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
c) scrap the movement system and go to a true vector type system in which delta vee can be built up making that 30 range weapon a much smaller problem.
Oh, that's SO not gonna happen. 
Not after the pain and agony that went into the current movement system...
You can either 1) throw a hissy fit, 2) adapt and design some new battle wagons of your own with range 18 weapons, 3) learn some new tactics, 4) restructure your fleets, 5) all of the above.
Or, (6) you can recognize that the game is meant to be balanced regardless of the ships used. Long-ranged weapons are not a 'tactic' -- they are technology. And while tactics do involve the effective use of technology (and reaction to that of your opponent), any technology that gives you an automatic (or nearly automatic) victory if I don't also have it is by definition unbalanced.
Range 24 and range 30 weapons already have an added cost to them (an extra multiplier than just range), they do not need any more adjustments.
Perhaps, perhaps not. As I've said over and over again, I'm not sure there is a need for further adjustment... but responses that essentially boil down to "long-ranged weapons are an advantage -- get your own or get over it" fail to grasp the point of this discussion.
I haven't had any complaints from my friends that I game with reguarding those of my ships that have range 30hx weapons.
I'm glad to hear it. If it works for you and your group, then keep on keepin' on.
Some of these friends once fielded slow ships with too many short-ranged weapons. They adjusted their designs to make them more effective.
This is much the same way that, during the 1920s and 1930s, many navies increased the range on their battleships' heavy guns. They choose to do this instead of complaining and trying to make it difficult for others to increase their BBs' heavy guns' ranges...
Beowulf, you're missing the point. (And I haven't heard any complaints -- just some valid concerns.)
Frankly, as of this writing, I agree with you -- I don't know that extremely-long-ranged weapons are "broken". But I'm open to the possibility.
However, if they ARE broken, the answer is NOT to tell everyone they have to keep up with the arms race -- Starmada is not an historical simulation, but a science-fiction game. The whole point is to allow players to field ships that they like (long or short ranges, fast or slow engines, weak or strong shields) and have a balanced game.
It is already reasonable costed. If players don't like these long ranges, then make a house rule to disallow them.
Actually, there is no need for a house rule to disallow them -- range 24 and 30 are OPTIONAL rules. You require permission to use them, not permission to ban them.
But to try to change the game is very unreasonable. :shock:
I disagree. If we didn't "change the game" every now and then in response to reasoned arguments about game balance, we wouldn't have the Admiralty Edition, but still trudge along with the vintage 1994 rules... 
As an alternative to adjusting the CR, perhaps there could be inherent penalties that kick in as range increases, to help levelize these ultra-long range weapons?
One might try this:
For weapon ranges longer than 18, a fourth range band is in effect:
RANGE 24
1-7 = Short Range (+1)
8-14 = Medium Range (0)
15-21 = Long Range (-1)
22-24 = Extreme Range (-2)
RANGE 30
1-8 = Short Range (+1)
9-16 = Medium Range (0)
17-24 = Long Range (-1)
25-30 = Extreme Range (-2)
It's not exactly intuitive, tho...
Just out of curiosity, what should the surcharge be for 60 hex range weapons?
42.
And Trinidad & Tobago should be HOT PINK.
Id pay money to see Beowulf fight against his own designs
...
And I want to see Ken Burnside flying the Range 30 Speed 6 ships.
Count me in. I've got $13.07 burning a hole in my pocket...
((And the problem with most of the good suggestions is their not 'normal play' Most fleets dont cloak, most fleets arent pure fighters and strikeboats, etc...))
Most fleets don't have range-30 weapons, either.
I ate a tomato today.
I am going to die? (From the tomato, I mean -- not from my wife discovering I went to Burger King for lunch...)
My gaming friends are not comfortable with the new SAE Movement system yet so we still use the older, now "optional", Stmd"X" movement system.
Ah... This may contribute to the effectiveness of longer-ranged weapons.
One "solution" tossed out during Admiralty discussions was:
((Range + Move) x Range)^.5
Don't know why or how this was proposed (or rejected), but there it is...
My Mississippi class BBs are at Tech Level 2 for every catagory except "fighter". Although, as Dan has pointed out, its the CR that matters more.
These ships are 16 hull, speed 6, shields 4, CR=1101.
They are armed with {twelve 14"PlasmaGuns}:
{r=30, 1/3+/1/2, Piercing; six are [GHIJK] & six are [HIJKL]}.
Do you use the standard movement rules or the optional "basic" movement?
My solutions for your opponent (NOT including his own 30-hex weapons ):
1) Fighters. Lots and lots of fighters. Heck, use strikers and seekers, too.
2a) Speed. Although for such a powerful ship, speed 6 is pretty high.
2b) Split forces. Use the 'flanks' to ensure the Mississippi can't keep the range open to all of my ships at the same time.
3) I note that the 30-hex weapons, with a full broadside, will only inflict 3 hull hits to a single target per turn, assuming shields 3, and assuming you don't split your fire between multiple targets (not recommended). That's hardly overwhelming. So a couple of options here: (a) use lots of little (hull 1-3) ships, forcing you to essentially waste (or split) firepower, or (b) use heavy shields. Increasing the shield rating to 5 would mean you're only averaging a single hull hit per turn with a full broadside (at long range).
4) Cloaking devices. Can't hit what you can't see.
5) Directional shielding. At that range, you're not going to be able to get around my sides, so I can reinforce the forward shields as I close.
Others?
Translation: I can use this to abuse people, and they can't make anything that can beat my ships. It's not broken - all they have to do is fly ships like mine.
Good game design is "Maximize the possible number of fun to fly ships". If your fleet can only be countered by a fleet identical to it, you've identified a problem with the game that needs fixing.
I'm not saying the contribution of range to the CR shouldn't be re-evaluated, but I'm still not sold that it's a major issue. I don't believe a long-ranged fleet can ONLY be countered by another long-ranged fleet -- but there will always be some X vs. Y battles that are "unfun", so to speak.
It seems like we have this discussion every so often -- it usually centers on (a) how to counter a fighter-heavy fleet and (b) how to deal with long-ranged weaponry. I'd love to have someone go through the archives, see some of the suggestions, and report back on how well they work in practice.
One more reason why a "Tactics Manual" might not be a bad idea...
Average Damage in Range Bracket * (2*sqrt of number of hexes covered by that range bracket), assuming 1 arc of coverage * scaling factor for utility of that arc.
Problem: this ends up with the following values (assuming Average Damage in Range Bracket and scaling factors are each 1):
Range 6: 21 hexes covered = 9.2
Range 9: 45 hexes covered = 13.4 (or 1.5x as effective as range 6)
Range 12: 78 hexes covered = 17.7 (or 1.9x as effective as range 6)
Range 15: 120 hexes covered = 21.9 (or 2.4x as effective as range 6)
Range 18: 171 hexes covered = 25.5 (or 2.8x as effective as range 6)
Range 24: 300 hexes covered = 34.6 (or 3.8x as effective as range 6)
Range 30: 465 hexes covered = 43.1 (or 4.7x as effective as range 6)
Unless I'm missing something, this would have the effect of slightly LOWERING the relative value of range as it increases as opposed to the current linear system.
For the scaling factor, I'd do this:
I'd make Arcs G & L be "Range + (Move * 1.3)"
I'd make Arcs A, B, E & F be "Range + (Move * 1)"
I'd make Arcs H, J, I & K be "Range + (Move * 0.8 )
I'd make Arcs C * D be "Range + (Move * 0.5)
Had considered something like this -- I believe the Admiralty said "Yuck".
Without running any numb-ers
Let's all remember that, at least in the Starmada paradigm, range is not an isolated factor -- the speed of the unit is also involved. Thus, rightly or wrongly, a range-6 weapon mounted on a speed-9 ship is the same effectiveness as a range-9 weapon mounted on a speed-6 ship.
Therefore, a logical counter to long range is high speed, since theoretically they have the same impact on the game.
To paraphrase Jackie Fisher, "Speed is range."
Whether or not this SHOULD be the case, I don't know. [MOVE+RANGE] was a simple solution in the pre-spreadsheet days (and one that has carried over to most of our other point costing systems), but it might be time to look at more sophisticated ones.
One thing I would NOT want is to have really jarring breakpoints; for example, is range 24 really 80% more effective than range 18, as Todd suggests above? (Assuming a 35% surcharge.) Thus, if the curve should be steeper, then maybe an exponential function like Ken provides...
RANGE^1.2 yields:
Range 6 = 8.6
Range 9 = 14.0
Range 12 = 19.7
Range 15 = 25.8
Range 18 = 32.1
Range 24 = 45.3
Range 30 = 59.2
Thus, range 30 is almost 7 times as effective as range 6.
Another approach might be to look at the number of hexes covered by the "cone" defined by a 60* firing arc at each range, expressed roughly by [X*(X+1)/2]:
Range 6 = 21
Range 9 = 45
Range 12 = 78
Range 15 = 120
Range 18 = 171
Range 24 = 300
Range 30 = 465
Just some thoughts... I'm still not convinced there's a problem, tho.
I agree with Ken. The surcharge probably is low for the advantage conferred by ultra-range weapons against standard vessels.
Too bad you weren't on the Admiralty -- you could have brought this up before...
Oh, wait...
5^1.732 (16.241) * %chance to hit * damage
10^1.732-5^1.732 (53.951-16.241=37.709) * %chance to hit * damage
15^1.732-10^1.732 (108.890-53.951=54.939) * %chance to hit * damage
And people are afraid of MY math?
Basically, is it possible to take a fleet with range 15 weapons against a fleet with range 30 weapons on equal points and win? So far, this has worked in testing...
I think it is. But there have been some concerns from others about the 24- and 30-hex ranges, which is why I added the surcharge.
When I see conversations like this I wonder if there isn't something wrong with Starmada that there is no tradeoff* for having longer ranges.
...
* Rather, the tradeoff is not great enough in terms of SUs, I guess.
That may have been true in earlier versions, but with the Admiralty release, longer-ranged weapons pay a "surcharge" -- 25% for range 24, and 50% for range 30.
Divide the total number of SUs by 100 and round off. The result is the number of SAE anti-fighter batteries.
For example, a size 8 ship has 1493 SUs. Divide by 100, you get 14.93, rounded off for a result of 15 AFBs.
(This is based on SX anti-fighter batteries taking up 5% of the available space, and each SAE AFB requiring 5 SUs.)
When you play head to head, is your opponent allowed to know information about your ship record.
The default is that all players can know everything about each ship in the game at all times -- i.e. there is no secrecy.
However, many players like to have some amount of "fog of war", and to that end there have been several house rules/variants to achieve it.
It might be that an "official" option should be considered...
I am the author of the review. Let me clarify what I was talking about.
Hello!
(RockyMountainNavy... hmm... are you nearby? I'm in Denver.)
Each empire has an underlying design philosophy, be it far attack or maneuver or close and board or whatever. ISS gave me great backgrounds for the empires, ships to go along with it, but it didn't tell me WHY the ships were designed the way they were.
That's all I am looking for. This type of data helps me learn the design system.
Fair enough. I think that's a reasonable request.
Of course, the problem is that the ships in ISS were designed by me, and I SUCK at that sort of thing.
Game design? Check.
Background material? If I have to.
Tactics and design philosophy? Not so much.
Anyone who's played against me knows this...
Oh yeah, I found your present
http://www.firefoot.com/i_like_monkeys.htm
Seen this many times before... makes me laugh out loud every time.
Thanks!
Today is also my son's tenth birthday.
And have you ever seen us both in the same place at the same time?
Hmm...
Not the one about the weasel and the duct tape, but the one about it being my birthday.
Hooray.
Essentially you have three main tactics here. Runaway, Charge, and Runaround.
Well, that sounds like the genesis of a tactics essay right there...
The forum is not sending YOU a message after every post -- it is sending a message to the Yahoo! group. I assume you are a member of that group, which is why you are receiving the messages.
You can either remove yourself from the Yahoo! group or edit your membership so that you don't get messages any more.
Don't know if Mr. Bohne is on this forum or not, but I wanted to thank him for his review over on RPGNow; it's very well-considered (and mostly positive!):
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=51718&reviews_id=17504
His review of the Imperial Starmada Sourcebook is slightly less positive (although not unreasonable in its criticism). It does bring up an interesting question:
Would there be interest, now that folks have had the chance to digest the new system, in a book of essays on tactics, ship design, etc.?
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by mj12games
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.