This is as good as any:
http://www.java.com/en/download/index.jsp

And Java is pretty safe and should install easily.

andy

I think the hex map helps.  Hopefully Dan will be able to double-click the thing and see it work.

It certainly wasn't intended for use in a game to find out how you can move.  I had some trouble understanding what the movement system would do, and wanted to see it.  And I like making this kind of thing. 

The biggest thing I get from looking at it is that the U maneuver is kind of an anomaly, in terms of what you can do.  You can spin around and even move back the way you came in a way I'm not sure I like.  Just in case someone didn't like a ship to be able to spin around in such a way, how much effect do you think it would have on the game to disallow U turns?  I'm curious about either game play or point balance.  I'm not saying the game is broken and needs to be changed--just that I'm not sure I want my ships to be able to do that.

andy

I assume that if someone cared about this, I'd have heard some comments, or requests, or suggestions for publication.  But because I believe in visualization, I went and added some screen capture pictures.  These aren't as good as interaction, but they're still kinda neat.

http://skinner.andy.googlepages.com/javastarmadamovementprogram

andy

Try going back to that page and downloading StarmadaMoves.jar.  (Example: store it in C:/StarmadaDir/Starmada.java.)

Bring up a Command Prompt (Start menu, Programs, Accessories, Command Prompt) and go to the place you put the jar file.  ("cd C:/StarmadaDir")

type "java -jar Starmada.jar"

If that doesn't work, I'd guess it would be because you didn't have Java on your system.  I have no idea whether someone that isn't very technical would have Java in an accessible place.  Let me know. 

andy

Assuming you know how to run it:

You select the various checkboxes to turn on what it is supposed to show.  Then you wiggle the sliders to change the thrust and original speed.  It shows you what positions/facings you can get to with that thrust and that speed, depending on what you've selected.

The checkboxes are the different kinds of moves that have different thrust requirements.

This worked for me on Windows.

If you need to know how to run it, let me know.

andy

Does that mean changes might be made after the 17th?  In other words, does it make sense to wait for a printed book until the dust settles?

I assume dust settling is what is happening now, though, just in a constrained environment.

andy

Did you make the ROF point cost change?  Did you use something that was mentioned in the discussion, or come up with something new?

andy

Taltos, I don't have a specifc solution myself.  I offered RPD+R when I first ran into the problem.  Uncle Joe has been championing something that I think is a bit complex, but tries to keep the overall values at the same scale as current (so you don't have to rebalance).  I'd like to see something that does the trick but isn't complex (even though I doubt I'll create ships by hand).

John, you mention that high ROF would have fewer weapons.  Wouldn't that be even more so with high PEN or DMG, since they cost more (even though they don't have the advantages that ROF has)?

I didn't follow your suggestion about only allowing one thing to be destroyed per die that hits.  Do you mean that passes the to-hit roll, making ROF even more important?  If you mean per die that actually makes a damage roll (what I think you mean), I don't think that makes any distinction between high ROF and high DMG or PEN.  They all make the same expected number of damage rolls, just with a different spread. What am I missing?

I do like tables (though I prefer visualization--I suppose I could plot these things instead) to give a feel for what the possibilities are.  Earlier I posted a table showing the difference in a weapon's value with the different formulae.  Here's one showing some scaling values--how much they differ from the current rule.  It may show some of what Uncle Joe's concern is.

k = current SU, (R+1)PD
a: (RPD+R) / k
b: (R(P+.5)(D+.5))/k (UJ's original proposal)
c: (1.2(RPD + (3R + P + D)/5))/k (UJ's current proposal)
R  P  D   a      b       c
1  1  1:  1.0,  1.13,  1.2
1  1  2:  0.75, 0.94,  0.96
1  1  3:  0.67, 0.88,  0.88
1  2  1:  0.75, 0.94,  0.96
1  2  2:  0.63, 0.78,  0.81
1  2  3:  0.58, 0.73,  0.76
1  3  1:  0.67, 0.88,  0.88
1  3  2:  0.58, 0.73,  0.76
1  3  3:  0.56, 0.68,  0.72
2  1  1:  1.33, 1.5,   1.44
2  1  2:  1.0,  1.25,  1.16
2  1  3:  0.89, 1.17,  1.067
2  2  1:  1.0,  1.25,  1.16
2  2  2:  0.83, 1.042, 1.0
2  2  3:  0.78, 0.97,  0.95
2  3  1:  0.89, 1.17,  1.067
2  3  2:  0.78, 0.97,  0.95
2  3  3:  0.74, 0.91,  0.91
3  1  1:  1.5,  1.69,  1.56
3  1  2:  1.13, 1.41,  1.26
3  1  3:  1.0,  1.31,  1.16
3  2  1:  1.13, 1.41,  1.26
3  2  2:  0.94, 1.17,  1.095
3  2  3:  0.88, 1.094, 1.04
3  3  1:  1.0,  1.31,  1.16
3  3  2:  0.88, 1.094, 1.04
3  3  3:  0.83, 1.021, 1.0

UJ's concern with (RPD + R) is (I think) that it mostly scales point values down, while defenses were balanced with the current rules.

Uncle Joe, your original R(P+.5)(D+.5) still seems a bit complex to me, but not as much as your current.  But the results seem very similar.  Is the current one different enough to make it worth the extra complexity?

Dan, is there a complexity threshold we're looking for?    Are comparisons of different equations useful to you?

andy

I would like to see the ROF thing addressed, though it seems silly since I've only played once.  (Seemed good with my wife playing, but I want to see what my son thinks. 

However, the most important thing is that I am designing with the spreadsheets, and I just want it to be easy to keep up.  If there is a fix needed, I'd like to be able to apply it to what I have already.  Or at least to easily take the data from one sheet and put it in another.  It seems that the spreadsheet is almost an integral part of the rules, and I'd like it to hold still, or at least be easy to follow.

But I still like the idea of wiggling the ROF thing. 

andy

Thanks, Paul, for fiddling with this thing.

Uncle Joe, I'd be interested in an explanation of what is wrong with (RPD)+R.  I was nervous about your suggestion with a .5 or two in it, but I'm using spreadsheets for everything, so it doesn't really matter. 

andy

So if I copy the template for each ship (all within the same document), how do I print the Starmada sheet for each one?  It seems to point just to the Template sheet.  Can I easily redirect it to each of my ships?

Thanks,
andy