rabidfox wrote:A friend of mine is designing his own naval combat game setting using Starmada rules
So, you want help designing something to compete with Starmada... ?
Cost(SUs) Dmg Hull Dmg
Gun 1 vs. Std. Bat.: 4.25:1 2:1 6:1
Gun 2 vs. Std. Bat.: 3.25:1 2.28:1 6.84:1
Gun 3 vs. Std. Bat.: 5.75:1 4:1 12:1
Now normally this means that ships would be dying much quicker with these weapons due to hull loss, but I forsee a wide use of Organic and Armor-Plated hulls in the system we're designing. I'm considering the value of hull damage to be about equal to that of overall damage because of that. From the results, I'm not impressed by the 'special' guns.
I think I understand what you're saying, and I think you might be off in one area...
You cannot disregard the increased effectiveness of the special guns just because the targets might have organic hull, armor plating, or other special defenses -- those defenses will reduce the effectiveness of your 'standard' batteries as well. (Also, I note that your standard battery is range 18, but your special guns are range 15.)
The special abilities for weapons are all determined by their "expected damage" compared to a normal weapon. For example, hull damage occurs 1/2 the time, meaning that it takes two penetrating hits to damage one hull point. Thus, Extra Hull Damage is the equivalent of two extra weapons firing, resulting in a modifier of x3 (technically, that slightly over-values the ability; since a weapon with Extra Hull Damage can only inflict a maximum of 2 hits, it's not quite as effective as a weapon with DMG 3, which would cost the same).
Note that all these factors are independent of the target -- if the target's shields increase from 4 to 5, that will reduce the damage potential of all weapons by 1/2, regardless of range, to-hit value, or specials. So, if your chart says Gun 3 does 12 times the hull damage of a standard battery, that will remain true whether the target has Organic Hull or not.
