Sounds like you made expensive ships with very high survivability.  Go to the other extreme.

Make lots of fast, cheap and expendable ships.  Respectable but not too powerful guns, and just a few hull boxes, maybe even no shields at all.  That'll make all his points on Pen+3 effectively wasted.

On of my friends favors powerful ships and fighters... I did the approach I mentioned above and the game was a draw.  We called the game when it became apparent that he was going to lose all of his ships before his fighters would be able to eliminate my ships.

Sure, the fighters were left... but with no carrier to take 'em home...

Throw in some limited ammo weapons if you're using that option for some extra punch if you want.

--Flak

Not to be relieving myself in anyone's cereal, but this is exactly what I was concerned about regarding the 'serialization' of Starmada's rules.

Starmada's strength and appeal for many (everyone in my playgroup anyway), up to now has been that it's flexible enough to cover any setting.  Now we have ship design options and rules that were omitted from the Starmada:AE edition that are being included in supplements (ISS) and other rules being created for certain settings that are apparently intended to STAY in that setting.

I bought ISS because I felt like I was missing something by not having it, and I was right.  The rules for combining range-based weapon traits were very important for a weapon concept that I had but couldn't do with the S:AE book alone.  Now purchasers of H&C need to buy ISS for the carronade rules... 

Starmada, IMO should stand on it's own, period.  Setting books should not contain any new rules at all, again, IMO.  The settings are great, don't get me wrong.  I really enjoyed reading the background to ISS, and having ship designs available for demo games is convenient too so new players don't have to dive into ship designing until they're ready.  So the supplements would still have their value.

Starmada is good enough (great enough) that I'd happily pay a higher price for it if I could be guaranteed access to any/every rule/option that comes out, like a subscription to all the rules no matter what book they're in.  Not the setting stuff, not the ship designs, just the rules.  I figure an updated "ship design handbook" that included all the rules for all options in PDF format or something.  Just print out the newest version of the handbook, discard the old pages for it and your rules are up to date.

I'm not bagging on Starmada or any of it's supplements... I don't hate it, I think it's great!  It's my appreciation for the game that prompts me to speak up with what I realize is possibly an unpopular view, at least amongst MJ12's staff anyway.  If I didn't like it so much, I wouldn't care and I'd just spend my energy (and $$) elsewhere.

What I don't want to see is for Starmada's full set of rules to get broken up and spread out through a collection of supplements and expansions.

A big selling point for Starmada X:Brigade when I would pitch it at gaming demos and to my local gaming group was that it was complete in one single book.

That's been diluted in how SAE came out and then immediately ISS came out.  Both products are worth it.  I'm no complaining about their content or what they bring to the game...  It's just that if Starmada's rules are going to be spread out through a bunch of books I'm not going to be too crazy about it.

I'll wait for a compendium... I guess.

"Don't GW it man!"

--Flak

I didn't explain my "compromise's compromise" comment clearly enough.  Sorry 'bout that.

The modifications I was thinking about when I wrote it would go like so:

Fighters wouldn't fire in their own phase.  They would fire during the combat phase.

Fighter flights would activate alternating between players, just like ships.

Fighter attacks, and attacks on fighters would have the damage resolved immediately, not during the end-turn.

So a fighter that lowered a ship's shield would leave that ship more vulnerable to ship-ship fire later in the combat phase.  Likewise a fighter group that was wiped out by fighters OR a ship's battery before it activated would not be able to attack.

--FM

Sorry guys, I piped in to this topic then didn't keep up on the topic.  Wow, lots of activity  on this!

IMO, there isn't anything that stands out in my mind that fighters are overpowered or imbalanced in SAE.  My quibble with how the rules for fighters work is with how the rules for fighters FEEL, and not a game-balance thing.

As someone mentioned, there's something missing from your pointing of the weapons:  A fighter flight is like a single 3/6/9 6/5+/1/1 No Range Mode, ABCDEF-arc weapon with the unique ability to fire before the combat phase.  Even so, it is just the "feel" of how fighters fit into the rules' turn-sequence that "bugs" me a smidge.

Gah!  Neither do I!

I kinda like that idea, but as mentioned above, it would nerf fighters a lot to take away their ability to inflict damage that took effect before the resolution phase.

Maybe a compromise's compromise:  combat resolution could be simultaneous, but fighter-related damage would take place immediately.  So any damage a fighter flight inflicts OR recieves would take take effect immediately.  That would eliminate my quibble, but would probably be enough of a change to effect their points.

Supplement?  Bah!  I don't wanna hear about no supplements for SAE until Assault Corps is done.  (Not that I won't buy a supplement anyway...)

Hrm...  I don't think I like that suggestion.  It shifts the "sitting duck" feel that fighters currently inflict on ships to the fighters.  They'd have to sit there for a turn and "take it like a man" until the next turn.
While I don't like some of the effects of the current fighter phase, I'm not "anti-fighter" and that change is a bit harsh on the fighters IMO.

Hopefully I'll be able to get some time with a friend over the next week or so to playtest some of these ideas.  There's been some good discussion about this.

My sons play "rock-paper-scissors" sometimes when they're extremely bored.  Often they start doing "rock-paper-scissors-hammer-knife-gun-grenade-machinegune-cannon-nuke... -whatever else they come up with".

SAE can't fall prey to that.

So I agree that weapons shouldn't be included that trump the fighter's ability to fire before other ships and inflict their damage instantly.

I do however, think that something has to be done to allow players to design weapons systems that head off the fighter's ability to launch in the order's phase and attack untouched. 

Nevermind game balance for the moment.  There's something that doesn't "FEEL" right about fighters launching from a ship in the movement phase, swarming in on a mighty ship of war and slapping it around a bit without answer from the warship.

Right now it's impossible to build a weapon that a ship can use to attack fighters that are inbound.  I would like to see a weapon trait that dedicates a weapon (perhaps permantly, perhaps on a turn-by-turn basis, written in orders) that put's the weapon on "anti-fighter duty".  Each weapon in a battery with the "Anti-fighter" trait would have it's target assigned and firing resolved during the fighter phase as if it were a fighter flight.

That would put a weapon that was "tooled up" to sweep the sky of fighters (or try to...) on equal footing with fighters timing-wise within the rules of the game.

Pointing the weapon trait, is something I won't tackle... it's what I pay for when I buy rules, after all.  *grin*

--Tim

Dissipating ought to be easy to cost because it's finite, a weapon would dissipate until it was "gone".

I agree that Intensifying will be a challenge to establish rules for that protect against abuse.  Something that reaches a set limit before the effect stops OR the small craft/missile goes "poof" and leaves the table might be quantifiable and thus cost-able.

An unlimited intensifying effect would be a bad idea in the extreme.

--Flak

I'd also like to see Spitting Fire maintain the "open feel" of MJ12's other games.

It would be very nice to be able to "convert" other planes for the game that MJ12 hasn't gotten around to yet, as well as perhaps expand the rules a bit here and there to get a "retro sci-fi" air-combat game out of it.

I'm thinking along the lines of Air Captain or Crimson Skies.

--Tim

I see these effects going on as the result of reading this thread and the experiences of my gaming group.

1. Fighters, once they "pounce" can only be dealt with after they've dealt their damage, lots of fighters on the board means lots of damage that "feels" like it's coming in with impunity.

2. #1 means that ships must survive past the first pounce.  Either the victim of the pounce must survive or the fleet must be able to absorb the loss of the victim, be able to deal with the fighters and still remain combat-capable vs. the remainder of the enemy's fleet.

3. #2 tends to apply upward pressure on the hull size to increase the chance of surviving that first pounce.

Now, I'm relatively new to playing Starmada, and my gaming group isn't to the point that we can conclusively say that this or that part of the rules is "broken".  For example, fighters have yet to be completely decisive in my group's games, but two out of 5 players this past friday really hated the harm caused by some effectively deployed/used expendable weapons.  There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the two (new) players bewailed their existance.  So... I suggest this only as a "maybe we'll discuss house-rule it this way, if we think there's a need" measure, after my group has matured as Starmada players:

I think fighters can be toned down significantly without Nerf-ing them by just putting them into some sort of firing sequence vs. the ships.  They still get to move after ships do, and without orders.  Their damage still takes place immediately, but so would damage TO them. 

One way I'd suggest would be for each side would roll initiative for each combat phase, then select a fighter group or starship to fire.  Players alternate in this way until all ships/groups have fired.  The player with more ships/fighters can choose to fire more than one per "firing turn" until the units that have yet to fire on both sides evens out (Or a ratio can be calculated at the beginning of the firing phase the would persist through-out the rest of the turn - If I had three times the number of elements on to table I would resolve/fire three to every firing activation to my opponent's one.)

Another way to mix up the initiative would be by using initiative cards for fighters AND ships as described in the appendices of the SX:B book.  I kinda prefer the initiative cards idea.

Attacks from fighters take effect immediately, just like they do now.  Likewise attacks ON fighters take effect immediately, giving starships the opportunity to thin the wave before the fighters pounce.  Ship-ship attacks would still be considered simultaneous though.  So if you equip a ship with fighter-slaughtering weapons it MAY get to fire before the fighters do AND eliminate them, but if you fire that same weapon against other ships it'll still get it's shots if it hasn't taken them already.

In all the discussions about fighters, I hadn't seen this one suggested.  Maybe you guys like it, maybe not.  I kinda do or I wouln't have shared it.

Any opinions on whether this would require a re-costing of fighters?

I think it addresses the "first-strike with impunity" (I know, not accurate but I'm tired of typing!) part of the fighter-pounce without taking away their "immediate damage" advantage or negating their other bennies.

--Flak Magnet