 9:36 AM, DScipio said:

There are fightercraft for Federation/Romulans and perhaps Cardassia if you see them as heavy fighters. However I see the "weakness" of the Trek ships that they have no fighter infrastructure. I was thinking to give: The Akria and the Nebula (with a module) a sqaudron rating of 1-2, because some things hint this way. It would make sense to give the romulans a better squadron rating, that would explain what this huge ships actually do.

Using the squadron value for something else would in my eyes only complicate matters. I want to limit special rules to a minimum, so you can always just do Trek vs. Trek, Wars vs. wars or trek vs. wars or even Trek+Wars vs. trek+wars. And I dont see any need for another value beside command/squadron/engeening (Transporter/Boarding/Torpedos came to my mind).

Fighters in Trek tend to be fairly big, closer to the Falcon than the X-wing really. in battle they tend to operate more like PT-boats.

pulling images from merzo.net, the 10X category:

T-65 X-wing:

10ppmswrebelxwing.gif


Federation peregrine Class Courier (used as an attack fighter duringthe dominion war)

10ppmstfedfighter.gif

Danube class Runabout (used as a fighter in some engagements with the cardassians, and against the dominion.)

10ppmstfeddanube.gif

Annoyingly the Cardassian Hideki class patrol ship, which the Cardassians used as a fighter during the dominion war, and the Dominion Fighter aka Dominion Attack Ship don't have images at that scale on the site, because they are huge by comparison, at 98m and 95m respectively.

so we have to go to the 1X category:

1mppSTHidekiShip.gif

1mppstjemhadarattackship.gif

1mppstsmallships.gif

yeah. they're using Corvettes as fighters. and they maneuver like fighters.

On 2/7/2018 at 12:35 PM, Major Tom said:

One thing that would need to be changed for Trek Armada is the speed 0 rule.  Most ship-to-ship combat in Trek consists of absolutely minimal manouvreing.  Granted, that’s budgetary constraints for you, but thematically you should be able to use defence tokens while at a standstill.

actually, not really. in TOS tech limits didn't allow them to show movement, but dialog made it very clear (the ships often were fighting at Warp speed!) and the early seasons of TNG had some issues showing rapid movement, but by halfway through TNG and for most of DS9 (and all of VOY, and ENT) space battles involved a lot of movement and maneuvering. however, because many of the battles (especially in TNG and VOY) began with showdowns where ships are stationary relative to each other, it can give a false impression. but that was usually because the ship was attempting diplomacy first.

when you look at the serious outright warfare though, they don't usually do that and go right in to rapid travel and maneuvering. even in the Big fights, the massive fleet battles. even with obsolete vessels. Yep, even the ones that didn't get to show it due to the original FX limits.

the problem is actually that trek ships are crazy maneuverable for their size compared to Star Wars ships. a trek ship the size of a Nebulon-B could almost out dogfight an X-wing, their smaller destroyer, frigate, and corvette sized ships certainly can, and even their massive ships like the Galaxy class can easily fly rings around a lumbering brute like the ISD.

Edited by mithril2098

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't a fan myself of how trek ships were mass-lessly zipping around in DS9 and similar. I like trek combat out of wrath of Khan and yesterday's enterprise a lot more... Feels more deliberate, and ships looked more like capital ships.

Edited by Norsehound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Wasn't a fan myself of how trek ships were mass-lessly zipping around in DS9 and similar. I like trek combat out of wrath of Khan and yesterday's enterprise a lot more... Feels more deliberate, and ships looked more like capital ships.

I rewatched most battles in DS9 and TNG when making the stats. Beside the Defiant and the other small ships most larger ships are actually poirtaied less agile than I had in my memory, espacally the Galaxies turn very slow.

@mithril2098

I explain the bad power to size ration of the D`deridex that they are alround ships (battleships /troop transporters / support ships / science vessels) that dont need any support by smaller vessels.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Wasn't a fan myself of how trek ships were mass-lessly zipping around in DS9 and similar. I like trek combat out of wrath of Khan and yesterday's enterprise a lot more... Feels more deliberate, and ships looked more like capital ships.

I wasn’t a fan of DS9 full stop.  By the time it came out shows like Space: Above and Beyond and Babylon 5 had moved Sci-Fi shows beyond what Trek was doing, and the problem only got worse when they tried to do their own story arcs (especially the entire Voyager fiasco).  If it wasn’t for the JJ reboot and Discovery I’d have given up on Trek entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Porkchop Express said:

This is cool. Only suggestion so far is that I think Intrepid Clads should have 2 science officers to represent it is a science ship.

Thanks for the input. In my understanding before the Federation build dedicated war ships like the Akira / Sovereign, all ships were Explorer / Science ships. Is a Intrepid more a Science Vessel than a Galaxy / Nebula ? You could be right. :huh:

In my first version the Intrepid had a special upfrage called "Recon" because I viewd it as a dedicated Explorer ship.

 

Memory Alpha puts it:

The Intrepid-class starship was a Federation design that entered service in the later half of the 24th century. The Intrepid-class was designed for long-term exploration missions. At less than half the size of a Galaxy-class starship, it was considered "quick and smart."

What would you suggest?

20 minutes ago, Major Tom said:

I wasn’t a fan of DS9 full stop.  By the time it came out shows like Space: Above and Beyond and Babylon 5 had moved Sci-Fi shows beyond what Trek was doing, and the problem only got worse when they tried to do their own story arcs (especially the entire Voyager fiasco).  If it wasn’t for the JJ reboot and Discovery I’d have given up on Trek entirely.

While I loved SPace 2063, it was a total different approach to Sci-Fi (more like the new Battlestar Galactica) and Babylon 5 was always great but not better than Trek. And I still dont get why People didnt liked Voyager, perhaps its just that EVERY new series (perhaps except TNG) was disliked or even hated by some.

Edited by DScipio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DScipio said:

Thanks for the input. In my understanding before the Federation build dedicated war ships like the Akira / Sovereign, all ships were Explorer / Science ships. Is a Intrepid more a Science Vessel than a Galaxy / Nebula ? You could be right. :huh:

In my first version the Intrepid had a special upfrage called "Recon" because I viewd it as a dedicated Explorer ship.

 

Memory Alpha puts it:

The Intrepid-class starship was a Federation design that entered service in the later half of the 24th century. The Intrepid-class was designed for long-term exploration missions. At less than half the size of a Galaxy-class starship, it was considered "quick and smart."

What would you suggest?

While I loved SPace 2063, it was a total different approach to Sci-Fi (more like the new Battlestar Galactica) and Babylon 5 was always great but not better than Trek. And I still dont get why People didnt liked Voyager, perhaps its just that EVERY new series (perhaps except TNG) was disliked or even hated by some.

Not sure why I put Intrepid. I meant to say Miranda Class!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DScipio said:

I rewatched most battles in DS9 and TNG when making the stats. Beside the Defiant and the other small ships most larger ships are actually poirtaied less agile than I had in my memory, espacally the Galaxies turn very slow.

@mithril2098

 

Some of the early DS9 stuff had some FX fails with huge ships pulling off way to sharp of turns, and so on. But yeah, the big ships ate definitely more ponderous than small ones.

But in general though, trek ships maneuver like star wars ships half their size.. And trek ships are already pretty small.

Edited by mithril2098

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Porkchop Express said:

Not sure why I put Intrepid. I meant to say Miranda Class!

How could I miss that. But I have to redo the "pretty" ones anyway. Thanks!

 

15 hours ago, mithril2098 said:

Some of the early DS9 stuff had some FX fails with huge ships pulling off way to sharp of turns, and so on. But yeah, the big ships ate definitely more ponderous than small ones.

But in general though, trek ships maneuver like star wars ships half their size.. And trek ships are already pretty small.

The Intrepid is somehow in the size class of the Neb-B. It should be as manoverable as that. O will fixc that.

However you hardly see any sharp turn in the Intrepid battles:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.3.2018 at 5:27 PM, Drasnighta said:

USS Sutherland:

Is it intended to be used only while you are attacking, or can it be used defensively to trash the enemy red damages to ACC results too?

Didnt thought about this, while this is a funny idea the card would be too powerful I guess. :lol:

 

On 15.3.2018 at 5:23 PM, FoaS said:

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.

 Thanks, will fix it.

 


More critic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×