You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Ammunition: launchers are free?
I'm looking at the formula for ammunition (C.5, ISS p. 12). Assuming all weapons in a battery fire into the same arc, doubling the number of launchers doubles both the numerator (as part of the base cost) and the denominator (# of weapons). In fact, multiplying the number of launchers by ANY constant has no effect on the cost of the battery -- so why not provide a launcher for every single missile/torpedo/bullet?
Am I missing something?
I tried to replicate my calculations with the shipbuilder. Consider this weapon:
Poton Torpedo: 1/2/3, 1/3+/3/1
Without ammo limitations, a battery of four of these (each in arc A) uses 48 SU.
With 6 torpedoes, that should become 48 * 6 / (5 * 4) = 14.4, rounded up to 15. The shipbuilder gives 12.
What's going on here? Has a newer formula been published?
Limited ammunition weapons are broken. Thats why I don't use them, even in the case of published ships like the Commonwealth in Hammer and Claw.
Tha Ammunition calculation published in ISS & H&C is:(in your example)
Weapon SU: 48
x (Shots + No. of weapons) (6 + 4): 10
/ (10 x No. of weapons): 40
Rounded up
48 x 10 / 40 =12
Paul
Does this mean they aren't broken? :?
In starship construction, a battery with limited ammunition has its total space unit (SU) cost multiplied by the number of "shots" plus the number of weapons, then divided by ten times the number of weapons, rounded up.
So...
Multiplier = (S + W) / (10W)
Assuming 10 shots for 5 weapons, that's a multiplier of 30%. If you double the number of weapons (but keep the number of "shots" the same), the multiplier becomes 20%.
Of course, that's on the overall SU cost, which itself was doubled when you doubled the number of weapons, so in comparison, 10 weapons costs 33% more than 5 weapons.
Option C.5: Ammunition wrote:In starship construction, a battery with limited ammunition has its total space unit (SU) cost multiplied by the number of "shots" plus the number of weapons, then divided by ten times the number of weapons, rounded up.
So...
Multiplier = (S + W) / (10W)
Assuming 10 shots for 5 weapons, that's a multiplier of 30%. If you double the number of weapons (but keep the number of "shots" the same), the multiplier becomes 20%.
Of course, that's on the overall SU cost, which itself was doubled when you doubled the number of weapons, so in comparison, 10 weapons costs 33% more than 5 weapons.
Oh, there's the problem: I have the wrong formula. In my (early?) PDF version of ISS, it says:
In starship construction, a battery with limited ammunition has its total space unit cost multiplied by the number of "shots" and divided by five times the number of weapons, rounded up.
Is the erratum posted somewhere? (I add my voice to the chorus noting that there is no link to errata on the official Starmada page http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/.)
Oh, there's the problem: I have the wrong formula. In my (early?) PDF version of ISS, it says:
In starship construction, a battery with limited ammunition has its total space unit cost multiplied by the number of "shots" and divided by five times the number of weapons, rounded up.
Is the erratum posted somewhere? (I add my voice to the chorus noting that there is no link to errata on the official Starmada page http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/.)
That would explain a lot. I picked up a dead-tree copy of the ISS book and while the formula it gives is correct, the example it gives uses the formula you have there. I kept scratching my head to see if the example they gave simplified the math somewhere or something. Now I see why.
Shipbuilder also gives a different SU size for the weapon than the example.
I agree that "Limited ammunition weapons are broken".
In fact, I believe that they are as broken as the Expendables were in the Starmada X. We don't use them here either. Whenever we used ships with expendables against ships that did not have them, the fleet with these brutal, dirt-cheap expendibles won hands down. :geek:
The fire all the expendibles and the enemy fleet vanished. I used them until we banned them.
I agree that "Limited ammunition weapons are broken".
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course... but... 
I'd like to hear/see some evidence to support such blanket statements.
Consider that at one shot per launcher (the cheapest option), a limited ammo weapon takes up 20% of the space. The offensive rating "discount" depends on the size of the ship:
Hull 1-3: 50%
Hull 4-8: 33%
Hull 9-15: 25%
Hull 16-24: 20%
Hull 25+: 17%
So, in the case of the largest ships, non-ammo weapons would only have to fire six times in order to account for their cost in relation to ammo weapons. For medium-sized ships, weapons need only fire four times.
In my opinion, it's not unreasonable to expect that, on average, a normal weapon is going to get (at least) four shots off...
Whenever we used ships with expendables against ships that did not have them, the fleet with these brutal, dirt-cheap expendibles won hands down. The fire all the expendibles and the enemy fleet vanished. I used them until we banned them.
If you have enough players, the countertactic may be gunboat swarms. (I'm just spouting off the top of my head here; I haven't tested this.) Against lone superdreadnought, the expendable admiral(?) has a no-brainer: launch everything at the one target. Against a large number of targets, the decision becomes ... more interesting.
Alternately, build ships that are heavily overdefended (shields, armor, countermeasures, etc.). You hardly need any weapons -- after the alpha strike, the enemy will be unarmed.
Okay...this is starting to sound like some of the fighter discussions that have occurred throughout the cyber-ether in the last couple years. :roll:
Ammo weapons are not broken any more than range 24 & 30 weapons are. They enjoy an advantage for a disadvantage, in this case a limited number of shots. Are you going to get hurt when you're hit? yes. Do they provide a bit of an advantage to the enemy when properly employed? yes. Is whining about it to Dan gonna make your point when he has the math to back it up? likely not. 8-)
So don't use them if you don't like then as previously mentioned and don't beat the necrotic equine too much. 
Consider that at one shot per launcher (the cheapest option), a limited ammo weapon takes up 20% of the space.
Now I'm confused again. Consider the aforementioned Poton Torpedo. Assuming an ammo-free weapon, a battery of one of these firing into the A arc uses 12 SU. A one-shot version uses 3 SU. (The shipbuilder agrees with my calculations here.) That's 25%, no?
The offensive rating "discount" depends on the size of the ship:
Hull 1-3: 50%
Hull 4-8: 33%
Hull 9-15: 25%
Hull 16-24: 20%
Hull 25+: 17%
Wait, where did these numbers come from? I can't reconcile them with the table from (my copy of!) ISS, which has the battery ORAT divided by:
Hull 1-3: 0.4
Hull 4-8: 0.6
Hull 9-15: 0.8
etc.
Was this table also revised and nobody told me? (I don't think so, because my calculations are matching the shipbuilder.)
Qualitatively, this latter set of numbers means that there is a bigger discount for larger ships. This is appropriate, because large ships are actually losing something by limiting their ammunition; gunboats weren't going to live that long anyway.
Just out of curiousity...
a 12/1/4+/2/2 weapon with 3 arcs is 72 SU.
Four weapons is 288 SU
Figure a standard game being 10 turns...if the ship survives that long, therefore default ammo is 10 per launcher.
At 10 shots each, that would be (40+4) x 288 = 12672
divided by 4 x 10= 40.
SU cost is 317 total.
Making it 110% more expensive in SU than a standard weapon. So no...I don't think the launchers are free.
Now I'm confused again. Consider the aforementioned Poton Torpedo. Assuming an ammo-free weapon, a battery of one of these firing into the A arc uses 12 SU. A one-shot version uses 3 SU. (The shipbuilder agrees with my calculations here.) That's 25%, no?
If you give one weapon one shot, the multiplier is:
(1 + 1) / 10 = 20%
If you give 5 weapons 5 shots, the multiplier is:
(5 + 5) / 50 = 20%
etc.
Wait, where did these numbers come from? I can't reconcile them with the table from (my copy of!) ISS, which has the battery ORAT divided by:
SUs is a prime factor in the ORAT calculation. Thus, the final ORAT, as a factor of what it would be without ammo, must first take the above 20% and then divide by the number from the book. Thus:
Hull 1-3: 20% / 0.4 = 50%
Hull 4-8: 20% / 0.6 = 33%
Hull 9-15: 20% / 0.8 = 25%
etc.
Qualitatively, this latter set of numbers means that there is a bigger discount for larger ships. This is appropriate, because large ships are actually losing something by limiting their ammunition; gunboats weren't going to live that long anyway.
That was the rationale, yes.
If you give one weapon one shot, the multiplier is:
(1 + 1) / 10 = 20%
If you give 5 weapons 5 shots, the multiplier is:
(5 + 5) / 50 = 20%
etc.
You're right. 20% of 12 is 2.4; it just rounds up to 3.
SUs is a prime factor in the ORAT calculation. Thus, the final ORAT, as a factor of what it would be without ammo, must first take the above 20% and then divide by the number from the book. Thus:
Hull 1-3: 20% / 0.4 = 50%
Hull 4-8: 20% / 0.6 = 33%
Hull 9-15: 20% / 0.8 = 25%
etc.
Ah, so these aren't the discounts (the amount of the reduction), but rather the sale prices (the amount left after the reduction). All is now clear and consistent, as is the Starmada way.
BeowulfJB wrote:I agree that "Limited ammunition weapons are broken".
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course... but...
I'd like to hear/see some evidence to support such blanket statements.
Consider that at one shot per launcher (the cheapest option), a limited ammo weapon takes up 20% of the space. The offensive rating "discount" depends on the size of the ship:
Hull 1-3: 50%
Hull 4-8: 33%
Hull 9-15: 25%
Hull 16-24: 20%
Hull 25+: 17%So, in the case of the largest ships, non-ammo weapons would only have to fire six times in order to account for their cost in relation to ammo weapons. For medium-sized ships, weapons need only fire four times.
In my opinion, it's not unreasonable to expect that, on average, a normal weapon is going to get (at least) four shots off...
My main concern was the maths behind actual construction of limited ammunition weapons. The numbers did not make any sense and it was reported on here that the maths behind construction of limited-ammunition weapons was broken.
My main concern was the maths behind actual construction of limited ammunition weapons. The numbers did not make any sense
Hopefully, I've helped with that.
Now, I will admit that it is POSSIBLE ammo is "broken". I have never played a game in which one side has ammo and the other does not, all other things being equal... that might be an interesting experiment...
murtalianconfederacy wrote:My main concern was the maths behind actual construction of limited ammunition weapons. The numbers did not make any sense
Hopefully, I've helped with that.
Now, I will admit that it is POSSIBLE ammo is "broken". I have never played a game in which one side has ammo and the other does not, all other things being equal... that might be an interesting experiment...
As a matter of circumstance, I'm doing that very thing this afternoon. The Peoples Stellar Republic of China vs The Australian Alliance...
I'll let ya know how it goes if my group shows up to play today.
I'm curious on if the calculations for ammo are broken or not. I like the idea of ammo weaponry instead of having to use strikers and seekers for missile packs and the like.
-Bren
Check the AAR Dragonfly Nebula for the results of our ammo fleet and non-ammo fleet. Dice rolls beat the non-ammo fleet (and one turn of bad maneuvers)...ammo didn't seem broken in that one battle. we'll be playing more to confirm in the near future.
Played a few games yesterday with limited ammo weapons, so I can share some observations.
First game, I used long range ammo 2 weapons with extra hull damage, and a bunch of teleporters & marines. Came up 1 hull damage/ marine short of capturing enemy ship.
Lessons. More transporters, less marines. Always have secondary armament.
Also played a 1000 point game. Max ship size 500. 4 ship minimum. I took a 375 pt cruiser and 3 escort carriers with 2 fighter squadrons each. My ships were armed with Hydra MIRV ship killer missles. range 30 rof 5, inverse range based rof. ammo 1 (2 for the cruiser)
My opponent took a 500 point BattleCruiser, and 3 small (Hull 3) escorts. All with stealth. As soon as we got within range 30 my opponent fired a pair range 30, inv range modifiers, rof3 imp 3 dam 3 (ammo 4) guns.
the salvo destroyed my heavy cruiser. Turn two I reach med range (long due to stealth )My Missles damaged his escorts. The third turn the final two points of ammo vaporized 2 of my 3 carriers while my return volley destroyed 2 escorts and crippled the third.
Adept flying by my fighters avoided the bulk of his cruisers anti fighter guns and the game ended with his cruiser surrounded by fighters.
I do think ammo weapons are powerful, but it seems that a simple counter is lots of small ships. If my opponent wants to
put a 200 point weapon in his ships, I will gladly offer a 50 point frigate to jump on front of that bullet.
I do think that ammo based defenses might be an interesting option for counters.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Ammunition: launchers are free?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.