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
Alternatively, virus-bomb his homeworld.
Surprisingly, this is a viable option is nearly all cases I can think of.
The obvious thing we thought of was that explosions that occur from Fighter combat do not block LOS till the end of the regular Combat Phase. This is a simple fix, but not 100% consistant with the Fighter rules. For my money, I'd rather it not be 100% consistant, but more balanced. Upon further thought, would still be reasonably consistant because explosions dont have to occur till the end of the combat phase in general...from any source.
It sounds like the greater issue is explosions providing cover for fighters, and not necessary when explosions occur, since Sunbursts can be used for the same effect.
Personally, I don't see the problem. I don't agree with the premise that "if you have to use X to counter Y, then Y is too powerful". With a game like Starmada -- as has been discussed on other topics, like LRS/Stealth -- you are going to have situations where a counter is absolutely necessary.
Think of it in 'historical' terms... there are numerous examples where a new tactic/technology was invincible until someone came up with a counter. If you walk into a battle not knowing what your opponent has at his disposal, then you are at risk of such an imbalance -- but then, so is he with you.
To deal with this, I've been wondering if it wouldn't be interesting to run "tournament" games as a two-stage affair. Run the first game without restrictions; however, the loser of the first game has the chance to completely revise his fleet, while the winner has to stick with his original force. Then play the second game. The overall winner is determined by aggragate VPs.
Yep, I agree, but why not make it so that it does make statistical sense? Shouldn't a 1/2/2 weapon have half the chance of hitting at 7+ as a 2/2/2 weapon? It does for every other to-hit number from 2+ to 6+. Its only when it crosses that 7+ barrier that its suddenly markedly inferior.
Two reasons why I went with the system as-is:
1) It's different than any other (e.g., Warhammer).
2) I think it gives some interesting, if not statistically consistent, results.
Obviously, it does reward multiple-ROF weapons, but not by much:
ROF-1 = No chance of hitting on 7+ or more.
ROF-2 = 1/36 chance of hitting on 7+, no chance of hitting on 8+ or more.
ROF-3 = 2/27 chance of hitting on 7+, 1/216 chance of hitting on 8+, no chance of hitting on 9+ or more.
Since we're already weighting the higher-ROF weapons because of their effectiveness against fighters, this slight inequity doesn't seem inappropriate.. especially when you consider the ROF-3 weapon still only has at most a 7% chance of hitting at 7+ or more.
In addition, very rarely will you be firing a single weapon -- usually, even with ROF-1 weapons, you'll still get more than one die, so you still have the opportunity to score hits on "impossible" attacks.
I'm curious as to what the intent is for Backwards movement?
[...]
I guess what I'm trying to say is what does Reverse Movement really do other than open things up to certain cheesey combos like jimbeau's nemesis?
It is a holdover from previous editions, but not one that's ever been seriously questioned (until now). It seemed like a good idea at the time (12 years ago, now), and in all that time no one batted an eyelash...
In the fire arcs diagram (section 4.1.2) the dividing lines are drawn right down the hex rows... does that mean that adjacent firing arcs overlap?
Yes.
In unrelated news: to Mr. Kast - this is easily one of the clearest, most typo and error free pieces of gaming writing I've read. Kudos to whomever edited this. While I realize that these qualities are not considered essential in this genre...
Thanks!
Although I must say that this group, in its past and present incarnations, has been the most essential part of keeping the game clear and typo-free -- as you may already have noticed, they aren't shy about calling me out on misakes. 
Ok, this is where I get lost. Are you saying that 50% more weapons increases CR by 50%, but AGB increases CR by 22%?
[...]
I dont see where the 22% is coming from in an actual ship. Is the formula just listed incorrectly or am I being incredibly dense and just continuing to miss something obvious?
Sorry for the confusion. These are not "real" numbers, in the sense that they demonstrate how AGB affects the final CR value of a particular ship. I was attempting to use the principles behind the Combat Rating formula to demonstrate that AGB, at +50% for both space and CR, is just as effective as increasing the number of weapons by 50%.
What you should focus on is that in each case, the pseudo-CR goes up by 22%, indicating that each option has the same impact on the weapons' damage potential over the expected life of the ship.
If your weapon lasts 1.5 longer, that should be (roughly) the same as if you had 1.5 as many of the weapons.
Not exactly true, although in practice it works out that way since Starmada alters the "survivability" of weapons based on the ratio of number of weapons to hull points (i.e., on average, all ships will have lost the same percentage of their weapons at the point of destruction).
If the reduction was not weighted in this manner, then having 1.5 times the number of weapons is better than having 1.0 times the number of weapons lasing 1.5 times as long:
50% more weapons = (1.5x1.5)^0.5 = 1.5
No more weapons, 50% more survivability = (1.0x1.5)^0.5 = 1.22
cricket wrote:In the same manner, if your weapons have AGB, then only 2/3 of weapon hits will actually take effect; thus the expected "hits 'til death" for your weapons is increased by 50%. If the "save" was 4+ instead of 5+, then the survivability of your weapons is actually increased by 100%, not 50%, as you might expect.
Make sense?
Yes, it makes sense, but even it does increase survivability by 50% as shown, why not just add the actual weapons and be able to have 50% extra firepower AND survivability? There should be a benefit to only taking the protection in this case, right?
Let's see if I can't boil this down to its most basic form:
The Starmada Combat Rating (indeed, all of MJ12's point systems -- except maybe Defiance) can be expressed in the following manner:
(Hits Inflicted Per Turn x Hits 'til Death)^0.5
(This excludes the "Engagement Range" factor, or MOVE+RANGE, which we can ignore since it is assumed to be identical for all hypothetical ships in this discussion.)
Take a battery of 10 weapons; assume that on this ship's particular damage track, it will take 20 points of damage to receive 10 weapon hits, eliminating all weapons. Thus, we can express the "CR" of that particular battery as:
(10x20)^0.5 = 200^0.5 = 14.14
Now, add AGB. This does not increase firepower, but it does increase survivability by 50%, as discussed earlier. Therefore:
(10x30)^0.5 = 300^0.5 = 17.32
As you can see, the final CR has been increased by 22%. Now, increase the number of weapons by 50%; this (on the surface) increases both firepower and survivability by 50%. Therefore:
(15x30)^0.5 = 450^0.5 = 21.21
Thus, while you can add additional weapons for the same amount of SUs, your CR goes up by 50% instead of 22%. There is, however, one more thing to deal with, and that is the fact that an increase in the number of weapons by 50% also increases the number of weapon hits by 50%; meaning that the "hits 'til death" number drops by 33%:
(15x20)^0.5 = 300^0.5 = 17.32
Or, the exact number reached by adding AGB. In other words, both the CR and SU costs for AGB are correct, and the only difference between the two is "flavor".
Class is over... don't forget your term papers are due at the end of next week... 
Uncle_Joe wrote:3) Armored Gun Batteries. From what it appears, AGBs simply make your weapons cost 50% more (SUs and CR).
Hmm. I believe this might be a typo that never got fixed. The 50% increase in SU is right, but the CR multiplier should only be 1.3...
Before anyone jumps on the FAQ and makes this "official", let me reason this out -- I'm pretty sure 50% is actually right.
Consider that while shield level 2 blocks 33% of hits, the CR multiplier is 1.5; this is because by blocking 33% of potential damage, the expected number of "hits 'til death" is increased by 50%:
10 hits without shields means all hits will score damage, thus 10 hits 'til death.
10 hits with shields 2 means only 2/3 of hits will score damage, thus it will take 15 hits to score 10 points of damage (15 x 2/3 = 10). Obviously, 15 is 50% more than 10.
In the same manner, if your weapons have AGB, then only 2/3 of weapon hits will actually take effect; thus the expected "hits 'til death" for your weapons is increased by 50%. If the "save" was 4+ instead of 5+, then the survivability of your weapons is actually increased by 100%, not 50%, as you might expect.
Make sense?
I like your wording idea. But I am a Stealth Gen fan (white trash cloak)
"White trash cloak". Another phrase that needs to make it into the rules.
I am sure there is no official response yet 'cause Dan is still cogitating. (Or kicking himself for not having noticed it himself.)
I am indeed kicking myself. For someone who prides himself on his math/stats skills, that was a pretty big boo-boo...
> Also, make
> all fighters 'slow', and fast fighters move 10 hexes -- this
> makes fighters a little less unpredictably zippy.
"less unpredictably zippy"... there's gotta be a way to work that phrase into the rulebook.
> 2) We never use PDS. Period. It IS just cheaper shielding
> for ships less than 6 or so hull, though it can be taken out
> by one lucky Q hit, this is not enough to render it more
> vulnerable in any material way.
I disagree. PDS is, after all, equivalent to only shields 3, with the possibility of being knocked out with a single shot. Also, it's point-costed accordingly, so even though it may allow small ships to "afford" good protection in terms of freeing up SUs, the CRs will still reflect their durability.
Finally, I never intended that every "race" or faction should have access to all types of equipment -- PDS, if anything, is best suited as an option for a race that never developed shields, or to represent stuff like "interceptors" in Babylon 5.
> Finally, they're just flavorful.
Exactly my point about PDS.
Thanks for the discussion!
1) Dogfighting. Is it something that is recommended to be used? Without it, there doesnt seem to be a way to really 'defend' against Fighters getting off their first attacks. With it, it seems like some of the Fighter customizations are weakened.
I can't say if dogfighting is recommended or not; it's one of those "taste" things. As you've discovered, there are reasons why some groups would not want to use it -- but if you want something official, note that I don't use it.
2) PDS. How does this work? Do you make an extra PEN roll that fails on a 1/3/5? If its part of the 'normal' Pen rolls, doesnt that make the PDS a more or less cheaper alternative to shielding (and a good addition for certain shield classes)? I just dont see this thing as being 'balanced' across the board as its obviously FAR better for some shield numbers than others. Are we missing something?
You do not make an extra roll -- you simply ignore any odd PEN dice, regardless of shield level. However, it is not all that more effective for any shield level than any other; the system essentially blocks 50% of those shots not blocked by the shields, and point-costed accordingly.
Shields 5 = Blocks 0 of 1 shots that get through
Shields 4 = Blocks 1 of 2 shots " " "
Shields 3 = Blocks 1 of 3 shots " " "
Shields 2 = Blocks 2 of 4 shots " " "
Shields 1 = Blocks 2 of 5 shots " " "
Shields 0 = Blocks 3 of 6 shots " " "
It does block less than 50% at odd shield levels, but remember that these levels (should) degrade as the battle rages, so it will even out.
If you want true accuracy, you can add an additional roll and have the PDS block any shot on a roll of 4+... but part of the reason I went to this mechanic was to eliminate a lot of the extra rolling that had crept into the game.
3) Armored Gun Batteries. From what it appears, AGBs simply make your weapons cost 50% more (SUs and CR). If so, then why not just increase your number of weapons by 50% instead of using AGBs? AGBs increase 'life expectancy' of a weapon by an average of 33% (5+ save). Simply stuffing on more weapons increases it by 50%.
Hmm. I believe this might be a typo that never got fixed. The 50% increase in SU is right, but the CR multiplier should only be 1.3...
4) Stealth vs ECM: It appears that with the current FAQ ruling about Stealth and 'for better or worse', that Stealth is only marginally better than ECM in many situations.
Huh. This may be the first time I've ever heard someone suggest the Stealth Generator should be strengthened...
It is true that there can be situations in which Stealth is not much better (if at all) than ECM -- however, don't sell short the concept of invulnerability at long range...
5) Rate of Fire. Its been touched on before, but I haven't seen an 'official' response as to what to do (if anything).
I think the (R x P x D) + R solution (rather than ((R+1) x P x D) is as elegant and reasonable as anything else...
How hard is it to just use 'stock' Starmada X ships in it without having to convert to KBE and whatnot? I've noticed that not all the spreadsheets support the VBAM conversion and I'd honestly just like to have consistancy between campaign and non-campaign play.
The beauty is that the KBE rules are an 'extension' to the basic Starmada rules, and can be ignored completely yet still yield balanced games.
Is it possible to play the VBAM rules without adding the VBAM altered ship mechanics (and still without a ton of hassle)?
Absolutely.
As far as I know, the KBE rules were specifically designed for the Wars of the B&K, and are not an integral part of VBAM.
OK, I'm lost here.
Table A.1.5 in the Starmada X book indicates that Fighter Bays CAN be hit (ie, in the column for Hit? there is a 'Yes').
My section 4.2.3 also doesnt have any example about an Admirable and damage.
Ah, yes, I was just seeing if you were paying attention...
Grr... I need to make sure I label the different editions of the rulebook I have on my hard drive...
Fighter bays are, indeed, valid targets for "Q" hits.
1) How outdated is the Sovereign Stars? Are the ship designs something that could be ported over to Starmada X or are they simply too out of date? I have Twilight Imperium 2&3 and wouldnt mind seeing ship stats for each of the races. I know the book is out of print, but its still available in PDF form.
They should be reasonably easy to convert to X... maybe that's a project for someone?
My first question is are Fighter Bays valid targets for Q hits?
It seems like they wouldn't be since the only purpose of them, unless I'm missing something, is to determine how many fighters a ship starts the game with.
No. The chart in section A.1.5 details which bits of equipment are valid targets for "Q" hits.
Also, note the paragraph in section 4.2.3:
When a starship takes a special equipment hit, note that only those items with an associated damage box (or boxes) can be damaged—for example, the Admirable cannot lose its fighter bays to damage. The exact special equipment lost is up to the defending player.
I'm already guessing that the CR value makes a nice rough guideline, but in a game this diverse, its certainly not going to be a guarantee of balance....to bastardize a popular quote..."Some equal CR ships are MORE equal than others...." :wink:
I don't think that's really true. While it is possible to have very one-sided games, the CR has been a great predictor of balance -- and just because my CR is "more equal" than yours in one game doesn't mean there isn't an effective counter to it.
Think rock-paper-scissors...
OK, I'm sure most of you arent really interested in AARs, but for those of us still new to the game, it might be fun to swap stories and impressions. So with that in mind, here is a brief recounting of my group's first 'real' battle.
Personally, I find battle reports fascinating... keep 'em coming!
OK, some thoughts about the game after our battle.
1) Everyone really enjoyed the game. We had a number of players who just learned the game and it was very easy to teach and keep moving. Even with 96 Fighters in in the game, it moved fairly quickly and wasnt subject to long periods of down-time. The Fighter Initiative rules work well and provide a sort of suspense to that phase of the game.
Glad to hear it, since that was the intent...
2) Fighters can cause hideous amounts of damage to even well protected ships, but their attrition rate is very high against proper escorts. Our game saw nearly 45 fighters dying in a single turn (on both sides). Luckily both sides had some sort of rapid fire capability, but woe to a fleet that neglects to bring something like that along....
Yup. The thing about fighters is that they are nasty if you are unprepared, but they are relatively easy to counter (just have some of your own, if nothing else... )
3) Some of our players didnt care much for the Reverse movement option. It felt kinda cheesy just backing up and holding the range like that. With a faster fleet and a preponderance of LR weaponry and systems (like the LRS), it could be extremely annoying. Our jury is still out on this one with the Hive players feeling they wouldnt have had a chance without it there to hold the range out. Obviously the cat players feel otherwise...
I've been hearing more and more discontent about backwards movement lately. Hmm.
4) Its completely amazing how the game allows for such flavor differences between weapon types:
I think we calculated that there are several million possible weapon types, so I'm glad there is some distinction between them. Otherwise, that's a whole lotta nothing...
By the end, everyone was commenting on the system and how much they had enjoyed it. I believe everyone is looking forward to playing it again.
Glad to hear it! So, all your friends will be buying their own copies of the game, right?
ROF X 2 doesn't help.
Currently:
(R+1)PD, which is RPD + PD.(2R)PD is just 2RPD, doesn't weight anything.
Okay, I knew that.
I just realized that's why I went with (R+1)PD in the first place.
I just posted (in other thread) a suggestion for:
RPD + R
Perhaps...
Well, it's "live", in the sense that you can order our books through it:
http://mj12games.com/catalog/
However, it's still not "public", as I'd like to get all the bugs worked out before the masses come thru...
So while the base rules of adding +1 to the RoF 'cost' seem to make RoF the more expensive attribute, its actually 'cheapening' it by diluting the raw value (going from 1 to 3 is three times on the actual scale, but with the +1 its going from 2 to 4 which is only double on the actual scale)
<snip>
So you are actually paying more for a less effective weapon, not less.
Again, unless I'm missing the obvious here.
No, I believe it is I who missed the obvious... grr...
I introduced ROF+1 to the equation because I wanted to weight ROF more than PEN or DMG for all the previously-stated reasons.
Perhaps ROFx2 would be a better solution?
That explains why 2/1/1 uses less space than 1/1/2. But I thought that was the opposite of what Dan said below (that 3/1/1 is more expensive than 1/1/3). I went to look up the points rules, and found out that the offensive rating is based on the SU, so now I'm really confused.
I mistyped... actually, the correct numbers are:
(3+1) x 1 x 1 = 4
(1+1) x 1 x 3 = 6
So, in fact the 1/1/3 weapon is more expensive than the 3/1/1.
Hmm.
Since I am really new.... where would I find it?
It's a relatively old tool, part of the Yahoo! group:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/mj12games/database?method=reportRows&tbl=3
You'll need to be a member of the group to add your name.
I may be wrong but,dosn't TDR cancel Stealth Generator :?:
Yes... but only if the TDAR lock is successful, and only for the ship using the TDAR.
Given a 1/1/3 weapon and a 3/1/1 weapon, I would take the latter as it can destroy fighters beter than the first.
Which is why the numbers are the way they are.
In actuality, high ROF is worth more than either high PEN or DMG... but you need to look at the overall value, not piece-by-piece.
i.e., in Jim's example, the 3/1/1 weapon is worth more than the 1/1/3 weapon (4 to 3).
Since that day, I have noted a number of combinations that are similar.....
Ships with large numbers of longer range weapons that are No Hull Damage, and very short range 3 weapons w/ ROF:1 PEN:1 DMG:3 that also have Extra Hull Damage and Increased Damage, or Continual Damage, with Must Re-Roll Penetration.
They use the NHD weapons to take out your shields and then they have a much better chance of hurting you severely in close with the other weapons.
Call me sensitive, but I would argue there's a distinction between abusive game mechanics and good strategy. There are many combinations of weapons and equipment that synergize well, but few (if any) that you can argue unbalance the game.
For the crew casualty issue, one of the tactics I came up with was Protected Crew Quarters or Enhanced Live Support (I hadn't decided which). Basically for 5 percent of your SU, you get armor plated crew.
Not a bad suggestion.
One of my other players buys a batch of drones and removes 1 crew unit..... the drones are listed as "Droid Crew" and counted as the missing crew unit..... immune to Extra Crew Casualty weapons. When a ship is forced to run on Droid Crew, they have a -1 to all fire and cannot use cloaking devices, due to the limited AI. Also, the droid crew is dormant until all living crew get killed, and then they become special equipment, and can be hit as such.
Okay, now that's creative, but definitely pushing the boundaries of fair play...
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.