Yes to the seeking, and Thank You.

Looking foward to the new spreadsheet for designing ships....LOL

And for fortifications, I basically design them in sections without engines..... each section is an individual ship... that way, some sections can be destroyed, while others remain to continue fighting. We decided that there is no explosion until all the sections went up... that keeps one exploding section from wiping the whole base.

John

I guess I'm glad... But I just bought Starmada, and now I have to buy again? I didn't even play one game yet...

Are all of the cool suggestions in the rules now: the special equipment thread ideas like ecm(x) etc.?

~robert

Is it still based on d6 or has it moved to d10?

Well, that makes more sense in terms of having "special" rules. I was thinking about "space stations" or weapons platforms -- which as far as I'm concerned would just be starships without engines.

I can only hope that y'all consider it better...

In the older Starmada Compendium game, Spacestations had no engines, but the range of their weapons was doubled,  Perhaps this should be how Stace Stations are handled in the new Starmada.  Its how we have been handling them down here.  :idea:

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville Fla, USA

With respect to Starmada X Space stations, we used the Starmada Compendium's rules on space stations as guidlines: :idea:
No engines & the SU ammount is 150% of a same sized ship.  Range 36 weapons cost twice as much as range 18 weapons, etc.  It works well.  This lets these weapons outrange any spinal mounts so that spinal mount ships don't become space station destroyers.  The range of Spinal mounts on space stations was Not doubled... 8)
All my space stations also have overthrusters...

Yep !!

Definitely looking foward to the new spreadsheet.....LOL

Then again, games are usually last minute decisions around here, and the spreadsheets help us get started quicker.

Nahuris

Both can be adapted in by house rules if you really wanna do things that way.   Starmada is very adaptable.

I was thinking I remembered from the previous conversation that PEN and DMG should be equally weighted, because the order didn't matter.  (Needing 3+ and then 4+ is the same as needing 4+ and then 3+.)  Does the new weighting reflect the changes you made to the damage tracking or something else?  I remember you were trying to weight ROF more because of its effect on fighters, but I don't remember an effect that differentiated between PEN and DMG.

Just curious.  I like this kind of thing.    During the game, I like simplicity, of course.  But I like seeing how points and rules go together when not in the middle of playing.

Oh, and I''ll be interested to see both the inertial system and the damage tracking.  Both are things that made me unsure about playing Starmade as an alternative to Full Thrust.

andy

In Starmada X, PEN and DMG are priced the same and of roughly the same value in combat. If I hit a shield 3 target with a PEN 2, DMG 1 weapon, I have the same damage potential as hitting with a PEN 1, DMG 2 weapon. With the first I have two chances at 50% of scoring 1 DMG. With the second I only have one 50% chance but will score 2 DMG.

Will Admiralty change the way hits are rolled? From the way you described a weapon with high PEN wasting potential vs. weak/no shields, it sounds very different. Currently a high PEN vs. no shields acts just as a high DMG, more dice on the damage track. A PEN 3, DMG 1 weapon will do 3 DMG to a ship with no shields just like a PEN 1, DMG 3 weapon would.

No, no changes. And you're right -- on average, PEN 3/DMG 1 is the same as PEN 1/DMG 3.

However...

If you don't consider the averages and look at outcomes, there are major differences in how ROF/PEN/DMG interact.

*warning -- math ahead*

Consider the following (assuming 50% to-hit and 50% penetration):

ROF 3/PEN 1/DMG 1

Possible outcomes:
0 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (12.5%)
1 hit -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (18.8%)
1 hit -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (18.8%)
2 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (9.4%)
2 hits -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (18.8%)
2 hits -- 2 penetration -- 2 damage (9.4%)
3 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (1.6%)
3 hits -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (4.7%)
3 hits -- 2 penetration -- 2 damage (4.7%)
3 hits -- 3 penetration -- 3 damage (1.6%)

Totals:
0 damage = 42.3%
1 damage = 42.3%
2 damage = 14.1%
3 damage = 1.6%
Average = 0.75 damage

ROF 1/PEN 3/DMG 1

Possible outcomes:
0 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (50%)
1 hit -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (6.3%)
1 hit -- 1 penetration -- 1 damage (18.8%)
1 hit -- 2 penetration -- 2 damage (18.8%)
1 hit -- 3 penetration -- 3 damage (6.3%)

Totals:
0 damage = 56.3%
1 damage = 18.8%
2 damage = 18.8%
3 damage = 6.3%
Average = 0.75 damage

ROF 1/PEN 1/DMG 3

Possible outcomes:
0 hits -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (50%)
1 hit -- 0 penetration -- 0 damage (25%)
1 hit -- 1 penetration -- 3 damage (25%)

Totals:
0 damage = 75%
3 damage = 25%
Average = 0.75 damage

So, the average is always the same -- but the ROF-3 weapon is most likely to score damage, while the DMG-3 is most likely to not score damage.

This is why I say that sometimes high-DMG weapons can "waste" their damage potential -- if a ROF-3 weapon scores damage 58% of the time, while a DMG-3 weapon scores damage only 25% of the time, that leaves one-third of attacks where the DMG-3 is doing you no good at all. That may be balanced out over the long term by the fact that the DMG-3 weapon does 3 hits over 15 times as often as the ROF-3 weapon, but in Starmada it is beneficial to get SOME damage early and often.

This is why I wanted to weight ROF more heavily than PEN, and PEN more heavily than DMG.