Well, I'm planning on using historical designs for the moment -- but with enough detail that the distinctions between USS Constitution and British frigates of the same rate will be maintained. One thing I haven't been happy about with existing games is the degree to which differences in ship design have been glossed over; e.g., all British 1st rates are the same, or even all 1st rates of ANY nation are the same!

Well, the plan is to release a book with some more optional rules and more fighters in the next month or so -- and I think after careful deliberation I'm going to put in some conversion rules. Maybe not the "official" computations (since some of them are a bit intensive), but certainly the point-costing formulae, so that whatever you decide regarding game values will be balanced with the official designs.

Well, range is ONE prime determinent of SU cost -- it is, after all, a multiplier unto itself.

The modifier should be x2.3.

Definitively.

Yup.

Seriously, here's how I came up with that:

Basically, the idea is that you'll likely get more (and more effective) shots at longer ranges, for the following reasons:

(1) You're going to want to keep the range open.
(2) There are more hexes at longer ranges.
(3) Early hits are worth more (learned at cost during the banked-weapons fiasco...)

So, the three range bands are "weighted": short x1, medium x2, long x3.

A normal weapon has the same dice at all ranges, so:

1x1 + 1x2 + 1x3 = 6

An inverted-range-based weapon would have twice the dice at medium range and thrice the dice at long range, so:

1x1 + 2x2 + 3x3 = 14

14 divided by 6 is 2.33...

This is essentially how we determined the range-based mods in the first place:

3x1 + 2x2 + 1x3 = 10

10 divided by 6 is 1.66...

And it is also appropriate for the inverted modifiers. If you have a 5+ base to-hit, you have 50% more hits at short range and 50% fewer hits at long range, so:

3x1 + 2x2 + 1x3 = 10

When inverted, this becomes:

1x1 + 2x2 + 3x3 = 14

So the modifier for inverted mods should be 1.4, not 1.3. Multiplying the mod for range-based by 1.4, you get 2.33, or what we've already decided should be the modifier for inverted-range-based.

Thus, japridemor's approach was sound to begin with -- but inverted mods is undercosted slightly.

Dan

Yes.

I'm just telling you how the rules are written... not that I think there isn't room for abuse.

Except that hull damage itself is the natural result of being pounded on...

And Jutland (and HMS Hood in 1941) showed that it was entirely possible for a BB or BC to explode on the first hit (or an early hit).

I'm not sold on the idea of crits, but if they are implemented, I'm certainly not in favor of getting rid of special equipment damage to make room for them.

Umm... no.

There's no logical explanation for pillbugs.

Yes. PDS eliminates 50% of the damage a ship takes, so the multiplier is x2.

Nope, no offense taken. But I do want to clarify that you're not meant to take all of the options in Starmada X as gospel. The point is to pick and choose what you want in your gaming group, and discard the stuff you don't. Heck, even I've never played with ALL of the options and additional rules...

So, if you don't want the K/E/B distinction, then ignore it. Think some of the weapon combos are too "cheesy"? Then don't use them.

The reason why Starmada has grown to the point where I'm not even sure what to do with it anymore is that people have been making suggestions and playtesting it for over 12 years -- that's a lot of history! But each of those suggestions is coming from a particular perspective of what space gaming "should" be -- and if you agree with even 50% of those perspectives, well, you're a very open-minded gamer.

Point is, Starmada is not intended to be a game where every possible ship creation is "tournament legal" against every other -- nothing wrong with that sort of game, but it's a different animal than Starmada.

At the same time, I'm glad to hear that the Compendium holds up well -- after all, it's nearly five years old.

It makes the range one higher, period, not just for difficulty. Thus, in this case, a stealth generator would mean you can attack at short or medium range without penalty, but cannot attack at long range.

I have to agree with Kevin on this one. It doesn't really matter whether the games are point-based or not -- what does matter is that each ship has the same chance of a critical hit...

For example, if the chance of a critical hit is based on a percentage of each attack roll (say 10%), then 1 out of every 10 hits will be critical -- and larger ships will have a greater chance of suffering a catastrophic result than smaller ones.

However, if there is an equal chance of a 300-point ship blowing up as a 30-point ship, then everything should be fine. Since you're more likely to lose a 30-point ship (assuming there's more of them), that balances out the more painful (but rarer) loss of a 300-point ship.

In order to get this equal chance in Iron Stars, then the criticals should be spaced out along the ship's damage track -- say, 3 per ship -- in the same way that special equipment hits are.

Yeah... I know that seems counterintuitive. But if we made hull hits more common on smaller ships, then the point cost differential would be even greater. Right now, your typical destroyer is about 1/30 the cost of your typical battleship.

Yeah, that's a possibility.