Topic: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

Hi I have been using SXCA 2.4 for designing ships and it seems that there is a large diffrnce between 2.4 and 2.5

I have been using -1 tec for weapons and shields if that helps.

What SXCA is the more correct one?

Thanks.............Doug

Re: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

Inari7 wrote:

Hi I have been using SXCA 2.4 for designing ships and it seems that there is a large diffrnce between 2.4 and 2.5

Can you be more specific about the "large difference"?

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

both ships have the same design
This was made with SXCA 2.5g
D-7a class Klingon Battle cruiser   ( 58 ) with 220 space units left over
Hull: 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 4 3 2 1
Shields: 3 2 1
[a] Disrupter [4/8/12, 5+, ROF 2]
ab, ab, bd, ac
Hyperdrive [O]
1[HQ], 2[Ea], 3[Ha], 4[E], 5[H], 6[S]

TL: E: 0 S: -1 W: -1 Q: 0

The other ship is the same except the CR is 76 with only one space unit left over made with SXCA 2.4 last modified Dec 3rd 04

Thats a bit of diffrence.

.............Doug

Re: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

bdfn

Re: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

With SXCA 2.2  this design is CR76 with 118 SU units left.
I guess I will have to try the math long hand to see what is correct.

Re: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

I did the math for the above ship long hand, and came up with numbers similar to the 2.2 and 2.4 SXCA's. SXCA 2.5 is not even close.

The math I did for the SU cost was perfect when compared with SXCA 2.4, but  I was 4 points off when I figured the CR. I did realize I was off by .1 on the weapon CR cost. (I rounded up to high)

....................Doug

Re: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

The Defensive Rating (A.2.2) calculation was changed from that given in the Starmada X rules. The change was noted in the FAQ.

Multiply the number of hull points by 2 (not 3). Then multiply this by the shield factor.

The early SXCAs would have had the incorrect calculation, SXCA 1.1 did.

Hope this helps.

Re: SXCA changes 2.4-2.5

That does not explain the excessive SU I now have left over.
Thanks I will have to try it long hand  again some time.