Ok.... it looks like I killed another thread......

Nahuris

Range isn't the issue, the issue is one of balance.
So if you have your range 6-9 ships, then you're only dealing with a difference of 9-12 vs 18.  well within a single turn or two for a fast ship to close before being swiss-cheesed so much that even when it has range, it cannot do appreciable damage in return, ergo, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.  This is within the intended balance of the game structure.  Unlike 18-21 diffence vs 24 or 30. (four to five turns movement avg speed and 2-3 turns at what I consider high speed (8-10))

It's the range issue coupled with the effective movement ceiling where the balance goes all cobble wobbles.  The ship being so shot up that even if it survives to get to weapon range, it can't do more than token damage tilts the balance off center.  The idea was to, yes, give a small advantage to longer range weapons...but within a known parameter. 
There are a couple of ways to counter the big of a range gap...but, this will do two things effectively.  1) Lock you into one of three design types.  2) Limit your tactics to those employed by the design type appropriate for your fleet.  unless you plan on fighing every battle somewhere other than open space...or elsewhere with nothing between you and those long range guns...there is very very little option in how to play and have FUN. (the other half of the whole point of the game)

So, it leaves us with three choices.  a) do nothing.  b) tweak the points cost formula to account for the balance offset.  c) scrap the movement system and go to a true vector type system in which delta vee can be built up making that 30 range weapon a much smaller problem.

Or, (6) you can recognize that the game is meant to be balanced regardless of the ships used. Long-ranged weapons are not a 'tactic' -- they are technology. And while tactics do involve the effective use of technology (and reaction to that of your opponent), any technology that gives you an automatic (or nearly automatic) victory if I don't also have it is by definition unbalanced.

Perhaps, perhaps not. As I've said over and over again, I'm not sure there is a need for further adjustment... but responses that essentially boil down to "long-ranged weapons are an advantage -- get your own or get over it" fail to grasp the point of this discussion.

You're right -- except that the answer to this question cannot be determined without reference to the opinions of players as to whether long-ranged weapons are 'broken' or if 'good tactics' can overcome them.

Obviously, players need to adapt their tactics to their opponent. Otherwise, the game is little more than rolling a bunch of dice. But if the only effective adaptation is getting your own long-ranged weapons, then it is broken.

The reason we're debating all this other stuff is to establish an answer to your question.

:twisted:  awwww shucks!

It was mentioned that the intent was flexibility. That a Speed 6 Range 12 ship has the same chance as a Speed 3 Range 15 or a Speed 12 Range 6 range design.

Is it even possible to design an effective Speed 24 Range 6 ship or a Speed 12 Range 18 ship?

Just wondering

Jeez...
You Starmada types sure are a whiny bunch.
I'm glad we don't have to put up with that on the "historical" side of things.
:wink:
Kevin

I was skeptical about the new movement system, but the more I use it, the more I like it. You get almost everything you'd want out of a vector system without the destination marker (or equivalent bookkeeping). Heck, if you stack miniature poker chips under each ship to indicate speed, you don't need any bookkeeping...