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 → ROF point-cost discussion
No, you didn't kill the thread....
I think that most of us are still digesting all the ideas.....LOL
Whew!
I was afraid that my curse from five years ago had returned. Back then, all I had to do was post in a thread, and it would dry up like a desert in no time flat.
I've had that curse as well...
John
2 simple ways to solve spring to mind.
First the present formulae is just about balanced for ROF 1 and 2 weapons and only seems broken for ROF 3. Therefore we are adopting a house rule of no ROF 3 weapons.
The other alternative is a simple mod of the formulae
from (ROF+1) to ((ROF*1.25)+0.5) This should at least minimise the issue and keep the formulae simple.
I will admit that I am getting fond of range 3 and 6 rotary guns with
3/1/1 for anti drone and anti fighter work....
I'd love to see a mod that can be added to a weapon...
Anti-fighter: normal to hit vs. fighters, but -1 vs. capital ships,
or even -1 to capital ships, and must re-roll penetration.
John
I've tried out an other Weapon calculation, and I think it works easy and very well: (ROF*PEN*DMG)+(0,5*ROF).
This makes Weapon calculations still easy while getting around some issues people had with the official rule.
ok, the resulting values are not always near the official ones, but the formula works to show differences in selecting a 1/1/3 or 3/1/1 weapon.
I have attached an Excel sheet to show the results.
Have fun,
Udo
I'd love to see a mod that can be added to a weapon...
Anti-fighter: normal to hit vs. fighters, but -1 vs. capital ships,
or even -1 to capital ships, and must re-roll penetration.
John
How would you define a cap ship, or are you just saying a -1 to shoot at all starships with a +1 to shoot at small units (fighters, drones, battlesats, mines, boarding pods)?
Now, Starmada X was the first time that the number of weapons was not included in the defensive rating (e.g., in the past, it was (Hull + # of Weapons) x Shield Factor). IMHO, putting this back into the formula would be a better solution than complicating the weapon calculation.
This still doesn't resolve the basic problem. Three 1/1/3 weapons give you the same chances of damaging another ship as three 3/1/1 but the three 3/1/1 are a hell of a lot better vs. small units (and a use a lot less SU too). Maybe the DRat needs to somehow take into account the ROF not just total number of weapons.
cricket wrote:Now, Starmada X was the first time that the number of weapons was not included in the defensive rating (e.g., in the past, it was (Hull + # of Weapons) x Shield Factor). IMHO, putting this back into the formula would be a better solution than complicating the weapon calculation.
This still doesn't resolve the basic problem. Three 1/1/3 weapons give you the same chances of damaging another ship as three 3/1/1 but the three 3/1/1 are a hell of a lot better vs. small units (and a use a lot less SU too). Maybe the DRat needs to somehow take into account the ROF not just total number of weapons.
It depends on what you mean by "resolve" -- I assume we're not trying to eliminate the fact that three 1/1/1 weapons are more useful than a single 3/1/1 weapon... but we are trying to increase the point cost of the former when compared to the latter.
Adding the number of weapons into the defensive rating would achieve this effect.
Whether or not this "balances" the designs remains to be seen...
It depends on what you mean by "resolve" -- I assume we're not trying to eliminate the fact that three 1/1/1 weapons are more useful than a single 3/1/1 weapon... but we are trying to increase the point cost of the former when compared to the latter.
I see and I agree.
Adding the number of weapons into the defensive rating would achieve this effect.
Whether or not this "balances" the designs remains to be seen...
Would this "fix" change the current weapon SU calculation? I am having a hard time wading through all of the proposals posted in this thread. Until you say "go", I'll continue to use the formula as in the rules.
Would this "fix" change the current weapon SU calculation? I am having a hard time wading through all of the proposals posted in this thread. Until you say "go", I'll continue to use the formula as in the rules.
It would penalize ships for having more weapons -- but whether that penalty would be enough to offset the tactical advantage, I don't know.
It worked in pre-X Starmada, although that was more because weapon hits were fixed at 33% of all damage rolls -- thus making ships with more weapons more survivable.
Hi,
we have now decided to use the "rule-book" rules and add a house rule to make e.g. 1/3/1 or 1/2/3 weapons attractive.
A race may choose to get a weapon-tech-level advantage of "+1", but commits itself to have their PEN never lower as the ROF
(ROF>=PEN)
A race may choose to get a weapon-tech-level advantage of "+2", but commits itself to have their PEN always higher as the ROF and their DMG never lower as the PEN
(ROF>PEN>=DMG)
Since we are playing a campaign style of game, this rule works fine for us and the higher tech level pulls against the SU advantage of high ROF weapons - and makes other combinations attractive. :-D
This idea came up when Dan was thinking about "other ways to give high ROF ships a penalty" - thanks for that!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → ROF point-cost discussion
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.