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
One interesting thing that comes up from this discussion, which I never really considered before, is that the value of ACC is not linear... just as high ROF is more valuable than high DMG because it makes it more likely that some hits will be scored earlier, so too is ACC 3+ more than twice as valuable as ACC 5+.
Specifically, a fleet with ACC 3+/DMG 2 is 15% more likely to win than a fleet with ACC 5+/DMG 4 (100,000 battles, Side A wins 53,479).
I don't but the "first blood" argument. What you're neglecting to mention is that the low ROF/High DMG design does on average more damage when it gets its (less frequent) hits.
I did not neglect to mention that a 1/1/3 weapon does more damage when it hits: I explicitly stated that, over the long term, both weapons will do the same amount of damage.
If you were going for a prolonged sniping action it's a subjective matter whether you would want to hit infrequently with low DMG or (more) infrequently with (not so) low DMG.
It is not a subjective matter at all. Objectively, high-ROF weapons are more valuable than high-DMG weapons. Consider:
Side A has 10 ships, each with a single weapon that scores 1 point of damage 60% of the time.
Side B also has 10 ships, each with a single weapon that scores 3 points of damage 20% of the time.
Each ship takes 10 points of damage to kill. Damage is applied proportionally; e.g. if a ship takes 2 points of damage, its firepower is reduced to 80% of normal.
I just squared these two sides off against each other 10,000 times, and Side A won 5428 times -- i.e. the "high ROF" fleet was 19% more likely to win a given battle.
Just did it again: Side A wins 5534-4466.
Once more: Side A wins 5430-4570.
And again: Side A wins 5463-4537.
Once more, for good measure: Side A wins 5452-4547.
50,000 battles, and the "high ROF" fleet won 27,307 (55%).
are all multiplicative and therefore all commutative (and associative), you can do them in any order with no overall statistical effect and in sufficient number tending towards identical results.
What you are neglecting to consider is that firepower is not a constant. When a ship takes damage, its ability to hit back is reduced accordingly. So, the ability to reliably get hits is more useful (by a small but not insignificant margin) than the ability to cause more damage when hitting.
Side A, 5523-4476.
The real problem is that the IMP stat specifically is basically worthless [...] However, looking now at the mechanisms, I've realised that the exposition in that section is factually rubbish (maybe it's just intended as narrative)
Which part of rule 4.3 is "factually rubbish"?
Side A, 5425-4575.
You would not see that any of the fleets showed any specific advantage or disadvantage against any other type of ship regardless of the enemies size or shields.
So far, we've been focusing on the extremes: high ROF vs. high DMG. Granted, against a ship with zero shields, there is no difference between IMP and DMG. However, assuming the ship has shields, the same theory applies: high IMP weapons are more likely to cause some damage, and are therefore more effective. The higher the target's shields -- and thus the greater the disparity between less damage more often and more damage less often -- the more pronounced the effect: if we alter the conditions of the above matchup so that Side B scores 6 hits 10% of the time, Side A wins 5823-4177. (This makes Side A 39% more likely to win, instead of ~20%.)
As it is, Side A wins 5507-4493.
I have to say at this point that I think the basic combat mechanism is actually broken, going by the text of the rulebook I don't think it actually does what the designers seem to think it does.
Even granting your premise, I'm not sure I understand the problem. You've acknowledged the "narrative" effect of having separate weapon characteristics -- even absent any real game difference between them, why does this imply the combat mechanism is "broken"?
Side A wins 5421-4579.
In short, over time, a 3/1/1 weapon and a 1/1/3 weapon will inflict the same number of hits. But what this fails to account for is that the distribution of these hits has a small -- but real -- effect upon the course of the game.
And we finish with Side A winning again: 5401-4599.
Thus, over 100,000 battles, Side A wins 54,584 of them. This means the "high ROF" force is 20% more likely to win any given engagement.
However I had a chance to play with the demo rules and ships against my son and after the battle (darn railguns) it occured to me that statistically there's no real distinction between the effect of a Weapon's RoF, Impact and Damage statistics, i.e. the way the basic rules seem to be written (unless I'm misinterpreting them) when everyting else is equal, there's no difference between weapons with (RoF/Imp/Dmg) values of (X/1/1), (1/X/1) or (1/1/X) at least in the core ship vs ship game.
This is ALMOST correct.
From a hits-over-time perspective, there is no difference between a 3/1/1 weapon, a 1/3/1 weapon, or a 1/1/3 weapon. As an example, if the ACC value is 4+, and the target has a shield rating of 3, in each case the average expected number of hits is 0.75/turn. However...
For a 3/1/1 weapon, the chance of scoring at least one point of hull damage is around 33%.
For a 1/3/1 weapon, the chance of scoring at least one point of hull damage is around 29%.
For a 1/1/3 weapon, the chance of scoring at least one point of hull damage is around 22%.
Thus, on average, it will take three turns for the 3/1/1 weapon to cause its first hull hit, compared to 4.5 turns for the 1/1/3 weapon. Even though both weapons will, over time, cause the same amount of damage, there is value in getting your licks in early. Therefore, high-ROF weapons are somewhat more useful than high-IMP weapons, which are themselves slightly more useful than high-DMG weapons.
This is reflected in the point-cost system, which weights ROF more heavily than IMP, and both more heavily than DMG.
What murtalian said...
VERY nice! Love the color scheme...
I would cost it at 0.9. Since a fighter-exclusive weapon cannot attack ships, it always attacks with a 1.5 bonus (the normal cost for anti-fighter is discounted for the attacks made against ships).
There is minimal overlap between KA and RA -- the biggest difference is that RA has rules for the cloaking device.
If you use a weapon in slow-firing mode, you cannot use it in the following turn, even in a non-slow mode.
Damn, wish I knew that before ordering. Ordered RA at the same time as SFO (from MJ12 Games themselves).
FWIW, all non-SFU books are shipped directly from the printers on overseas orders.
The SFU books have to ship from the States.
Distant Armada is a sourcebook for Starmada: The Universal Game of Starship Combat.
This book allows Starmada players to expand their enjoyment of the rich and vast playground of the Star Fleet Universe. It contains all of the rules, options, and starship designs needed to introduce several new adversaries: the Lyran Empire & Democratic Republic, Hydran Kingdom, and WYN Cluster. In addition, new ships are provided for some of the existing empires.
Starmada's modular design means players can hand-pick from dozens of options, creating the type of game they want to play! In addition, the game’s flexible and comprehensive starship construction system lets players build their own designs to test against the best the Lyrans and Hydrans have to offer.
Distant Armada is not a stand-alone product; ownership of either Klingon Armada or Romulan Armada is required. The Starmada Admiralty Edition Core Rulebook is also recommended, but not required.
Another question about hellbore: As there may be many 'lowest' shield facets, which one is taken to determine the shield that will be hit in the event of shield damages?
Or, who decides that?
Decision is made by the defending player.
If you have access to a group that is willing to do some playtesting -- and, more importantly, provide feedback -- please email me. Not ready to say what it's about, other than it is Starmada related...
believe me, you included a points system in it! Just took a look to make sure I wasn't crazy
Wow... combine a brain fart with a complete misread of the OP, and that's what you get. My bad... 
So, GeekEGuy, you're wanting to know if we can share the point system from GF2, so you can use it in GF1? I can send you the relevant page of the rules, but I'm not sure how much good it will do you.
- I recomputed the Hydran Ranger CA and I found a CR of 478, about 30 points less than what say the book. I used the shipyard latest for that.
Without more details, I cannot answer this. For example, what values are you getting for ORAT/DRAT?
- What is the 'extended range' for Stingers?
3 hexes. I don't have a copy of DSA in front of me (out of town for the weekend) but this should be explained on the page prior to the description of stingers.
- AFAIK, Stingers are equipped with a gatling phaser and some fusion bombs. As the latter is 'one-shot' only, I feel their ROF 3 and IMP 2 are a bit over the top.
The gatling phaser itself has ROF-4, meaning the stinger gets two additional dice (3x2=6) for the fusion bomb. I could have used the dual-mode option for fighters, but chose not to.
- Why fusion beams and Hellbore are slow-firing? AFAIK, they shoot every other turn in FC, as Photon torps. Why have they become slow-firing?
SFB/FC have two methods for differentiating weapons, aside from actual damage caused: power allocation and firing rate. Starmada has only one of these. Thus, the translation of weapon stats is a subjective decision.
I still have all the info from the Wiki. And there IS a forum for SFO.
If not, are there any recommendations on what is currently used to help balance out version 1 battles. I've heard most people just use hull points, but it's obvious that ships with the same number of hull points can shell out different amounts of damage.
The problem with sharing a point system is that it has to be written in a way that can be understood... and right now, the point system for GF2 is too cumbersome -- that's the reason it wasn't included in the book, not out of some newfound need for secrecy.
Having said that, hull size actually is a good indicator of relative power, since historically the larger ships carried larger guns.
Huh. My initial response to this appears to have disappeared into the ether...
Daniel, the systems need to produce roughly consistent results... and if Star Fleet Mada is producing situations in which ships are dying, effectively, 2.5 times faster than the background says they should, then IMO that is a genuine problem.
I have to disagree. The idea is not to recreate the SFB/FC "experience", but rather to express the Star Fleet Universe in Starmada terms. Thus, while internal consistency is important (e.g. the Fed CA and Klingon D7 should be a good match for each other) consistency between game systems is much less so.
For one thing, while there is no specified Starmada time scale, the length of a Starmada game turn is certainly different than the length of a SFB/FC game turn.
One issue that I do believe may need to be addressed and nailed down more effectively is ships' relative thrust ratings. I have tried many different methods, but I still am not happy with how SFB/FC power translates to Starmada movement. Any suggestions on this front would be appreciated.
I think some of the problem is using the squadron scale FC designs as a conversion base rather than the Fleet scale which would seem more appropriate to me as a starting point for a Starmada conversion.
Not sure this would make a difference. While the Fleet Scale ships have 1/2 the weapons of Squadron Scale, they also have 1/2 the damage boxes. Thus, the hits-to-kill ratios would remain the same regardless of which scale is used as a basis for conversion.
How developed is the default/implied universe...?
I'll be the first to admit that universe is not my strong suit... but I would LOVE to have a fleshed-out "default" setting for Starmada.
Cross-posted from the FC Forum:
Phaser-1s do the following damage (on average, assuming equal "range bands" a la Starmada):
SHORT (0-8 hexes): 3.9
MEDIUM (9-16 hexes): 0.9
LONG (17-25 hexes): 0.5
This is comparable to the ratio of short- to long-range damage potential in Starmada. i.e., in Starmada, it's 6:1; in FC, it's 7.8:1.
HOWEVER, it is true that the shots-to-kill ratio for weapons in Starmada is lower than in FC. The Federation CA has a total of 101 damage boxes in FC. This means, on average, it takes 25.9 short-range phaser-1 shots to kill the CA (101/3.9, ignoring the effect of shields).
In Starmada, at short range, three dice are rolled with a 3+ to hit, or two expected hits per shot. The CA has 10 hull points, meaning a shots-to-kill ratio of 10:1 (again, ignoring the effect of shields).
The "problem", therefore, is not that phasers get too powerful as the range decreases; it's that the expectation of survivability for SFB/FC players is higher than for Starmada players.
Starmada has an optional explosion rule.
Random thought of the day...
Does anyone use regeneration on their ships?
Very cool stuff! Thanks for posting.
Yes, it's still on... usually when I ask something like this, people jump in with both feet and say "Ooh... I want THIS and THIS and THIS and..."
Since that hasn't happened, let's start with the basics:
Do you prefer a campaign system in which you track individual ships or maintain generic "fleet points"?
For example, just bought the PDF of ST:ops. If you update that with errata, how do you redownload? Just use the original email that was sent?
If a file is updated, an email won't go out, but it'll be noted in the forums.
And yes, you can use the original login/password to download the updated file.
w00t! Hopefully, this means that Kzinti/Klingon/Fred/Romulan ones won't be too far behind. Or is that too much to hope?
I do whatever SVC tells me to.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.