Quite.

Then what you proposed is what I suggested earlier: forced allocation of screens. 

I do agree about drones, and fighters.  Fighters really soured me on SFB early, but it was about the only thing out there.  They do not belong in Star Trek spaceship combat games.  An occasional AI missile does show up in the shows but they are very powerful weapons, each being nearly a tiny ship in strength.

*sigh*  Dug out my Star Fleet Battle Manual rules.  Except for having to designate actual degrees of fire for each weapon, IMO it's still the best Star Trek space combat game.  You actually use real warp speeds!  (cube your warp speed and that's how many ticks of movement you move, a tick is about 1.3 mm based on their measuring ruler).  And you have a chance to burn out Dylithium crystals when you go faster than your cruise speed.  (yeah, we know now that ST shows USUALLY use impulse speeds for tactical maneuvers, but using warp speeds was so neat).  And if a shield is completely down, you can stretch an adjacent shield to cover it and it will operate at half strength.  *sigh*

I wonder if Zocchi would allow an update?

Previous Starmada editions had a few things, especially Starmada X.  There were some issues with it so I could see why it was removed.

One idea that just came to mind is use the Full Thrust system check system for your criticals.  Since the current Starmada SSD has a row of 6 colums for hull (and engines and shields), then when you get to the end of a hull row check for all those systems that normally don't damage through the regular Starmada damage system, namely, everything in the Special box.  S:X had you roll 1d6 for the number of Marines that got killed, you could apply this to Anti-Fighter Batteries as well.  For large SU things, like Science, Cargo, Repair, Transport, you could roll 1d6 and multiply by 10.  Some things probably cannot be damaged, like Armor Plating and Regeneration.

As to repairing them, one way would be to make your regular repair rolls and if a die shows you can repair something that isn't damaged then you could apply that to a Special of your choice (but no resurrecting of Marines, they might be tough but they're not that tough!  ).

As for the Kzinti FF..

Aren't SFB drones more like Seekers than Strikers?  Which means your drone racks should be 34 SU instead of 45 (if I built them the way you did).

Guess I'm the only one that thinks Shields is the best option.   

Use that optional rule, that allows you to increase one shield (in this case, the front one, G) by 1 but having the three others (J,K,L) on the opposite reduced by 1.

You still have maneuvering, to get to the rear half of the target.

Ship shields strengths by class would go like this (shields: G/H/I/J/K/L):
small freighter*: 1
escorts/frigates/destroyers/large freighter*: 2 (3/2/2/1/1/1)
cruisers/light carriers/Q-ship*: 3 (4/3/3/2/2/2)
dreadnoughts/battleships/large carriers: 4 (5/4/4/3/3/3)
base station*: 3
battle station*: 4
starbase*: 5

*stations, freighters, and some ships (i.e., Romulans) had equal shielding on all sides, would not use the optional rule by default.

A player can still plot a different shield to be boosted, but if he does not then it goes to the default setting for the ship.  To me, that represents a better reinforcement system than using screens since shield reinforcement wasn't that strong, unless you didn't power weapons which isn't an option in Starmada.

Screens are just a cheap, and munchkin  :wink: , way to have level 5 shielding in the direction of the enemy nearly every turn.  Besides the plotting time, there's the reduced damage which makes the game last much longer.

No matter what side of the ship you attacked in SFB, unless the shield was completely damaged, the ship still had shielding on that side.  The only way that screens can represent that is if you give all ships 20-30 screens, otherwise people will just assign 5 shields to the 2-3 sides they think will most likely face the enemy and this is not SFB-like at all.

Yeah, Photons at 4+ Acc is good with the DR.

Glad they cut down on the fluff from SFB, then.  I'd prefer to play with the basic rules but you couldn't get anyone else to do so since they all wanted all the fluff/rules that was available.  So I haven't played or even looked at SFB in years (not since the 6 hour marathon to run through 3 turns).

But, I think all this discussion is moot as TPTB* are probably already figuring all this out, or already have, and they cannot say anything.

*The Powers That Be

Okay, how about we split the difference and go with Range-based IMP?  Something about Range-based ROF doesn't sit well with me (cost is the same for any of the 3).  Couple other things about the current design: no shuttlecraft, Phaser 1 arcs are too large, and the original CA did not have Phaser IIIs.  So here is my take on the design, I upped the TL of weapons to max (+2).

---------------------------------------------------------
(361) Constitution-class Federation CA

Hull: 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1             
Engines: 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1             
Shields: 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1             
Weapons:
1:XY 2:X 3:X 4:Y 5:Y 6:Y

X: Photon Torpedo: 4/8/12, 1/4+/1/4
Slow-Firing
[AB][AB][AB][AB]

Y: Phaser I: 6/12/18, 1/3+/1/1
Anti-Fighter; Range-Based IMP
[ACE][ACE][GHI][GHI][BDF][BDF]

Special: Hyperdrive; Marines (12); Teleporters (4); Carrier (26); Science (80); Cargo (83)  Note: Carrier space is for 1 flight of 4 "fighters", Speed-5, Acc 5+, defense 0.
---------------------------------------------------------

I think all weapons need to be designed first, so then you can get them to compare to each other; THEN put them on ships.

And a decision has to be made to use Shields or Screens. 
1) Shields are faster (no plotting involved), and I think more representative with allowing the optional boost shield rule (whatever its called); perhaps rule it that the front shield is always the one boosted by default, you have to plot it if you want it differently. 
2) I have an issue with screens, especially with SFB where a ship has shielding in every direction (until taken down by damage) so either you have to force people to plot screens in every direction with some given ratio (e.g., a screen's strength cannot be more than double of the screen on the other side of the ship.. yeah, the Klingons cheat with that rule ) or you're not simulating SFB shielding.  Now screens would allow for shield reinforcing, so that's something to think about (hmm, so I might like it better than I thought at first  :? ).

Phaser 1s were the longest ranged weapon after Phaser 4s.  IMO, Phaser 4s would go out to 30, and Phaser 1s should go out to 18 at least (I'd go to 24, in SFB they went out to 75!).  Also, I'd changed Phasers to do Ranged-based Damage, not Ranged-based ROF.  They should also have the anti-fighter trait as they were one of the few weapons that didn't take a negative modifier to hit drones and fighters.

I doubt that 1 LAB = 1 Science.  More like 1 LAB = 10 to 20 Science.  I'm guessing at what a SU represents for those things*, but taking a standard flight of fighters (6) taking up 50 space, 50/6 ~= 9 per fighter.  So allowing for science equipment and space for the scientists, a "LAB" might take up a little more space than a fighter.

Same goes for Cargo.  I recall hearing about 3 different cargo rooms on the Enterprise from the TOS.  Increase the hull size by 1 without adding any weapons or defenses would allow for more spacious accommodations (and where's the room for the bowling alley?).

*Do the books cover that?   My store partner keeps forgetting to order the books from MJ12.    :x

What I've found is that it's better just to increase the hull size of the ship, add the hyperdrive, and not bother with a tender as the cost of tender+battle riders is more expensive than increased-cost hyperdrive-eqipped warships.

The battle-rider concept worked in Traveller because of the huge fuel requirements beyond Jump 2.

That's why you have the young blonde bimbo at your side to roll the dice for you...

Okay, I'm fantasizing, again.

*wanders off with a vacant look in the eyes and a smile*

Range 3 weapon?   Muhahahaha...   Range 12 weapon?   muhahahahaha...

Try this little bugger...

------------------------------------------------------------
Class: Bugger
CRAT: 25
Hull: 1
Engine: 6
Shields: 0
Weapons: 1:X, 2:X, 3:X, 4:X, 5:X, 6:X

Weapon X: Rng=30, ROF=2, ACC=2+, IMP=1, DMG=1
[AB]

Hyperdrive, Cargo (2)  (<- closet  )
(only TL change was Weapons at max tech)

BTW, with 0 TL changes: CRAT: 36, Hull: 2, Weapons: 1:X, 2:X, 3:X, 4:-, 5:-, 6:-, Cargo (24).
------------------------------------------------------------
then I thought about Screens (I usually never build ships with screens)..

Class: Bugger II
CRAT: 23
Hull: 1
Engine: 4
Screens: 5
Weapons: 1:X, 2:X, 3:X, 4:X, 5:X, 6:X

Weapon X: Rng=30, ROF=2, ACC=2+, IMP=1, DMG=1
[G]

Hyperdrive, Cargo (1)  (<- glove compartment)
(only TL change was Weapons at max tech)
------------------------------------------------------------

Maneuvering?   Pshaw, I get to roll LOTS of dice (badly, as usual).   :roll:

Now I just need about a gazillion miniatures to represent my "Fleet".  :twisted:
(hmm, I have a spare styrofoam sheet to cut up and a bag of rice, add paint ........)

"very effective" depends on which side you're on.   :cry: