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 → Do SUs Matter?
I've never paid attention to SUs before because I'm converting ship "as is" from B5 Wars as much as I can. However a few posts about Nova has got me wondering. Does the SU matter to someone who's creating their own universe?
If you exceed the SU limit on a ship what does it actually do?
I've never paid attention to SUs before because I'm converting ship "as is" from B5 Wars as much as I can. However a few posts about Nova has got me wondering. Does the SU matter to someone who's creating their own universe?
If you exceed the SU limit on a ship what does it actually do?
It's my understanding that the SU limit is simply an arbitrary limit that keeps ships from "unrealistically" having too much "stuff" on board. An analogy would be a WW II destroyer with 16" guns.
It just couldn't happen.
All of the point costing is still accurate, so even if you do exceed the SU limit, the point cost will still reflect the combat value of the ship.
So if it was me trying to reflect any given universe, I wouldn't worry about it.
Kevin
Exactly. I know that sometimes conversions from SAE to SNE, following the book, will come out at too many SU. Most of the Archades airship designs ended up being anywhere from 80 - 150 SU over.
In terms of game balance, no, space units do not matter all that much. The point of "space" is simply to keep different player's designs somewhat comparable in terms of hull size to combat rating ratio.
If you are trying to model ships from a particular setting, then sure, space isn't so important, as you have another design constraint in place (i.e. copying what was already done). I think following the space limitations for your own designs is important to avoid things getting too carried away.
-Tim
BTW, how do you modelize weapons carried outside the hull?
For example, in Starfire, ships can have external mounts for missiles which do not take room inside the hull.
Marc
BTW, how do you modelize weapons carried outside the hull?
For example, in Starfire, ships can have external mounts for missiles which do not take room inside the hull.
But they do have mass -- thus, I would not give any kind of discount for external mounts.
BTW, how do you modelize weapons carried outside the hull?
For example, in Starfire, ships can have external mounts for missiles which do not take room inside the hull.Marc
You could add a houseruled custom trait that reduced SUs by 50% or something but left the ORAT the same.
BTW, how do you modelize weapons carried outside the hull?
For example, in Starfire, ships can have external mounts for missiles which do not take room inside the hull.Marc
Why not just model the external ordnance racks as Expendable weapons? You could say that the fixed launchers have enough ammo that they could last for an entire Starmada game. Doing it this way you would save SUs and you could design the XO battery to provide a single powerful alpha strike, while the internal launchers have a more moderate rate of fire (lower BAS).
Cheers,
Erik
Good idea, Erik, thanks!
Marc
Good idea, Erik, thanks!
Marc
de nada.
Doing XO racks this way actually seems to work better in SNE than using expendable weapons in earlier versions of the game, primarily because of attack dice system. I used to do several individual expendable weapons all in the same arc with ammo equaling the number of weapons, but that never worked as neatly as the new and improved version.
Erik
Doing XO racks this way actually seems to work better in SNE than using expendable weapons in earlier versions of the game, primarily because of attack dice system. I used to do several individual expendable weapons all in the same arc with ammo equaling the number of weapons, but that never worked as neatly as the new and improved version.
Erik
This does bring up a minor question.
In our earliest ship designs, a lot of times we were using identical arcs with identical dice on the same weapon line.
For example: TT3, TT3, TT3
This would give me three turreted shots at three dice each during the same combat phase.
I was told that "technically" this isn't allowed.
Identical firing arcs on the same weapon line are not allowed.
It really should be: TT9, with the rules for splitting dice then being used.
Are you guys currently multiple identical arcs for expendables?
Because I'd think this'd fall under the same restriction.
Kevin
This does bring up a minor question.
In our earliest ship designs, a lot of times we were using identical arcs with identical dice on the same weapon line.For example: TT3, TT3, TT3
This would give me three turreted shots at three dice each during the same combat phase.
I was told that "technically" this isn't allowed.
Identical firing arcs on the same weapon line are not allowed.It really should be: TT9, with the rules for splitting dice then being used.
Are you guys currently multiple identical arcs for expendables?
Because I'd think this'd fall under the same restriction.
This is probably my least favorite part of SNE - I want to have the flexibility to target multiple targets without having to go through some manner of byzantine separation math to target two, three, or more bad guys. Yes, concentrated fire makes sense sometimes, but I don't want to build a battleship style vessel that has to point all of it's heavy turrets at the same target all the time.
I really prefer having a certain number of dice assigned to each actual weapon, and being allowed to add them together myself, even if we do use a sliding scale of dice, based on range, ECM, etc.
I really prefer having a certain number of dice assigned to each actual weapon, and being allowed to add them together myself, even if we do use a sliding scale of dice, based on range, ECM, etc.
IMHO, there's nothing more tedious than assigning separate targets for a bunch of individual weapons. Thus, the rules were written in a way to... shall we say, "encourage"... players to concentrate fire as much as possible.
So, yes, the intent is for all weapons in the same battery with the same firing arc to be combined into a single bank. You can separate them out into separate banks -- and in the case of expendables, I can see good reasons for doing so -- but is it really "Byzantine" to apply a -2 modifier if splitting fire between two targets?
but is it really "Byzantine" to apply a -2 modifier if splitting fire between two targets?
Counterintuitive? Splitting batteries is counter to how I think of things, I guess.
What's the rule for splitting a battery into three or more targets? Say, I have a single battery that should, in reality, consist of six point defense guns? What's the method for splitting it six ways, to target six flights of fighters, drones and seekers?
Given a large enough target, I like the idea of an easy means of concentrating the fire into a single roll. But again, in my head, it's "concentrating on those star destroyers" not "splitting fire against those stunt fighters"...
cricket wrote:but is it really "Byzantine" to apply a -2 modifier if splitting fire between two targets?
Counterintuitive? Splitting batteries is counter to how I think of things, I guess.
What's the rule for splitting a battery into three or more targets? Say, I have a single battery that should, in reality, consist of six point defense guns? What's the method for splitting it six ways, to target six flights of fighters, drones and seekers?
Given a large enough target, I like the idea of an easy means of concentrating the fire into a single roll. But again, in my head, it's "concentrating on those star destroyers" not "splitting fire against those stunt fighters"...
Personally, I like the way the splitting fire rules work. In my mind's eye I can "see" how it would be more difficult for a targeting system to engage multiple targets simultaneously. A ship may have 20 individual gun mounts capable of firing at once, but the targets are moving at different velocities along different vectors, presenting different aspects to the sensors, etc...Now in contrast, if the same ship can dedicate a much greater proportion of its computational ability to a single opponent, and aims all of its like weapons that bear, it seems like it can be far more efficient. I think splitting too much would just be a record keeping problem.
At least that's the justification in my mind. Of course, Dan can defend his design choices himself. 
Cheers,
Erik
What's the rule for splitting a battery into three or more targets? Say, I have a single battery that should, in reality, consist of six point defense guns?
I would assume that such a battery would be divided into multiple banks to begin with...
jwpacker wrote:What's the rule for splitting a battery into three or more targets? Say, I have a single battery that should, in reality, consist of six point defense guns?
I would assume that such a battery would be divided into multiple banks to begin with...
I think part of the issue comes from the conversion guide which lumps antifighter batteries into a single TT bank. I think it is much better to split them into as many banks as possible with overlapping arcs.
Erik
cricket wrote:jwpacker wrote:What's the rule for splitting a battery into three or more targets? Say, I have a single battery that should, in reality, consist of six point defense guns?
I would assume that such a battery would be divided into multiple banks to begin with...
I think part of the issue comes from the conversion guide which lumps antifighter batteries into a single TT bank. I think it is much better to split them into as many banks as possible with overlapping arcs.
Erik
Yeah, my ships more often than not resemble the S'ssk - multiple batteries in the same arcs. Couple that with multiple batteries in the same ark, with expendable seekers, and you'll get where my mind usually goes when designing ships.
Yeah, my ships more often than not resemble the S'ssk - multiple batteries in the same arcs. Couple that with multiple batteries in the same ark, with expendable seekers, and you'll get where my mind usually goes when designing ships.
Well, if it's any consolation, a number of our early play-test ship designs (if I'm remembering correctly) were set up with multiple batteries in the same arcs, and the game played just fine. I also don't think it really does anything to the point costing to do so.
It makes as much sense to be able to design two banks of six, as it does one bank of twelve.
I don't think it affects things much from a game play perspective either way.
Kevin
What if you have a fairly weak weapon, let me make up some numbers, with a damage track something like
3 2 1 1 0
If all the weapons can fire in the same arc there is no negative modifier so it will do 3 damage and still do 1 damage if the ship is working under a -2 penalty due to having taken weapon damage.
If the weapons are split up and due to this have a -2 penalty, then when they take the -2 weapons penalty, are rendered useless because they do 0 damage now.
Thus, I would think you would not want to split your weapons into too many banks.
On the other hand I can also see how rounding might give you an extra dice of damage at times. If the above weapon had 4 turrets with a 2 or 3 adjust, you could get a total dice output of 4 dice rather than 3. It might make a difference if you can get all those weapons to bear but if they point in many directions, it's no advantage.
So... I would say that split banks confer a slight edge (sometimes) in the early game, but as a ship takes damage that gives him firing penalties, the multiple banks becomes inferior.
Both are small things though, and only a real numbers nerd would have thought of them. Ehem.
On the other hand I can also see how rounding might give you an extra dice of damage at times.
Yes, this does happen. But taking advantage of this means knowing what modifiers will be applied ahead of time -- and rounding sometimes COSTS you attack dice, as well.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Do SUs Matter?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.