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 → Arcturans in Imperial Starmada
So I have used the Arcturans 3 times in Imperial Starmada and gotten crushed all three times. There points do not seem to balance well with the Imperials. What are we doing wrong?
That's odd... all the times I've seen Imperials fielded against any fleet, they've gotten massacred badly. Never pitted them against the Arcturans, though... that might have to go on my group's docket the next time we play.
I've played with and against them, and they seem well balanced. Of course, their armor plating may be very efficient or totally inexistent. It depends of the dice roller. 
Marc
Not just the die rolling. The Imperial ECM was killer! And they had a whole raft of multi ROF weapons.
I agree, the fire control/combination is very potent. But all their weapons have only a 5+ ACC, not a big deal.
Also, the Arcturans have a good weaponry, and some of their ships have an armor of 4 or 5 for a reasonable price. And their carriers are cheaper...
Marc
Guess I will have to keep working at it! 
I don't see any fighter ratings for the Imperial Starmada fighters. Am I overlooking something?
The fighters in the ISS are the standard fighters: 6/10/5+/0
OK. Thanks!
Hypothesis confirmed - a friend and I had Arcturans and our opponents had Imperial, and by the end of Turn 5, we had 500 of 600 required VP but nothing able to go take the last 100 from the enemy (everything down to engines 2, and all of our slow-firing stuff having already fired), who could sit out at range 15 and gradually whittle us away with lightning turrets. Our fighters did a number on 'em, but only lasted one turn against the huge volume of close defense cannons. Our armor plating was helpful, in that it saved our ships from destruction, but left us crippled in midfield instead of destroyed... not much better. And yeah, CM + FC was brutal at long range, and at mid-range they could've used Directed Damage if they had remembered, which would've further circumvented our armor plating...
So the Arturans do see unbalanced in your opinion as well?
I would say that they'd probably have a tough time under most circumstances against the Imperials. A scenario where the Imperials have to come to them, and where they have cover to hide in, would favor them. If they have to go after the Imperials, they're going to get hammered at range while they close. If the Imperials can achieve fighter superiority, the Arcturans seem poorly-equipped to deal with it (basically end up relying on shields and armor plating and just trying to soak up the damage). And the slow-firing main guns... arg.
One disclaimer, though - we've been using Naval Movement from the Annex. I imagine that under newtonian / standard movement, the Arcturans might be able to close more quickly and get under the Imperial long-range advantage without having to burn their engines out with emergency thrust (or they might be able to get up to speed and then use Evasive Action while still actually moving at a reasonable pace towards the Imperials).
Another disclaiming factor is that due to the points limits, we basically only had access to ships up to 450 points, so we were unable to field either of the Arcturan heavies (the 995 and the 555 pointers). The fleet carrier would've been nice, since our fighters did a pretty serious chunk of our damage, but the battleship would likely have been too slow to close the gap effectively. Similarly, we didn't field the 350ish point heavy cruiser - as attractive as shields 5 were, Repeating 5+ weapons are a terrible, terrible plan (mathematically, they're not expected to pay for themselves - even at close range for 4+, repeating doubles your expected hits per point of RoF for an x3 cost multiplier. At 5+, repeating gives you an expected x1.5 multiplier, and at 6+, it's only x1.16 expected hits for x3 cost), and even worse against an enemy known to have Countermeasures. So that ship was basically written off as "horrifyingly inefficient".
But yeah, I would say that in general, with no data other than "Imperials vs. Arcturans", I would be inclined to bet on Imperials. It feels kinda like The Trap, in my experience - we've never had a defender win Trap in my group, but I'm pretty sure it's doable. Likewise, I would say that it's probably possible to win with Arcturans... but it would take some good luck and good skill, or a mistake by the Imperials.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Arcturans in Imperial Starmada
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.