KDLadage wrote:The number of choices made by the commander -- in the game phase -- is limited to "where do I move?" and "whom do I shoot?" And this is about it.
One point I'd like to make before getting into specifics -- and you reference this as well, in saying "a game like Starmada" -- is that these are issues that face ALL miniatures wargames, with few exceptions.
But the bulk of your firepower is wrapped up in ships that are moving slowly enough that accurate predictions of movement are highly likely.
True. One potential fix with little (if any) potential to break the game would be to change the formula for engine size to (SU/100)^1.3*2 instead of *3.
If an enemy is in range -- fire! Always. Never hold back. Never wait for a better shot, because if the better shot comes, you can shoot him again.
We're getting into areas where the "game vs. simulation" debate will rear its head. Obviously, we're not simulating anything with Starmada other than preconceived notions about what space combat should be like -- but as has been mentioned already, there is a close parallel with naval combat. And there it depends upon what era of wet-navy you're talking about -- WW1 and WW2 battlefleet clashes don't need to worry about ammo. Modern navies do, but that's because ships are nothing more than missile and aircraft platforms. Starmada (at its default) is clearly more aligned with the former than the latter.
When I have shields in the game, I have universal, omni-directional shields that come down at a uniform rate. In other words, not via design nor via battle damage will I ever have a weak side of the ship that needs to be protected above and beyond the others.
An optional rule that ranks the shield rating of each "hex side" separately would be easy to implement.
The game treats any and all arcs as equal. And this is demonstratably not true.
Aside from giving the different firing arcs varying costs, I can't see how to avoid this. For example:
A/B = 3
C/D = 2
E/F = 1
Thus, a weapon that fires into the AB arc would cost three times as much as an EF weapon, and 20% more than an AC or BD weapon.
However, if anything, the gaming world has proven that it can strike a balance between simplicity and depth without becoming too complex. For example: Chess.
One glaring problem with the analogy -- Chess is devoid of the chance/luck factor. In addition, players are limited to moving one piece at a time. So, the decision points is the same as in Starmada (where to move and whom to "attack"); it's just that your resource (time expressed in "moves") is finite.
Starmada, as a pseudo-simulation, really needs to allow all ships to move each turn. Even "command points" as in For the Masses would not work -- ships just don't sit and do nothing without orders.
Thinking about this further, I think what you're arguing for are "resources" of some kind -- for example, in SFB there's "power"; in Battletech, there's "heat"; in Jovian Chronicles/Heavy Gear, there's "actions".
I can see adding one or more of these as options -- but I hope you're not suggesting that the basic framework of Starmada should be changed?
Starmada is a good game. Starmada has the potential to become a great game if Dan wants to make it one. But he has to be willing to push the envelope a bit, and see how far the basic framework will let him go.
Hold your tongue! Starmada is a great game -- but it can be greater... 
