• Registered: 2006-08-02
  • Posts: 60

Topic: Idea to address previously discussed issue

I was reading through all the discussions about 30 range weapons and ships, it sounded like, fleeing while bombarding the ships chasing them into oblivion. 

Right now the shield rule doesn't really promote tactical maneuver because there is no advantage to hitting a ship from one direction via another except possible return fire based on weapon arcs.  Simple idea.  Whatever the shield rating it is +1 if receiving fire through the unit's front hex and -1 if receiving fire through the rear hex. (i.e. a ship with a 4 rated shield would be 5 if fired on through the front and 3 if fired on through the rear)  This would be a very simple means of putting the emphasis back on relative positions of ships and maneuver. 

Just as an aside given that the recommended map size is something like 22 x 24 hexes I see no appeal to using ranges beyond 18.  Having said that the above idea still would add a lot.

Alternatively if strengthening the front by one seems to much you could still weaken the rear shield by one or two.  Credit it to propulsion interference with the shield projectors or something on that order.

Experience Starmadians, what do you think?

  • Registered: 2008-10-14
  • Posts: 12

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

As an inexperienced stadamaian'ian, I was definitely planning on using those exact mechanisms for my games: no weapons over range 18 (in fact none of my ship designs are over 15 as yet) and then weak shields to the rear.

Though the idea of weakening the rear without strengthening the front is better, I hadn't yet put that one together just yet :roll:

This way there would still be a reason for ships to get shields at level 5. Hmmm, yes, better plan.

This is probably the kind of thing that should just be house ruled, certainly in regards to the weapons. With the shields, there might be said for something to an official blanket optional rule for all ships on the board.

Yeah, hearing about those range 30 weapons on this board makes me wince too.

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

Simply use screens instead of shields and assign the values accordingly.

  • Registered: 2006-08-02
  • Posts: 60

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

go0gleplex wrote:

Simply use screens instead of shields and assign the values accordingly.

I'd rather change the shield rule than abolish it.  My intent was to remove the option of having shields that are as strong in the rear as the front.

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

it's not abolishing it.  It's an option to shields in the book...allowing you to assign the strength of the shields/screens to each hex facing as you want.   So if you take shields 2, this would give you 12 screen points to assign around the ship allowing you to do 3 forward, along the sides and 1 rear....essentially the same thing as what you're talking modification thereof without needing any additional rules.

  • Registered: 2006-08-02
  • Posts: 60

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

go0gleplex wrote:

it's not abolishing it.  It's an option to shields in the book...allowing you to assign the strength of the shields/screens to each hex facing as you want.   So if you take shields 2, this would give you 12 screen points to assign around the ship allowing you to do 3 forward, along the sides and 1 rear....essentially the same thing as what you're talking modification thereof without needing any additional rules.

Except it doesn't standardize the approach among all ships so it doesn't solve the problem.  If someone is free to take traditional shields (same strength all sides) then you've gained nothing in terms of game play.

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

Your campaign rule would be: screens only, no shields

Campaign modification: no single side may exceed the forward screen strength.

it's that simple.

  • Registered: 2006-08-02
  • Posts: 60

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

go0gleplex wrote:

Your campaign rule would be: screens only, no shields

Campaign modification: no single side may exceed the forward screen strength.

it's that simple.

Or rear screen must be weaker than front screen?

The other seems simpler to me but like Doris Day sang...

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

go0gleplex wrote:

it's not abolishing it.  It's an option to shields in the book...allowing you to assign the strength of the shields/screens to each hex facing as you want.   So if you take shields 2, this would give you 12 screen points to assign around the ship allowing you to do 3 forward, along the sides and 1 rear....essentially the same thing as what you're talking modification thereof without needing any additional rules.

This would take shields 3. Four Screens per shield factor with a maximum of 20 Screens. Maximum 5 Screens on any hex side. (Core rules page 41)

Paul

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

That's the problem with seldom having the book in front of ya when commenting. wink

  • Registered: 2008-10-14
  • Posts: 12

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

First, i don't think we should be removing options or altering the core game. I think were looking at an optional rule.

But I don't think it's as simple as just using screens. Those are totally different: they require more book keeping and allow you to concentrate your defenses.

But, the idea mentioned here means that you'll still have fixed shields, they're just not uniform.

I think it's nice and simple

Blanket optional rule affecting all ships on the table:

All rear shields are -1 to defense
or
Flanking rear shields are -1 and center rear shield is -2

No cost deductions or anything.

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

Barmy Flutterz wrote:

First, i don't think we should be removing options or altering the core game. I think were looking at an optional rule.

But I don't think it's as simple as just using screens. Those are totally different: they require more book keeping and allow you to concentrate your defenses.

But, the idea mentioned here means that you'll still have fixed shields, they're just not uniform.

I think it's nice and simple

Blanket optional rule affecting all ships on the table:

All rear shields are -1 to defense
or
Flanking rear shields are -1 and center rear shield is -2

No cost deductions or anything.

Screens are only more book keeping if you switch them around turn to turn. You can simply assign them at construction as fixed values.  It's more intuitive that way.  Also, since you're already using an existing optional rule you do not have to try and come up with a way to adjust points costs as a result of 'tinkering'. wink

  • Registered: 2008-10-14
  • Posts: 12

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

Well fair enough, that was what I had originally planned actually with the screens. The screens were a bit expensive though and my ship designs seemed to be coming up short defensively unless I threw in some 'bonus/free' screens.

Having not opened a spreadsheet in front of me now, I'm thinking maybe 12 screens is comparable in cost to a shield level of '3' (I'm going off memory here, the likelihood is that this is wrong), but with six sides, that would be 18 versus 12. My feeling is that most ships I have worked out are rather heavy on the offense already.

But I figured we wouldn't need to adjust point values if all ships were affected the same. Although maybe I am overlooking something in regards to this that more math savvy individuals might be perceiving (is it going to throw things off in regards to big and small ships for example?)

Well, as long as I'm not overlooking something it seems the end results are pretty similar.

Anyway, the basic hypothesis is weaker shields in the rear and relatively limited ranges on weapons (and throw in limited fire arcs too) should make for a more interesting game of maneuver. Some very minor house rules and then self imposed limitations on ship design should do the trick nicely I think.

Well, either that or muck things up tongue

But I'm open to any suggestions on how to achieve that  big_smile

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Idea to address previously discussed issue

You're less likely to have a game of maneuver if you limit the arcs to front only, and keep shields high in the front, it will encourage stand-offishness.

I'd limit arcs to broadsides, i.e. HJ and IK. There's no reason to turn otherwise.

Use screens, or force the shields to be 1 lower in the broadside arcs and 2 lower in the rear arc, it makes no difference mathematically, if they affect all ships the same.

However, what you're describing IS screens, but without the ability to change  them from turn to turn.

I like this idea very much, btw, I've been frustrated with the discussions about range 30 world-splitters for a while now.