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 Marcus Smythe
KD: I could live with quasi-vector in that format. And I do like breaking up ROF to give interesting shoot/no shoot decisions.
If Vector is what gets us there, I can live with it.
Maybe some sort of upper speed limit, and a fairly strict one... I'm just trying to avoid the 'out of range' to 'point blank range' jump...
And thanks for the upload. The article was a good distilliation of Huges, applied to the space context.
My only concern with vector style movement, or any movement method that allows ships to cover more than their MP in hexes per turn, comes from my time playing Full Thrust.
In Full Thrust, its VERY easy to fly VERY fast (in either of their movement systems). By very fast I mean 'close from outside of effective engagement range to point blank in a single move'
Now, granted, in the 'very simple' system, you couldnt move very fast and turn at the same time.. unless your willing to go slooowww...
What does the very simple system do about the tendancy to build 2 arc AB ships, around move 3, that just quite literally sit and spin? We dont really have 'you must move or die' seeking weapons in SMX, so the penalty involved in being very slow is somewhat limited. Sure, you might face foes that will attempt to dictate the range.. but your a low-speed hull, meaning you can probably outgun most foes at most rangebands.
This has some cross-fertilization problems with the 'variable shield arc values' and the 'power allocation' discussions. Even SFB ultimately sometimes has trouble, outside a seeking weapons paradigm, getting ships to spend power to move...
One of the things I most love about SMX is the fact that anyone attempting to make like Nelson at Trafalger HAS to accept significant incoming fire as their price for closing to point blank. You just cant (in SMX, normally) get from 'out of range' to 'point blank (or even worse, overshooting)' very easily.
This feels more like 'big ships with big guns', which is what I like about it.
Hmm.. Id have to think about it some more...
but it would add some starch to 'increased hull damage' weaponry!
Might be a good optional rule for medium-small engagements. In anything much larger, I fear that it would tend to result in too much bookkeeping.
Another thought, though:
All weapons same power cost? Range 3 1/1/1 with a couple of drawbacks requires as much power to fire as a Range 18 3/3/3 Ignores-Sheilds Increased Hull Damage Extra-Damage shipcrusher? Just seems counterintuitive.
Also, if we go with it, wed need to look at the ratio of movement cost to firing cost. If I can move a mass 6 cruiser one less hex and fire all its guns, or one more hex and fire none... Not a tough call.
Bewulf... no need to apologize.
Were wargamers. We have, literally, years of experience, each of us, smelling out what works best in any given game, and honing in on it.
Unsuprisingly, we built our navies to work well, within the universe they exist in.
The question is.. how do we use knowledge of the game system to inform how we use the game system, and how does cricket use it to inform how he develops the game system?
I think we have to leave arc costs where they are.
AB arcs favour ship designs that want to close with the enemy. Most ship designs, for better or worse, do. Mid to short range guns.
CD arcs favour ships that like holding the range constant, or at least diminishing the rate of closure. Ive built some ships like this.
EF arcs favour ships that want to open up the range, or at least deny the foe the ability to close the range.
Now, if were saying we think the game would be a more interesting game if arcs mattered more? I agree.
But how to get there?
Thought: Make ships less nimble. Not slower.. less nimble. Its realtively easy to build a ship (6 thrust) that can pull a 180 in a single turn. If ships were a bit more clumsy at the helm, then there would be a greater risk of ending up with enemies outside of your AB arcs and closing fast... raising the need for off-arc weapons.
Just as long as we dont let it degenerate into 'giant space fighter dogfights', Im golden.
EDIT: Rate of Fire Thought
One idea to 'reign in' the lower cost of ROF, and add more decision points at the same time...
Assume that the generic, ROF1 weapon fires once every three turns.
ROF 2 weapons may fire twice within those three turns...
and an ROF3, every turn.
As damage now is always better than damage later, this would somewhat pay for the cost break ROF 3 guns get...
Well, I never experienced "Banked Weapons"... so I cant say as to that.
I think I may just cut the gordian knot by not using PDS in my local games. KISS, and all that.
Marcus Smythe wrote:-thinks- Can anyone think of times where there was actual synergy and an appropriate return on investment in separating your fleet? Even with explosions cutting down the 'stack it all' tendancy, I cant think of any time in my games that I've (widely) separated elements on a battle map to advantage. (barring instances where on element was vulnerable carriers that had launched and were running, or that like).
Well, this may be a function of weapon ranges in Starmada -- there have occasionally been questions about whether longer-ranged weapons should be weighted more in the points value.
But... quoting from Hughes, "The tactical maxim of all naval battles is Attack effectively first." By virtue of having nothing else with which to compare, starship combat games have (almost) exclusively been analogous to naval warfare -- and as Tim Swenson pointed out in an essay published in the Compendium, Hughes' principles can be applied to great effect in Starmada.
Theoretically, there should be no reason to split your force. Practically, this is easier said than done -- at the very least, battle damage will require some dispersion. At the same time, you certainly don't want to allow your entire fleet to become immobile, as then you allow the enemy to take the initiative.
So, I've always felt it was important to have enough separation to allow me to dictate the timing and location of the first blow -- but grouped enough to prevent being destroyed in detail by the enemy.
1.) Im not sure about the long-range-weapon-pricing-thing. Ill admit, I'm always tempted to go 18, or longer if people are comfortable with longer, and as a long-time cheeze-whiz number-cruncher, I fear my temptations...
But I dont have the play experience to say for certain.
2.) Hmm.. cant justify buying the Compendium, now that I have brigade, but I'd like to see that article.
2a.) Its interesting to be visiting with a self-selected community of people who are likely to have read Mr. Hughes. 
3.) Damage to mobility will of course cause either separation or immobility. And I DO like sending a ship with damaged shields, etc back and away from the foe, but still in weapon range... allowing my foe to fire at the damaged ship at longer ranges, or to start picking on a new target...
4.) By using separation to dictate the timing of the first blow, I take you to mean first effective blow. Hmm. Ill have to play with the time and motion geometry of that in my head before Im sure I know what you mean/how it would play out on the map.
1.) Must Reroll Penetration describes a weapon which is 'highly susceptible to shield interference', and notes that 'whenever one of the penetration dice gets through the targets shields' it must be rerolled.
2.) Ignores Shields creates a situation where the shot 'automatically gets through the targets shields'
3.) PDS notes that 'Shield (meaning, I assume, penetration) rolls automatically fail on an unmodified roll of 1, 3, or 5'. Thus, the PDS both is, and is not, a shield.
Thoughts:
We accept that PDS applys to a weapon that 'Ignores Shields'. Ergo, whatever PDS is, it is not shields, such that an Ignores Sheilds weapon does not ignore it. (Is this correct? It seemed clear to me at the time).
I initially thought that a weapon which 'Must Reroll Penetration' would have to reroll against PDS. However, 'Must Reroll Penetration' states that shots which get through the targets shields must be rerolled. Assuming that PDS is not shields for the purposes of Ignores Sheilds, this suggests that PDS is not shields for the purposes of Must Reroll Penetration, such that a weapon, which is 'must reroll penetration', would not have to reroll penetrations agaisnt a ship having only PDS, and would face only the screens on its second roll, if the target ships had both screens AND PDS.
On the other hand, my first interpretation is simpler.. which has its own virtues.
I guess it comes down to how we assigned the cost of 'Must Reroll Penetration'. If it contemplated PDS, it must reroll against PDS. If it did not contemplate PDS (as Ignores-Shields did not, I belive, contemplate PDS in its costing), I guess it shouldnt have to face PDS on the reroll.
Thoughts?
-nods- Evasive as a quasi-defense against Increased Pen, since increased Pen is dependant on the to-hit roll. Makes sense.
I'll be honest... alot of times when I look at the force correlations for my own pet navy (Ive got like.. 5 or 6 designed, but one that is my baby), the solution so often seems to be 'and then we hit the Erratic Manuvers...'
For the record.. I envy you the amount of SMX you seem to get to play.
-thinks- Can anyone think of times where there was actual synergy and an appropriate return on investment in separating your fleet? Even with explosions cutting down the 'stack it all' tendancy, I cant think of any time in my games that I've (widely) separated elements on a battle map to advantage. (barring instances where on element was vulnerable carriers that had launched and were running, or that like).
Something like the cloaked point-blank ship of doom, influencing your foes manuver because of where it MIGHT be? Or separation to allow one element to close on the tail-pipes of a clumsy, narrow arc fleet (and, of course, sacrificing the other element to said clumsy fleets guns)
Something that struck me the other day... I was reading a really excellent book on naval tactics "Fleet Tactics", Wayne P. Hughes... and at one point the author commented something to the effect of "Some officers respond to a problem by writing an enginnering request". I cant find the sentence itself, but what the author complained of was a tendancy, in a high tech and highly enginnered navy (here, our own) to respond to a problematic situation or enemy capability with a purely enginnering solution, rather than attempting to develop a tactical one.
And it got me to thinking...
To what degree do we, as the godlike tax-assessors, procurement department, war office, and fleet commanders of our imaginary navies, blessed with absolute knowledge of weapon effects and the ability to regun our entire fleet in an afternoon, and regun an entire fleet in an instant, forgoe the 'fleet commander' axis of that task?
Do we tend to, when faced with a problem, return with an enginnering, hard-wired solution rather than attempt a tactical solution?
Certainly tactical solutions are not always possible, and even in a point game, two fleets may be so asymetrically designed as to make meaningful tactical choices absent, whatever their point totals.
But where this is not the case, how much time to do we spend trying to noodle out a tactical solution? What are some cases where you faced a foe that was the rock to your paper, where things done in play (rather than in engineering) redressed the balance?
Finally, how does this inform ship design? Do we build 'Robot' navies, that can only execute one tactic (while being perfectly equipped to do so), or do we build generalists? Even within generalists, do we go for the resilience of simplicity in design (remembering that, whatever we may do at the table, complex tactics are not often a feature of 'real' naval battle), or do we design complex ships, or complex fleets of individually simple ships, that must be played like an instrument to perform, and which are usually 'fragile', inasmuch as that complexity introduces multiple points of failure in design and tactics, but which at the same time are in some ways 'resilient', inasmuch as they have mulitple capabilities each of which may apply in multiple situations?
Just trying to stimulate some discussion. Ya'lls thoughts are appreciated.
The value of May Reroll Penetration, at 1.5, is pretty much dependent on the level of defense the target has.
Interestingly, it breaks even as low as Shields 3 and/or PDS. Higher levels of sheilding make it more valuable, of course.
I think in our games around here, we may just avoid the entire PDS, anti-PDS, etc. 'thing' by removing the system.
As for pricing 'Ionic PDS'.. should be the exact same as Ionic when added to shields 3...
If anyone still has those conversions, I would be very interested in having them emailed to me... I've seen alot of different B5 conversions, and as I'm thinking of my SMX race as a 'B5 Setting' race, Im curious to see what all versions are out there.
Thanks in advance!
Marcus
1.) I can agree that there may be questionable wisdom in an 'ignores PDS' style weapon. However, at least in my own designs, I find PDS proliferating at the expense of shielding, due to the very fact that PDS faces no 'ignores' or 'halves' or 'resonant' incoming fire.
Also, its alot easier to hide your PDS behind other 'Q' hits.
2.) I appreciate the quick response on everything. Dan is in fact the man, in the world of game designers. (Many another nameless game designer would not even deign to look at suggestions, especially those he considers the path to madness. Yet others would heap piles of derision on those so foolish as to question their wisdom...)
Trying to figure out the appropriate cost for a system that ignores PDS. Does anyone have any insight into how the cost for Ignores Shields was derived?
Also, been considering an 'Anime' modifier for non-spinal mounts... either a 1.0 Modifier that makes the weapon act exactly like an anime spinal mount (AOE line, affected only by true range, fires every other turn, no fire 1st turn) or a 2.0 Modifier that doesnt do the 'every other turn' and 'no first turn' thing.
Basic theory is that the cost difference between ASMs and 'normal' Spinals is 0, that should apply to other things.
Other thoughts.. mounts that fire in the same phase as fighters... x2, given the fighter costing?
Id be suprised to see Daniel say its more than 'very tentative playtest' status.
My suggestion.. rather than wait for your friends to see whats on your ships, mention the system to them, describe what it does and why you want to use it, and give them the opportunity to play with it as well. Ive gotten bad responses in other games by dropping new OFFICAL rules on people, much less new playtest rules. -g-
Ahh.. memories of explaining contingent reserve energy allocation in SFB...
Well, I cant say what other people want and like.. .but I can give you MY feedback.
1.) Like about your sheet: Almost everything, espc the navy-management aspect. Youve got a version with ablative armor.
2.) Like about Tyrel Lohr's Pretty Sheet: Some new specials, some ST-specific stuff, more than 3 Batteries, REALLY REALLY PRETTY printout format (hes got a 3rd sheet with a place to put a picture of the ship, really designed to be printed out and laminated)
3.) Liked about someone elses sheets (forget whose): place listing mass and crew on the 'pretty pretty sheet'. Similar to Tyrels.
The real problem would be making a sheet that makes everyone happy... we all play SMX slightly differently, and thus want different things. Not to mention the trouble of keeping it up to date, with rabble-rousers (like ME!) always bugging poor cricket for more and newer rules, systems, interactions, etc.
I think we need to get all the various versions of the SXCA together, at some point, into a grand-unified, all-bells-and-whistles version. I've currently got 3 I use... yours for fleet design where there are no more than 3 batteries per ship, Tyrel Lohr's which I use for printing out pretty, pretty Ship displays (or when there are 4 batteries per ship, or when a ship needs one of the trek-specific new pieces of equipment he's included) and the 'base' SXCA when I just want to knock off some quick little ships that I dont have alot invested in....
Hmm... I need to learn to speak Excel.
Nahuris: Thanks for the link! Was useful.
Beowulf:
Id be curious to see your navy... do you have them posted in the Basin?
Im of two minds about expendables... when their used reasonably, their neat, flavourful, and FIT... one-use weapons of unusual impact are just soooo... GENRE. For lots of genres.
I think my rule about expendables is to use them to flavour, and to create interesting choices. SOME expendables, used either early to create an advantage, or at a critical time (and closer range where accuracy is better), is neat.
Enough expendables to remove half the enemy fleet as soon as their within range is not neat.
Its the mirror condition, perhaps.. dont bring any fleet that you not willing to have played against you.
Just relating how I think about fleets when designing them, and curious as to how others do so as well.
1.) Fluff Side: I see pretty pictures in my head, I imagine what sort of race built the ships in those pretty pictures, I imagine how the weapons interact with their opponents, and with the ships themselves. I think about how the people that built them think, and what their likely opponents are (No navy exists in a vaccum).
2.) Conversion. Build a fleet that does, in SM, as close as possible to what the fleet 'in the head' did fluffside. Not always a perfect 1-1 correlation, but no created thing is perfect.
3.) Crunchanalysis: SMX, ultimately, is a game, and we are wargamers. Some things work and some things dont, and some things may have come out of that conversion that wont work, no matter how cool they appear in the head. Those things get patched up at this stage.
4.) Evaluation: General evaluation critera:
a.) How does this navy deal with standoff issues, the longer-ranged foe that attempts to hold the range open? (Usual answer is spinals, equally long ranged guns, or superior speed)
b.) How does this navy deal with 'crushers', the fast foe with utterly lethal close range weaponry? (Again, go fast, have massive point blank firepower yourself, or have at least sufficient firepower to attrit incoming vessels before they get to point blank where the ranged-based x, y, and z guns do you in)
3.) Anti-Fighter issues: How well does the ship stand up to its points value in FTL fighters? I try to aim for fighting about even, here, because in an actual game, a ship may well get jumped by more than its CR/60 squadrons of fighters, and other ships may not be able to support.
4.) Firepower vs. Surviviablity: How quickly does the ship disable its identical twin? If faced with its identical twin, would it have to go erratic to avoid being crippled? Here, I try to aim for a single ship being able to shake off a single turns unreturned volleys in its longer range bands without meaningful damage, even without going erratic. Going erratic should reduce incoming damage to the point where several turns of unreturned fire will be necessary to greatly impede the ships capabilities.
5.) How gamist is my work?
ROF is cheaper, and better, than PEN or DMG. Did I make everything ROF 2 or 3, and only then if then raise damage?
What about expendables? Are there enough to wipe out whole fleets in 1 barrage at R18? How about massively innacurate, and thus cheap, expendables with TDAR?
Stealth and sniperguns?
None of these are necessarily immoral, and certainly not exhaustive... but its pretty clear when you look at your navy if the pretty picture in your head has been... influenced... by the hard realities of the system.
I also look at weapons and system fits here.. do I have the perfect damage track, with just enough speed, firepower, sheilds, etc. to minimize the systems lost to any point of damage?
6.) Fun: Do I want to play with this navy? Would it be neat and interesting on the table, and does the design lend itself to interesting tactics? Will it generate alot of decision points for me when I use them, such that victory or defeat turns on those decisions, rather than on the mathmatics of how MY navy interacts with someone elses navy? And perhaps most importantly, if my buddy showed up with this fleet, would I scream in anguish, scream in joy, or go 'ooohh, that looks interesting, lets see how this nut can be cracked'
Just curious as to how everyone else thought/approached it.
Just curious because I see so many ships here, and so little discussion thereof...
Was the intent to have this place function purely as a repository for designs, or was there an additional implied 'request for comment' in posting those ships? I dont see any real discussion, though I know I'd want feedback on anything I built.
Also, has there been any discussion of overall design philosophy? Offense vs. Defense vs. Mobility? Preferred game length, and appropriate ship design to match same? Im just curious as to peoples thoughts on these topics...
Thanks for pointing me to an error I made.
Beowulf might like to check out the "Auto Ablative version".
Second version has the choice of Ablative Armor points, like all of the other options, Optional.Sometimes I do wonder if anyone uses these to print out the text or Starmada sheets.
I do!
japridemor wrote:
Base DRat calculation is changed to: ((( Ablative Armor x 2 / 3 ) + Hull ) x 2 ) x Shield FactorWhere did the extra x2 come from? There was no mention of it on Saturday.
Just as I finished changing things so that the number of Ablative Armor points can be chosen, With Dan's SU costing. This is nicely restrictive, a ship with hull 1 and 1 Ablative Armor would be just that! A solid brick with nothing else.
Another ship could tow it and throw it, would that make it expendable? Ha Ha!
Dont you always mutliply hullx2 before applying the shield and other modifiers? Since defensive rating is based on hits-to-kill, which is usually going to be hullx2?
I apologize if I've been smoking the good stuff again, the equations are still semi-mysterious, here.
I think the original idea was to have a system, named 'Ablative Armor', whose effect was to create a box that would absorb one point of damage that penetrated, rather than allow it to be rolled on the DAC. (Basically, an ablative free hit).
Daniel suggested a Points cost for each point of ablative armor equivalent to adding 2/3 of a point of hull to the vessel.
Once yall started talking SU cost, I got lost.. 
The 'take Armored Hull, but add 1/4 your hull round up in ablative armor rather than applying the armored hull effect' was a stopgap until someone who speaks Excel fixes up the spreadsheets to do armor as its own line, rather than as a special system (though I suppose you could do it just fine as a special system, only it wouldnt generate 'Q' hits, it would rather generate 'Ablative Armor' hits that dont increase the number of Q hits on the ship'
OldnGrey.. thank you very much for the offer to add it into the SXCA... I've been TRYING to, but I'm an utter excel incompetent. While the 'How many points of Ablative Armor would I get point-wise' discussion going on re: armor plating is I think a useful stopgap, better by far for the system to have its own line in the SXCA.
Daniel: Thank YOU very much for the speedy feedback and discussion.
Beowulf: Thank you for the enthusiasm. I hadnt anticipated that other people would think this a worthwhile idea!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Marcus Smythe
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.