Hello everyone,

I am one of those players who designs ships with main batteries firing out to 30 hx.  I have played a game against ships whose weapons had a maximum range of 15 hx.  My ships are speed 6, my opponant's were speed 7.  I was able to maneuver and keep the hostile ships from closing range for many turns.  My ship was outnumbered, but pounded the shorter-ranged ships.  In the end, they were all destroyed, and my ship had taken light damage.  Being able to fire on the enemy ships when they cannot fire back worked for me... :!:   
If you plan to use ships with shorter-ranged weapons, then make them significantly faster than ships with longer-ranged weapons.

Yes...but I assume you're maxing out tech levels to do this as well.  At tech level 0 Speed 6 and the range surcharges would limit you to one maybe two 30 hex ranged weapons. (off cuff speaking)

My Mississippi class BBs are at Tech Level 2 for every catagory except "fighter".  Although, as Dan has pointed out, its the CR that matters more.
These ships are 16 hull, speed 6, shields 4, CR=1101.
They are armed with {twelve 14"PlasmaGuns}:
{r=30, 1/3+/1/2, Piercing; six are [GHIJK] & six are [HIJKL]}.
There are a few shorter-ranged AA weapons, armored hull, a few marines, AF batteries, and even 100 cargo. 
Perhaps this "USS Mississippi" is merely an armed freighter... :wink:

I agree with Ken.  The surcharge probably is low for the advantage conferred by ultra-range weapons against standard vessels.

Yeah...I know...but it was also a lot of math I missed during that discussion while I was busy trying to buy a house and keep a newborn under control while breaking in a new boss at work at the time.  

(hows THAT for an excuse, eh? *chuckles*)

Without running any numb-ers but basing on relative performance experience, I'd think that it would be more suitable at 30%-35% (24) and 70%-80% (30) respectively.  As the range increases, you have an assymetrical curve on performance/effect inclusive of the arc "effective window" geometry.

Hello everyone,
I don't think that range 24 & range 30 are underpriced. 
Consider a WW1 naval game, Grand Fleets for example.  The British Dreadnought HMS Queen Elizabeth (24knots & 8x15"guns) encounters an equal point value of German predreadnoughts of the Deutchland class (18knots & 4x11"guns with much shorter range).  What would happen?  If the British player is skilled, then he will keep out of the range of the German 11" guns and pulverise the German ships with long-range 15' gunfire.  This does not make the predreadnoughts over-pointed (nor the QE 'under pointed').   It does make them out classed, and perhaps not the best chioce for the German player to take; he neads ships of his own with longer-ranged guns, or faster ships.  :shock: 
0ne of the reasons I have ships with long range firepower is to keep that from happening.  My ships are more like HMS Queen Elizabeth...
(In fact, I have a Starmada version ofHMS Queen Elizabeth with 8x15"plasma guns which are 1/3+/1/2 on a 16 hull ship... )  8)

Let's all remember that, at least in the Starmada paradigm, range is not an isolated factor -- the speed of the unit is also involved. Thus, rightly or wrongly, a range-6 weapon mounted on a speed-9 ship is the same effectiveness as a range-9 weapon mounted on a speed-6 ship.

Therefore, a logical counter to long range is high speed, since theoretically they have the same impact on the game.

To paraphrase Jackie Fisher, "Speed is range."

Whether or not this SHOULD be the case, I don't know. [MOVE+RANGE] was a simple solution in the pre-spreadsheet days (and one that has carried over to most of our other point costing systems), but it might be time to look at more sophisticated ones.

One thing I would NOT want is to have really jarring breakpoints; for example, is range 24 really 80% more effective than range 18, as Todd suggests above? (Assuming a 35% surcharge.) Thus, if the curve should be steeper, then maybe an exponential function like Ken provides...

RANGE^1.2 yields:

Range 6 = 8.6
Range 9 = 14.0
Range 12 = 19.7
Range 15 = 25.8
Range 18 = 32.1
Range 24 = 45.3
Range 30 = 59.2

Thus, range 30 is almost 7 times as effective as range 6.

Another approach might be to look at the number of hexes covered by the "cone" defined by a 60* firing arc at each range, expressed roughly by [X*(X+1)/2]:

Range 6 = 21
Range 9 = 45
Range 12 = 78
Range 15 = 120
Range 18 = 171
Range 24 = 300
Range 30 = 465

Just some thoughts... I'm still not convinced there's a problem, tho.

The only time I've seen much of a problem with range is on large open tables with the floating table option......As soon as you add asteroids, or some other means of terrain, things tend to level out quick. Speed is good unless you have a lot of small ships going up against really huge ships armed with many long range guns, because even if the small ships are really fast, they take a huge beating on the approach.

What about having a modifier for speed? Maybe a -1 penalty when targeting a ship moving faster than say... 8 or 10, ect.
Outside of going evasive, smaller ships really don't have much in the way of avoiding fire......

Still, in the end, I haven't seen too many issues with the range costs, as they are now, except in battles with extreme differences in the hull size of the opposing fleets.

Personally, I'd love to have the ability to add heavy ablative armor to a slow ship with shorter range weapons, and just absorb the hits until I can close and hammer. I have an idea for a fleet, and the concept of mid sized heavily armored ships would fit quite well.

Nahuris

This is the part, as a wannabe mathematician, that scares me. Range 30 weapons threaten such a huge area with even a small arc that they are dramatically more powerful than even a range 18 weapon.

But again, I lack the experience to say that range 30 weapons are the dominant paradigm without equal and without challengers. But given my small experience of a couple of solo battles, it seems like a fast ship would lose engine and effectiveness before it had a chance to truly close the distance.

Problem: this ends up with the following values (assuming Average Damage in Range Bracket and scaling factors are each 1):

Range 6: 21 hexes covered = 9.2
Range 9: 45 hexes covered = 13.4 (or 1.5x as effective as range 6)
Range 12: 78 hexes covered = 17.7 (or 1.9x as effective as range 6)
Range 15: 120 hexes covered = 21.9 (or 2.4x as effective as range 6)
Range 18: 171 hexes covered =  25.5 (or 2.8x as effective as range 6)
Range 24: 300 hexes covered = 34.6 (or 3.8x as effective as range 6)
Range 30: 465 hexes covered = 43.1 (or 4.7x as effective as range 6)

Unless I'm missing something, this would have the effect of slightly LOWERING the relative value of range as it increases as opposed to the current linear system.

Had considered something like this -- I believe the Admiralty said "Yuck".

Do you use the standard movement rules or the optional "basic" movement?

My solutions for your opponent (NOT including his own 30-hex weapons ):

1) Fighters. Lots and lots of fighters. Heck, use strikers and seekers, too.

2a) Speed. Although for such a powerful ship, speed 6 is pretty high.

2b) Split forces. Use the 'flanks' to ensure the Mississippi can't keep the range open to all of my ships at the same time.

3) I note that the 30-hex weapons, with a full broadside, will only inflict 3 hull hits to a single target per turn, assuming shields 3, and assuming you don't split your fire between multiple targets (not recommended). That's hardly overwhelming. So a couple of options here: (a) use lots of little (hull 1-3) ships, forcing you to essentially waste (or split) firepower, or (b) use heavy shields. Increasing the shield rating to 5 would mean you're only averaging a single hull hit per turn with a full broadside (at long range).

4) Cloaking devices. Can't hit what you can't see.

5) Directional shielding. At that range, you're not going to be able to get around my sides, so I can reinforce the forward shields as I close.

Others?