1) Movement is based (loosely) on vector mechanics. Thus, in theory, even the slowest ship can turn completely around in a single move, but it can do so only if traveling at a slow-enough speed. If you use the cinematic movement rule instead, the game will feel more like SFB/FC.

2) If you add "slow" to photons, the Federation ships will become seriously underpowered.

3) Likewise, if you remove "slow" from overloaded disruptors, Klingons will become overpowered.

The issue with weapons is that Starmada does not have (a) a defined turn length or (b) energy allocation. Thus, we couldn't do a straight 1:1 comparison with turn lengths in SFB/FC, because that would mean plasmas would fire every third turn -- an eternity in a Starmada game. Similarly, without energy allocation to restrict the over-use of overloaded weapons, we added "slow".

In the end, you can tweak the ships however your want; just be prepared for some balance issues.

Hope that helps.

The questions (and answers) apply both to Nova and Admiralty.

Sent from my SPH-L710 Using ForumTouch for Android

Two things that disapointed me over the SFU books. One that is related to SFU is that there are fleets that are very similar (klingons and kzinti) and in the end, too many things look like the same (all have phasers, transporters, etc.).
The other is about the starmada translation. Ships are much too powerful. Their life expectancy is very small. I remember a game (Admiralty) where a klingon destroyer was destroyed at long range (18 hexes) due to disruptor fire) from some kzinti ships. Two or three cruisers fired at long-range this way and pouf, no more destroyer.
Such a thing would never have happened with SFB and although I don't ask for both games to be similar, I just felt that starmada ships should be less easier to kill just to give us more time to move around and maneuver and not simply move straight one or two turns before one fleet is  shotto ribbons. range-based ROF phasers are especially monstruous...

Marc

I don't remember the détails, but it was bloody for a start.
The solution for me was to recreate the fleets according to my taste, making the ships simpler to use and with a lower firepower to resistance ratio .

Marc

I've done a first try there:

But I reworked to simplify them again. I didn't finish the work though.
But I played with the last version and they work well, at least to my taste.

Marc

I let my work to rest sometimes, but my goal is:
- Simplify the designs to avoid systems that have no real impact in a so fast paced game. For example, marines everywhere. I prefer to let some commando ships have a lot of them than have all ships have some of them. They tend to negate themselves.
- Simplify the weapons arcs and number of weapons systems: Usually, one heavy with FF, one close range, light, medium TT.
- In my STA universe, the SFU shields are shields, but all ships also have armor, just to jeep them fighting longer.
- Reducing the ships designs to those that are really useful.
- Standardizing designs, for example, all DN are (for example) 24 hulls.

All in all, it makes the designs simpler and thus the games can deploy a lot of ships and keep a good pace.
You don't have for example, to continually look at the SSD to determine the fire arcs of each and every weapon.

Marc