Dreadnoughts!  did someone say Dreadnoughts? :shock:
Awesome!!

I have been designing my Starmada ships as naval-dreadnoughts-in-space since first playing the 'Compendium version.  I find the ability to turn away and either close, keep the range, or open the range to be vary useful.  Many ships with forward firing weapons must maneuver like dog-fighting fighters.  If you have a dreadnought type ship with FX and AX main weapons, you can get behind them. Then your ship(s) can blast away while out of their weapon-arcs.  This does not always work, but it it makes for an interesting game with much maneuver. 8)

Wow,
Thanx for the replies.  Both ideas are good ones.  8) 
Perhaps I will just use seekers on either:
Ships that don't cloak ;
Or as a shorter-ranged anti-fighter missile, such as Tartar missiles were in the 1960s.

No doubt when British Admiral Fisher and others pushed the construction of HMS Dreadnought in 1905, the designers of the existing predreadnoughts were "...speaking..."(!) in a similiar fasion.
I do not see my designs as cheesy. 
In fact, they have even been described as ... inovative. 
And nessary to deal with the ships my Florida gaming friends play.
Last Thursday, my ships were defeated soundly two games in a row by ships designed by Gaming Glenn.  :shock:

<LOL>  My South Florida friends and I played Starmada four times at Gaming Glenn's excellent store.
I revised and refined my big ships and the DDGs.  They were Very effective in the last games we played on Friday. 
Beowulf does not fear the interesting ships mentioned in several early posts, and is confident in his fleet. :shock:

There was an interesting fleet played:
My nephew has designed ships that vary in size.   All have
{Cloaking Devices, Regeneration, and Slow-firing r=30 weapons}. 
They fire at you, cloak & regenerate & repair, then uncloak, fire,  and are only uncloaked for every other turn.  It is very clever and challanging to deal with.  Several times, a cloaking-regenerater-ship was heavily damaged and stayed cloaked for two turns.  It made for an interesting game.  When we had 4 players, we destroyed the ships of his ally, which did not cloak, but then had a stand-off with his cloaking ships.   We eventually hyperdrived both times on friday's games, but had destroyed more ships.
Any ideas from other players?  His biggest ship with these has
24 hull, speed 4, and level 5 shields, and CR=3001 :!:

Helly jygro,
These are a couple of the Star Trek "SFB" type ships  I have designed. I let people use them in conventions and when we play @ a game store:

This a Federation CA, TNS Exeter.
CR=622, Hull=13, Engines+10, Shields=4. 
Six Large Phasers; R=30, 1/3+/1/1 Range-based ROF. 
Four Photon Torpedoes; r=18, 1/3+/1/1 Piercing+Extra Hull Damage.
10 Marines, 5 teleporters, 6 AFBs.

Here is a Klingon D7
CR=640, Hull=13, Engines=11, Shields=4.
Eight Medium Phasers; r=24, 1/3+/1/1 Range-based ROF
Four Disruptors; r=24, 1/3+/1/1, Piercing+Double damage
20 Marines, 10 teleporters, 4 AFB
(There are no Drones/strikers because these would be too complex for new players)

I use a very large hexmap that is a floating map.  If you stayed in your deployment area, you would be able to fire barely halfway across the map.  It would be ineffective, especially if you are trying to run a blockade or raid a convoy....

I am sure you could design "my fleet", but it takes some experience and skill to use it effectively against fleets of shorter-range-weaponed ships.  Unless they are also slow, then you have target practise.

Against say a fleet made from ships in the Imperial Sourcebook, I think that the Star Trek "SFB" type ships I designed would devestate them.

All of this structure is facinating, but is it necessary?
I note that the WW2 navies did not often follow this.  For example, in early 1941, the BB Bismark sortied with the CA Prinz Eugen, but had No CLs and no DDs.  The force Z that attemped to stop the Japanese landing on Malaya in Dec 1941 consisted of BB Prince of Wales, BC Repulse, and only 4 DDs:  No CAs, no CLs, and only 4 DDs... :shock:
The World War One navies did not follow this idea either! When the British Grand fleet sortied, its BBs outnumbered its cruisers, but there were twice as many DDs as BBs. Same situation for the German High Seas Fleet.  But yet, they somehow were able to sortie.
I suppose that if players want to make home rules restricting what each person can bring, that is their choice, but I would find that to be very stifling... :!:

The game that Nahuris ran using ships such as mine did Not have the escorts that accompany my Battleships.  I have smaller DDG & FFG designs.  These ship carry some very powerful drones (strikers).  The presence of these escorts and their drones makes it hazaderous for smaller ships to rush my capital ships.  If I had to defend an installation, my DDGs and FFGs would be there as escorts.  My BBS  are always adequately escorted.  8) 
Any unescorted capital ship is vulnerable.  In the 1900s is was torpedo boats, then submarines, then aircraft...  This vulnerability holds true for Starmada also; capital ships need an adequate escort.  One type of ship I rarely use is cruisers.  I play BBs & DDs even in WW one & WW2 naval games... :shock:
(Obsessive-compulsive behavior; don't leave home without it!<LOL>)

These ideas to recost range 24 & 30hx weapons are interesting, but add a combersome complication, especially having up four or more range bands.  I think that this is very unnecessary, and will slow game flow. 
I haven't had any complaints from my friends that I game with reguarding those of my ships that have range 30hx weapons.  Some of these friends once fielded slow ships with too many short-ranged weapons.  They adjusted their designs to make them more effective. 

This is much the same way that, during the 1920s and 1930s, many navies increased the range on their battleships' heavy guns.  They choose to do this instead of complaining and trying to make it difficult for others to increase their BBs' heavy guns' ranges... 

One of the many aspects of the SAE that I enjoy is that maximum range is now up to 30. 8)   
It is already reasonable costed.  If players don't like these long ranges, then make a house rule to disallow them. 
But to try to change the game is very unreasonable. :shock:

Brilliant! 
Perhaps I should fit my Iowa class BBs with 16" Plasma Guns, range=60...   

We usually play battles where each side, and each player, gets a certain number of points, usually from 2000 to 3000 per player.  If I have 3000 pts, I take two BBs, and two DDGs (striker-carring destroyers).  These escorts are hull size 4 to 7.  They have only one or 2 shorter-ranged weapons.  Their primary punch is their drones. 8)
I rarely take any cruiser-sized ships.

Hello everyone,
I don't think that range 24 & range 30 are underpriced. 
Consider a WW1 naval game, Grand Fleets for example.  The British Dreadnought HMS Queen Elizabeth (24knots & 8x15"guns) encounters an equal point value of German predreadnoughts of the Deutchland class (18knots & 4x11"guns with much shorter range).  What would happen?  If the British player is skilled, then he will keep out of the range of the German 11" guns and pulverise the German ships with long-range 15' gunfire.  This does not make the predreadnoughts over-pointed (nor the QE 'under pointed').   It does make them out classed, and perhaps not the best chioce for the German player to take; he neads ships of his own with longer-ranged guns, or faster ships.  :shock: 
0ne of the reasons I have ships with long range firepower is to keep that from happening.  My ships are more like HMS Queen Elizabeth...
(In fact, I have a Starmada version ofHMS Queen Elizabeth with 8x15"plasma guns which are 1/3+/1/2 on a 16 hull ship... )  8)