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
Actually, destroyed heavy weapons are facing-independent, while destroyed phasers in SFB must have been in arc of the firing ship (maybe arc of shield fire came through? I think the first is correct, but not 100% certain)
That said, its probably a rule at too great a level of resolution to be worth copying in Starmada. And I cannot speak to whether the 'facing phaser rule' applied in FC or not, never played that.
I did some very loose 'crew options' in my sailing orders stuff a while back...
What sort of crew options did you have in mind?
Ditto on Ablative Shields. Either by the ablative armor mechanic, or a 'reduced whenever penetrated' mechanic, or what you will.
Actually: Take whatever mechanic is used for Screens vs. Shields
Apply that for 'Ablative Screens'.
Whatever multiplyer you end up using for fixed screens could also be used for 'fixed' ablative screens...
So we could have customizable, set-at-construction, facing dependent shield ratings, and ratings for the amount of 'hull plating' on each facing!
I'd like to see the various optional rules bandied about normalized in cost and published in an 'offical' product. Redundant Sheilds, Odd-Ranged Weapons, 'fixed' screens, Three-Turn Weapons.
Dual-Mode weapons with ammo for one mode.
Some provision for stowage/carriage of craft larger than fighters. FTL Tugs, if you will.
A look at how speed and weapon range interact. Not really an 'add something', but are we sure that Engines 12 and Range 4 is as good as Engines 4 and Range 12?
Some way to shoot down seekers and strikers before they hit your ship, on the turn they hit your ship. CIWS.
(I shudder to say this) Counter-based weapons that do not rely on seekers/strikers/fighters/mines/etc. Some way to build something that works like the Romulan Plasma from "Balance of Terror"
Some way to add more decision points, and encourage use of those decision points. Limited Arc Weapons, Ammunition, and Slow-Firing helps inform fire decisions... but more of this is always good.
I'll admit, my 'taste' for fighters in space games has been badly poisoned by play experience, which usually consists of one of two conditions:
1.) Too few fighters. Don't contribute much, and in some games (notably FT), don't carry their weight when too few.
2.) Too many fighters. Opposing fleet vanishes under fighter fire, cannot meaningfully defend self.
And I had a few too many games of #2, and not as the guy with fighters.
For SMAE? Its not really a huge problem hereabouts... don't get to play much, and none of us has really 'gone to town' on fighters/strikers/seekers yet (More Star Trek than Star Wars feel preferred in games 'round here).
So, in general, much ado about nothing, at least from me. I suppose rather than 'worrying' about the impact of the fighter/seeker/striker heavy fleet on games, I should remind myself that, like range 30 fleets with stealth systems, regenerating ships with cloak and damage control rules, and their cousins, fighter-heavy fleets are just another flavor of specialized fleet, and as such are going to be sudden death or suddenly dead.
1) Already covered by the "anti-fighter" trait.
2) I can see a weapon that fires in the fighter phase -- but it cannot wait until all fighters have moved and then attack before the fighters do. That would take away the move-then-shoot action of fighters.
3) You'd think that figher-only (or ship-only) weapons should be cheap -- but you'd be wrong.
Consider: one ship with 10 all-purpose weapons and another with 10 ship-only and 10 fighter-only weapons. If you assume the fighter-only/ship-only traits should have a x0.5 multiplier, then both ships should be equal. But they are clearly not. The first has 10 weapons to bring against opposing ships; so does the second. The first has 10 weapons to bring against opposing fighters; so does the second. But the first must make some choices from turn to turn; the second does not.
For the bomber/interceptor fighter traits, I set a x0.7 multiplier -- and even that might be too low.
1.) I was going for a one-stop-shop trait, given the limit of 3 traits per weapon.
2.) A weapon that can only fire at the same time as fighters do will be useless against the 1 turn TOT seeker/striker flights. I suppose that having your anti-fighter weapons be exceptionally long range is an option, but a very painful one in CR terms.
3.) The sum of the cost of the two traits would have to be greater than 1, for the reasons you outline. If anti-ship-only is .7, (and, we will assume, accurately costed as such) then anti-fighter-only cannot cost less than .4. Where it falls on the scale between .4 and .9 is I supposed determined by how many fighters one anticipates are likely to be part of the game.
I actually think we need a new weapon mod, so we are not limited to just AFBs in the reaction role.
Ideally, something that wraps up everything 'needed' against fighters/strikers/seekers, in one reasonably priced mod.
My thought:
"Point Defense" (or whatever) weapon mod.
1.) Ignores the to-hit penalty for shooting at fighters.
2.) Fires, and has its fire effects resolved, after all fighters have moved, but before any fighter may fire.
3.) May only engage fighters. Cannot be used against ships.
#3 'pays for' #1 and #2. Multiplier is up to Dan, but to me it looks like a wash (x1). He will probably think it ought to be much, much higher.
Type: , Mars Class, Heavy Cruiser (581)
Hull: 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: [TL0] 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Shields: [TL0] 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
Weapons : 1:[XZ], 2:[X], 3:[Y], 4:[Y], 5:[Z], 6:[Z]
Weapons
Battery X: 20 cm Hellbore (E) TL0, 6/12/18, 1/3+/1/2
Piercing +3, Increased Impact, Slow Firing
[AC] [AC] [BD] [BD]
Battery Y: Class B Plasma Batteries (E) TL0, 5/10/15, 1/4+/1/1
Non–Piercing
[ABC] [ABC] [ABD] [ABD]
Battery Z: Sunburst Array (E) TL0, 2/4/6, 1/3+/1/1
Area Effect, Repeating, Carronade & Range-Based ROF
[G] [J] [H] [K] [I] [L]
Special Equipment
Fire Control : Marines (Squad)(6) :
Type: , Mars Class, Heavy Cruiser (547)
Hull: 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: [TL0] 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1
Shields: [TL0] 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1
Ablative Armor: 1
Weapons : 1:[XZ], 2:[X], 3:[Y], 4:[Y], 5:[Z], 6:[Z]
Weapons
Battery X: 20 cm Hellbore (E) TL0, 6/12/18, 1/3+/1/2
Piercing +3, Increased Impact, Slow Firing
[AC] [AC] [BD] [BD]
Battery Y: Class B Plasma Batteries (E) TL0, 5/10/15, 1/4+/1/1
Non–Piercing
[ABC] [ABC] [ABD] [ABD]
Battery Z: Sunburst Array (E) TL0, 2/4/6, 1/3+/1/1
Area Effect, Repeating, Carronade & Range-Based ROF
[G] [J] [H] [K] [I] [L]
Special Equipment
Fire Control : Marines (Squad)(6) :
Ablative Armor
Now the CR drops when I add the first few points of ablative armor... as in drops below the CR of the vessel with 0.
I wish I could get 'under the hood' and help out with the actual coding, rather than just constantly being the bearer of bad tidings.
Thanks again for all your work, BTW....
I think I found the problem...
I've snipped from Dan's old post about Ablative Armor...
Well, as a starting point...
The current CR formula (with its built-in assumption that you are losing firepower equally as the ship loses hull) is
Square root of (HITS INFLICTED PER TURN times HITS TO KILL)
You can assume that, over the life of the ship, the average firepower is three-quarters starting firepower (since, on average, a ship has lost half its firepower at the time it is destroyed). Sooo... the firepower during the time when ablative armor is being lost is the average firepower divided by 3/4. Thus, the formula just for the time while the ship is losing armor is
(HITS INFLICTED PER TURN divided by 3/4 times ABLATIVE HITS)
Because it's all multiplication, the "divided by 3/4" can be shifted to the number of ablative hits. As ablative hits are lost twice as quickly as hull hits, you must subsequently divide by 2, for a final relationship of:
ABLATIVE HIT = HULL HIT x 4/3 x 1/2 = HULL HIT x 2/3
So, the base defensive value becomes:
((ARMOR x 2/3) + HULL) x SHIELD FACTOR
Note that the above formula is for the base defensive value.
It appears in the shipyard spreadsheet that you are using the above formula in cell AO 113, which you use to calculate the value of the ablative armor... not the value of the entire ship.
By using the Base Defensive Value formula as the Ablative Armor Cost formula, you are essentially charging any ship with ablative armor twice for its hull.
At least, so it appears to my bad-at-Excel, bad-at-math self.
Id have to reread the old formulae for Ablaltive Armor.
What I'm seeing, in both open office and excel, is a MASSIVE bump in CR from the first point. I THINK that the hull value of the ship is getting added to the amount of the ablative armor when the impact of the ablative armor is calculated...
I'll reread the thread, and see if I see any problems with the formula/implementation! Not like I know anything...
I'm looking for several things in a SM:AE Spreadsheet
1.) Ease of modability (so I can add in things as they are added)
2.) Presence of every optional rule under the sun, including those just discussed on forums
3.) Open Office Compatability
Ive noticed of the three or four SM:AE construction spreadsheets, only the standard one from MJ12 Games seems to not get some kind of 'burps' from Open Office, but, sadly, it doesnt do variable mode weapons, piercing greater than 1, much less ablative armor and armored gun batteries.
The most detailed version, Shipyard, seems to respond poorly to open office (particularly with Ablative Armor.. first point increases the CR of the ship ENORMOUSLY, but going from the 11th to 12th point does almost nothing)... but has all the options I want.
Finally... Piercing 1.4 (SMAE). Piercing +1 1.5 (Dreadnoughts).
Which is correct?
AARs?
1.) Penetrating - 2 vs. Halves Shields...
Is it just me, or is Pen 2 strictly better than Halves Shields, and at the same cost? It will have the same effect against shields 4 or 5, and be less effective against shields 3 or less...
2.) Theres nothing wrong with our bloody ships today...
It seems to me that the presence of major penetrating advantages on most ships big guns will serve to 'wash out' most of the advantage that BBs have over BCs in terms of resilience. While the BBs are still tougher, they are not very much tougher against the big 15" guns, making BC's a likely better point-for-point investment.
Marcus Smythe wrote:However, thats far enough outside the normal bounds of play that we don't need to change the rules to make up for it. Im not comfortable with the idea of making rules adjustments to try to enforce what I consider normal play.
I know I am newer to this BBS. But I am really at a loss.
A person asks a casual question and half a dozen people start ranting about not having a new rule.
The problem is nowhere was this ever brought up, making it a rule. Except by the "no rule people". Even when the original poster clarified for even the most casual reader that no "manditory rule" was being considered, and even if something were to appear at most it would be an optional guideline, there seems to be no let up on the "no rule" drum beat.
Am I missing something here?
Well, I don't propose to speak for other posters, but for my own part, I was speaking both a.) Hypothetically, and b.) About something a little off topic (the idea of cost-adjusting things that are found to be overly efficient, not the idea of making an enforced fleet composition rule).
While the discourse hereabouts does on rare occasions get a few degrees above lukewarm, I don't think anyone was taking what cricket said as a proposed rule, so much as discussing the pros and cons of its effect, the interaction of any kind of fleet organization with different fleet and design philosophies (and it is at this latter point that we headed off into the land of 'is there a reason, game-balance-wise, that we should encourage or discourage single-ship fleets, swarm fleets, etc)
As soon as cash-flow situations improve, I look to pick this up myself.
If for NO OTHER reason that to, some day, on my kitchen floor, decide for myself what happens if Jellico turns in, rather than away.
That said, Starmada is a points system. No point-based system is, or can be, unbreakable to the extent that all uses of points, taken in any combination, are entirely equal. Some things will be better, some things worse, and the further one deviates from the core assumptions of the game, the more extreme the results may tend to become.
Thus making a fiat adjustment based on size less attractive....
Im all for making cost adjustments where something is found to be disproportionately good. I don't think small ships, in the normal condition, are disproportionately good.
I DO think that small ships, when they are all you bring, are likely to be disproportionately good. However, thats far enough outside the normal bounds of play that we don't need to change the rules to make up for it. Im not comfortable with the idea of making rules adjustments to try to enforce what I consider normal play.
I believe the best way to limit the effectiveness of small ships is Area of Effect weapons.
Those are already, as I recall, a choice for weapons...
That said, Starmada is a points system. No point-based system is, or can be, unbreakable to the extent that all uses of points, taken in any combination, are entirely equal. Some things will be better, some things worse, and the further one deviates from the core assumptions of the game, the more extreme the results may tend to become.
If it is a game to be played among friends, my best advice is for everyone to build friendly fleets. Always stop to ask 'would I have fun playing against this'.
Wow, looks alot like my SFB style ships...
Only with roughly double the range and speed, and about 30% more hull. *laughs*
The concern isnt someone breaking off to regroup or reform.. the concern is fleets built to maximize ultra long range firepower, speed, and the ability to run away while shooting, so they can never be engaged by an opponent who doesnt have max range weapons and/or insane speed.
I agree with the theory that points=points, Cricket... however, my play experience does not entirely bear that out.
In my experience, all other things being equal, higher tech fleets TEND to outperform lower tech fleets (unless the higher tech fleet pretends its a seeking weapon, closes, and swaps licks at point blank range).
In general, Higher Tech fleets have...
1.) Faster ships. This gives them an initiative advantage.
2.) Tougher Ships. This multiplies the initative advantage, due to the fact that they retain their firepower, and more importantly mobility, longer.
3.) Longer Ranged Weapons. Even without the "Range 30 butt-shooting" style play, attacking effectively first is always good. A higher tech fleet will tend to eliminate some of its enemies firepower in unanswered volleys.
4.) Broader Arc Weapons: Combines very nicely with #1 above.
5.) More weapon modifiers: Even elminating abusive combinations, well chosen weapon mods are a force multiplier, especially when you control the pacing and range of the battle to maximize your advantages. See #1 and #3 above.
The Lower Tech Fleet has:
1.) More hulls. LOTS more hulls. This can be very good, but also tends to result in faster loss of firepower (Most ships have weapons left when the last hull box goes).
2.) More hull boxes. LOTS more hull boxes. Similar to #1, above, but makes the lower tech fleet alot more resilient against bad luck, and causes it to do well if it can get to point blank and slug.
3.) More raw dice of damage, though less modified. A Tech level -1 fleet with unmodified medium-to-short narrow arc weapons will be throwing Buckets O Dice. Buckets. And any high tech ship that lets a -1 Tech fleet get to close range and in arc gets EXACTLY what it deserves.
Thus, if they both just go for the gusto, it tends to balance out. But the higher tech fleet gets to play range games, it gets to pick range and timing, its probably got lots of neat tech toys (ECM is CRIPPLING to most low tech fleets, which already tend to have short range and not-great to-hit numbers).
As a result, the higher tech fleet, despite being 'points equal', TENDS to be advantaged, at least in the general condition 'open or at least large map, no VC's other than killing the other guy' condition.
If you nail the high tech fleets foot down, by giving it a convoy or a base or an invasion force to protect... or even by forcing IT to go do something within the range of the low-tech-fleets guns... or set a clock running in the background... then it works out alot better, too.
An unsatsifying answer, but I wonder how many of the percieved problems with SM go away if we set scenarios and scenario objectives more often?
Marcus Smythe wrote:I dont think we can ever balance this on a floating map.
We have to look at some form of fixed maps, consider the size, and run the numbers in light of that.
Ugh. Fixed maps. THERE ARE NO WALLS IN SPACE!
The whole idea of "fixed" space maps is such a foreign concept to me.
Yes, there are objects that will not move its position. But that does not mean maps have to be fixed. A ship could move "off-map" relative to the non-moving object, but that doesn't mean it left the battle. It could be making a slow turn due to very high speeds and will return in a few turns. I've done this many times, usually by putting the miniature back on the map for movement purposes with dice near it representing how much further away the ship is.
The default map should be floating, and all balancing issues should be based on that.
---------
As for the ORAT thing, build a ship to represent a standard fighter: 1 hull, speed 10, 0 screens, 1 weapon (range=1, ROF=1, IMP=1, DMG=1, ACC=5+), hyperdrive or not. I was aiming for a CRAT of 8-9 (an independent standard fighter squadron costs 55). This showed me the ORAT changes to range 1 and 2 weapons.
The game does have a range 1 "weapon": anti-fighter batteries. Why not let the other weapons have a range of 1?
Given the following:
1.) Floating Map
2.) Lack of Scenario Objectives other than victory
How do you design a point balanced game? Victory will ALWAYS go to the ship with the greatest range, the greatest speed, and rear-mounted weapons. (Assuming there are no hard upper limits on Range and Speed... we currently have a hard limit at 30 on range. You can further 'quasi' increase your range by mounting Stealth Systems)
So... every ship in Starmada has a Stealth System and rear-mounted range 30 guns. _every_ ship, because on a floating map, nothing else beats that. Nothing at ALL, if their fast enough to outrun fighters. (Which they can be, they only need a peashooter).
I dont want to play the game that way. I dont think anyone else does, either, but the degree to which we force players to go 'Hmm, do I want to win or have fun' is bad for the game, IMHO. Part of the 'Fun' for me is playing as hard as I can, win or loose.
If we force people not to play 'hard' to have a fun game (Because the designs that come out of playing 'hard' are no fun), then you get a situation where whoever looses feels like if they had just tweaked a BIT more (say, like their opponents.. true or not, thats how the guy who lost WILL feel) then they wouldnt be the one watching their beloved fleet melt like a snowman in rain.
I agree, I really do. Floaty maps make sense, fixed maps dont. But fixed maps -work-, rules wise.. floaty maps dont.
Unless, of course, everything is BUILT for the fixed map, with that as an assumption.. and then the players agree to play floaty (in light of their forces). That can work okay. But building for floating maps leads to abberations.
I dont think we can ever balance this on a floating map.
We have to look at some form of fixed maps, consider the size, and run the numbers in light of that.
And that is one problem, Beowulf... any fleet would inevitably choose the orders that best fits them... so rather than a counter-balance to extremes, I might instead be introducing another weight to allow one-dimesonal fleets to further tip the scales.
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Marcus Smythe
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.