Ok, I dont quite get this here.  I see the original poster's point that to get the same effectiveness, RoF is actually cheaper relative to the other costs.

Example:

I want a weapon to have a 'firepower' of 4 (meaning it can eventually put out 4 points of damage on a max hit).

If I go with RoF 1, Pen 2, Dmg 2 (1x2x2=4), then it cost 8 times ((1+1)*2*2) x (Range*TH Mod). For say, a Range 12 that hits on a 5+ that would be 32 SU.

If I go with RoF 2, Pen 1, Dmg 2 (to get the same 'firepower' of 4), I'd pay ((2+1)*1*2) x (4 for the Range 12 and 5+) it equals 24 SUs.

So its actually CHEAPER to go with the higher RoF with everything else equal. If higher RoF is supposed to be an advantage (because of targeting Fighters or whatnot), then it should be MORE costly, not less.

The culprit here is the +1 added to the RoF calculation in the SU cost. Since its a flat penalty applied to ALL RoF (increased or not), it always behooves you to increase RoF first in order to bring up the weapon's 'Firepower'.

To make RoF cost more, it needs to have a scaling 'penalty'. So for RoF of 1, no penalty. For an RoF of 2, add .5 and for an RoF of 3, add 1

Example:

In cases above, the cost for the 1-2-2 weapon would 1 (no penalty) * 2 * 2 = 4 * 4 (for the Range 12/5+) = 16 SUs.

For 2-1-2, it would 2+.5 ( RoF penalty) * 1 * 2 = 5 * 4 = 20 SUs

Now you are actually paying more for the RoF vis a vis what would you pay to increase the weapon 'firepower' via Pen or Dmg.

So while the base rules of adding +1 to the RoF 'cost' seem to make RoF the more expensive attribute, its actually 'cheapening' it by diluting the raw value (going from 1 to 3 is three times on the actual scale, but with the +1 its going from 2 to 4 which is only double on the actual scale)

Hopefully I'm making some sense here. Is there something I'm missing in my calculations? Is there some reason someone would rather have increased Pen or Dmg over increased RoF (everything else even)?

Thanks for your time!

Edit...further example:

Unless I'm missing something, this is not the case at all. A Weapon 3/1/1 is actually CHEAPER than a weapon 1/1/3, not more expensive. The multiplier is as such:

for the 3/1/1 its ((3+1)*1*1) which = 4

and

for the 1/1/3 its ((1+1)*1*3) which = 6

So you are actually paying more for a less effective weapon, not less.

Again, unless I'm missing the obvious here.

ROF X 2 doesn't help.

Currently:
(R+1)PD, which is RPD + PD.

(2R)PD is just 2RPD, doesn't weight anything.

I just posted (in other thread) a suggestion for:
RPD + R

andy

Another possible quick solution might be to move the 'base' cost to the Pen and Dmg stats instead of on RoF

For example, instead of it being:

(R+1)*P*D

its

R*(P+.5)*(D+.5)

This makes R the smaller stat and thus makes changing it have the larger effect on the total cost. Again, its not huge changes, but it is noticable (and I believe it scales up better than the (R*P*D)+R method mentioned).

Example:

1/1/1 Weapon current mult is 2, with the variant would be 2.25

Increasing RoF to 2/1/1 means old cost would be 3, new cost would be 4.5

To get the same firepower increase out of Pen or Dmg would be cheaper:

1/2/1 = 4 under old system and 3.75 under the variant

In a nutshell:

Old      -->            New

1/1/1 = 2    -->     1/1/1= 2.2
2/1/1 = 3    -->     2/1/1= 4.5
1/2/1 = 4    -->     1/2/1= 3.75

So, as you can see, with the flat cost moved to the OTHER two stats, they become less efficient to move, rather than RoF.

I *think* this should do exactly what you want it to do. The math is slightly more difficult, but with the spreadsheets in common use, that is meaningless IMO.

Thoughts?

Hmm, not sure what you a referring to with this one, but I'll take credit!

Ah, OK thanks! Fantasy systems are fun too, but I only picked up Starmada yesterday.

I'm sure if my group gets into Starmada, we'll eventually move on and pick up something similar in scope, but in the Fantasy genre.

FWIW, I've designed both space tactical and a fantasy combat games for my own group of friends. I know how hard it can be to get those formulae and costs worked out!

At this point I'm trying to decide if I want to 'fix' the formula for Starmada before I really get into playing. I've thrown together four races so far but if a change is coming, I'll wait on building more to save the extra work.

What is y'alls usual 'policy' on something like this? Have you encountered similar things before? Do you tend to just wait till the next printing (Starmada XII  :wink: ) or do you 'update' things like this as you find 'em? In this case its not quite as simple as a rules errata....For me its a sticking point because I *know* its there and its harder for me to design 'inferior' ships on purpose.

Anyways, no biggie either way. Its just something that immediately popped out as me as I sat down to flesh out my first shipsets.

Thanks again!

Thanks for the complete breakout andyskinner. I tend to do this stuff more by hand or in my head so it helps to see it all laid out like that!

I think from looking at it that through all the permutations, it looks clear that 'D' is the best option from a scaling and consistancy point of view. From what I can see, it has no abnormalities or strange break points the way anything with a flat add'er does.

Like I said above (or below now...who knows?) I happened upon this cost oddity when comparing my initial designs to some published on the web and found mine lacking. One of my designs was nearly identical to another I found except that mine cost quite a bit more. A quick check showed it to be the RoF problem. My ship had higher Pen/Dmg but less RoF on some pretty big weapons...that added up to a lot of CR and space. Backtracking, I came upon the fact that no matter what else was going on, RoF was cheaper to increase than Pen or Dmg and it conveyed bonuses that the latter two did not.

Anyways, I'm still trying to decide if I want to 'fix' it for my group or not. Doing so will make designing ships seem like less of a fudge factor, but it also invalidates many of the designs found on the web or even in the original book...