Topic: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Hello,

My friends and I have been playing Starmada off and on for a couple of years, and I wanted to see if anyone else has had the troubles that we have had and could offer some solutions.

1) The way hyperdrives are figured into space calculations, you can add as many hyperdrives as you want to a ship, for free, and you get as many Q hits as you want out of this, for no cost, since the only cost for hyperdrives is a 10% reduction in SUs for the first one.

A similar problem arises when using the shockwave special equipment. Both its offensive rating and its space units depend on the shield rating.  This means, if you aren't using shields (such as on some small ships my friends and I have designed) you can have infinite Q buffers again.

2) The combination of Re-roll To-Hit Dice/Repeating/Inverted Range Modifiers, or really just Re-roll To-Hit Dice/Repeating.  The Inverted Range Modifiers was for use during the phase in which my friend used stealth generators on all his ships.

When these weapons are  2 ROF, 1 PEN, 1DMG,3+ To-Hit, anything in short range (or normal range with the IRM/Stealth combo) hits on everything but a 1.  Then it repeats.  If you manage to roll a 1, you get to try again due to the Re-roll To-Hit.  You have to roll two 1's in a row before it stops hitting.  When these weapons are expendable, they cost about 25 su at tech level 0.  You can have 5 on a hull 4 ship with 7 engines and pds.  Each ship, when all the weapons are fired together, results in an average of 300-400 penetration dice.  Too powerful for a hull 4 ship.  Slap a cloaking device and range based ROF instead of IRM, and you can sneak up on ships and do triple the damage of the other ship.

Has anyone come up with a counter to this weapon?  Decoys help a bit, but it is still insanely powerful.

I think I have more questions, but I have to go for now, so I'll add them in later. 

Thanks for your time,

shift

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

I could be off-base with this, but I believe in the case of shockwave, you have to have shields in order to equip it...since if your space units are 0, then there's nothing there :roll: .


The Re-roll to hit only counts for the very first shot of the weapon.  The repeating shots should not get the re-roll (though Dan can correct me if I'm wrong here) wink   If the target has PDS a lot of those shots aren't going to mean much I'd think.

The hyperdrive issue is rather odd...maybe the reason no limit was set was due to the intention being one only (or maybe a back up max.)  House rule can fix that abuse readily enough though.

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Hello,
My friends and I here in Jacksonville encountered difficulty with the Repeating Weapon-option.  We use a house rule here in Jacksonville, and down in Fort Lauderdale, when we play:   We limit the Repeating to a max of six shots.   Can you imagine the combination of
{Repeating+Reroll to hit+double range modifiers} w/3+ to hit, and 3/1/1?  You would never stop shooting especially @ short range <LOL>.  This limitation of a max of 6 shots makes Repeating still formitable, but not overwhelming.  It fixed the problem

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Beowulf - In fact I can, and did.  I thought I broke the system for a while, but there is something in the Starmada X rules that states that rolls always fail on a 1.  Thus, the only thing doubled range mods does for short range fire is make one heck of an anti-fighter weapon (it allows fighters to be attacked at 2+ To-Hit).

Thanks for the house rules ideas though.  We may try some of them.

googleplex - According to the rules, and all logic, there would be nothing there, in terms of the usefulness of the shockwave.  There is nothing in the rules, however, stating that a useless shockwave cannot be installed.  It generates a Q box on the spreadsheet, and via the rules.  It probably should be played as if it doesn't, but I'm just looking at what the rules say.

The same goes for Re-Rolls applying to only the first roll.  It says (once), but that seems to be applying to individual dice.  It says I can do it for any of them, but it is unclear if it also means all of them.  Repeating seems to indicate that if a To-Hit dice hits, it is re-rolled.  Would that then count as the one reroll?  I guess I'm just confused by the wording.

As for the hyperdrive, I'd be curious to know the rationale behind not making it take up space, but have it give you extra space if you remove it.  The specific way it works is that if you have a hyperdrive, you get the standard SU allotment for the ship.  If you don't, you get a 10% bonus to SUs.  This would indicate to me that it is expected that the default is for a ship to have a hyperdrive.  Most of the wording in the sections on hyperdrive use, however, seem to lean in the direction of something that can be added to a ship.  It confused me to no end when I was redesigning the spreadsheet and doing the statistical analysis.

All that aside, thanks for the help.

shift

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

shift_shaper wrote:

Hello,

Hello!

1) The way hyperdrives are figured into space calculations, you can add as many hyperdrives as you want to a ship, for free, and you get as many Q hits as you want out of this, for no cost, since the only cost for hyperdrives is a 10% reduction in SUs for the first one.

This is incorrect. The rules state that ONE hyperdrive is present; if this is removed, you receive an extra 10% of the available SUs. The rules do not say anything about adding more hyperdrives. While it is possible to do so with the SXCA, that is merely a tool -- the rules supercede the spreadsheet.

A similar problem arises when using the shockwave special equipment. Both its offensive rating and its space units depend on the shield rating.  This means, if you aren't using shields (such as on some small ships my friends and I have designed) you can have infinite Q buffers again.

While this is not explicitly prohibited by the rules, the implication is that a shockwave cannot be present without shields. However, this is easily legislated against: a ship must have a shield rating of 1+ in order to mount a shockwave generator.

2) The combination of Re-roll To-Hit Dice/Repeating/Inverted Range Modifiers, or really just Re-roll To-Hit Dice/Repeating.

While the Re-roll To-Hit/Repeating combo is powerful, it is more so because it sounds like you have been playing it incorrectly.

The "Re-roll To-Hit Dice" ability only allows each die to be re-rolled once per turn -- not once for each iteration of the "Repeating" ability.

Playing it the way you have been, each die will do an average of 35 hits per turn (assuming short range and 3+ to-hit). Playing it "correctly" reduces this to 5.83 (compared to 0.83 if the weapon had neither ability).

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Awesome, thanks for the help!

I was misreading the entry on repeating, and not registering that it is the same die that "repeats".  The "correct" way, however, makes it a lot harder to program into a spreadsheet to do my firing for me...:) ah well, the joys of excel...

shift

PS why so many vlookups in sxcafighters?  It makes it very confusing to reverse engineer.

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

shift_shaper wrote:

I was misreading the entry on repeating, and not registering that it is the same die that "repeats".

No worries... this has been a confusing issue for some time, but I didn't want to prohibit the combo entirely.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

cricket wrote:
shift_shaper wrote:

I was misreading the entry on repeating, and not registering that it is the same die that "repeats".

No worries... this has been a confusing issue for some time, but I didn't want to prohibit the combo entirely.

Might be worth mentioning that a good counter for Repeating in general is to find ways to reduce the chance to hit, since anything that shifts the odds really drops your expected number of hits rapidly, even with Reroll To-Hit.  ECM, Stealth, the optional Evasive Maneuvers and Fighter Screening rules, using fighter attacks to make explosions in a stacked hex...they can all do the job to one degree or another.

Rich

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Definitely.  My counter of choice is the decoy special equipment.  It takes chunks out, and can't be countered with ewar.  We definitely exhausted a lot of the resources, however.

Thanks for the help,

shift

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Sunbursts are good as well. They create instant locations where nothing can fire through.......

John

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Heh, sunbursts...Yeah.  I have a fleet of 150 1 hull ships that each have 2 sunbursts and a cloaking device.  Sunbursting things to death doesn't get old, though we eventually started using the house rule that they give a -1 to firing instead of being impenetrable, due to the massive walls of them that we were making.

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

shift_shaper wrote:

Heh, sunbursts...Yeah.  I have a fleet of 150 1 hull ships that each have 2 sunbursts and a cloaking device.  Sunbursting things to death doesn't get old, though we eventually started using the house rule that they give a -1 to firing instead of being impenetrable, due to the massive walls of them that we were making.

Ummm.... don't sunbursts have to be purchased in sets of 5 and therefore 2 on a ship would be illegal? I know the SXCA allows purchases of any number but the rules are quite clear.


BTW we limit repeating to 4 shots to avoid it being overpowered.

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

If you want to really hideous weapons, nest some 'Range-based' weapons.

The trick or 'exploit' if you will is that the cost increase stays flat while the benefit increases geometrically (I believe that is the correct term).

So a R:9 3/1/1 weapon costs 24. Adding Range-based RoF increases that to 38 and change. So far so good. THEN adding in Range-based Damage/PEN  increases that cost to 104. However the weapon is FAR more effective at close range than that cost getting 81 effective attack at close range!

For best results, go with R:18, but that does drive the cost up to 208. Still, there is nothing that is likely to survive that attack and you can kill up to 6 hexes away. Even at medium range you are still quite deadly.

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Uncle_Joe wrote:

If you want to really hideous weapons, nest some 'Range-based' weapons.

The trick or 'exploit' if you will is that the cost increase stays flat while the benefit increases geometrically (I believe that is the correct term).

So a R:9 3/1/1 weapon costs 24. Adding Range-based RoF increases that to 38 and change. So far so good. THEN adding in Range-based Damage/PEN  increases that cost to 104. However the weapon is FAR more effective at close range than that cost getting 81 effective attack at close range!

For best results, go with R:18, but that does drive the cost up to 208. Still, there is nothing that is likely to survive that attack and you can kill up to 6 hexes away. Even at medium range you are still quite deadly.

Not much of an "exploit" there, since you're paying a hefty mass cost for a weapon that only outperforms more standard systems at short range, and which has very low effective damage output/mass at long range.  You stand a real chance of getting your big, expensive guns blown off by long-range sniping, and an opponent with Stealth just ruins your day.  Also,  for any given combo of range & firing arc, there are far more hexes in your medium and long range brackets than in short, so you'll have to spend *more* mass on broader arcs or risk your opponent not being in arc if/when you do finally hit your "sweet spot" range.

I really don't see where that breaks the design system.  You're getting roughly what you pay for, assuming your opponent isn't silly enough to just fly straight up to you and trade shots at point blank.

Rich

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

Uncle_Joe wrote:

The trick or 'exploit' if you will is that the cost increase stays flat while the benefit increases geometrically (I believe that is the correct term).

Actually, you are using the term correctly; you're just overlooking the fact that the cost increases geometrically as well...

Each of the Ranged-Based abilities has a 1.6 multiplier, which are applied in combination. Thus, if you put all three on a single weapon, your final cost multiplier would be 4.096 (1.6^3).

However the weapon is FAR more effective at close range than that cost getting 81 effective attack at close range!

You're getting the POSSIBILITY of 81 attacks; the chances of you getting all 81 points of damage is very small: even assuming a 2+ to-hit and shields of 1 on the target, the chance of a single 3/1/1 Range-Based^3 weapon getting 81 damage dice is only 0.14% (that's 14/100ths of a percent).

Your average success rate across all range bands is reflected by the multiplier-- which takes into account the fact (pointed out by Rich) that there are more target hexes at medium and long range than at short range.

With the 2+ to-hit and shields 1 example, your average number of hits is going to be 18.75, compared to 0.69 hits without the Range-Based abilities. This is still more success than would be anticipated by the 4.096 multiplier,  but much less than 81. Also, you're also assuming the best-case scenario.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

You're getting the POSSIBILITY of 81 attacks; the chances of you getting all 81 points of damage is very small:

But there is still no other way to get anywhere NEAR that kind of attack power that I can see.

Any weapon's chances of inflicting maximum potential are quite small, but this weapon will have so much firepower that even if only 1/4 actually succeed you will likely wreck all but the largest ships. And for that kind of firepower you can put a few on.

Not much of an "exploit" there, since you're paying a hefty mass cost for a weapon that only outperforms more standard systems at short range, and which has very low effective damage output/mass at long range. You stand a real chance of getting your big, expensive guns blown off by long-range sniping, and an opponent with Stealth just ruins your day. Also, for any given combo of range & firing arc, there are far more hexes in your medium and long range brackets than in short, so you'll have to spend *more* mass on broader arcs or risk your opponent not being in arc if/when you do finally hit your "sweet spot" range.

You have fantastic firepower at Medium range too. Its just not ridiculous like it is at Short. The only place you are paying a lot for a little is at long and on a R:18 weapon, that shouldnt be all that terribly often.

Obviously this shouldnt be the only weapon you use (compliment it with a few Reverse Range Mod/Repeating type weapons and make them pick their poison).

Note that I also just made it the biggest that exists to get that 208 cost (which isnt that high really). But you can very easily make a smaller version of this weapon which is quite economical that will still incinerate most small and mid-size opponents.

The point is that nothing I have seen to date can come close to firepower/CR that nesting Range-based can do.

Anyways, dont believe me? Try it out a few times against someone who doesnt know its coming (and thus builds directly against it). For 'normal' games, its the highest damage/cost ratio I've seen by quite a large margin (unless we were missing something).

Re: Questions about ship design and gameplay

I tried a sample game last night running two 3-ship squadrons of essentially identical (except for weapons) ships, one group with your nested ranged-based guns, the other with plain vanilla weaponry.  The vanilla fleet (doing its best to keep the range at long) killed one enemy and crippled a second before the range-based guys got to medium range.  The vanillas had two ships badly damaged by that point, one of whom lost enough engines to let the (relatively) healthy RB ship reach short range.  Unsurprisingly, that ship died horribly, but the return fire left the healthier RB ship almost immobile at medium (soon to be long) range from the surviving two vanilla hulls.  We called it at that point on time.

End result, the vanillas lost a ship, had one badly hurt with almost no guns or shields remaining, and had another nearly intact except for minor engine damage and a shield hit.  The RB fleet lost a ship, had another with only one gun and half its speed left, and a third almost immobile and missing shields.  The vanillas had a fairly dominant speed edge at this point, and could have backed out to long range and stayed there if they wanted, but would probably have had both ships end up crippled if they stayed to finish the RB cripples.

In short, it was pretty much an "everybody gets crippled or dead" fight, which is what I'd expect out an equal-CR fight with no real rock-paper-scissors issues.  If the RB fleet had gotten more engine hits they probably would have won handily, while the vanillas wanted more early  weapon hits.  Mostly came down to luck, and to the vanillas *not* flying into short range like a bunch of idiots.

One thing I did notice is that the more numerous vanilla weapons made it a little easier to justify spreading fire around at long range, hitting a target just hard enough to slow it down or knock its weapons down before shooting up the next.  Their one outright kill was a bit of a fluke, they scored roughly twice the expected number of hull hits on that ship when all they were really shooting for was to slow it down a little more so it wouldn't reach medium range in the next turn.

Rich