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
Also, I recommend some limit on max engines (~15 or 16, probably, to keep it on par with weapon ranges).
This is interesting. I've been hearing from another group lately that they don't see a reason for thrust ratings any higher than 3 or 4.
Inari7 wrote:I have to agree, the game win goes to the player with the best design rather then the best tactics.
This, a thousand times.
Sorry -- I don't want to seem defensive, but I don't "get" this. If there are options or traits that are "must haves" or are so powerful as to prohibit any effective counter, I'm not aware of it...
Certainly, there are designs that are going to be more or less effective against a given opponent, but I don't know that anyone's come up with a fleet that is simply unbeatable in all circumstances.
Dan please notice that I said the "length of our games" and not everyone's games.
Noted, although I'm not sure why it matters... I was only trying to explain the point-costing rationale.
Dan I'm not sure if you've ever considered it, but some it would be great for both new-comers and people-who-play-against-power-gamers if you came up with some "official tournament rules for starship construction"
I'm listening for any suggestions...
IMHO strikers-seekers-ammo are not really balanced for the length of our games.
FWIW... ammo is point-costed based on an expectation (for the smallest ships) that you will get at least two shots out of a normal weapon. Thus, the ORAT for a weapon with one "shot" is 50% that of a normal weapon. For the largest ships, the expectation is that you'll get at least six shots out of your normal weapons.
Interestingly, some recent simulated battles seem to indicate that this is still OVER-costing weapons with ammo... 
Random thought/question...
If I wanted to model the directional shield strengths from SFB/FC without going the route of faceted shields, how could this best be accomplished?
The 50% reduction for flotillas is made BEFORE any additions to the DRAT.
Mounted on a ship one hit will take out your one weapon while one hit will only destroy one of the three lasers.
True, but the chance of scoring a hit on that battery is three times as great if you have three lasers instead of one.
In the process of pruning literally HUNDREDS of spambot registrations from the forum... if your registration accidentally gets purged as well, please accept my apologies in advance.
Grr...
This system hits it out of the park. It is exactly what we want. I have to say WELL DONE.
Glad to hear it! Thanks for the kind words.
That said, I have a couple of questions after going through the books a couple of times:
Uh oh... 
If so, how does one enter that on say the windows calculator in scientific mode? I know it is not really necessary at that point because of that handy chart, but it become necessary in determining the COMBAT RATING (ORAT x DRAT)0.5. So is that to the 0.5 power? Help a math challenged person out!
X^0.5 is simply the square root of X.
On a scientific calculator (like in Windows), to get 10^1.3 power, enter "10", press the "x^y" key, enter "1.3", and hit "=". (The result should be 19.953.)
You can get the square root of 10 in one of two ways:
1) In scientific mode, enter "10", press the "x^y" key, enter "0.5", and hit "=".
2) In standard mode, enter "10", press the square root key ("sqrt").
2. Piercing, Piercing[x] etc. Does that increase the IMPACT or DAMAGE? The book says Impact. So why would one ever choose this if it is impact, when one could just build the ship with one additional impact?
Piercing does not increase the NUMBER of impact dice; it increases the RESULT of each impact die. For example, if you roll two dice and they come up 3 and 5, if your weapon is Piercing +1, those dice would be read as 4 and 6.
3. Wrapping my head around "Strikers" and "Seekers". These are kind of like "Missiles" right?
Either missiles or fighters with one-shot weapons.
4. Are the SFB sourcebooks ever coming to PDF?
They are already available via PDF over at e23.sjgames.com
My experience (and, I suspect, that of a lot of players) has been that range-3 weapons are most useful against fighters, which have to close to point-blank range to attack. In a simultaneous move system like Starmada, it's difficult to predict the enemy's movement with enough certainty to reliably get within a couple hexes.
On the other hand, towards the end of a battle, when the opponent's thrust ratings have been suitably reduced, range-3 weapons might be effective in a "mop up" role.
But you're probably right: a fleet that relies on range-3 weapons to deliver its main offensive punch is going to struggle.
Not to completely ignore the real meat of the discussion, but flotillas are kind of a posterior justification; Impact has been more expensive than Damage and less than RoF since before flotillas came out in Dreadnoughts.
This is true.
ROF is weighted most heavily due to the existence of fighters. IMP and DMG have different weights for a number of reasons, not least because I thought it was rather elegant -- for a 1/1/1 weapon, the factors are 2^(0/3) * 2^(1/3) * 2^(2/3).
Frankly, I must apologize for getting wrapped up in the numbers; that's what happens when I'm presented with an absolute claim like "there is no difference..." There is a difference; we can argue whether it is due to "getting your licks in first", "wasted damage", or some other artifact of "position[ing] in a lossy statistical process". However, the issue is really not worth the text and forum space already devoted to it.
Consider: if it were to be determined there is no basis for weighting IMP and DMG differently, the formula would become ROF x (IMP + 0.414) x (DMG + 0.414). Doing so would increase the CRAT of a ship with nothing but 1/1/5 weapons by a whopping 4.6%. Meanwhile, the CRAT of a ship with nothing but 1/5/1 weapons would decrease by 4.5%.
In other words, all the hulabaloo is about, in the most extreme and unlikely case, one fighter flight out of a 1000-point fleet.
More importantly, this focus on thousands (millions?) of battles completely ignores the short-term effects of various weapon configurations. Berserker said, "Starmada is either intended as a game where design, deployment, skill and often luck make a difference over a short number of turns, in which case the effects of single volley need to make a significant difference, or it's a game where ships line up on opposite sides and the players roll buckets of dice until the 'marginal percentages accumulate over the course of a game'. You cannot have it both ways."
Actually, I would argue you MUST have it both ways. The results of buckets of dice accumulated over several turns or even games are important when determining the relative value of particular weapons, traits, and equipment. That's what all the numbers have been about in this thread. But the short-term effects are also important, because that's what makes the course of each individual game unpredictable, and therefore fun.
Against a target with shields 3, a 5/1/1 ACC 4+ weapon has the following damage probabilities (for simplicity, we're ignoring the 50/50 split between hull and systems-only damage):
DAMAGE 0: 23.7%
DAMAGE 1: 39.6%
DAMAGE 2: 26.4%
DAMAGE 3: 8.8%
DAMAGE 4: 1.5%
DAMAGE 5: 0.1%
For a 1/5/1 weapon:
DAMAGE 0: 51.6%
DAMAGE 1: 7.8%
DAMAGE 2: 15.6%
DAMAGE 3: 15.6%
DAMAGE 4: 7.8%
DAMAGE 5: 1.6%
For a 1/1/5 weapon:
DAMAGE 0: 75.0%
DAMAGE 5: 25.0%
Admittedly, there is no difference in the POTENTIAL number of hits -- in each case, the average is 1.25 -- but there are clear differences in the distribution of ACTUAL hits. One could write this off as mere "narrative" effect, but most players would probably agree there's a big difference between inflicting no damage and rolling 5 damage dice. 
To get back to the point of things, though, the three-step fire resolution actually did provoke some criticism from my group as being unnecessarily long / slow / complicated, surprisingly.
Which brings up an interesting observation: even if we stipulate that little is lost by throwing all of your potential dice into ROF stat, little is gained, either. There will still need to be three steps -- to-hit, impact, damage -- all you're shedding is the possible need to pick up additional dice at each step.
-----
On the question of whether IMP should have a direct interaction with the target's shields; I would say "no", but that's merely because I'd like to keep the basic rules as vanilla as possible. I'd rather leave IMP as it is for players who want the existing effect (even if just for "narrative" purposes) and rely on the piercing/non-piercing traits to fill the role of specialized weapons.
However, for those who do want to model such an interaction, Berserker's suggestion is not a bad one. A quick run-through of the numbers shows the following relative values:
IMP 1: 1.0
IMP 2: 1.9
IMP 3: 2.7
IMP 4: 4.3
IMP 5: 6.0
For my money, that's close enough you could probably use this as an optional rule without making any changes to the point value... But I'd prefer to wait to say for certain until some playtesting reports come in.
My question is: how much capacity does each "Drone Flight" consume?
Each drone rack contains one "flight" with a capacity of 12.
I felt it best to put in the time to do my own simulations and recompose my argument since it's clear that it really wasn't understood first time round. Please read this time.
Seriously?
If you're interested in engaging in a constructive conversation, it's best not to lead off with an insult.
The problem is that the damage of these weapons is only inflicted in multiples of three and therefore to destroy your ideal 10 hull ships the high damage weapons need to do 12 points (3 x 4 hits) of damage. 2 out of the 12 points of damage (16.7%) is wasted helping debris clouds expand.
Fine. Granting the point -- not conceding it -- I altered it to ROF 5 vs. DMG 5. For good measure, I accounted for the result of each individual ROF die roll, instead of altering the chance of scoring a hit.
The result?
The high-ROF side wins 53.9% of the time -- making it 17% more likely to win any given battle.
In other words the "early weapon damage" effect is simply undetectable, if it exists at all.
I have shown that this is incorrect. You have failed to demonstrate why my calculations are in error. But even if I'm wrong on this point...
What you are actually observing is that in the Combat resolution equation (ROFxACCxIMPxSHLDxDMG) factors at the start are slightly more valuable than those at the end.
...YOU CONCEDE THE INITIAL PREMISE. We can quibble over the reasons -- but the result is the same.
What, FFS, are we even arguing about?
When state "RoF is the best stat" there was a chorus of agreement from almost everyone else.
You know what that chorus has in common? THEY'VE ALL PLAYED THE GAME.
I'll even concede it's possible (probable?) the effect for some players is more psychological than statistical -- it just feels good to roll lots of dice up front and know your efforts are having some effect; certainly it feels better than only rolling one die and missing. Even when you do hit, the fact that you're rolling lots of IMP or DMG dice often makes you feel like you've just caught up with the law of averages...
However, I have NEVER SAID the objective advantage to ROF is a large one -- only that it is real.
What's lacking from the strategic mix is the concept of weapons that are better in certain circumstances but not others. For example nobody in this thread has said anything like "ROF is good against small craft, but DMG is better against large ones".
That's a totally different topic than what you've been going on about.
You started by saying: "There's no difference between ROF/IMP/DMG."
I replied with some math and said: "Yes, there is. Factors early in the combat resolution process are (slightly) more advantageous."
You countered with some more math, and then said: "FACTORS EARLY IN THE COMBAT RESOLUTION PROCESS ARE (SLIGHTLY) MORE ADVANTAGEOUS."
If you had started by asking, "Are ROF/IMP/DMG more useful in some circumstances than others?" this thread would have gone in a completely different direction.
The core rules of Starmada's weapon combat mechanics are the worst of both worlds, they simply lack that strategic dimension of many systems without benefitting from the streamlined simplicity of others.
Even if true, you acknowledged early on there are "narrative" reasons why some players/fleets might prefer high-ROF weapons, while others might prefer high-IMP or high-DMG. If you think the "lack of strategic dimension" doesn't counter these narrative benefits, then vary your weapons' ROF stats and ignore the others. But if others think differently, THEY'RE NOT WRONG.
Anyone who has played any reasonable amount of wargames will recognise Section 4.3 as being fairly typical in describing a mechanism in which IMP is intended to be used to counter shields, and it's my belief that this is the mechanism that was actually intended
Wow. It must be nice to know what's going on in my head better than I do.
This is where your whole position breaks down. You are attributing things to the game THAT ARE NOT IN THE RULES and WERE NEVER INTENDED. Please identify the text that states (or even implies) a high IMP stat is specifically meant to counter a high shield rating. To make it easy, here's the entirety of rule 4.3:
In order to score damage, a hit must penetrate the target's shields. For each hit scored as a result of the to-hit roll, roll a number of dice equal to the weapon's IMP. For example, if a weapon with an IMP value of 2 scored two hits, a total of four impact dice would be rolled.
Compare the result of each die separately to the target's shield rating; each die that exceeds this value causes a point of impact to the target.
The destroyer's laser cannons have an IMP value of 2. One hit was scored, so two dice are rolled against the cruiser's shields, which have a rating of 3. The dice come up 3 and 4, causing one point of impact.
Against a target without shields (either by design or as the result of damage), the impact roll is unnecessary—each die automatically “gets through”.
You are reading things into the rules -- and more importantly, into the "intent of the designers" -- THAT ARE SIMPLY NOT THERE. The only thing a high IMP is meant to do is make it more likely that SOME damage will be caused -- just as a high-ROF weapon is more likely to inflict SOME hits.
Your own argument ... basicaly confirms your own mistaken belief that a mechanic relating IMP and shields exists and IMP is "more effective" (your words) whereas in fact it gives less than a one percent advantage. After saying that (as the designer) I don't think that you can reasonably argue that the absence of any such relationship is not a design flaw.
My argument does no such thing. I have NEVER THOUGHT, INTENDED, or STATED that there is (or should be) a direct correlation between IMP and a target's shield rating.
IMP is "more effective" against ships equipped with shields for the same reason that "ROF [is] the best in all cases" (your words) -- because it comes earlier in the process. A POINT YOU HAVE CONCEDED.
The problem I suspect is that the baby's been thrown out with the bathwater. In adopting the universal dice multiplying mechanism the numerical interaction between IMP (formerly PEN) and shields familiar in other games was dropped.
It was not thrown out with the bathwater. The baby was never there.
At first it looked to me like an elegant game mechanic without any need for an arithmetical comparison or table lookup step but it was self-defeating, by removing the connection you removed the actual interraction and therefore any value for having a seperate IMP parameter.
I assure you; if I had wanted to include a stat that directly interacted with a target's shields, I would (a) know about it, and (b) have come up with something more suited to the task than the existing ROF/IMP/DMG split.
As has been demonstrated by some of the previous posts, the mechanisms are not actually well enough understood by the designers and, on the tabletop, they are buried too deeply in the die rolling sequence and behind special rules for the players to have noticed either. For this reason you can ignore the problem and keep the game as it currently exists, but it doesn't alter the fact that there's a major block of the rule system that doesn't make any positive contribution to the game in the manner that was intended.
There you go again.
Look -- if you think there SHOULD BE a direct interplay between a weapon's IMP and the target's shields, that's one thing. We can discuss/debate that point; or, has been pointed out by others, you can use one of the optional rules that fits the bill.
But stop arrogantly asserting that YOU KNOW WHAT I WANTED.</r>
So 3 ships firing long range with their big guns at one ship would each suffer a -3 overconcentration penalty?
To clarify, the penalty is -2, not -3: it's -1 for each ship AFTER the first.
I would say, ask first, and if there's no speedy reply, go ahead. Just make sure to give credit to the original designer.
Yes.
The movement orders would be "RRRR".
The thrust requirement (assuming a previous speed of 4) would be 4. (Difference between speeds (zero) plus 1 for each sideslip.)
I think we all agree that space is empty, but fluff-wise, I think arguments can be made for fighting around terrain or out in the void, depending upon what players want. I think it's a testament to Starmada that it works anywhere along the terrain spectrum, further emphasizing its modular/play-how-you-want nature.
Indeed.
My initial response should not be taken as a "this is wrong" criticism -- just an "if it were me" suggestion.
Yes. When playing sequentially, the first ship has no penalty; the second has -1; the third has -2; and so on. When playing simultaneously, all ships suffer the maximum penalty.
If you think this is a bit much, you can cut the final modifier in half, rounded up. For example, if there are three ships firing 10"+ guns at the same target, place two "SPLASH" markers.
You should place "SPLASH" markers after fire has been plotted, but BEFORE attack rolls are made.
If you extend the modifiers two decimal places, they become 1.81 for Piercing +2, and 1.75 for Halves Shields.
(Actually, the only time the two give different results is at a shield rating of 3, where Piercing +2 reduces this to an effective rating of 1, while Halves Shields reduces it to 2.)
1) No, you only re-roll 6's in order to determine whether a hit is scored. If a 6 scores a hit on its own, there is no need to re-roll.
2) Yes, if you DO have a target number higher than 6, use the final result to determine extra hits. Thus, in your example, if the target is 7+ and you get a 9, the margin of success is +2, so three hits are scored.
Several thoughts floating around my brain on this:
1) There are historical examples of situations in which the superior force (at least on "paper") was outmatched by the inability to close range. (One example is Troubridge's pursuit of the Goeben in 1914.)
2) However, issue #1 should be mitigated by the constraints of the wargaming table. Goeben was considered a superior force by the Brits because she could keep the range open indefinitely; in your situation, the Hyperions should have been able to close the range within a couple turns, since the White Stars are restrained by the board edge, right?
3) Regardless, point values 400 to 320 are not "pretty similar"... That's the equivalent of a nearly 60% increase in firepower!
How often do you use terrain? Do you find enough game variety without terrain? Was the game designed principally for open space play?
Personally, I don't like to play with terrain, aside from maybe a few asteroids now and then.
Others may have different perspectives, tho.
Welcome, and thanks for sharing your ideas!
My only quibble (I like the concept) is the relative paucity of open space -- there's only a 1-in-12 chance of fighting without any terrain at all. While I understand the point of a terrain table is to, you know, HAVE TERRAIN, I would still think open space should result at least 40-50% of the time. But that's just me...
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.