Doesn't that assume old-style movement, where you can't accelerate over the course of several turns?

Of course, your point is even stronger taking this into effect.

I dont think we can ever balance this on a floating map.

We have to look at some form of fixed maps, consider the size, and run the numbers in light of that.

Ugh. Fixed maps.  THERE ARE NO WALLS IN SPACE!

The whole idea of "fixed" space maps is such a foreign concept to me.

Yes, there are objects that will not move its position.  But that does not mean maps have to be fixed.  A ship could move "off-map" relative to the non-moving object, but that doesn't mean it left the battle.  It could be making a slow turn due to very high speeds and will return in a few turns.  I've done this many times, usually by putting the miniature back on the map for movement purposes with dice near it representing how much further away the ship is.

The default map should be floating, and all balancing issues should be based on that.

---------

As for the ORAT thing, build a ship to represent a standard fighter: 1 hull, speed 10, 0 screens, 1 weapon (range=1, ROF=1, IMP=1, DMG=1, ACC=5+), hyperdrive or not.  I was aiming for a CRAT of 8-9 (an independent standard fighter squadron costs 55).  This showed me the ORAT changes to range 1 and 2 weapons.

The game does have a range 1 "weapon": anti-fighter batteries. Why not let the other weapons have a range of 1?

Given the following:
1.)  Floating Map
2.)  Lack of Scenario Objectives other than victory

How do you design a point balanced game?  Victory will ALWAYS go to the ship with the greatest range, the greatest speed, and rear-mounted weapons.  (Assuming there are no hard upper limits on Range and Speed... we currently have a hard limit at 30 on range.  You can further 'quasi' increase your range by mounting Stealth Systems)

So... every ship in Starmada has a Stealth System and rear-mounted range 30 guns.  _every_ ship, because on a floating map, nothing else beats that.  Nothing at ALL, if their fast enough to outrun fighters.  (Which they can be, they only need a peashooter).

I dont want to play the game that way.  I dont think anyone else does, either, but the degree to which we force players to go 'Hmm, do I want to win or have fun' is bad for the game, IMHO.  Part of the 'Fun' for me is playing as hard as I can, win or loose.

If we force people not to play 'hard' to have a fun game (Because the designs that come out of playing 'hard' are no fun), then you get a situation where whoever looses feels like if they had just tweaked a BIT more (say, like their opponents.. true or not, thats how the guy who lost WILL feel) then they wouldnt be the one watching their beloved fleet melt like a snowman in rain. 

I agree, I really do.  Floaty maps make sense, fixed maps dont.  But fixed maps -work-, rules wise.. floaty maps dont.

Unless, of course, everything is BUILT for the fixed map, with that as an assumption.. and then the players agree to play floaty (in light of their forces).  That can work okay.  But building for floating maps leads to abberations.

As a long time Starmada player, what changed to make this an issue?

In Compendium it was part of the core rules to for it to be possible have range 24 standard weapons and range 40 spinal mounts.

In X range 33 spinal mounts were still possible.

Several of the standard navy's in both Compendium and X employed these.

Oddly in AE none of them do.

Further the current IS designs seem to treat range 15 as the default max range for the IS setting. This is lower than it has been in the past. Previous editions all had designs that maxed the range for many ships. This is pretty logical for any navy. The navys with exceptions to this had ways around it (cloaking for example) and didn't need to have long ranges.

Rightfully any navy will design ships to have an ability to hit max resolution range or have a good reason not to.

It is also unfair to compare ships designed under different assumptions. One designed using optional rules not available to the other will give unfair results.

And yes Tech controls a battle just as much as this current range discussion. A navy with significantly higher tech levels will control a battle. Consider the Vorlons/Shadows vs the younger races in B5 or the Borg in Star Trek.

If your opponents are all under the assumption that all techs are –2 and max weapon range is 9 and you design a navy with tech 0 and range 18 weapons; the same situation will occur. The later navy will dominate and destroy much of the opposing fleet before it can close.

Starmada portrays this very well. It doesn't matter that you have more ships. 

Also with all the terrain rules in AE I think the material is there to spice up a battlefield a lot. I would expect that most battles should take place around such for objective purposes.

Deep Space battles would be rare. Navys will always want to fight to their advantage or for an objective. A cloaking pirate navy that raids shipping will only engage an opposing fleet if it has to. Perhaps after its main base/manufacturing facility deep in an asteroid belt is discovered and a fleet has been dispatched to destroy it. Is this an optimal situation for the attacker, certainly not, but it's the only way to stop the raiders.

Exactly. If you run away from me, shooting me with your butt-lasers, I should win. You've conceded the battlefield to me.

I agree with the theory that points=points, Cricket... however, my play experience does not entirely bear that out.

In my experience, all other things being equal, higher tech fleets TEND to outperform lower tech fleets (unless the higher tech fleet pretends its a seeking weapon, closes, and swaps licks at point blank range).

In general, Higher Tech fleets have...
1.)  Faster ships.  This gives them an initiative advantage.
2.)  Tougher Ships.  This multiplies the initative advantage, due to the fact that they retain their firepower, and more importantly mobility, longer.
3.)  Longer Ranged Weapons.  Even without the "Range 30 butt-shooting" style play, attacking effectively first is always good.  A higher tech fleet will tend to eliminate some of its enemies firepower in unanswered volleys.
4.)  Broader Arc Weapons:  Combines very nicely with #1 above.
5.)  More weapon modifiers:  Even elminating abusive combinations, well chosen weapon mods are a force multiplier, especially when you control the pacing and range of the battle to maximize your advantages.  See #1 and #3 above.

The Lower Tech Fleet has:
1.)  More hulls.  LOTS more hulls.  This can be very good, but also tends to result in faster loss of firepower (Most ships have weapons left when the last hull box goes).
2.)  More hull boxes.  LOTS more hull boxes.  Similar to #1, above, but makes the lower tech fleet alot more resilient against bad luck, and causes it to do well if it can get to point blank and slug.
3.)  More raw dice of damage, though less modified.  A Tech level -1 fleet with unmodified medium-to-short narrow arc weapons will be throwing Buckets O Dice.  Buckets.  And any high tech ship that lets a -1 Tech fleet get to close range and in arc gets EXACTLY what it deserves.

Thus, if they both just go for the gusto, it tends to balance out.  But the higher tech fleet gets to play range games, it gets to pick range and timing, its probably got lots of neat tech toys (ECM is CRIPPLING to most low tech fleets, which already tend to have short range and not-great to-hit numbers).

As a result, the higher tech fleet, despite being 'points equal', TENDS to be advantaged, at least in the general condition 'open or at least large map, no VC's other than killing the other guy' condition. 

If you nail the high tech fleets foot down, by giving it a convoy or a base or an invasion force to protect... or even by forcing IT to go do something within the range of the low-tech-fleets guns... or set a clock running in the background... then it works out alot better, too.

An unsatsifying answer, but I wonder how many of the percieved problems with SM go away if we set scenarios and scenario objectives more often?

Marcus hit the nail on the Tech-head with what I've been seeing as well.  It is possible for a lower tech fleet to win...but they gotta work at it...and it tends towards the Pyrrhic.

Generally speaking...again...unless you're really doing campaign type stuff...tech levels should be within 1-3 points of each other to be "fair".

there's no cost for tech levels. The cost increase is because more "Stuff" can be packed on a ship.

However, you could decrease the bonus for stuff-packing.

I am not very excited about strange and complicated surcharges for extra-long-range weaponry. either the math is correct or it isn't those arbitrary numbers just don't feel right...

I reserve the right to change my mind often and without reason.

If I have Regen and I am wrecking you with my "Butt-Lasers", I will give you a hint, you aren't winning.

Running away to regroup or to repair then returning to the battle seems perfectly logical to me. The only reason I can see for any complaint would be if your opponent keeps doing that every like 2-3 turns and the game takes forever.

Seriously, turning tail to recover or regroup then coming back full force has always been a viable tactic.

Hello everyone!

There has been much written about the types of ships I play;
Main weapons = 14 Inch Plasma Guns:  {R=30, 1/3+/1/2 Piercing}.
I wish that my friends up here in NE Fla near Jacksonville and my friends down in S Fla would post their designs on this excellent forum.  Then everyone would see why I have ships such as these Mississippi class BBs with twelve of these 14" Plasma Guns.  It is because my friends design ships that also have many long range weapons.  :shock: 
My friends in St Augustine often marvel at the designs others have used and actually have wanted to play a game where all of our ships "Invade" the Starmada Universe as described in the ISS Book and conquer it <LOL>.  The ships of my gaming friends here in Florida are also very formidable.  When I am able to triumph, it is only with much maneuvering and some fancy play.  We usually have 3.000 to 4,000 points per person. sometimes 2 or 3 on a side.  These games are a lot of fun and I look forward to them. 
For those interested, we are playing at Gaming Glen's store in Davie, Fla (near Ft Lauderdale) on Monday July 7 @ 1pm.
It will be a blast!  8)

I might be. It all depends on how you define "winning".

For example, as there are no walls in space -- if you run off with your butt-lasered regenerating ships, I might not be there when you get back.

Because Starmada is a game, not a simulation, we've got a very specific yet abstract definition of victory -- destroy or drive off more ships (or more points' worth of ships, actually) and you win.

Obviously, in a specific scenario or in a campaign, the definition of victory will be altered -- but the point system is intended to balance the "typical" one-off battle as described in the rulebook.