I think another factor might be the "optional rules" people are using.  They may be exacerbating certain combos or strategies.  For instance we use only the basic movement - and I think that actually makes it a lot easier to be effective with "G" arc weapons - especially since moving backwards is so easy.

Cricket I agree that most things have a reasonable counter.  The problem in a tournament or campaign setting is that you don't have time to react to your opponents design, and if extreme enough no amount of tactics are going to help you overcome the design advantage.

The only two combos I have found that are pretty darn near broken are:

-Piercing +2/+3 with increased impact (gets you both if you have good or bad shields)

AND

-2+ accuracy, increased hits, repeating

I realize the increased traits are really hard to price because their effectiveness is linked to the probability of hitting/penetrating.   

To a lesser extent i think expensive seekers are too deadly.  I think the fighter traits have been priced kind of assuming that they only modified the "offensive portion" of the fighter.  For seekers/strikers I'm not sure this pans out because they really don't have to worry about defense very much.

-Tim

Here is what I had written in the other thread:

I haven't had a chance to try fleet ops, but it looks much harder to abuse than Starmada.  We're currently almost done a campaign, and there has been a big disparity between ship designs.  Based on our experience here is what I'm thinkign of banning for the next session (which in my mind is similar to what would work for a more generic "balanced" setting):

-No tech (lets you put an abusive amount of weapons on a ship)

-None of these weapon traits: Ignore shields, piercing 2&3, increased impact, repeating, continuing damage, increased hits

-Point limits for fighters, strikers, seekers etc (this stops them from getting super powerful but still allows customization - have to trade off - not sure how you would handle dual mode fighters in that environment)

-No 2+ accuracy or ranges above 18 (in most space games I've played weapons either usually take a HUGE penalty for firing at long range OR they have reduced damage over range - on the standard sized map for Starmada with 2+ accuracy and range 24 you can really reach out and "touch" someone very badly on turn 1.  If they don't also have range 24 they are in big trouble)

-No "G" arc (or at the very least replace it with something like the Bow arc from fleet ops - its just too nice a discount for forward firing weapons).

-Don't allow (or reduce) fighter flight launch while performing evasive action - same goes for boarding via teleportation - should be a penalty to hit or something.

-No ammo - people can take slow to simulate reloading

-no starship exclusive (its generally just a 30% reduction in cost for a weapon that you would never bother firing at a fighter)

And this is just something I think would be nice in general:
-It would also be great to allow anti-fighter batteries to fire just prior to the ship being attacked by a fighter flight.  If this makes them more expensive so be it, but its very hard to deal with seekers/strikers.

I'm sure there are others with more suggestions

Dan please notice that I said the "length of our games" and not everyone's games.  The last game I had my opponent's 700pt battleship took out my 961pt Battlecarrier (hull 16, armour plating, shields 5+) on turn 2.  He had a pair of [G] arc weapons that were RNG: 24 ACC:2+ IMP:4 DMG:2, Ignore shields, increased impact, continuing damage.  That boils down to about 8d6 damage per hit.  I was lucky not to die on turn 1 (he missed with one despite having fire control as well).

I think it comes down to how over-the-top-crazy people get with their weapons.  If you can reign the weapons in to something more akin to what is in the official starmada supplements I'm sure Ammo works out fine.  It can be broken though.  In the example above if he used ammo it could have taken out both my capital ships on turn 1!

Dan I'm not sure if you've ever considered it, but some it would be great for both new-comers and people-who-play-against-power-gamers if you came up with some "official tournament rules for starship construction" which would limit/restrict some of the nastier combinations you can get in the game - you know to promote longer games that are based on in game tactics rather than "winning by design".

Strikers and seekers can be made incredibly nasty.   Here's an example:

Std Fighter - Costs 50 - Size 6, Spd 10, Def 0 - Acc 5+, ROF 1, IMP 1, DMG 1

If we compare that to a seeker of the same cost:

Boom Boom - Costs 50 - Size 6, Spd 10, Def 0 - Acc 5+, ROF 2, IMP 3, DMG 3

So in this example the seeker has 18 times the killing power of the fighter.  The seeker does have limitations - but those are fairly mitigated if you can launch within striking range of your target.  If they can't move away, they have no chance to shoot at the seeker, unless they have fighters of their own - but even then they might not be able to react in time.

The current rules work well for moderate fighters, but they fall apart when people start using deadly seekers and strikers (like the one shown above). 

I think the problem is the cost of the weapon modifiers for seekers/strikers.  While they are the same ones that fighters have, its less practical to load up a fighter like that - because you have to worry about survivability and there are limits to how many 150pt fighters you can fit on a ship!  For seeker and strikers you don't have to worry if they survive, just get in range and let them lose!

My proposal would be to use the OP's turn sequence - reduce the cost of fighter flights to account for it, but increase the cost of some of those fighter traits - possibly not for fighters but definitely for seekers/strikers.

Good point - but be that as it may, currently there are flotillas and they do make impact more valuable.  I suspect flotillas are under used, but they are a good counter to someone who loads up on high DMG weapons.

Thanks for the response Dan.  I had forgotten that you still need to roll at least a "2" on an impact roll.

That's a great idea and makes me wonder if Fighter Exclusive shouldn't be repriced and reworded to work this way.

-Tim

I have to say this is quite exciting.  If you need any help with testing for errors I'd be happy to help out.

-Tim

That's going to take some serious creativity to pull off as a direct fire weapon.

Personally I'd rather make a weapon that launches flights of seekers - much like the plasma torps from Romulan armada, but without a mandatory dual mode and with the option of ammunition.

Awesome, thanks!