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 → Starmada → Starmada Nova Comments
Does it seem right that I can make a size 3 ship, with 8 thrust, and give it an FR1 Exp 1-2-3 weapon that rolls 189 dice at medium range, and 267 dice at close?
No.
Seems more than a little ridiculous?
Yes.
If I build a HS3 Thrust 8 ship and give it FR1 1-2-3 Exp I can fit 268 BAS on there. It has 57 combat rating.
Same ship without Exp has 53 BAS and a combat rating of 36.
Right. But if you take that second ship and add "Expendable", its ORAT drops from 257.08 to 128.54 -- or 50% -- reducing its combat rating from 36 to 25.
I guess I don't see how the ORAT discounting 50% matters, if the space is discounted 80%? ORAT seems like the less important of the stats since the space is what determines how much you can fit on the ship and thus how much punch it packs.
PS: What's the intended way to make expendable weapons with multiple shots? Add multiple banks?
ORAT seems like the less important of the stats since the space is what determines how much you can fit on the ship and thus how much punch it packs.
But ORAT determines how much you can "fit" into your fleet, and ensures two fleets are evenly matched. ORAT is MUCH more important than space.
PS: What's the intended way to make expendable weapons with multiple shots? Add multiple banks?
Multiple banks is the only way.
But ORAT determines how much you can "fit" into your fleet, and ensures two fleets are evenly matched. ORAT is MUCH more important than space.
I think my problem is stacking multiple discounts. Super short range + Exp + FR = crazy amounts of dice on the cheap.
Of course, you have to actually get close enough to use it.
Well in AE the weapon arc was cheaper "G=FR" and you could also take slow and starship exclusive - so I think its come a long way!
I may be way off base (have yet to play my first game of Starmada and all my mini's are still on the painting bench!) but isn't the easy answer to the cheap 1-2-3 exp-weapon ships, well, lots of drones and/or fighters? The expendable guy has to waste a bunch of dice (if he can even bring his weapons to bear) and precious shots if he shoots at the fighters/drones or else watch his ships cook off in short order. The fighter/drone player just keeps his distance (maybe taking long range shots - perhaps with seekers?) till his little friends do their work?
@Barking Monkey
Yes, that sounds like it would work... that is if you know what your opponent is bringing and counter with that!
There is still going to be a rock/paper/scissors component to Nova, but I think the extremes have been brought in much closer to the norm than from AE.
-Tim
I may be way off base (have yet to play my first game of Starmada and all my mini's are still on the painting bench!) but isn't the easy answer to the cheap 1-2-3 exp-weapon ships, well, lots of drones and/or fighters? The expendable guy has to waste a bunch of dice (if he can even bring his weapons to bear) and precious shots if he shoots at the fighters/drones or else watch his ships cook off in short order. The fighter/drone player just keeps his distance (maybe taking long range shots - perhaps with seekers?) till his little friends do their work?
Sure, but that's not really the point. I just think it's a crazy # of dice to be rolling because any small ship is easy prey for fighters, but most of them can't one-shot a 20 hull ship with 20 armor boxes and 4,5,6 shields. 
Ya, fun ships:
NAME:
Mean Guys GLASS CANNON-class FF (85)
HULL [_] [_] [_]
THRUST [5][4][3][2][1] WEAPONS [_][1][2][3][4]
ECM [_][_][_][_][_] SHIELDS [_][_][_][_][_]
WEAPONS ARCS RANGE ATTACK DICE -4 -6 -8 -10
Boom (Exp/Gid) [FF] 1-2-3 452 320 226 160 113 80 57 40 28 20 14 10
Speaking of which, is there going to be a new "drake" notation?
But back on topic, this guy is TL+2 - he can one shot just about anything that isn't packing ECM 5, Stealth 5, but talk about vulnerable and with only one shot. I guess you could go a bit cheaper and get that down to maybe 240 attack dice.
-Tim
Ya, fun ships:
NAME:
Mean Guys GLASS CANNON-class FF (85)
HULL [_] [_] [_]
THRUST [5][4][3][2][1] WEAPONS [_][1][2][3][4]
ECM [_][_][_][_][_] SHIELDS [_][_][_][_][_]WEAPONS ARCS RANGE ATTACK DICE -4 -6 -8 -10
Boom (Exp/Gid) [FF] 1-2-3 452 320 226 160 113 80 57 40 28 20 14 10Speaking of which, is there going to be a new "drake" notation?
But back on topic, this guy is TL+2 - he can one shot just about anything that isn't packing ECM 5, Stealth 5, but talk about vulnerable and with only one shot. I guess you could go a bit cheaper and get that down to maybe 240 attack dice.
-Tim
These actually could be fun to play with/against, because there's some challenge involved in the maneuvering to get within range 3 FF. Are they weird and scary? Yes. Degenerate? Maybe not. There exist counters (fighters if they're not in close formation, long-range weapons, mo' speed).
I also second the motion for a Drake-like notation. Pretty cards are all well and good, but I really, really prefer flat text. One consideration with such a notation is that making the -n column and the number of dice columns line up is going to be nasty; I think perhaps having "0: 452 320 226 160 -4: 113 80 -6: 57 40 -8: 28 20 -10: 14 10", where the column headers are mixed in, would be somewhat more usable. Including the prefixed '-' helps differentiate them from actual firepower numbers.
I agree that's not exactly a broken ship, just highly annoying. Sure you can defeat it, but you can also catch someone off guard with it and just hose them. They certainly aren't what I would call "fun" ships.
IMHO there are two things that make it possible:
1) Tech - I understand wanting tech, but in my experience tech just leads to stupid glass cannon ships that make the game unfun. If you actually had to spend the extra space evenly between defense, movement, weapons and systems it would be cool - but its not - I hate it. Why have design constraints when you can just pick tech and then utterly ignore them?
2) Cost of range - I don't think it should be linear. Seems to me the game is very balanced when dealing with weapon ranges of about 9 to 18 - outside of this it breaks down. A range 3 weapon should not be 25% the cost of a range 12 weapon. I also think that the extreme long ranges should have an additional premium. If range 12 costs 1 then range 3 should be about 0.5 and Range 30 about 4.
Now most of this goes away if you just all build nice ships or have someone do up ships in a particular setting and use them, but if you play "lets kill each other" things like that get exploited.
-Tim
I agree that's not exactly a broken ship, just highly annoying. Sure you can defeat it, but you can also catch someone off guard with it and just hose them. They certainly aren't what I would call "fun" ships.
IMHO there are two things that make it possible:
1) Tech - I understand wanting tech, but in my experience tech just leads to stupid glass cannon ships that make the game unfun. If you actually had to spend the extra space evenly between defense, movement, weapons and systems it would be cool - but its not - I hate it. Why have design constraints when you can just pick tech and then utterly ignore them?
2) Cost of range - I don't think it should be linear. Seems to me the game is very balanced when dealing with weapon ranges of about 9 to 18 - outside of this it breaks down. A range 3 weapon should not be 25% the cost of a range 12 weapon. I also think that the extreme long ranges should have an additional premium. If range 12 costs 1 then range 3 should be about 0.5 and Range 30 about 4.
Now most of this goes away if you just all build nice ships or have someone do up ships in a particular setting and use them, but if you play "lets kill each other" things like that get exploited.
-Tim
I am firmly of the opinion that all building mechanics, no matter how thoughtfully designed and executed will be exploited by someone eventually. The whole point of designing ships to defeat your opponents isn't to make a balanced design that is fun to play and makes sense, it is to find the loopholes and killer combos that allow you to smite your friends with giggling glee. The exitement comes from building the best beast rather than playing. All of the above is why I typically will not play one-of-a-kind build off games unless there are many restrictions in place. They just aren't fun to me. I'm weird that way I guess. When I have played some campaigns we have used all kinds of hard caps on tech and things like range and they were pretty fun games.
Of course this is me on my soap-box, so I will get down now and let the discussion continue.
Cheers,
Erik
I am firmly of the opinion that all building mechanics, no matter how thoughtfully designed and executed will be exploited by someone eventually. The whole point of designing ships to defeat your opponents isn't to make a balanced design that is fun to play and makes sense, it is to find the loopholes and killer combos that allow you to smite your friends with giggling glee. The exitement comes from building the best beast rather than playing. All of the above is why I typically will not play one-of-a-kind build off games unless there are many restrictions in place. They just aren't fun to me. I'm weird that way I guess. When I have played some campaigns we have used all kinds of hard caps on tech and things like range and they were pretty fun games.
Of course this is me on my soap-box, so I will get down now and let the discussion continue.
Cheers,
Erik
I agree with what you say. The problem I guess i have is for our group to agree on the design limits is a big hassle. Lots of arguments and people taking it personnally - and then that just motivates them to try to make even more broken combos that you didn't anticipate.
-Tim
A Drake notation? "I am going to finish my game of boules".
Oh, that's not what was meant? 
I guess a mono spaced font with a few special touches is required. Might solve any alignment problem?
Would anyone want to have another font to install?
Is there an idiot out there willing to spend the time on making one to include boxes and boxed numbers?
Paul
I am firmly of the opinion that all building mechanics, no matter how thoughtfully designed and executed will be exploited by someone eventually. The whole point of designing ships to defeat your opponents isn't to make a balanced design that is fun to play and makes sense, it is to find the loopholes and killer combos that allow you to smite your friends with giggling glee. The exitement comes from building the best beast rather than playing. All of the above is why I typically will not play one-of-a-kind build off games unless there are many restrictions in place. They just aren't fun to me. I'm weird that way I guess. When I have played some campaigns we have used all kinds of hard caps on tech and things like range and they were pretty fun games.
Of course this is me on my soap-box, so I will get down now and let the discussion continue.
Cheers,
Erik
I tend to agree here; anything can and will be exploited. I have not, however, found campaign games to be a solution; whoever had the best designs at the beginning starts winning and keeps winning if you don't allow redesigns. If you allow redesigns between games (so that good stuff can be countered), then you're back at square 1 (although you can try tactical counters, in AE those were not terribly effective... perhaps things will be better in Nova). I suppose one fix would be to allow the losing side to develop a new ship class per loss (much like the "Losing side gets points" solution in Simplest).
Anyways, what I was really getting at was "What hard limits do you use?" Because I am quite curious about what works. My experience with banning things has been that new degenerate strategies are developed rapidly ("Oh, nothing from Rules Annex? OK, guess I'll just have to use 3+ Repeating Increased Hits...").
A Drake notation? "I am going to finish my game of boules".
Oh, that's not what was meant?
I guess a mono spaced font with a few special touches is required. Might solve any alignment problem?
Would anyone want to have another font to install?
Is there an idiot out there willing to spend the time on making one to include boxes and boxed numbers?Paul
I question the need for new fonts at all... Here's my proposal:
<Starship_Name>
(<Combat_Rating>)<Class_Name> <Class_Designation> [<Race_designation>, TL <N>]
Armor: <N> <N-1> ... <2/3 * N, rounded up> * <2/3 * N, rounded up -1> ... <1/3 * N, rounded up> * <1/3 * N, rounded down> ... 0
Hull: <N> <N-1> ... <2/3 * N, rounded up> * <2/3 * N, rounded up -1> ... <1/3 * N, rounded up> * <1/3 * N, rounded down> ... 1
Thrust: <N> <N> <N> <N> <N>
Weapons: 0 1 2 3 4
Shields: <N> <N> <N> <N> <N>
ECM: <N> <N> <N> <N> <N>
[X] <Weapon_Name>, <RNG_1> / <RNG_2> / <RNG_3>, <Trait_List>. <Bank_List>
<FP0> <FP1> <FP2> <FP3> | <FP4> <FP5> | <FP6> <FP7> | <FP8> <FP9> | <FP10> <FP11> ... 0
[Y] <Weapon_Name>, <RNG_1> / <RNG_2> / <RNG_3>, <Trait_List>. <Bank_List>
<FP0> <FP1> <FP2> <FP3> | <FP4> <FP5> | <FP6> <FP7> | <FP8> <FP9> | <FP10> <FP11> ... 0
[Z] <Weapon_Name>, <RNG_1> / <RNG_2> / <RNG_3>, <Trait_List>. <Bank_List>
<FP0> <FP1> <FP2> <FP3> | <FP4> <FP5> | <FP6> <FP7> | <FP8> <FP9> | <FP10> <FP11> ... 0
Specials: <Specials_list>
Fighter format:
<Fighter_name> (<Trait_List>; <Num_Flights>)
Not that much different from AE's, really.
Obligatory example:
Gratuitous Violence
(170) Murder-class Cruiser [Chaos, TL 0]
Armor: 2 * 1 * 0
Hull: 12 11 10 9 * 8 7 6 5 * 4 3 2 1
Thrust: 5 4 3 2 1
Weapons: 0 1 2 3 4
ECM: 0
Shields: 3 4 5 6 6
[X] Lances, 4 / 8 / 12, Acc, Prc, Gid. FF0
2 1 1 1 | 1 0
[Y] Batteries, 3 / 6 / 9. PP2 SS2
20 14 10 7 | 5 4 | 3 2 | 1 1 | 1 0
[Z] Turrets, 1 / 2 / 3, Acc. TT0
2 1 1 1 | 1 0
Specials: Marines (4)
Not sure | is the best firepower separator; a bit similar to 1. / likewise suffers from similarity to 7. *shrug* Other than that, though, seems usable.
I cannot wait to try out this New Version of Starmada. One way to aviod too many of the abuses is to limit Tech to Zero, which is what we do here. Also, we have not used expendables in the past and probably won't use them in the future. Just these two will reduce or even eliminate the abuses. I look forward to getting the Rule Books and sharing them with my friends who play Starmada.
BTW, a suggestion; since all ships have firecontrol for their weapons, call the Starship System "Advanced Fire Control".
A proposal for another arc: The opposite ot TR, which is like a FXX; Call it TF to represent weapons with a 300 degree arc around the stern, an AXX. After this, I (sort of) promise to ask for No More new arcs.
I agree with what you say. The problem I guess i have is for our group to agree on the design limits is a big hassle. Lots of arguments and people taking it personnally - and then that just motivates them to try to make even more broken combos that you didn't anticipate.
-Tim
And this is fun... how?
BTW, a suggestion; since all ships have firecontrol for their weapons, call the Starship System "Advanced Fire Control".
They do?
You mean that there is not a poor ****** crewman/droid sitting on the barrel/emitter with a talk-box shouting "To the Left", "Up a bit", "A bit more", "OK FIRE!". Well that's ruined my image of how it works 
A proposal for another arc: The opposite ot TR, which is like a FXX; Call it TF to represent weapons with a 300 degree arc around the stern, an AXX. After this, I (sort of) promise to ask for No More new arcs.
Already been covered, PS = HIJKL.
Paul
Anyways, what I was really getting at was "What hard limits do you use?" Because I am quite curious about what works. My experience with banning things has been that new degenerate strategies are developed rapidly ("Oh, nothing from Rules Annex? OK, guess I'll just have to use 3+ Repeating Increased Hits...").
Well, in several games and at least one campaign I played we capped range at 12 which we found promoted a great deal more maneuver, I can remember placing restrictions of no Ignores Shields, no Piercing greater than +1, no fighter DEF greater than 2, and a few other things that I can't recall right at the moment. The biggest thing was the range restriction. That one thing dramatically altered games from "line up your ships on opposite sides of the table...ok, blast away" to something more like dogfights where one side or the other was trying to control the engagement range, either to get their shots in, or avoid the same. We never banned expendables, probably because nobody ever made a "eggshell sledgehammer" design. We never banned Strikers, but I always felt that they were way too powerful and flexible for the "cost", so I am glad that they will be gone in Nova. Even killer strikers could be dealt with though if you used the fighter CAP and Dogfight rules to intercept them and force them to attack short of their intended target. As far as traits go, I did play a series of games where we limited traits to one "ranged" trait and one other and had several enjoyable games. That still allowed for a lot of design options and vicious combos, but I felt it prevented the ugliest abuse. I think in the end, it is all about what you and your gaming friends want from the game. I've known people (and this extends beyond Starmada) that were not happy unless they could show off how good they were at exploiting the rules at every turn. I usually stop playing games with those people. Yeah, I've got issues. 
Cheers,
Erik
Agreed. My friends that I game with have decided on the restrictions we use because it makes the game more fun for us. We have batles lasting for 15 turns or more. Since ships don't have massive firepower, ships have to manuever to bring all their batteries to bear and then pound on eachother. There are suprises when an enemy ship has a short-ranged battery in addition to its longer ranged ones and fires when it gets close. I then have to manuever away outta range, but yet keep my ships firepower in the game. Very Challanging!
Gaming Glenn likes to give each of his large ships a flight or two of seekers. When ships are close enough that they cannot move far enough away to escape, he launches them. Often our games resemble the naval battles off Guadalcanal in 1942. Last game we played lasted 16 turns. Ships were firing at eachother for 12 of them. Tech Zero as a max. made this possible. Also max range for weapons was set at 18. :geek:
Already been covered, PS = HIJKL.
Actually, PS = HIJK.
Marauder wrote:I agree with what you say. The problem I guess i have is for our group to agree on the design limits is a big hassle. Lots of arguments and people taking it personnally - and then that just motivates them to try to make even more broken combos that you didn't anticipate.
-TimAnd this is fun... how?
It wasn't really fun - I think this time we are going to playtest for ourselves and then come up with any house rules we need to - and then just skip design limits.
-Tim
Someone asked for blank ship displays...
OldnGrey wrote:Already been covered, PS = HIJKL.
Actually, PS = HIJK.
:oops: , That is so weird, I could have sworn that someone had already asked for the opposite of TR before PS was added and assumed that was it. Back to the drawing board.
What about RT for HIJKL?
Paul
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Starmada Nova Comments
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.