Ah... This may contribute to the effectiveness of longer-ranged weapons.

We usually play battles where each side, and each player, gets a certain number of points, usually from 2000 to 3000 per player.  If I have 3000 pts, I take two BBs, and two DDGs (striker-carring destroyers).  These escorts are hull size 4 to 7.  They have only one or 2 shorter-ranged weapons.  Their primary punch is their drones. 8)
I rarely take any cruiser-sized ships.

I don't think you wil see that anytime soon.

30 hexes is pretty big--if you're anywhere near the center, it's almost everything on the friggin map!!! Yowza!

Do you discuss rules or weapon options limitations before playing, and if so, should range limitations be part of the discussion? How about limits on the value of individual weapon systems? If not, I guess that's what you get in an "anything goes" kind of game rather than some kind of established millieux.

The suggestions given (cloak, etc) seem solid countermeasures.

As an alternative to adjusting the CR, perhaps there could be inherent penalties that kick in as range increases, to help levelize these ultra-long range weapons? Thinking in terms of what you would logically expect to see, any really long-range gun/beam/missile ought to be slower, weaker, vulnerable to countermeasuress...or else very, very expensive (leaving an opening somewhere else in the ship design.)

Count me in. I've got $13.07 burning a hole in my pocket...

Most fleets don't have range-30 weapons, either.

Just out of curiousity, what should the surcharge be for 60 hex range weapons?
Kevin

42.

And Trinidad & Tobago should be HOT PINK.

Brilliant! 
Perhaps I should fit my Iowa class BBs with 16" Plasma Guns, range=60...   

You've got 6 hex bands up to 18, why not simply adjust from that Dan?  So 24, being 6 hexes greater than 18 would have the -2 (very long range) and 30 being 6 hexes greater than 24 would have the -3 (extreme range) for penalty. 

It might be a bit much penalty-wise, but it is slightly more intuitive.

I'm glad to hear it. If it works for you and your group, then keep on keepin' on.

Beowulf, you're missing the point. (And I haven't heard any complaints -- just some valid concerns.)

Frankly, as of this writing, I agree with you -- I don't know that extremely-long-ranged weapons are "broken". But I'm open to the possibility.

However, if they ARE broken, the answer is NOT to tell everyone they have to keep up with the arms race -- Starmada is not an historical simulation, but a science-fiction game. The whole point is to allow players to field ships that they like (long or short ranges, fast or slow engines, weak or strong shields) and have a balanced game.

Actually, there is no need for a house rule to disallow them -- range 24 and 30 are OPTIONAL rules. You require permission to use them, not permission to ban them.

I disagree. If we didn't "change the game" every now and then in response to reasoned arguments about game balance, we wouldn't have the Admiralty Edition, but still trudge along with the vintage 1994 rules...

Actually, I recently ran a self game with a couple of BeowulfJB's ships guarding an installation, against an equal value of small strike ships, plus a large slow carrier with a good number of seekers and fighter wings......

Although his designs gave a good account for themselves, and both survived... they failed their objective of defending the installation..... although they do have range, they do have a definite difficulty with scenario driven battles......  or at least what would be a common scenario, "Guard a foward supply base".

This is not so much an attack on the design, nor a complaint about the long range, ect. From everything I have seen, Starmada AE is very balanced, but still tends to be a quick burn game.

Googleplex does have a good idea in that it adds some additional modifiers to the table. They don't add any additional die, so wouldn't necessarily add more complications.... but they would make maneuver and open space battles a little more interesting. Unlike ground based games, where you can duck behind a hill, or some trees, there isn't a whole lot of terrain in space..... especially in campaign driven games, things tend to crash out quick due to the fact that once one player achieves an advantage on the board, the other tends to start jumping out.... if I played in an extended campaign against BeowulfJB, I would tend to put my ships on the edge, and if there were no asteroids to use, nor a definite need, such as guarding one of my own installations, ect....I would then immediately run and start jumping..... my goal as an admiral is to win battles with the least loss of my own forces, not die gloriously for the cause. That was why I suggested some modifiers for speed.....

Maybe we can strike a balance... such as limit the IMP or DMG of weapons over range 18? If you remember, this ties back to my light spinal mounts from Starmada X.... I had some issues with the all or nothing type weapons that they were.... so instead of one really large mount on a cruiser (approximately hull 12 or so... at that time) I would instead have 4 with the range based on my hull size, but each at damage 3..... ect. The only other option that I can think of is maybe the use of the ablative armor we worked on in Starmada X. Therefore, a slow ship with short ranged weapons can survive long enough to bring it's guns to bear.

I agree that while Starmada is not supposed to be an arms race, there will be development in a game.... all races should have the option of learning from an enemy..... (BeowulfJB, what changes have you made to adjust your designs against your opponents, or do you expect them to always change to match yours? ..... might want to think on that one a bit......again, I am not criticizing, but have been on both sides of similar situations, and had to learn these lessons as well)

As of now, I don't see anything "broken" in SAE... but we might have a few pulled muscles or sprains as we go through....LOL

Nahuris

The game that Nahuris ran using ships such as mine did Not have the escorts that accompany my Battleships.  I have smaller DDG & FFG designs.  These ship carry some very powerful drones (strikers).  The presence of these escorts and their drones makes it hazaderous for smaller ships to rush my capital ships.  If I had to defend an installation, my DDGs and FFGs would be there as escorts.  My BBS  are always adequately escorted.  8) 
Any unescorted capital ship is vulnerable.  In the 1900s is was torpedo boats, then submarines, then aircraft...  This vulnerability holds true for Starmada also; capital ships need an adequate escort.  One type of ship I rarely use is cruisers.  I play BBs & DDs even in WW one & WW2 naval games... :shock:
(Obsessive-compulsive behavior; don't leave home without it!<LOL>)