Where, exactly, did I say you couldn't have whatever ships you wanted?

1) I was asking if it would be "interesting", not "this is how you have to play".

2) Even if I did propose a rule mandating a pyramidal structure, how many of my attempts to constrain Starmada over the years have actually stuck? Heck, if it was up to me, the largest available hull size would still be 10.

3) My intent was to discuss possible ways to build in a structure to player-designed fleets -- not to mandate a particular type of structure.

For example, note that I never said the more powerful ships had to be "on top" -- or that there had to be three levels. If you (the designer) decided that the fleet was a free-form amalgamation of whatever ships were available for a particular mission, then all the ships of that fleet would be on the "lowest" tier of the pyramid.

If you think about it, you'll find that my suggestion is more flexible than it might first appear.

I might be. It all depends on how you define "winning".

For example, as there are no walls in space -- if you run off with your butt-lasered regenerating ships, I might not be there when you get back.

Because Starmada is a game, not a simulation, we've got a very specific yet abstract definition of victory -- destroy or drive off more ships (or more points' worth of ships, actually) and you win.

Obviously, in a specific scenario or in a campaign, the definition of victory will be altered -- but the point system is intended to balance the "typical" one-off battle as described in the rulebook.

Out of curiosity, what was this "other rule set"?

Nothing has really changed: and I'm not sure yet that it's an issue, especially with the "surcharges" for extreme ranges.

But I don't think we've ever really had the conversation; so I thought it was appropriate to talk about it.

The reason: The fleets in AE were all redesigned by me. And I prefer medium-ranged weaponry and reasonably-sized ships.

But that's just the point -- Starmada's underlying assumption is that you can take two forces designed by two different players with different philosophies and a battle between them will be balanced.

This may or may not be true in practice, but it's the goal -- so if there are concerns raised about a particular tech or combination of tech, I have to pay attention to it.

As I've said before, "balanced" does not mean "random" or "50/50 chance of winning". Each side should have a reasonable chance of victory, provided they use appropriate tactics, not only for their own force, but also in reaction to their opponent. There's a difference between an "unbeatable" tech or combo and one to which an individual player hasn't (yet) figured out how to effectively respond.

In Starmada terms, the Vorlons/Shadows and/or Borg should only dominate the battle if their CR total is higher -- not just because of a tech advantage.

Tell us what you really think.

Actually, it might.

Actually, it might.

There are no walls on a land-based battlefield, either (generally speaking). But the battle is being fought in a particular place at a particular time. If a force moves away from that place, they are conceding the battle at that place and at that time to their opponent.

The same holds true in wet-navy conflicts, which is the default analogy for space games.

Whether fighting over a point in space (planet/station), a "space-lane", or an off-map asset (convoy), the battle is occurring at that location for a reason. Battles between opposing forces for no other reason than to eliminate the opposing fleet are very rare -- and notoriously hard to engage in (as the Japanese learned in WW2) and even harder to press home (ask the British after Jutland).

Now, further remember that this is a game -- and in a game (instead of a "simulation") many things will be abstracted; not least of which are the concepts of victory and defeat.

Therefore, Starmada makes the assumption that driving off the opponent is a "mission kill" and as good as making the other ship blow up real good. For this to have any relevancy whatsoever, a fixed map is necessary.

You have an opinion, and I don't disagree with it. My personal preference is for a floating map -- especially when playing vector or semi-vector movement rules -- but I also will allow ships to "disengage" as desired and move off the map as if it were fixed.

Finally, please note that a fixed map is the default in Starmada. In fact, officially-speaking, the floating map is not yet an option in the Admiralty Edition (although the concept is ubiquitous enough that most players who want to will institute it without even thinking).

In other words, while a floating map may be desirable for some players, it's not as if a fixed map is a completely wacked-out concept. There are some valid reasons for it.

For precisely the reason you've discovered. The rounding issue completely mucks up the math when the numbers get too small.

I don't think I've said that's a "no-go". But I may have pretended not to hear the question...

What the current system (and even my proposed "solution") DOESN'T account for is the increased usefulness of early damage -- knocking out weapons, reducing shields before the shorter-ranged ship gets to use its limited number of return shots.

I really don't believe there is a definitive answer. For example, one possibility is "infinity". Just turn your r30 ship around and move away from your opponent. Thus, if the engine factors are equal, the ship with the longer-ranged weapons will always win.

Next, consider the fixed-point scenario. A starbase is 100 hexes away, with unlimited range on its weapons. You have a ship with range-X weapons and engines Y. How many turns must you weather the storm before getting to return fire?

Answer: (100-X)/Y

So, a ship with engines 6 and range 18 would have to suffer through 13.7 turns of enemy fire, while a ship with engines 6 and range 30 would have to suffer through 11.7. Increase the first ship's engines to 7, and the result is also 11.7. (Thus, engines 7, range 18 is equal to engines 6, range 30?)

By this measure, speed is MUCH more important than range... which experience shows is incorrect.

I honestly believe the best we can come up with is "reasonably close"... there will always be cases in which a combination of range and speed can be shown to "really" have a different effectiveness than that we give it in the point system.

*sigh*

No, it isn't.

The values I gave above were for the Offensive Rating, as given by the Excel spreadsheet -- without accounting for the ship's Engines rating.

When given an engine rating of 5, at range 3 the value is 10.7; at range 2 the value is 7.0. At range 1, the value does pop up to 12 due to the rounding involved.

However, as ranges less than 3 are not allowed (and range 3 is as optional as range 30), the problem is moot.

No, it doesn't.

ORAT (with a single A weapon) is 4.0 at range 3, 2.0 at ranges 1 and 2.

Indeed. Another topic ENTIRELY.

But there is nothing preventing you from fielding a swarm of hull-1 ships instead of (or in addition to) fighters.

I would think step one would be to find a list of all the values for ships in the CMG -- does such a thing exist?

Umm... really? Assuming such things were allowed in the rules:

RNG 1, ACC 4+, ROF 1, IMP 1, DMG 1
ORAT = 1 x 1 x (1 + .25) x (1 + .6) / 4 = 0.5, rounded up to 1

RNG 2, ACC 4+, ROF 1, IMP 1, DMG 1
ORAT = 2 x 1 x (1 + .25) x (1 + .6) / 4 = 1

RNG 3, ACC 4+, ROF 1, IMP 1, DMG 1
ORAT = 3 x 1 x (1 + .25) x (1 + .6) / 4 = 1.5, rounded up to 2

:?:

The intent is flexibility and balance. In other words, if played "correctly" (i.e. you realize the strengths and limitations of your own fleet, and those of your opponent) two fleets have a roughly equal chance of victory.

An assumption made along the way has been that RANGE equals SPEED. Whether or not this assumption is accurate lies at the heart of this discussion.

It is certainly possible to design an effective speed 24 / range 18 ship -- you'd of course need to disregard the published space unit rules, though.

You're right -- except that the answer to this question cannot be determined without reference to the opinions of players as to whether long-ranged weapons are 'broken' or if 'good tactics' can overcome them.

Obviously, players need to adapt their tactics to their opponent. Otherwise, the game is little more than rolling a bunch of dice. But if the only effective adaptation is getting your own long-ranged weapons, then it is broken.

The reason we're debating all this other stuff is to establish an answer to your question.