• Registered: 2011-09-25
  • Posts: 2

Topic: Alternate SOP

Hi, I'm a long-time lurker.  Before I get to the point, let me first explain that I love Starmada.  I think it's an elegant and internally consistent rule set, a rare achievement.  It took me a long time to find it.  Full Thrust was an old passion, but I was never happy with it.  I tried a long time to fix FT and mold it more to my liking, changing it so much that it was becoming a game unto its own.  I won't go into detail, but many of the things I was trying to "fix" in FT are handled very nicely by Starmada.  One thing that I developed for my version of FT was an alternate sequence of play, like this:

1. Written Orders Phase
2. Movement Phase
--Starships move
--Seekers move
--Fighters move
3. Combat
--Starships fire, record damage
--Fighters fire, record damage
--Seekers attack targets
4. End Phase
-Damage control--launch fighters/seekers

I was wondering how/if it would work with Starmada (some of us were born to tinker  :cry: ).  Like I said, Starmada is great just the way it is, so please ignore if talking about modding the game seriously pisses you off.  I think I just really like the idea of ships having a shot at defending themselves before the fighters descend upon them.

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Alternate SOP

I can see one problem, the fighters fire after starships. Although it may seem realistic (fighters have to enter the death zone created by flak before firing themselves), that change would kill the fighter more surely than flak. MAybe the main reason why fighters are interesting compared to ships is that they inflict damage before ships are able to fire.
With this modifications, ships with good anti-fighter weapons would kill them before letting them fire, thus nullyfiying their use.
Added to that, fighters are horribly expensive.
Same problem with seekers.
To make this change interesting, you would have to review the cost of fighters (and seekers) drastically.

Marc

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

Re: Alternate SOP

On the other hand, it would nerf strikers nicely, which my group concluded was necessary...  I'd almost be tempted to modify it to "Ships move, small craft move, everybody shoots with sequential damage", with fighter and ship fire being resolved via activations, and in the order that they occur.  Any such change to fighter ordering would complicate CAP and dogfighting, though, which was what we found fighters to be most useful for (shutting down strikers).

Also, welcome aboard drtachyon!  Your name is amusing in light of the recent CERN neutrino claims...  tongue

  • Registered: 2011-09-25
  • Posts: 2

Re: Alternate SOP

Thanks for the welcome.  I came up with that SOP for a Star Trek version of FT that didn't have PD and allowed any weapons to hit fighters with a -1 penalty (sound familiar).  I'll try it with Starmada and let you know what I think.

A good compromise may be letting anti-fighter weapons and seekers defend ships during the Fighter Phase.  Perhaps even nearby ships within range (escorts).  So the Fighter Phase would be something like 1) move fighters 2) resolve ship defenses 3) fighters attack. 

I'm a big Trek fan and since I have all the minis and rules, that's the universe we play in.  Anyway, I modified phasers a bit from their KA and RA descriptions.  Phaser Is are 15,1/3+/1/1; phaser III's : 3,2/5+/1/1, Anti-Fighter.  I might try the above Fighter Phase sequence to see if it is the right flavor.  Marc may be right though and it may reduce to much the combat effectiveness of fighters/seekers.

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Alternate SOP

drtachyon wrote:

A good compromise may be letting anti-fighter weapons and seekers defend ships during the Fighter Phase.  Perhaps even nearby ships within range (escorts).  So the Fighter Phase would be something like 1) move fighters 2) resolve ship defenses 3) fighters attack.

That's a good idea, but I still feel (and hope) that fighter should then be cheaper.

Marc may be right though and it may reduce to much the combat effectiveness of fighters/seekers.

In Star Trek, there are no fighters AFAIK. In SFU, they are, and more than that, there are a lot of seekers. I don't have much Starmada experience with SFU (about 3 games), but drones seems not overly effective.

@ Nomad: Otherwise, why strikers seem too powerful to you (no experience for me about them)?

Marc

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

Re: Alternate SOP

@madpax, In regular Starmada you can make strikers pretty nasty. You can change their defense, speed, and how much damage they can inflict.

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Alternate SOP

yes, but it has a cost. How strikers so nasty, compared to fighters?

Marc

  • Registered: 2010-11-15
  • Posts: 298

Re: Alternate SOP

Strikers and seekers can be made incredibly nasty.   Here's an example:

Std Fighter - Costs 50 - Size 6, Spd 10, Def 0 - Acc 5+, ROF 1, IMP 1, DMG 1

If we compare that to a seeker of the same cost:

Boom Boom - Costs 50 - Size 6, Spd 10, Def 0 - Acc 5+, ROF 2, IMP 3, DMG 3

So in this example the seeker has 18 times the killing power of the fighter.  The seeker does have limitations - but those are fairly mitigated if you can launch within striking range of your target.  If they can't move away, they have no chance to shoot at the seeker, unless they have fighters of their own - but even then they might not be able to react in time.

The current rules work well for moderate fighters, but they fall apart when people start using deadly seekers and strikers (like the one shown above). 

I think the problem is the cost of the weapon modifiers for seekers/strikers.  While they are the same ones that fighters have, its less practical to load up a fighter like that - because you have to worry about survivability and there are limits to how many 150pt fighters you can fit on a ship!  For seeker and strikers you don't have to worry if they survive, just get in range and let them lose!

My proposal would be to use the OP's turn sequence - reduce the cost of fighter flights to account for it, but increase the cost of some of those fighter traits - possibly not for fighters but definitely for seekers/strikers.