• Registered: 2005-11-02
  • Posts: 130

Topic: I want to complain about something too :)

What has always bothered me was that

Three Lasers with RNG  4/8/12, ROF 1, ACC 3+, IMP 3, DAM 3
Has the same SU cost as
One Laser with RNG 4/8/12, ROF 3, ACC 3+, IMP3, DAM3

Mounted on a ship one hit will take out your one weapon while one hit will only destroy one of the three lasers.

I think that the larger the weapon the less SU cost for the weapon (not including weapon traits) just the basic weapon. I think as player should have some sort of advantage for having one big weapon that may be destroyed by one lucky hit. then someone who has three weapons. Each weapon does the same thing the only difference is that a single hit can destroy the large single weapon.  Maybe some sort of incremental system can be used maybe -10% SU cost for each ROF IMP and DAM after the first.

Just a thought.

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: I want to complain about something too :)

Inari7 wrote:

What has always bothered me was that

Three Lasers with RNG  4/8/12, ROF 1, ACC 3+, IMP 3, DAM 3
Has the same SU cost as
One Laser with RNG 4/8/12, ROF 3, ACC 3+, IMP3, DAM3

Mounted on a ship one hit will take out your one weapon while one hit will only destroy one of the three lasers.

I think that the larger the weapon the less SU cost for the weapon (not including weapon traits) just the basic weapon. I think as player should have some sort of advantage for having one big weapon that may be destroyed by one lucky hit. then someone who has three weapons. Each weapon does the same thing the only difference is that a single hit can destroy the large single weapon.  Maybe some sort of incremental system can be used maybe -10% SU cost for each ROF IMP and DAM after the first.

Just a thought.

I've noticed this as well, and will take it a step farther by saying that the multiples of guns are better than the single higher ROF gun because it gives me greater flexibility in how I assign my targets. Also, historically weapons were grouped into mountings like turrets as a weight and space saving measure & 3 16 inch battleship guns in a turret is a big advantage over a single gun per mount in terms of not just the weight of the mounting, but in ammo handling, fire direction, salvo dispersal, ship stability, and actually made it possible to better protect the guns as a single turret could carry more armor than if the guns were scattered in multiple mounts.

Now I know ROF can represent one weapon that fires faster than another or it can be a function of the "barrels", but so can IMP...when I did some WW2 ships in Starmada I gave the mounting a ROF consistent with the individual gun and adjusted the IMP to represent the number of guns per mount and it seemed to work well across the board until you got to very small, very quick firing guns that required other mods to get just the right results. I felt at that time like I was being "penalized" for grouping weapons this way.

I don't know if there is an appropriate way to handle the issue in Starmada, though I think if it was something like you suggest it would have to be done on some kind of a curve rather than a linear reduction (I am no help there as I was born without math brain cells). Some games have a built-in mechanic for handling multiple weapon mounts, so perhaps a trait-like modifier could be applied to a finished weapon (Trait: Turret?) so that you get an SU benefit at the risk of losing the whole "mount" to damage.  What that modifier might be I would have no idea.

Cheers,
Erik

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: I want to complain about something too :)

I make WW2 style ships and try to lower the cost as much as I can but still get the desired effect.  For example, I could have a twin turret fire twice and note the damage of each shot; for example, have it be 2/3+/1/2. or have the turret fire and either both shells hit or miss; for example 1/3+/2/2 = if the turret hits, both shells hit so see if they penetrate. 
However, what I actually use for the main battery of my battleships is 1/3+/1/4.  Statisticly speaking, the damage done by all three options is the same.  Since these these are "Main Guns"  they have Starship Exclusive.  The 1/3+1/4 option costs the least and so it is therefore the one I use.  It gives the same firepower as the others, but it is least costly:  More bang for the buck.  It is also easier to roll the dice to fire the ship's weapons.  A ship with four of these twin turrets rolls four to hit dice for the entire main battery.  I pick up those that hit and next roll these for penetration.  Those that penetrate are seperated and each has three dice added to it (because these weapons do 4 damage) and then the damage locations are rolled.  My ships take the least ammount of time to fire and cause damage. 8-)  :geek:

  • Registered: 2009-08-03
  • Posts: 245

Re: I want to complain about something too :)

Inari7 wrote:

What has always bothered me was that

Three Lasers with RNG  4/8/12, ROF 1, ACC 3+, IMP 3, DAM 3
Has the same SU cost as
One Laser with RNG 4/8/12, ROF 3, ACC 3+, IMP3, DAM3

Mounted on a ship one hit will take out your one weapon while one hit will only destroy one of the three lasers.

I think that the larger the weapon the less SU cost for the weapon (not including weapon traits) just the basic weapon. I think as player should have some sort of advantage for having one big weapon that may be destroyed by one lucky hit. then someone who has three weapons. Each weapon does the same thing the only difference is that a single hit can destroy the large single weapon.  Maybe some sort of incremental system can be used maybe -10% SU cost for each ROF IMP and DAM after the first.

Just a thought.

Eh, I tend to think of it like Fire-Linked, but for damage allocation purposes; you can either put all of your eggs in one basket and hope it doesn't get hit, or you can spread it out and have guaranteed incremental losses, since you're three times as likely to lose a gun when you have three times as many guns.  The expectation's the same (usually...  might depends on hull size vs. number of guns, but across all numbers of guns and all hull sizes, it should come out the same).  The target allocation complaint holds more water, I think, in that many guns are simply more flexible than one big gun.

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: I want to complain about something too :)

Inari7 wrote:

Mounted on a ship one hit will take out your one weapon while one hit will only destroy one of the three lasers.

True, but the chance of scoring a hit on that battery is three times as great if you have three lasers instead of one.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website