Played with this some over the last couple of days. The Agile and Nimble designations are unneeded.

The reduction in the size of engines is unneeded if using the 1/2 speed (round up) formula.

Calculations on "turn mode" are not needed; they are removed.

Plays well as written above.

Still need to see if anything can be done for small-craft -- I do not like setting a speed limit on fighters, but not ships... although this may become a needed abstraction when all is said and done.

Sideslips are free, but a requirement due to the abstraction that causes a reduced amount of detail in movement as distances are divided into discrete elements in a hex-based system. Still, limit them to pre-plotted movement, and with a hex of non-maneuvering between maneuvers and things are more "controlled" than they first appear.

As far as the use of thrust in turning to control speeds... this is a good point. I am making some more changes above... let me know what you think.

This is the movement system I recall... I was thinking that the "cinematic" moniker reffered to something above and beyond what I recall as the movement system of FT.

Not unpredictable, and not predictable, per se. It means that movement becomes more predictable. I just really enjoyed the freedom of having ships with very fluid movement rates. It was nice.

Again, I think the "speed = thrust resquired to turn" is a good system, and one that is easy to work with. I would just advocate for smaller engines if my gaming group went that route -- so that the "cruising" speed of ships would be closer to 8 or9 instead of 4 or 5.

Very nice.

Good call, Dan.

There are two reasons I would argue against fractional ROF, and instead argue for a weapon characteristic called "delay" or "recharge" or something that slows the weapon down.

1. Fractions cause confusion in text-based ship records. Even in spreadsheets, they are clunky when displayed.

2. I would like to see the capability of having a weapon that has a ROF 3, and a delay. This would be a weapon that bursts with fire, cools down (or gets reloaded, or what-have-you), then can fire another burst.

This seems an odd distinction, I am sure. But if you play with it, you will see that it is one of those things that makes more sense the more you play with it.

As far as costing it... I agree with Marcus: the payback should be less than the gain. You cannot have a weapon that fires once in 20 rounds ... but fires a "map killer shot" when it does without having trouble. One way of mitigating this, without mucking up the calculations, is to state that, at the start of the game, a weapon with a "delay" factor cannot fire until turn X, where X is the delay factor.

For example, suppose a ship has a weapon that is like an SFB Photon Torpedo. It has a fire-delay-fire pattern. This is Delay 1. The weapon can fire on turn 1 if the opportunity arises.

For example, suppose a ship has a weapon that is like an SFB Plasma Torpedo. It has a fire-delay-delay-fire pattern. This is Delay 2. The weapon cannot fire on turn one of the battle, but must wait until at least turn 2 before it is armed and ready.

So if this theoretical fire-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-delay-fire weapon with Delay 19 is thrown into a battle... you had better hope that ship can survive until turn 19 when that weapon is finally online to be used...

Here is what it looks like:

01: - 1 -
02: 1 - 1
03: 1 1 1
04: 1 2 1
05: 2 1 2
06: 2 2 2
07: 2 3 2
08: 3 2 3
09: 3 3 3
10: 3 4 3
11: 4 3 4
12: 4 4 4
13: 4 5 4
14: 5 4 5
15: 5 5 5
16: 5 6 5
17: 6 5 6
18: 6 6 6

This chart shows the SPD: Ph1 Ph2 Ph3

SPD = Speed (or velocity)
Ph1 = Phase 1
Ph2 = Phase 2
Ph3 = Phase 3

There is a firing oportunity after movement in each phase.

ROF 1: Can fire once in any one phase
ROF 2: Can fire once in any two phases
ROF 3: Can fire once in each phase

Keep in mind that any ship moving a speed of 18 would need an engine rating of 18 to turn one hex-facing each round.

[*]At that speed, with an engine rating of between 9 and 17, the ship would take two rounds to turn one hex facing.[*]At that speed, with an engine rating of between 6 and 8, the ship would take three rounds to turn one hex facing.[*]At that speed, with an engine rating of 5, the ship would take four rounds to turn one hex facing.[*]At that speed, with an engine rating of 4, the ship would take five rounds to turn one hex facing.[*]At that speed, with an engine rating of 3, the ship would take six rounds to turn one hex facing.[*]At that speed, with an engine rating of 2, the ship would take nine rounds to turn one hex facing.[*]At that speed, with an engine rating of 1, the ship would take eighteen rounds to turn one hex facing.

In all honesty, the logistics of most maps means that the max speed most ships will even dare will be in the 12-15 range, if that. Still, given the fact that ships may or may not turn, maneuvering will be at a premium.

Thoughts:

Movement Costs:
In order for a ship to move 1 hex, it needed to pay the power points (PP) needed to accomplish that movement. The movement cost is equal to the size of the ship (the hull).

Shielding Costs:
In order for a ship to engage its shielding systems, it needs to PP to raise them. The shielding cost is equal to the size of the ship (hull).

Both of these factors, as Dan Defined them, establish a scale that power points operate on. Consider that in the definitive power allocation game (Star Fleet Battles), the movement cost of most ships is in the "1 to 3 point" range, and these ships can achieve speeds as high as 30 (plus 1 for the impulse engines) in the game. Thus, having weapons at "1 to 5 point" range, makes sense.

As Marcus points out, this ratio (cost to move vs. cost to fire weapons) is an important one. No power allocation system can ignore this and remain functional, I think.

Dan... this is interesting. But I would "complicate" it a but further.

Shields: Require HULL x SHIELDS power to operate at full capacity. This one is good.

Engines: Require HULL x ENGINES power to operate at full capacity. However, I would assume a "cruising speed" of about 60% of the maximum speed. The ship gets this amount of power at default. Thus: a ship with an engine rating of 8 would have the power (while doing all other things) to move at 60% of 8, or 5. If it wants to operate at a speed greater than 5, then something has to give.

Weapons: A "generic" 1 point per weapon is simple, but lacking. I would have a "power required" formula that was like [(RNG x ROF x PEN x DMG)^0.5]/3

(rounded up to nearest whole number; weapon mods adding or subtracting from the calculation).

Thus, a RNG 3, ROF 1, PEN 1, DMG 1 weapon would have a power requirement of 1 PP; while a RNG 12, ROF 3, PEN 2, DMG 1 weapon would have a power requirement of 3 Power Points. That mondo RNG 18, ROF 3, PEN 3, DMG 3 weapon would have a power requirement of 8 PP.

Just an idea... but this may be far more than you were wanting to do with such a system.

Very nice initial posting. Thanks for starting this discussion.

Recently, in a small group that I discuss Starmada issues with, a topic of similar theme came up. The basic question boiled down to this: does Starmada offer the sorts of give-and-take choices to the player -- in the game phase , not in the design phase -- that make for interesting battles?

The answer is many-faceted, and likely to be arguable no matter where you land. But, in my humble opinion as a great fan of this game, the answer to this question is not as many as it should.

The number of choices made by the commander -- in the game phase -- is limited to "where do I move?" and "whom do I shoot?" And this is about it. So lets look at these one at a time:

(1) Where do I move? The problem with a game like Starmada in this particular choice is that, given the formulae used to design the ships in the first place, the definition of a "quick" ship in Starmada is about 5 or 6 hexes of movement once you get into the ships of hull 5+. Below hull 5, you have some more speed that can come into play. But the bulk of your firepower is wrapped up in ships that are moving slowly enough that accurate predicitons of movement are highly likely.

(2) Whom do I shoot? The problem with a game like Starmada in this particular choice is that, give the fact that the game (by default) allows all weapons a firing rate of at least one shot per turn, at no time are you trying to decide if firing this turn is a good idea. If an enemy is in range -- fire! Always. Never hold back. Never wait for a better shot, because if the better shot comes, you can shoot him again.

So, I have to say (again, stressing that this is despite my love of the game) the number of potential tactical choices that can be made (under the default conditions of Starmada) is drastically limited. This is exacerbated by the certain additional design philosophies that are built into the game:

(3) Universal Defenses: When I have shields in the game, I have universal, omni-directional shields that come down at a uniform rate. In other words, not via design nor via battle damage will I ever have a weak side of the ship that needs to be protected above and beyond the others. Granted, there is the screens rule; but (in my humble opinion, and in my experience), screens are among the more abusable rules in Starmada. Set up 12 screens (at the cost of 3 shields) and you effectively have shield 4/4/4 on the front three zones; move up to screens 16 (at the cost of 4 shields) and you have 5/5/5 on the front zones with a screen to spare... if shields were designated and fixed in given directions (ie: I had 6 different shield ratings that protected and were damaged independently) then things might be different. I might have a weak shield that causes me to have to maneuver to keep the stronger remaining shields at the enemy.

(4) Forward Arcs: The game treats any and all arcs as equal. And this is demonstratably not true. Consider: in the formulae for the OCV of a weapon, the range of the weapon and the engine rating are combined, as a method of incorporating the additional range a good movement score will grant a weapon. But this is most effective for the AB arcs, less effective for the CD arcs, and have relatively little impact on the EF arcs (if at all). Combine this with the low movement rates discussed above, and you have the core reason so many home-brew ships have every single weapon in the AB arc.

(5) Simplicity: Dan has created an amazing game that is simple, and as advertized, is not simplistic. However, simplicity and depth are at odds with one another in game design. One can go too far and become too simple (how many people continue playing candyland after the age of 8? How many tactics manuals could be written for that game?); just as one can become too deep (Star Fleet Battles has a compiled, complete rulebook that is over 500 pages with options for its options; The initial investment in time to learn the game can be tremendous.). However, if anything, the gaming world has proven that it can strike a balance between simplicity and depth without becoming too complex. For example: Chess.

In Chess, you have 6 different pieces that have 6 unique sets of simple rules that define them. You have a fixed playing field (8x8 checkerboard pattern). You have a fixed starting condition (piece locations). You have two basic mechanics in the game (move, capture). You have one basic restriction rule applied (blocking). And you have a handfull of "advanced topics" -- pawn initial movement and en passant; king-rook castling; pawn promotion.

From these simple rules -- which take up no more space to write than the current Starmada X rules (minus the design rules!) and yet this is a game that has a depth that has taken centuries to explore. And some people claim today, it has not been fully explored, even today.

So what conclusions can be drawn?

Starmada is a good game. Starmada has the potential to become a great game if Dan wants to make it one. But he has to be willing to push the envelope a bit, and see how far the basic framework will let him go.

And from what I have read, and from the conversations I have had with Dan... I think he is not only willing... he is ready.