This last sentence kinda shows the counter to this -- use lots of fighters!

There are several instances which I can think of which, if used en masse, will result in an unbalanced game. But in most cases, there is an effective counter to the tactic. (Which shows the need for balanced forces, IMHO.)

I haven't experienced the problem with crew casualties myself, but I'm willing to consider a change in point cost if others see a problem.

I'm not big into fighters, also.  I personally think that space combat, if it ever occurs, is going to be more like submarine combat, not the WW2-like surface/carrier stuff seen on sci-fi shows (or portrayed in several spaceship-combat miniatures games  :roll: ).  But since we'll never see that in real life any time soon, it's all speculation.

I also don't want to have to guess at what I'm facing and bring the right mix in one-off battles.  If I guess wrong I would then have to turn and run and say "You win."  It accomplishes nothing but wasting time.  But that's going to be the nature of any generic/design-your-own combat game like Starmada.

Back to the topic, I think that the combination of "Extra Crew Casualties" and "No Hull Damage" makes the ECC too cheap.  It's almost a given to add in NHD, since any hull damage done by an ECC-weapon is going to just wipe out a crew-damaged hull box anyway so in effect has no meaning (except against Spinal Mount or Shockwave equipped ships).  Maybe the two should not be combined?  Or, increase the ECC cost and then a designer can make it cheaper by using NHD to bring it down to the 2.0 modifier for ECC (which seems reasonable compared to the "Extra Hull Damage modifier).

If we could just add fractional ROFs, extend or remove the ceiling on PEN and DMG, and add a "several hits to destroy" weapon option (possibly with degraded performance as the weapon takes damage), we could do away with special rules for spinal mounts.

Note that "several hits to destroy" could take the place of armored gun batteries.  Hmm, how would degraded performance work?  I guess each of ROF, PEN, and DMG would be reduced to the original number times the fraction of hits remaining, rounded up to the nearest integer or (ROF only) simple fraction.  So, consider a weapon with ROF 1/2, PEN 5, DMG 2, and 3 hits to destroy.  After the first hit, it would have ROF 1/3, PEN 4, DMG 2.  After the second hit, it would have ROF 1/6, PEN 2, DMG 1.

for my money nothing beats a ship with Stealth Generator, LRS, and 18 range weapons of any flavor

Another nice one is Shield Resonant with PEN of 2 or 3

Sometimes it isn't about countering a tactic - like the extra crew casualties, but about being more effective yourself

Don't get me started about the Stealth Generator, an overpowered system.  It should not be as written, but instead add one to the To Hit modifier of ships attacking it (or -1 to the die, whatever the way the rules are).  Right now I see that every ship I design from now on will have it.

IMO, movement is too slow which makes the SG overpowered.

Btw, the super ship with the Extra Crew Casualties weapons had SG.  I was not happy when our largest ship was half dead before we got to fire a shot.  Then he reversed (and don't get me started on THAT) so again he could fire without us firing a shot in return.  Sound tactics, and I applaud the player for that, but I boo the game system.  Too many cheesy combinations are possible, especially with the "tech" system (his super ship was +8 in techs).  But I digress...

Glen

Fair enough.

Then perhaps there needs to be an option to "speed up" ships at the expense of protection... ?

I might just do that.

My vision of space combat is very simple, really. Each side has a heavy unit and two or so smaller units. The dreadnought is equipped to go toe-to-toe with another dreadnought and trade blows until one side gives up...:D The lighter units gun for each other, and attempt to shoot down fighters if there are any. Drones, since a previous battle, are a must for me--if your target hasn't got AFB, then he won't like ten drones hurling into him and detonating.

Hehe...:D

Only problem is is the dreaded dice of doom. Theres nothing like you throwing ten drones at a target...and see only one cause damage. Thats why I like big guns. Once they hit, you know the enemy is hurting...:D

Stealth generators are twice the space of a ECM system. If it were to be a simple - on the to-hit roll, it should be -2 on its own.

I have actually run into the Extra Crew Casualty w/ no Hull Damage combo once as well..... I only managed to pull off a draw out of shear luck.
I had a trio of hull 3 ships, armed with Sunbursts........ Since a sunburst creates an explosion counter, and explosions block line of site, I basically fired them at empty hexes, and used them to block fire until I was close enough to group fire on the ships with the combo...... couple that with the fact that my fleet included a carrier w/ 8 flights of fighters, and a drone carrier, and I was able to pull a draw on the scenario.......

Since that day, I have noted a number of combinations that are similar.....

Ships with large numbers of longer range weapons that are No Hull Damage, and very short range 3 weapons w/ ROF:1 PEN:1 DMG:3 that also have Extra Hull Damage and Increased Damage, or Continual Damage, with Must Re-Roll Penetration.

They use the NHD weapons to take out your shields and then they have a much better chance of hurting you severely in close with the other weapons.

For the crew casualty issue, one of the tactics I came up with was Protected Crew Quarters or Enhanced Live Support (I hadn't decided which). Basically for 5 percent of your SU, you get armor plated crew.

One of my other players buys a batch of drones and removes 1 crew unit..... the drones are listed as "Droid Crew" and counted as the missing crew unit..... immune to Extra Crew Casualty weapons. When a ship is forced to run on Droid Crew, they have a -1 to all fire and cannot use cloaking devices, due to the limited AI. Also, the droid crew is dormant until all living crew get killed, and then they become special equipment, and can be hit as such.

John

The weapons became unbalanced when the player gave the ships a movement of 1, shields 5 and then has the cannons with Extra Hull Damage, Continuous Damage, and Increased Damage with must re-roll penetration to get the cost back down..... ect. It is more the fact that I actually saw him do 21 dice of damage in one shot to someone else that was annoying....... he set his weapons to fire in ACE and then parked the ships right on the edge of the board they were using.......

I guess the issue is the minimizing / maximizing withing the game system, not the issues on the weapons themselves... the extra crew casualties w/ no hull damage would make sense with a race that is out to steal technology, or someone like the Ferengi from Star Trek TNG.  However, I would expect to see something like this on a few ships within their fleet ( maybe with oversized engines for maximal towing capacity) // rather than on every ship in the fleet.

The other thing was one player that would design a bunch of hull 6 an 7 ships with really high tech levels (usually +1 in all categories, or +2 in weapons and +1 engines and shields) while his larger ships were set at zero in all categories, to keep their cost low. He would have fits if he was forced to use the same tech levels across the board.....

Maybe there would be a way to push a better balance within the system.... or make it the standard that everyone agree with certain rules before a game starts.

I have to admit that if someone did that to me I would just fly around and force the map to float, or hyperdrive out and not play with him again. Definitely not in the spirit of fair play. People have called my Stealth Gen/LRS combo cheesy - I hold up your story as vindication for my fair efforts.

there is nothing requiring that ships vary in abilities, and frankly if he over specializes and you find an exploit then the whole fleet becomes vulnerable...

Uneven tech levels make sense, if you consider the history/origin of the ships and their implementation over time for a fleet. It doesn't make sense simply to control which of your ships is the best. Granted given that the CR should balance, it shouldn't greatly effect your game play, but you never know...

Sad when it comes to having to mandate fair play for some players... but I do like your later suggestion of a "fairness guide". That could actually have some interesting design discussions in it.