This is why I really didn't want to announce until the deal was done.

I am not going to get bogged down in discussions on this before it's official -- and right now, it's not official.

Having said that, remember all that this is a Star Fleet Universe project, not a Star Trek one... there are significant differences.

SO. I am thinking Disruptors go to:

ACC 3+ I1 D1 with RNG-based Damage. That way up close they do more damage up close than far away, but they are still more accurate than Photons at long range...

lol Yeah but in SFB they were roughly equal with the Federation CA having a slight edge.

Assuming, for purposes of arguement, that we want to replicate the play feel of SFB...

Photons will need to do roughly the same damage over time as Disruptors.

Disruptors will be more accurate than photons, but have their damage reduced as a function of range.

Photons will have the same damage at all ranges, but have their accuracy sharply impacted by range.

The disruptor boat should want to hold the range open and fire every turn.  The Photon boat should want to hold fire until its got a good shot.  If the photon boat takes a bad shot with its photons, and does not get lucky, the disruptor boat should roll up right on top of it and beat it about the head and shoulders for having empty weapons tubes.

I think were getting there with these proposals.

We may want to fiddle with our Photons and Disruptors to make sure they, in addition to fitting the above, have about the same 'value' points wise.  We may have to be generous to the Photon (compared to its SFB version) because the ability of the 4OL Photon Strike to put all of its damage on one shield (and thus waste less of its firepower over mutliple shields, over mutliple turns, than the disruptor) doesnt translate to this game, and wont be valued by it.

Weapons in SFU:

I wrote an article on designing weapons for SFB that appeared in CapLog 19.  I no longer have an electronic copy of it - but it's something that should be looked at.  It's a good analysis of why weapons in SFB work the way they do, and defines the "safe weapon design area".

In a nutshell:

Weapons have a conversion efficiency (how much damage they average per point of energy put in), a "firing cap" (how much energy you can put in), and a cycle rate.

Most heavy weapons in SFB, cycled over 7 turns of fire, average out to within 15% of the disruptor/photon pair, which are nearly identical.  Taht efficiency (factoring in average damage divided by arming power) is between 1.5 damage per point of power to about 3 points of damage per point of power in the optimum range brackets, and drops to 1:1 at around range 15, and 0.5:1 at shot in the dark distances.

Most phasers (up until the phaser-G) range from 1 damage per point of power put in at range 15, and go as high as 5:1 for a phaser 1, and 8:1 for a phaser 3.  A phaser G gets around 15:1

Now, Starmada doesn't have anything mandating power allocation, and shouldn't - so conversion efficiency isn't directly applicable.

The 7 turns of fire averaging means that, on average, each weapon pass should drop one shield for a disruptor ship, drop a shield and do internals for a photon ship, and threaten to drop a shield and do significant harm for a plasma launch unless you turn away.

Yeah, I'd have to agree that some sort of directional shields would emulate SFU's feel. To those not 'in the know' - you essentially have the ability to hit the backside of a ship if that backside shield is weakened.

I'm not convinced that it's required, as some discussed earlier.

Tougher, actually, as it's even canon. It would require more counters on the board - slowing the game, and more tracking stats - slowing it down even more.

ANOTHER layer of complication.....

I'm not saying none of it is going in, just that it adds in more stuff that Starmada fans may or may not appreciate.

I think to avoid that, you'd definitely need the Rate of Fire changes.

Seeing as my Marine opponent never used it, I can't argue that point (I'm not familiar enough with it) - but I'd argue that some sort of ECM system would certainly make it more like SFB...

For me, that's a non-starter. I just love fighters and PF's too much.

I'd say that mines are definitely out, though....not that what I say has any bearing on it at all...

It's all moot, unless and until MJ12 and ADB put pen to paper....

None of these are, in my mind, required - they're all in the "This would be nice..." bits.  What's the problem with ablative defenses in 'mada?  I feel like I'm walking into the debris field from a vociferous debate that's been hashed out multiple times.

Yeah - this is why I'm in favor of grabbing FC as your starting point for SFU-Starmada.  Fewer seekers, less fiddlyness on them.  SFB is a game of maneuver and timing.  FC is somewhat less so because it has fewer restrictions on its maneuver engine.

It just happens that SFB is a lovely, elegant game of maneuver and timing that's trapped in a 422 page rulebook with wall to wall 9 point Helvetica type.

This is, actually, my second biggest whinge about SM-A.  (The first is the removal of the SMX damage system). 

I've done house ruled fractional RoFs with Starmada, and it works beautifully.  It really gives you some more decisions to make - do I shoot now, or do I hold fire for a better shot later?  Starmada tends to be "All guns blazing all the time."

FC more or less tossed ECM out the airlock, though it's (sigh) starting to creep back in with scouts.

Heh.  Everyone loves fighters and PFs because they're very minmaxable.  But to me, they don't feel like Trek, and they result in Tidal Waves of Drones.

Unless I've missed some careful sarcasm on your part...  :shock:

Mines got ixnayed in Fed Commander.  But yes, getting a deal signed is important.

*I* think Ken doesn't like tracking all those counters...

Something I've tried to advocate over on the Admiralty group for a while is a slightly different mechanism for tracking drones.

I don't think that strikers or seekers fit the bill in regards to emulating drones for Starmada in a SFU setting. While they can, and do in the current incarnation, they'd be unwieldy for use in great numbers.

Something like this might be the place to use it, so we CAN have things like this while only adding a single mechanic, and minimal chits on board.

Basic idea is to assign a 'missile/drone rating' to the ship or fighter doing the launching. The ship launches at the end of the Orders Phase, and a chit representing the drone/missle swarm is placed in the same hex as the ship. A ship or fighter can only launch a single swarm each turn.

The rating is basically representative of the number of missiles/drones in the swarm, but is essentially the same as the 'ROF' rating. The swarm may be shot at, and each 'hit' reduces the "number of missiles/ROF" of the swarm by one. The swarm moves at a set speed - to be determined later - perhaps the speed is universe dependent or analogous to what we do with fighters. I'm thinking Range is effectively unlimited, though we can of course change that to a number of turns or hexes, or whatever.

The swarm also has a Accuracy, Impact, and Damage rating - and can be assigned Weapon Traits. For warp seekers that are used in SFB to hit cloaked shpis, we can add in a 'warp seeker' weapon trait.

This makes missile swarms more like a normal weapon that moves across the board and can be shot down. It's not like a fighter, as it isn't shot down with a single damage point, but is degraded like a fighter squadron.

..and now that I've thought about it, we could also use a modification of this mechanic for fighters.

I think you might be onto something there Jim.  Mind you...it's been since the late 80's since I've even looked at SFB (it became way too complex and took too long to play= no fun)...but if I remember right, plasma torps were big nasty weapons that you either shot up, ran away from, or got plastered by.

Why NOT use the seeker design for the various Plasma Torp mods, though each size = IMP dice.  So a size 8 flight would essentially be an IMP 8, DMG 1 weapon.  For each turn it is on the board it loses one IMP...this also works for if it is shot at by weapon batteries to disperse it...using DEF 0.  It's a little tracking on the paperwork...but as I understand the weapon it seems to model it well....(goes back to the closet)

Anyone ever complete a Star Fleet universe for Starmada Admiralty?

I'd love to see a conversion of SFB in it's earlier version with a shift toward TOS canon.  In other words:

The D-7 wouldn't be a 1 on 1 match for a Fed CA, but rather a nimble highly maneuverable but much lighter warship. 

No fighters, none, nada, not even included in the glossary. 

Rom ships would look like warbirds and the plasma torp would be devastating but ships would only mount 1.   

Drone?  What's a drone....

In other words, like TOS starship combat would be a dance of maneuver between SHIPS, not zoom zoom spaaaaaaccccceeee   raaannnngggerrrrs!

Just an opinion  :wink:

Something to keep in mind - there was very little actual ship-to-ship combat in TOS, and what there was was almost entirely shown from the perspective of the bridge crew. We didn't get to see much of the fights.

As such, much of the "TOS canon" in regards to the ship combat is purely speculation.