Tachyon Detection and Ranging ( X )

The tachyon detection & ranging (TDAR) system uses faster-than-light particles to fix a target's position far more accurately than traditional starship sensors. During the End Phase of each turn, a ship equipped with TDAR ( X ) can make a single roll against one enemy starship to which the acting ship has line of sight (TDAR cannot be used on fighters); on a roll of 7 - X or higher, a lock has been achieved.

TDAR ( X )    Lock-on    SU Cost    ORat    DRat
1        6+    2%    -    x1.2
2        5+    5%    -    x1.5
3        4+    10%    -    x2.0
4        3+    20%    -    x3.0
5        2+    50%    -    x6.0

SU Cost: + (10 x ( 6 / ( 6 – X ) – 1 )%
ORat: -
DRat: x (6 / ( 6 – X ))
Hit?: Yes

Note: The current Tachyon Detection and Ranging system is equivalent to Tachyon Detection and Ranging (2) which gives:

SU Cost: + (10 x ( 6 / ( 6 – 2 ) – 1 )% or +5%
ORat: -
Drat: x (6 / ( 6 – 2)) or x1.5
Hit?: Yes

This is consistent with the current rules.

Nope, unless I deleted them without realizing what they were. Can you resend? I would really appreciate it. japridemor@aol.com

Jan Smuts Class Destroyer of the Conjectural Space Navy   ( 154 )
Mass: 69.9 KmT, Crew: 270, TL:   E:0  W:0  S:0  Q:0
Hull: 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Shields:  2 1
Ablative Armor:  0
[α] Mass Driver [4/8/12, 3+ 1/1/1, Extra Hull Damage]
AB, AB
[β] Laser Cannon [3/6/9, 4+ 1/1/1]
AB, AC, BD, CE, DF
Hyperdrive [O], Anti-Fighter Batteries [O], Drone [OOOOO], Electronic Countermeasures [O]   

1[HS], 2[EQ], 3[HQ], 4[Eα], 5[Hβ], 6[Eβ]

A general purpose, fleet destroyer.

So how do we get it, where is it posted?

New question. I have seen a couple of ship designs where the intent was to have Launch Bays facilitate the launching of additional Drones, Marines, Battlesats, etc. per turn. The Starmada Cheat Sheet on the Yahoo! forum plainly states as much also. However, in the rules, I only see Fighters specifically mentioned. Is is a legal function of the Launch Bay to increase the rate of launch for all fighter-type objects or is this a hold over from a previous edition? If so do they have to be specifically allocated to that. I.e a ship with tons of Fighter Bays and lots of Drones, does it have to decide each turn what type of system to facilitate with its Launch Bays, assuming it only has one or two?

Directional Shields ( Deflectors )

Using the discussions on Ablative Armor, it seems relatively straight forward  to adapt them to modeling Directional Shields ( ala SFB ) in a Starmada context. So far to date, Ablative Armor has been valued at:

SU Cost:    ( Armor Value / HS ) ^ 2 x Original SU
Base DRat:    (( 2 / 3 x Armor Value ) + HS ) x 2 x Shield Factor

Given that, a HS 6 ship with an Ablative Armor value of 3 and no shields would use 225 SU for the Armor and have a base DRat of 16.0.

This Ablative Armor stops all damage from 360 degrees. After it is destroyed, damage proceeds on to the Damage Track as normal. So the above ship would take the first three points of damage it received on its Ablative Armor before rolling any additional damage as normal.

Now, couldn't we simply multiply this Ablative Armor by six and assign it to one of the six hex faces surrounding the ship and have it simulate Directional Shields? So the above 3 Ablative Armor could actually represent 18 Shield boxes that would need to be permanently assigned to one of the six facings, say 4/4/2/2 which would represent 4 boxes on the forward (#1) shield, 4 boxes on the #2 and #6, 3 boxes on the #3 and #5, and finally 3 boxes on the rear (#4) shield. Thus any damage that comes in through that facing would first have to destroy those boxes before proceeding onto the Damage Track but the other shield facings would be unaffected and later the ship could maneuver to interpose these undamaged shields.

The shield assignment should take place during the design process and be permanent for that class. Obviously, small ships will have paper thin shields, while HS 20 behemoths will have tons. As there are no conventional Starmada shields to penetrate (or maybe you did equip them?) PEN values become straight multiples to damage, like DMG is. So a 3+ 3/2/2 weapon would have three shots each causing 4 points of damage if/when they hit.

I think that a TL modifier could also be applied so that a race with low tech will have minimal shields while a high tech race would have oodles.

So the final Shield calculations would be:

SU Cost:    (( Total Shield Boxes / 6) / HS ) ^ 2 x Original SU
Base DRat:    ((( 2 / 3 x ( Total Shield Boxes / 6 )) + HS ) x 2 x original Starmada Shield Factor

This will add an element of maneuver to the game as you try to keep an opponent away from a weakened or down shield. Also to avoid confusion with the existing Starmada Shields, perhaps we should call this type "Deflectors" although the reverse seems more appropriate. Maybe the next version of Starmada will switch the names?

I think that this could be dangerous. If you equip a ship with HS / 2 weapons per battery, the weapons are hit on a one in six chance. So if you have a size 12 ship it can take around 24 internals before it loses all of its hull and blows up. It should also lose around 24 / 6 or 4 weapons ( assuming HS / 2 weapons ) leaving two weapons when it dies. If you bump up the weapons in a battery to HS / 2 + 1 the there will be two hits on the damage track for that battery and your weapons will disappear twice as fast. So, the same size 12 ship with 7 weapons in its A battery will blow up after around 24 internals. Now it will take 24 x 2 / 6 weapon hits or 8, which is more weapons than it has. This means your ship will be "de-clawed" before destruction.
I think you should design ships with weapon batteries that are multiples of HS / 2, not HS / 2 + 1.

A convoy carrying vital medical supplies for the colony of Cestus IV is under attack. The outgunned escort must insure that the valuable cargo makes it through.

Your Forces:
10 Long-Haul II class freighters
1 Warship up to 250 ComRat

Enemy Forces:
One or more ship of up to 500 ComRat total.

Set-Up:
This scenario uses one, non-floating map. Place the freighters in the center of the map. No two freighters may be in the same hex and each freighter must be within two hexes of at least one other freighter. All freighters have the same facing. Your warship sets up within two hexes of any freighter. The enemy forces set up last and can be on any map edge hex of their choice but must be on the same map edge.

Victory Conditions:
Standard victory points. In addition you score victory points for each freighter that succesfully exits the map as if you destroyed the freighter.

Ship Designs:

Long Haul II Class Freighter of the Imperial Merchant Marine   ( 32 )
Mass: 183 KmT, Crew: 405, TL:   E:0  W:0  S:0  Q:0
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 2 1
Shields:  0
Ablative Armor:  0
[α] Laser Cannon [2/4/6, 4+ 1/1/1]
AB, AC, BD, CE, DF, EF
Hyperdrive [O], Cargo Bays, 100SU x14, Vehicle Bay x4
1[HE], 2[HQ], 3[Hα], 4[Hα], 5[Hα], 6[H]

Well, in our campaign construction time is based on ship size as measured by SU. A ship designed to specific SU sizes can be more efficient ( and cram in a little more stuff ) than one designed to an arbitrary size based off of HS and then left empty to fit the SU requirement. For instance say a race can build a 1,000 SU ship in a certain amount of time but a 1,001 SU ship will take another month to finish. The race really wants a 1,000 SU ship. Currently they take a size 7 ship ( 1,120 SU ) and only fill in as close to 1,000 SU as possible without going over. Unfortunately, all of the equipment that is based off of a percentage of the ship's size is based off of the 1,120 SU and therefore eats a little more than would be so if the ship could base it off of the desired 1,000 SU. So take this design:

Test Bed Class Cruiser of the Rectally Exacting Navy   ( 115 )
Mass: 99.6 KmT, Crew: 258, TL:   E:0  W:0  S:0  Q:0
Hull: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Shields:  2 1
Ablative Armor:  0
[α] Missile [4/8/12, 3+ 1/1/2, Increased DMG]
AB
[β] Laser [3/6/9, 4+ 2/1/1]
ABC, ABD
Hyperdrive [O], Anti-Fighter Batteries [O], Electronic Countermeasures [O]
1[HS], 2[EQ], 3[Hα], 4[Eβ], 5[H], 6[E]

As you can see, this design has used 996 SU out of the 1,120 available for a HS 7 ship. Each engine required 69 SU, each shield 84 SU, the AFB 56 SU and the ECM another 56 SU. If the ship were designed from the get-go as a 1,000 SU ship, each engine would have required only 60 SU, each shield 79 SU, ECM and AFB 50 SU each for a total savings of around 94 SU. For 94 SU the design could double its laser armament or possibly shoe in another missile launcher. Yes its point value would be higher ( and that is as it should be ) but the race in question is more concerned with maximizing ComRat / SU.

I didn't want to start a new thread and this one looked general enough so.. Would it be possible to design a ship with the SU as the starting point as opposed to the number of hull? In other words, if I want a 1,000 SU ship, why cannot I design it as such from the keel up rather than use a HS 7 (1,120 SU) and design down? I mean all of the formulas will easily support the design of a 1,000 SU ship, the only sticking point is how many hull boxes will it have? Round up or down?

Notice, however, that I said STARMADA gospel. Not "I have some nice land in South Florida to sell you" gospel or "the check is in the mail" gospel. :wink: