Another option...  This is kind of interesting, its turned into a thought problem, a 'how do we deal with xyz'

1.)  Higher speed, equally long range weapons, and stealth.  Tacky, yes, but any fleet that obliterates book fleets while taking nominal damage deserves extreme responses.

2.)  Range 30, ROF 2, IMP 3, DMG 5, 3+, Extra Hull Damage, Penetrating, Inverted Range Based Damage.  Ammo=1

On average, 1 hit, 1 penetration, and 20 Hull Damage.  Utterly wasteful against anything but superships, and even at that yould probably break up your ROF and IMP dice onto multiple smaller weapons to even out your probability curve, but you can build a relatively cheap hauler that will clean up a map.

One thing we have to all remember when designing a fleet...  is it fun to play -against-.  'Winning' is fun, but winning all the time results in winning very little, because you have no-one to play against. 

The mechanics of building a fleet that is simultaneously fun, and fun to play against, is probably worthy of its own post, and its not one I feel competent to write... I tend to lean too much to building 'winning' fleets myself, though its something I fight against.

Yes.. I like something in a light red with my fromage.  *G*

And I was laying out as a possible counter to a 20 Hull Armor Screens Long-Range constantly-repairing-zombies-oh-doom fleet that you cant kill any other way.

And when you play a campaign, you aim to win or lose?

Don't ya mean win without destroying the empire's economy?  (GB needs to learn this particular philosophy!  :wink: )

And if you house rule some things out, while using others, the warranty on game balance may break down a little.

the dugan, what I was getting at is that ultra-high-damage, expendable weapons (hideously over-costly, innefficient, overkill against most fleets) are the logical, in-system solution for 20 Hull, Screens (so we can keep our 5 shield rating forever, natch), Armor-Plated ships that (we assume) also use the damage control optional rules (to ensure that not only does the ship take -forever- to kill, but that it remains at near full combat effectiveness the entire time).

Several optional rules are necessary to build such a ship.  You need screens.  You need range 30 weapons.  You need 2+ Weapons.  You need Damage Control.

When one plays with some, but not all, of the optional rules, and when one plays with optional rules that serve your purpose and not with those that run counter to it, one should not be suprised when one gets ships that do EXACTLY what you want them to do.

Judging from the optional rules they use in their games, its obvious that (at least Beowulf) is going for a WW1 Jutland-style line-of-battle massive range and resilience under fire.  The optional rules chosen support that style of play, and his ship designs take full advantage of it.  So theyll be really hard to beat unless you build 'just like that, only more' ships, or unless you allow things that dont fit the assumption those ships are built under.  (Among other things, anti-ship missiles that are capable of threatening those ships the way that anti-ship torpedos once threatened the WW1 Jutland Battleline...  but evidently we want to simulate WW1 Jutland without those pesky destroyers, the threat of whose torpedos made Jellicoe turn off  )

While I have enjoyed the side-discussion on optional rules and what is, and is not, cheddar...

We have gotten sidetracked, and too focused on this one issue, methinks

Anyone else have any fleet reviews, or fleet design philosphy thoughts?

Any thoughts on how to design a fleet that is fun to play, and fun to play against?

Well, if it is R/P/S...

does that not suggest that..

1.)  A pure "R, P, or S" will be relatively less fun to play (out of 3 games against 3 potential opponents, only one is interesting).

2.)  The ideal fleet design is one that is, to at least some extent, neither R, P, nor S?  Ideal in terms of fun, I mean, not necessarily effectiveness.

This is what I was kinda trying to go for with the Wyan.. their fast, have good long range firepower, and are resonably resilient.. but they cant hold the range open forever (so much forward firepower they have to close out of their best ranges), dont have really heavy shields on most classes, etc. etc. etc.  They have carrier designs, and escort designs, and alot of ships have a really great first-turn punch (all the single salvo torpedos) but its not enough to tip a game.. just enough to rough the other side up a bit, or (if concentrated) to cripple perhaps one or two really offensive ships.

The idea is to be competent at everything, but perfect at nothing, and not 100% invested in any one play-style or build.  Thus, youve some Rock to club Scissors with, some Scissors to cut paper.. etc... while at the same time being vulnerable to the opposing fleet, so even if you manage to win, your opponent doesnt feel like he might as well have stayed at home.

For my own part, I like 'hard to play well' fleets with lots of decision points (thus the focus on 1 shot weapons, slow firing weapons, and the like).  So I try to build a fleet that can do lots of things, but requires me to make smart decisions at the table. 

Robot fleets dont stay fun long (Robot fleet= fixed, and highly effective, playstyle.  "Mount close range weapons, close and hose every time" (though thats really not a robot, in Starmada, because the fast close range ships have a hard time being worht it).  "Rear-firing max ranged guns and stealth" being the ultimate robot fleet... keep range open and keep shooting.  Yawn.)

But given a broad, lots-of-neat-tricks but no-super-trick fleet, you can at least in theory have fun playing, while giving your opponent some traction to play against.  (I like the tricks, the decision points.  Without tricks or decision points, it starts to turn into just dice rolling, or mathmatical analysis).

Just my thoughts.

Other peoples?  Or other fleet reviews/discussions?

Id take a swing at it, Rifleman, but I dont want the forums to turn into 'the sound of Marcus talking' just because I just got into this after a near-year absence and am somewhat overly enthusiastic.

Before you go making assumptions, Beowulf used expendibles quite extensively in S:X and he posted their statistics several times.  They wiped out my fleets more than his big guns did.  I'm the one that asked that we do not play with that option.  Perhaps we should relook at that house rule.

Expendibles/ammo makes the game boil down to Harpoon: fleets make contact, fire all their missiles, and survivors, if any, win.  I played that game once, never again.

Same thing goes with the super big gun with 1 shot.  I know my die rolls.  I cannot trust that the 1 shot will hit.  Even at 2+ accuracy, I expect a 50% success rate. 

Hmm.. that seems to make your only option 'same ship, only better'.  Which probably means a spinal mount gun, screens, and a tendency to keep your nose on him at long range.

And expendables are like everything else... as a part of the overall flavor of a fleet?  Pretty cool.  Used to excess?  Broken.  Most things are that way... ultra-long-range firepower?  Broken.  Pure fighter fleets?  Broken.  Massive single salvos of expendables?  Broken.

Though with some planning, even the massive single salvos of expendables can be dealt with... get yourself enough thrust for Evasive Action at the +2 level, and ECM.  Dare your opponent to fire off his entire CR at a target number of 6 or higher.  Sure, you wont be doing alot of damage during those turns yourself.. but if your opponent fires while your evasive, he wont, either.. and then hes dry.

If he DOESNT fire his expendables while your evasive... stay evasive, keep shooting, win.