76 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ok, after mucking around with it some more and enlisting the help of a more mathematically inclined friend, I think there are a few ways to make it possible to do what I believe is intended. But after considerable fiddling around with the results, I'm not convinced its worth the hassle.

It really opens up other cans of worms when the basic weapon formula changes and I'm sure many other values would probably have to be re-evaluated to maintain consistancy.

I also have a list of other items that I've seen that might be worth a mention if anyone is interested in further rambling. I hesitate to post it at this point because I dont want to look like I'm trying to bash the system or something.... :oops:

Overall, I'm impressed with the job that the CR system does considering the extreme number of variables involved. I think it just has to be used with the understanding that its not a 'tournament' system and is definately going to open to, if not exploits, then at least min-maxing. And again, I have no problems with that given the flexibility that the system allows.

Thanks again for reading my ramblings! smile

Go to forum: Starmada

77 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(6 replies, posted in Starmada)

However, a Thunderbolt? Do you not like the Imperials or something?

Heheh...who knew? I was just trying to throw some ships out there quickly that added up to reasonably even point cost (CR).

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:

Anyways, it was a fun introduction (of somewhat one-sided). And yep, I definately enjoyed the experience!

Go to forum: Starmada

78 Topic by Uncle_Joe

(6 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hi guys,

OK, I've been bantering around here about the Construction system and whatnot, but I hadnt had a chance to actually sit down and play a game until tonight.

It was just a small test run affair using stock ships from the Starmada X book. It took about an hour and change to run all told including learning and looking up ship stats and rules etc. I expect a second playing to probably take half of that time.

Imperials:

1 x Mojhari CA
2 x Contentious FF

534 CR

Arcturans:

1 x Thunderbolt DN
2 x Peregrine ES

541 CR

I'm not going to give a blow by blow as I didnt take notes (and who'd want to read it anyways?), but here are some initial thoughts after play:

1) The game is a lot of fun to play!  smile Might be obvious, but a lot of games that look good on paper dont really play well...this is not one of them.

2) I actually liked the plotted movement. I generally dont care for such things, but in this case, it kind of added a 'pucker factor' not knowing where the enemy would end up. Without it., firing arcs would be fairly pointless since it would be easy to keep the enemy in your sights.

3) Being slow rocks when the range is great. We started at 25 hexes (biggest hex map I have) and the Thunderbolt just wrecked things with little threat of effective retaliation. The SUs saved by being slow really packs the weapons on! 30 decent weapons + Spinal mount! Thats a lot of firepower....a whole lot! They are all long ranged weapons and combined with the LRS, that ship was a beast.

4) Not having ANY rear firing weapons or AFB is a death sentence if the opponent has any Squadrons. The above mentioned Thunderbolt easily won the engagement slaughtering the 3 Imperial ships, but the remnants of the 2 Fighter Squadrons got behind her and forced her to Hyper out. Since Fighters move AFTER plotted movement and there is no 'opportunity fire' or anything of the sort, once the Fighters got behind her, there was literally no way to win (the 2 Peregrines had died off early in the fight).

5) Scavanged Twilight Imperium pieces make pretty acceptable miniatures. smile I'm actually using a mix of TI3 and TI2 pieces with some Buck Rogers (TSR 80s release) ships thrown in to fill out the class types.

All in all, a successful and enjoyable first run. This game definately has a lot of potential. I can see that balance screws are possible, but judicious use of pre-made 'realistic' fleet lists can overcome that. Looking forward to the next chance I get to play!

Go to forum: Starmada

79 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(123 replies, posted in Starmada)

This is a VERY cool spreadsheet....really helps develop 'flavor' for a race.

I notice a few possible errors (or they might just be UTS errors, but I figured I'd post 'em).

1) Stutterdrives seems to screw up the Used and Left fields of the SU section (both are #NA when a SD is added)

2) Shockwave does the same to O and CR in the CR section.

3) I dont *think* the Large/Small flights of Fighter are taking up different space in the Bays. When I used Small Flights, I didnt see a way to get the 3 for 2 Flights per Bay.

Thanks a lot for this great tool!

Go to forum: Starmada

80 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

Thanks for the complete breakout andyskinner. I tend to do this stuff more by hand or in my head so it helps to see it all laid out like that! smile

I think from looking at it that through all the permutations, it looks clear that 'D' is the best option from a scaling and consistancy point of view. From what I can see, it has no abnormalities or strange break points the way anything with a flat add'er does.

Like I said above (or below now...who knows?) I happened upon this cost oddity when comparing my initial designs to some published on the web and found mine lacking. One of my designs was nearly identical to another I found except that mine cost quite a bit more. A quick check showed it to be the RoF problem. My ship had higher Pen/Dmg but less RoF on some pretty big weapons...that added up to a lot of CR and space. Backtracking, I came upon the fact that no matter what else was going on, RoF was cheaper to increase than Pen or Dmg and it conveyed bonuses that the latter two did not.

Anyways, I'm still trying to decide if I want to 'fix' it for my group or not. Doing so will make designing ships seem like less of a fudge factor, but it also invalidates many of the designs found on the web or even in the original book...

Go to forum: Starmada

81 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ah, OK thanks! Fantasy systems are fun too, but I only picked up Starmada yesterday. smile

I'm sure if my group gets into Starmada, we'll eventually move on and pick up something similar in scope, but in the Fantasy genre.

FWIW, I've designed both space tactical and a fantasy combat games for my own group of friends. I know how hard it can be to get those formulae and costs worked out!

At this point I'm trying to decide if I want to 'fix' the formula for Starmada before I really get into playing. I've thrown together four races so far but if a change is coming, I'll wait on building more to save the extra work.

What is y'alls usual 'policy' on something like this? Have you encountered similar things before? Do you tend to just wait till the next printing (Starmada XII  :wink: ) or do you 'update' things like this as you find 'em? In this case its not quite as simple as a rules errata....For me its a sticking point because I *know* its there and its harder for me to design 'inferior' ships on purpose.

Anyways, no biggie either way. Its just something that immediately popped out as me as I sat down to flesh out my first shipsets.

Thanks again!

Go to forum: Starmada

82 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

jimbeau wrote:

yeah, can you work on the point formula for For the Masses next please smile

I'll give you ... um ... credit?

Hmm, not sure what you a referring to with this one, but I'll take credit! big_smile

Go to forum: Starmada

83 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

Another possible quick solution might be to move the 'base' cost to the Pen and Dmg stats instead of on RoF

For example, instead of it being:

(R+1)*P*D

its

R*(P+.5)*(D+.5)

This makes R the smaller stat and thus makes changing it have the larger effect on the total cost. Again, its not huge changes, but it is noticable (and I believe it scales up better than the (R*P*D)+R method mentioned).

Example:

1/1/1 Weapon current mult is 2, with the variant would be 2.25

Increasing RoF to 2/1/1 means old cost would be 3, new cost would be 4.5

To get the same firepower increase out of Pen or Dmg would be cheaper:

1/2/1 = 4 under old system and 3.75 under the variant

In a nutshell:

Old      -->            New

1/1/1 = 2    -->     1/1/1= 2.2
2/1/1 = 3    -->     2/1/1= 4.5
1/2/1 = 4    -->     1/2/1= 3.75

So, as you can see, with the flat cost moved to the OTHER two stats, they become less efficient to move, rather than RoF.

I *think* this should do exactly what you want it to do. The math is slightly more difficult, but with the spreadsheets in common use, that is meaningless IMO.

Thoughts?

Go to forum: Starmada

84 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(18 replies, posted in Starmada)

And I'm not asking anybody to change the point and space systems for me, with all those published ships out there. But if I'm reading right, it doesn't do what was expected.

Ditto here. I'm not sure its worth changing at this late point, but people just have to be aware that RoF is the most efficient, not least efficient component to increase when looking to add to a weapon's firepower.

Would be reasonably achieved with something more like:
ROF X PEN X DMG + ROF

This makes RoF slightly more expensive, but especially at the higher levels its not much of difference in the multiplier.

The real trick here is that its difficult to tweak just the RoF number without unhinging the whole mess. Weapon costs are based heavily on having a minimum expense of x2 even for the most basic 1/1/1 weapon ((1+1)*1*1)=2 times.

Given that, does andyskinner's solution work across the board? I dont know for sure yet, but it does appear better than the current formula, assuming RoF is supposed to cost more than the other components. Its certainly better than having RoF be a cheaper component to increase in that case.

Go to forum: Starmada

85 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

Go0gleplex wrote:

While I could be wrong myself, I believe one of the main differences between battery weapons and spinal mounts is that the battery weapons may be built with special abilities...increasing weapon cost accordingly.  Without such bonuses, these weapons tend to be actually cheaper in SUs that a spinal mount.

Battery Weapons definately are allowed a flexibility in Abilities that Spinals are not. No doubt that is a benefit. Thats why I mentioned that its not a good idea to design a weapon with similar parameters to a Spinal...(ie, lots of damage but with no RoF/Pen and no abilities).

Incindentally, I *think* I discovered why it is that Spinals are more cost effective for the same damage output. It goes back to the RoF problem I mentioned in another thread. Battery Weapons are paying a penalty even for RoF of 1 (the +1), So in order to duplicate the damage output of the Spinal, they are eating a bigger multiplier.

Example:

Size 12 ship Spinal has a RoF of 1, a Pen of 1, and Dmg of 12 for a 'firepower' of 12 potential damage.

For a battery weapon, it would be RoF 2, Pen of 2, Dmg of 3 to get the same 12 'firepower'. However, the multiplier of the battery weapon is not 12, its 18 because of the +1 thrown in on RoF. Ok, so you could get the multiplier down to 16 by increasing RoF to 3, making Pen 2, and Dmg 2, but you are still going to end up paying more OffR (and hence more CR) for the same Damage Output (ie Firepower) of a Spinal.

And again, I think this goes to show that the RoF 'penalty' is backwards for what I think its intended for. From what I understand, all other things equal, a weapon should pay more to increase RoF rather than increasing Pen or Dmg. All three increase Damage Output, but RoF provides more flexibility in hitting Fighters. But as the above example shows, its RoF is actually the MOST SU efficient way to increase Damage Output, not the least...and its still better vs Fighters to boot.

Go to forum: Starmada

86 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(13 replies, posted in Starmada)

When it comes to ship-to-ship damage potential, a ship with five ROF-3 weapons is the same as one with five DMG-3 weapons, all other things being equal. However, the ROF-3 ship will pay 33% more for its weapons, because it can more effectively combat fighters than the DMG-3 ship.

Ok, I dont quite get this here.  I see the original poster's point that to get the same effectiveness, RoF is actually cheaper relative to the other costs.

Example:

I want a weapon to have a 'firepower' of 4 (meaning it can eventually put out 4 points of damage on a max hit).

If I go with RoF 1, Pen 2, Dmg 2 (1x2x2=4), then it cost 8 times ((1+1)*2*2) x (Range*TH Mod). For say, a Range 12 that hits on a 5+ that would be 32 SU.

If I go with RoF 2, Pen 1, Dmg 2 (to get the same 'firepower' of 4), I'd pay ((2+1)*1*2) x (4 for the Range 12 and 5+) it equals 24 SUs.

So its actually CHEAPER to go with the higher RoF with everything else equal. If higher RoF is supposed to be an advantage (because of targeting Fighters or whatnot), then it should be MORE costly, not less.

The culprit here is the +1 added to the RoF calculation in the SU cost. Since its a flat penalty applied to ALL RoF (increased or not), it always behooves you to increase RoF first in order to bring up the weapon's 'Firepower'.

To make RoF cost more, it needs to have a scaling 'penalty'. So for RoF of 1, no penalty. For an RoF of 2, add .5 and for an RoF of 3, add 1

Example:

In cases above, the cost for the 1-2-2 weapon would 1 (no penalty) * 2 * 2 = 4 * 4 (for the Range 12/5+) = 16 SUs.

For 2-1-2, it would 2+.5 ( RoF penalty) * 1 * 2 = 5 * 4 = 20 SUs

Now you are actually paying more for the RoF vis a vis what would you pay to increase the weapon 'firepower' via Pen or Dmg.

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)

Hopefully I'm making some sense here. smile Is there something I'm missing in my calculations? Is there some reason someone would rather have increased Pen or Dmg over increased RoF (everything else even)?

Thanks for your time!

Edit...further example:

When it comes to ship-to-ship damage potential, a ship with five ROF-3 weapons is the same as one with five DMG-3 weapons, all other things being equal. However, the ROF-3 ship will pay 33% more for its weapons, because it can more effectively combat fighters than the DMG-3 ship.

Unless I'm missing something, this is not the case at all. A Weapon 3/1/1 is actually CHEAPER than a weapon 1/1/3, not more expensive. The multiplier is as such:

for the 3/1/1 its ((3+1)*1*1) which = 4

and

for the 1/1/3 its ((1+1)*1*3) which = 6

So you are actually paying more for a less effective weapon, not less.

Again, unless I'm missing the obvious here.

Go to forum: Starmada

87 Topic by Uncle_Joe

(4 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hey all,

OK, I just recently picked up Starmada X and I'm now busily designing ships and fleets....very fun, very cool. smile

I wonder about a few things that have crept up in my musings and design scratchings:

1) Tech Levels. There appears to be no 'cost' in CR for higher tech. How do you evaluate fleets for 'balance' with regard to tech? Does the CR system only hold true for comparisons between similar tech ships or does it really hold true regardless of Tech Levels?

2) Spinal Mounts. Is there a downside to these guys other than Arc? Unless my math is buggered (quite possible...), Spinals seem to be considerably more CR-effective than similar Battery mounted weapons.

For example, for a speed 4, size 12 Hull, a Spinal will take up 252 SUs and 74 OffR. A similar Battery weapon (Range 18, 5+, 2/2/3) would be 108 SUs and 132 OffR. Note that the Battery has only 2/3s the range of the Spinal and a similarly restricted Arc (since increasing the Arc increases the SUs again).

The Battery also seems more vulnerable to loss as a single hit could take it out, whereas the Spinal is still kicking out good damage for quite some time. I suppose that could be considered a wash if you are lucky and the Battery never takes a hit, but if you are unlucky, you could lose the whole kit and kaboodle in one hit.

On a straight comparison, the Spinal takes up a little over 230% of the SUs, but weighs in with only 56% of the OffR. That seems like it might be a fair trade-off considering the Range advantage that the Spinal enjoy, but to me, the Spinal is a fairly clear winner. With that kinds of Range advantage its likely to hurt opposing ships with far less threat of retaliation. Add in some judicious reverse movement to hold the range (a tactic that doesnt thrill me) and I just dont see the downside. And that is at only 56% of the OffR rating, meaning that the ship will weigh in with less CR with a Spinal than with a less effective, but similar Battery weapon.

Ok, so what does this mean? For one, it appears you should probably almost never 'design' a weapon that comes even close the Spinal Mount's profile. It would just be more CR effective to add the Spinal instead. Assuming Tech Levels are 'free', simply increasing the TL of the Equipment should help alleviate the SU problem.

FWIW, I'm not trying to design 'munchkin' ships or anything of the sort. I actually prefer theme-built fleets and ships. I also prefer a more limited game atmosphere that does not allow player total free reign to abuse game mechanics. But the reason this one popped out at me was that I wanted to get a quick comparison of my initial ship designs to already pre-made ones floating around out there.

I went to the Cold Navy site and they had a design (Avatar BC) that was similar to one of my own, but it would annihilate my design quite easily, but for cheaper CR.  :shock:  I plugged the Avatar into the Spreadsheet and found that it was way over the SU limit unless Tech Levels were used (they arent listed on the provided 'spec sheet' at the Cold Navy site). Upping the Tech Levels in various combos on the Spreadsheet quickly turned the design 'legal' in terms of SUs. But its CR cost was still cheaper than my own design and it seemed considerably more powerful. One thing that stood out immediately was the Spinal Mounts (it has 2 on a size 18 ship meaning up to 36 damage at a very long range). The other is the Tech Levels required to 'legalize' the ship. If they dont cost CR, why not crank them?(or again, is the CR system only valid within similar Tech Levels).

So basically I'm trying to get a common frame of reference in which to evaluate my handiwork. TLs seem to skew the CR system and Spinals just seemed to be a really good bargain, especially when coupled with the TL system. Any thoughts on all of this?

If you are still reading, thanks for any input!!  smile

Go to forum: Starmada

88 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(39 replies, posted in Starmada)

Total newbie here, but from the FAQ cant you just 'pad' your ship with Security Troops or Troops or whatnot to give you a sort of 'crew armor'? Wouldn't that take the sting out of the crew destroying weapons to a point?

Go to forum: Starmada

89 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Awesome. Thanx very much for the link. I'll wade through there a little bit and see what I can find!

Go to forum: Starmada

90 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

OK thanks. I was able to find another site that had it as well and with no delay time. Happily reading the rules now. smile

Thanks again!

Go to forum: Starmada

91 Reply by Uncle_Joe

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Ok, thanks for the replies guys. smile

It looks like I made a good decision to go with Starmada. I downloaded the freebie rules set and piddled around with the ship construction tool and I like what I see so far.

As I said, I've already ordered the printed version, but I wouldnt mind getting a PDF version in the meantime and to have as a supplement to the printed version. I didnt see an option to download a PDF from the MJXII site...did I just miss it?

I did see a version available at the Xtreme Hobby site. The cover shown looks different, although it lists as Starmada X. Is this the same exact game? Here is a link:

http://estore.xtreme-hobby.com/coldnavy.html

It looks like they are linked to MJXII, but I want to make sure before I pull the trigger.

Thanks for any help on that.

And BTW, I've come up empty on printable ship counters. sad I would have though there would be tons of them out there, but so far...nada.

Go to forum: Starmada

92 Topic by Uncle_Joe

(8 replies, posted in Starmada)

Hi guys,

Total newbie here. In fact, I'm so new I dont even have it yet! I've read about Starmada in the past, but finally just today pulled the trigger on it. Here's hoping it arrives soon....

Anyways, I went with the Starmada X book on the MJXII site. Is that reasonably comprehensive? I see references here to optional Fighter rules and whatnot (and that really appeals to me). Are these types of things part of the Starmada X book or is there other stuff that has to be hunted down?

One of my peeves with SFB and Starfire was that there was always something else coming out to buy or learn or add to the game. I'm hoping with Starmada that I can finally get a complete package without needing to look in this source book or that compendium. I'm guessing there are some sort of campaign rules out there somewhere already, right? But beyond that, what else would be needed to have a 'complete' package?

Finally, can anyone recommend anything that we can print off and use for ship counters? I dont have the time or money to devote to miniatures for Starmada yet, but some cool color counter that we can push around would be good for a start! Has anyone made anything of that sort?

Looking forward to the game. Thanks for any info!

Go to forum: Starmada