You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
I am very sorry for your difficulty. I do not know why you would not have received any communication from us.
The book is in stock. Please PM me with your name and I'll figure out what happened to your order.
http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/drydock.zip
Drones are "killed" by a single phaser/tractor hit.
Suicide shuttles are "killed" by a singe phaser/tractor hit, provided they fail their saving throw.
There is no set limit to a drone's endurance. We tested it with such, but found drones didn't spend enough time on the board to make it worthwhile.
Well, poo.
Yes. Seekers are all considered tiny targets.
Argh. I should have caught that. The plasma-D was not brought over to Starmada. They were replaced with PH-3s.
You can overload individual weapons.
The fluff description for the New Jersey is not a "rule", per se. That being said, the intent of the "applies to the battery as a whole" thing was to ease record-keeping. There's absolutely nothing wrong with tracking it on an individual weapon basis if you and your opponent are willing to do so.
The movement system you desire is included in both Klingon Armada and Romulan Armada.
The hits are simultaneous.
I just realized an issue with special devices portrayed like normal weapons: Long Range Sensors.
A Mauler device should or should not get its range extended with LRS, depending on how you want the device to work?
A good point for future discussion. However, for now I'm only concerned with getting the Mauler to "work" within the SFU, and there are no LRS in that setting.
What would a 1+ ACC cost multiplier be? 0.60?
Assuming the "1 always misses" rule is still in effect, the multiplier should be ×0.47. If not, this is essentially "Auto-Hit".
Aut trait multiplier cost? 1.00?
I'd use ×0.6 for Auto-Hit.
1) Any way to damage the mauler? The weapon itself can't be damaged (it's like a spinal mount built around the ship) but it's powered by a network of batteries (and tied to the engines I believe), and those can be damaged. (If my memory of SFB Maulers is correct.) Would it be possible to tie the mauler damage rating into Hull or Engines perhaps?
Possible, but not as currently configured. See below for my initial assumptions.
2) Not liking the double strength if not fired the previous turn. Again, they were powered by a network of batteries. Batteries need to be recharged. And there were ALOT of batteries on maulers. Firing the mauler at full strength was good for cracking a shield, then you had to get the heck out of dodge and recharge the batteries, and to do that meant standing still or crawling along to recharge the batteries with the engine power (think maulers had 2x to 3x battery capacity to energy generation), which in SFB was not good.
The assumption I've made is that the ship will divert enough power from its engines each turn to charge the batteries to 50% of max capacity (thus the "double strength every other turn" rule). If I didn't make this assumption, and allowed the WYN Mauler to access all available power via the Engine Track, it would start with a move of 15 (!).
I guess I think they're kind of overpowered for Starmada-based rules. Would depend on their cost (as we're not really relying on SU to limit SFB ships), and a way to damage/disable the mauler (again, it's the network of batteries, not the weapon itself).
That's weird, because I was thinking it was a bit UNDER-powered for what it is supposed to do... 
But, that's what playtesting is for, right?
A Mauler is treated as a single weapon mounted to fire into the "G" arc (60 degrees directly ahead). The listed strength of the Mauler determines the number of damage points inflicted on the target when fired (no to-hit roll is necessary):
Range 1-2 hexes: Strength ×4
Range 3-5 hexes: Strength ×2
Range 6-10 hexes: Strength ×1
For example, a Mauler with a listed strength of 4 would inflict 16 points of damage at a range of 1 or 2 hexes, 8 points at range 3 through 5, and 4 points at range 6 through 10. The Mauler's base strength is doubled if it was not fired in the previous
Combat Phase.
A Mauler's damage potential may be increased by using excess power. For every 10PP spent, the Mauler's strength is increased by +1.
Looks good! Couple responses:
1) I hate graphical displays. Just my personal preference, but as you note, it has informed certain game design choices, most notably the loss limits. But if you can make them work, more power to you.
2) You can use the "Code" delimiter to indicate mono-spaced type. For example:
3x Standard : (6) MA-8 1x5+:5+/1/1
1x Assault : (4) MA-8 2x5+:5+/1/1
1x Bomber : (5) MA-8 1x4+:6+/1/1
2x Heavy : (4) MA-8 1x5+:5+/1/1 [4+]
4x Interceptor : (5) MA-8 1x6+:4+/1/1
2x Light : (7) MA-8 1x5+:5+/1/1 [2-]
2x Strike : (2) MA-8 2x5+:6+/1/2 [5+]
4x Swarm : (9) MA-8 1x5+:6+/1/1 [3-]
1x Super : (1) MA-8 2x4+:4+/1/2 [2+]Cloaking devices work differently in the SFU, and therefore I reduced the DRAT multiplier. Entering "Romulan" as the faction is a trigger for the spreadsheet to know it's an SFU design.
I have had the "Cloaking Devices are overpriced" discussion many times over the years, and I have yet to be convinced that is indeed the case. But I am open to further debate. 
Here is why CM has a x1.5 multiplier: Assuming a distribution of attacks where three times as many occur at long range as at short range, and enemy weapons are ACC 3+, you get:
NO CM:
Long Range = 3 * 50%
Medium Range = 2 * 67%
Short Range = 1 * 83%
Average = 61%
CM (1):
Long Range = 3 * 33%
Medium Range = 2 * 50%
Short Range = 1 * 67%
Average = 44%
61/44 = 1.38
So, no. Countermeasures (at x1.5) is not "worth it" when attacking weapons are all 3+ to-hit, albeit by a factor of -8%. If attacking weapons hit on 4+, this is the result:
NO CM:
Long Range = 3 * 33%
Medium Range = 2 * 50%
Short Range = 1 * 67%
Average = 44%
CM (1):
Long Range = 3 * 17%
Medium Range = 2 * 33%
Short Range = 1 * 50%
Average = 28%
44/28 = 1.57
And with an accuracy of 5+:
NO CM:
Long Range = 3 * 17%
Medium Range = 2 * 33%
Short Range = 1 * 50%
Average = 28%
CM (1):
Long Range = 3 * 14%
Medium Range = 2 * 17%
Short Range = 1 * 33%
Average = 18%
28/18 = 1.56
I ran the numbers in your thought experiment*, and if you assume the enemy's main guns are ACC 4+ instead of 3+, but give him 6 shots instead of 4, the Countermeasures option balances out.
Round 1 (medium range):
Countermeasures-0: 6 shots * 50% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; 15 screens remain
Countermeasures-1: 6 shots * 33% = 2 hits * 4 damage = 8 points of damage; 4 screens remain
Round 2 (medium range):
Countermeasures-0: 6 shots * 50% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; 3 screens remain
Countermeasures-1: 6 shots * 33% = 2 hits * 4 damage = 8 points of damage; 12 hull hits remain
Round 3 (short range):
Countermeasures-0: 6 shots * 67% = 4 hits * 4 damage = 16 points of damage; 7.5 hull hits remain
Countermeasures-1: 6 shots * 50% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; 6 hull hits remain
Round 4 (short range):
Countermeasures-0: 6 shots * 67% = 4 hits * 4 damage = 16 points of damage; DEAD (-0.5 hull hits)
Countermeasures-1: 6 shots * 50% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; DEAD (0 hull hits)
And, if the enemy's guns are ACC 5+, but he has 9 shots:
Round 1 (medium range):
Countermeasures-0: 9 shots * 33% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; 15 screens remain
Countermeasures-1: 9 shots * 17% = 1.5 hits * 4 damage = 6 points of damage; 3 screens remain
Round 2 (medium range):
Countermeasures-0: 9 shots * 33% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; 3 screens remain
Countermeasures-1: 9 shots * 17% = 1.5 hits * 4 damage = 6 points of damage; 12.5 hull hits remain
Round 3 (short range):
Countermeasures-0: 9 shots * 50% = 4.5 hits * 4 damage = 18 points of damage; 6.5 hull hits remain
Countermeasures-1: 9 shots * 33% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; 6.4 hull hits remain
Round 4 (short range):
Countermeasures-0: 9 shots * 50% = 4.5 hits * 4 damage = 18 points of damage; DEAD (-2.5 hull)
Countermeasures-1: 9 shots * 33% = 3 hits * 4 damage = 12 points of damage; 0.4 hull hits remain
You have to remember that the CRAT modifiers have to account for the entire spread of possibilities. CM may not be "worth it" for a narrowly-defined range of enemy attack parameters, but it will be more than worth it in other scenarios.
---
* Note: there is a typo/math error in your original scenario. The CM-equipped ship has taken only 26 internals, not 36, by the end of round four. It is still alive... barely.
Round 1 (medium range):
Countermeasures-0: 4 shots * 67% = 2.7 hits * 4 damage = 10.8 points of damage; 16.2 screens remain
Countermeasures-1: 4 shots * 50% = 2 hits * 4 damage = 8 points of damage; 4 screens remain
Round 2 (medium range):
Countermeasures-0: 4 shots * 67% = 2.7 hits * 4 damage = 10.8 points of damage; 5.4 screens remain
Countermeasures-1: 4 shots * 50% = 2 hits * 4 damage = 8 points of damage; 12 hull hits remain
Round 3 (short range):
Countermeasures-0: 4 shots * 83% = 3.3 hits * 4 damage = 13.2 points of damage; 10.1 hull hits remain
Countermeasures-1: 4 shots * 67% = 2.7 hits * 4 damage = 10.8 points of damage; 6.6 hull hits remain
Round 4 (short range):
Countermeasures-0: 4 shots * 83% = 3.3 hits * 4 damage = 13.2 points of damage; 3.5 hull hits remain
Countermeasures-1: 4 shots * 67% = 2.7 hits * 4 damage = 10.8 points of damage; 1.2 hull hits remain
Very nice! I like the redesigned ship displays.
Thanks! I can add it myself. Is it ranged based? The spreadsheet has a column for that.
No, it is not range-based.
But I really don't want to buy another book for some design options.
A fair point. Once it has been tested outside of the SFU, I may make the trait (Evp = "Evaporating") available in the spreadsheet.
For now, however, it has a 0.7 multiplier and works as follows: at the end of each move, if the seeker flight does not impact its target, its IMP is reduced by 1. When reduced to 0, the flight is removed from the game.
Our battles here, between Beowulf and myself mostly, with our longer ranged weapons than those in the book (we go with 18, where as I see a lot of range 12 & 15 in the book), tend to be at medium range a lot more than long. Usually one turn is at long and several at medium before 1 - 3 turns at short range After that it becomes a mix of short and medium, with cripples heading off to deep space
and at long range for a bit.
I assume you start around 20-24 hexes apart?
I thought max range was 30? (goes to spreadsheet to check). Yup.
You are right. In my head game ranges will always max out at 18.
Any issue having seekers at speed 15? I haven't played a game yet, so maybe 12 is fast enough.
12 is fast enough IMHO. We've found that seekers faster than 8 are REALLY hard to avoid. Remember that, the Dfn trait aside, a seeker's MA defines the range within which it is essentially a direct-fire weapon.
(FWIW, the SFU Starmada stats give plasma torps a speed of 8.)
An option I thought about would be to have a degrading IMP per turn, sort of like Sct but only for seekers. Plasma torpedoes in SFB lost damage potential the further they travelled. Don't know how to implement that idea.
See Romulan Armada.
Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order or leading to any conclusion:
In order for seekers to be balanced, the target has to have the capability of shooting down 60% of incoming seekers. This brings to mind one important point: there always has been, and always will be, a certain rock-paper-scissors component to Starmada (indeed, any game with an open-ended design system). It is impossible to completely balance every design against every other. To take a simple and obvious example, a ship that has Mdl on all of its weapons is wasting 60% of its offensive cost against an unshielded target.
The question should never be, is this design balanced against everything? It should be, is this design UNBALANCED to the point that nothing can counter it?
You'll note that as the damage potential of the seeking weapon goes up, its comparative cost goes down. The 4+/1/1 seeker above has a divisor of 2.5; a 4+/5/5 seeker has a divisor of 9.8. This happens because each defensive "shot" has the ability to eliminate proportionally more incoming damage potential. Thus, you can fit 2.7 of the 4+/5/5 seekers in the same space as ten 4+/1/1 seekers.
On first blush, this would seem horribly unbalancing: the large seekers have a damage potential of 67.5 compared to 10 for the small seekers. However, remember that each defensive shot is eliminating 25 times as much damage potential. Assume the target has enough defensive firepower to eliminate 6 seekers (60% of the incoming small volley); this will be enough to eliminate the entire large volley twice over.
So you took one lousy example, show that it's not all that effective, and say the game is good.
No, I took an extreme example and demonstrated that while powerful, it's not quite as jaw-dropping as it looked at first glance. I didn't say the game was "good"; I was inviting further discussion.
By the way, very few book ships have a chance to shoot down the seekers at striking time since few book point defense weapons have Dfn. Pnp by itself is nearly worthless as a point defense option.
Because none of the book ships were designed to counter ships with seeking weapons, much less ships whose entire arsenal consists of seeking weapons. (As you imply, the point values should still account for this, but don't disparage the designs for failing to defend against things that don't exist. )
Any game with a design aspect will see people try to find ways to “min/max” as part of the challenge. When the game becomes all about that it becomes Rock Paper Scissors as far as I am concerned.
No one is saying that is all the game is about. I like ship designing, ever since Traveller's 3 little books came out. But if exploits exist in the system they should be fixed, not house ruled by people who paid for the game.
Agreed. I will, however, wait until all the evidence is in.
No one is saying that the game is broken, just some parts of it are. Perhaps all that is needed is a re-evaluation of some of the values. For instance, I see by Beowulf's new design that Carronade is too cheap.
I had not really looked at Carronade from this angle. (Of course, doing so requires expanding available weapon ranges to 27, but that's neither here nor there.)
When comparing apples to apples (i.e. a carronade weapon and a non-carronade weapon with the same base range value), the multiplier of 0.6 makes sense. For range-based traits, I assume 50% of combat will occur at long range, 33% will occur at medium range, and 17% at short range. I further assume a default to-hit of 4+. For the non-carronade weapon, this means an average hit chance of 44%. For the carronade weapon, the average hit chance is 28%. 28%/44% = 0.64, rounded to 0.6.
However, if you compare apples to oranges (which I freely admit I never did), the carronade weapon does gain an advantage. Doing the math, a carronade weapon of range 18 costs 90% of a non-carronade weapon of range 12, but has the same effective range and a better average hit chance (using the above assumptions, 56% vs. 44%). Overall, that makes carronades about 40% more powerful than their point cost implies.
Clearly, the multiplier needs to be adjusted. I would recommend 0.8 as a starting point.*
Yet the designer says that should not matter. What the high TLs do is show the flaws in the system. Broken designs only show the problem in a big way, designs that happen to use exploits unintentionally will have an advantage. A very small one that will most likely have less effect due to actual tactical play and die rolls, but it is there.
You are right. The TL should not matter. The point value is based on the final capabilities of the ship.
However, adding weapons without also adding to defenses means ships become fragile eggshells which only last a turn or two in combat. This not only makes the game less fun (IMHO) it lessens the opportunity for die rolls and tactical choices to even out. Point costs are based on an average across a number of turns, and there is an implicit assumption that games will last a certain amount of time. If ships are designed in such a way, via a combination of high weapon TLs and a seeking arsenal, that they can dish out a crap-ton of damage in one blow, and the opponents don't have a commensurate defensive capability, the game is going to "break".
---
*FWIW, regarding carronades, the discrepancy is that, while I weight the long range band for purposes of evaluating range-based traits, for ease of computation, the range value of a weapon is treated as a linear multiplier.
Just in case you were wondering.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.