I don't understand the problem, to be honest. Or, rather, I do UNDERSTAND it, I just don't agree it's worth changing.

However, the bigger concern is feasibility. The modifier is applied at the SU stage because the SU cost is a primary factor in the ORAT calculation. Applying arc modifiers at the ORAT stage would require recalculating from scratch.

I used to play Star Fleet Battles and in that game cloaking did not include "hidden" movement unless an additional 33% was paid for the ship.  So I'm not opposed to any of:

1) Cloaked ships move at the same time as non-cloaked and everyone knows where they are
2) Cloaked ships get to move after but are visible to prevent ships from "reacting" to their movement
3) Cloaked ship movement is hidden

I just think that the "price" of a cloaking system should be reflected in the advantages it confers.  The other thing that needs to be worked out is if the cloaked ship gets detected and if that changes when they get moved (in the case of 2 or 3 above).

Given that you cannot attack a fully cloaked ship (unlike SFB), it makes me wonder how much reacting to their movement really matters.

-Tim

Bought and read, ready for my two cents.
I love it!
In general, it eliminates the four main issues I had with SAE:
1) the "cascading dice/multiple rolling" aspect of resolving weapons fire
2) the lack of any sort of ablative defense
3) the rather unintuitive method of determining movement
4) and the way tech levels are handled.

I can really see the influence SFO had on this edition.  My kudos to everyone involved in designing/testing it. 

If I may ask, and I apologize if its a bit premature, but what kind of support/sourcebooks can we expect for this edition?

But that's the point. You have to work at it in order to keep your tail facing the enemy (unless it's a "stern chase" scenario).

Really, I see two options at this point:

1) Leave the rules as-is.

2) Revert to "balanced" arcs.

I don't want to have a separate set of modifiers that apply only to the ORAT.

I'm not great at math. Would making hits on 4,5,6 instead of 5,6 and doubling the hull/armor on the ship display screw with the balance?

I ask because sometimes even rolling a lot of dice can feel like it has extremely disappointing results with only 5s and 6s hitting.

But that increase would mean no real effect on gameplay other than perceived reliability on weapons?

Cool.

Actually, the Drydock is meant to serve as a "Bourbaki Basin"... Everyone can see everyone else's designs.

I'm afraid I'm a Starmada newbie, so forgive me if this is an obvious question, but pg. 13 seems to take pains to distinguish between boxes and icons, so can I take the rules at their word that a shield class 6 vessel will never have more than the first two (shield) boxes crossed out due to damage? (The last ICON is in the third box, with no icons in boxes 4 & 5.)  It seems a little odd to me that ships can never have their shields totally knocked down due to damage, given the ubiquity of this kind of thing in most space opera fiction, though I have no problem with it from a game play perspective.

FWIW this is the only rule so far that has appeared unclear to me - which seems a pretty good testament to the author(s) writing skills. (Well, apart from the stuff addressed in the errata posts already.  Also the ship design section didn't really fall into place until I'd performed a practice design of my own.)

I look forward to the release of the final draft.  If (as I assume) this includes blank ship data sheets, I'd vote for including dedicated space on them for movement plotting, even if this is no longer an 'official - standard' game mechanic.

For shields, each box is an "icon", even if they are empty. Someone please add this to the errata topic.

Does it seem right that I can make a size 3 ship, with 8 thrust, and give it an FR1 Exp 1-2-3 weapon that rolls 189 dice at medium range, and 267 dice at close?

Removing expendable takes me from 0 space remaining to -628

Seems more than a little ridiculous?

.2x multiplier on expendable seems like way too much. It's like assuming that the average ship will last 5 turns of fire without weapon damage, without being destroyed, and with a target to fire at, because that's what it'd take to make expendable not the best choice always.