• Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Topic: Some questions, some comments

Hey guys,

OK, my group and I have been busily designing ships and piddling with various races and combo etc. I have a few questions and a few comments for discussion.

1) Dogfighting. Is it something that is recommended to be used? Without it, there doesnt seem to be a way to really 'defend' against Fighters getting off their first attacks. With it, it seems like some of the Fighter customizations are weakened. Things like Bomber become very hard to use because an opposing Flight can just pin you forever until you are dead. Also, Drones and Marines seem a lot less appealing, again if they can just be pinned until destroyed. IMO Flights should have a chance to escape the Dogfight or somesuch.

2) PDS. How does this work? Do you make an extra PEN roll that fails on a 1/3/5? If its part of the 'normal' Pen rolls, doesnt that make the PDS a more or less cheaper alternative to shielding (and a good addition for certain shield classes)? I just dont see this thing as being 'balanced' across the board as its obviously FAR better for some shield numbers than others. Are we missing something?

3) Armored Gun Batteries. From what it appears, AGBs simply make your weapons cost 50% more (SUs and CR). If so, then why not just increase your number of weapons by 50% instead of using AGBs? AGBs increase 'life expectancy' of a weapon by an average of 33% (5+ save). Simply stuffing on more weapons increases it by 50%. Yes, it does add more Battery hits to the damage chart, but I would think that that is WELL worth it for 50% more firepower as well. I would think it really wouldnt be that effective to put AGBs on a ship unless it was under 33% cost. Either that or if it took up 50% of the SUs, but only 25% of the CR? Is there some other cost alteration that we are not seeing?

4) Stealth vs ECM: It appears that with the current FAQ ruling about Stealth and 'for better or worse',  that Stealth is only marginally better than ECM in many situations. Sure, it does prevent attacks at Long range, but beyond that, the effects are similar. Unfortunately, there are situations where Stealth is significantly worse than ECM (like with reversed Range mods or vs weapons with no Range mods). That makes them pretty much close in capability, but the Stealth system is larger and far more expensive CR-wise. As a suggestion, why not allow the Stealth Generator to always give the best modifier of the real or modified range. For example, if a Stealth Ship is in Short range of an inverted range weapon, it can keep the Short range rather than counting it as Medium (and being worse off than even not having the system at all, let alone ECM). An easy way to phrase it would be 'Ships with Stealth Generators always enjoy the more advantageous of either the true range or one range bracket farther out'.

5) Rate of Fire. Its been touched on before, but I haven't seen an 'official' response as to what to do (if anything). Its become evident to us that, by far, the most efficient weapon is always 3/1/1 + whatever specials. It takes up less space than 3 equivalent 1/1/1's and is definately more efficient than increasing Pen or Dmg at all. It also happens to be the best build against Fighters. To me, this is a potential major screw as the point differences between 3/1/1 ships and other weapon combos REALLY add up. Everything else even, a 3/1/1 ships will beat another ship with any other R/P/D combo (again, from what we can see). For ourselves, we agreed to limit the number of RoF increases on our ships, but its still an imperfect solution.

Thanks for taking the time to read it. Feel free to poke holes in our theories. smile

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

Uncle_Joe wrote:

1) Dogfighting. Is it something that is recommended to be used? Without it, there doesnt seem to be a way to really 'defend' against Fighters getting off their first attacks. With it, it seems like some of the Fighter customizations are weakened.

I can't say if dogfighting is recommended or not; it's one of those "taste" things. As you've discovered, there are reasons why some groups would not want to use it -- but if you want something official, note that I don't use it.  wink

2) PDS. How does this work? Do you make an extra PEN roll that fails on a 1/3/5? If its part of the 'normal' Pen rolls, doesnt that make the PDS a more or less cheaper alternative to shielding (and a good addition for certain shield classes)? I just dont see this thing as being 'balanced' across the board as its obviously FAR better for some shield numbers than others. Are we missing something?

You do not make an extra roll -- you simply ignore any odd PEN dice, regardless of shield level. However, it is not all that more effective for any shield level than any other; the system essentially blocks 50% of those shots not blocked by the shields, and point-costed accordingly.

Shields 5 = Blocks 0 of 1 shots that get through
Shields 4 = Blocks 1 of 2 shots " " "
Shields 3 = Blocks 1 of 3 shots " " "
Shields 2 = Blocks 2 of 4 shots " " "
Shields 1 = Blocks 2 of 5 shots " " "
Shields 0 = Blocks 3 of 6 shots " " "

It does block less than 50% at odd shield levels, but remember that these levels (should) degrade as the battle rages, so it will even out.

If you want true accuracy, you can add an additional roll and have the PDS block any shot on a roll of 4+... but part of the reason I went to this mechanic was to eliminate a lot of the extra rolling that had crept into the game.

3) Armored Gun Batteries. From what it appears, AGBs simply make your weapons cost 50% more (SUs and CR). If so, then why not just increase your number of weapons by 50% instead of using AGBs? AGBs increase 'life expectancy' of a weapon by an average of 33% (5+ save). Simply stuffing on more weapons increases it by 50%.

Hmm. I believe this might be a typo that never got fixed. The 50% increase in SU is right, but the CR multiplier should only be 1.3...

4) Stealth vs ECM: It appears that with the current FAQ ruling about Stealth and 'for better or worse',  that Stealth is only marginally better than ECM in many situations.

Huh. This may be the first time I've ever heard someone suggest the Stealth Generator should be strengthened...

It is true that there can be situations in which Stealth is not much better (if at all)  than ECM -- however, don't sell short the concept of invulnerability at long range...

5) Rate of Fire. Its been touched on before, but I haven't seen an 'official' response as to what to do (if anything).

I think the (R x P x D) + R solution (rather than ((R+1) x P x D) is as elegant and reasonable as anything else...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Some questions, some comments

Uncle_Joe wrote:

1) Dogfighting. Is it something that is recommended to be used? Without it, there doesnt seem to be a way to really 'defend' against Fighters getting off their first attacks. With it, it seems like some of the Fighter customizations are weakened. Things like Bomber become very hard to use because an opposing Flight can just pin you forever until you are dead. Also, Drones and Marines seem a lot less appealing, again if they can just be pinned until destroyed. IMO Flights should have a chance to escape the Dogfight or somesuch.

DF is one of my favorite tactics.
The counter is if you are going to have bombers, have interceptors too to help and get them out front to take out the enemy fighters with DF of your own...

Uncle_Joe wrote:

2) PDS. How does this work? Do you make an extra PEN roll that fails on a 1/3/5? If its part of the 'normal' Pen rolls, doesnt that make the PDS a more or less cheaper alternative to shielding (and a good addition for certain shield classes)? I just dont see this thing as being 'balanced' across the board as its obviously FAR better for some shield numbers than others. Are we missing something?

I generally do not use this, but it is the same PEN roll but if the numbers come up then it blocks. Yes, cheap and nice. In fact somewhere around here is a nice graph that plots the advantage of PDS over shields, particularly for large ships...

The risk? A Q hit turns it right off.

Uncle_Joe wrote:

3) Armored Gun Batteries. From what it appears, AGBs simply make your weapons cost 50% more (SUs and CR). If so, then why not just increase your number of weapons by 50% instead of using AGBs? AGBs increase 'life expectancy' of a weapon by an average of 33% (5+ save). Simply stuffing on more weapons increases it by 50%. Yes, it does add more Battery hits to the damage chart, but I would think that that is WELL worth it for 50% more firepower as well. I would think it really wouldnt be that effective to put AGBs on a ship unless it was under 33% cost. Either that or if it took up 50% of the SUs, but only 25% of the CR? Is there some other cost alteration that we are not seeing?

This is more of a gut feel thing, tho I suppose there are numbers to make an argument there somewhere. It will depend on your tech level and ship size which makes most sense I think.

Uncle_Joe wrote:

4) Stealth vs ECM: It appears that with the current FAQ ruling about Stealth and 'for better or worse',  that Stealth is only marginally better than ECM in many situations. Sure, it does prevent attacks at Long range, but beyond that, the effects are similar. Unfortunately, there are situations where Stealth is significantly worse than ECM (like with reversed Range mods or vs weapons with no Range mods). That makes them pretty much close in capability, but the Stealth system is larger and far more expensive CR-wise. As a suggestion, why not allow the Stealth Generator to always give the best modifier of the real or modified range. For example, if a Stealth Ship is in Short range of an inverted range weapon, it can keep the Short range rather than counting it as Medium (and being worse off than even not having the system at all, let alone ECM). An easy way to phrase it would be 'Ships with Stealth Generators always enjoy the more advantageous of either the true range or one range bracket farther out'.

I can't explain it... but there was a long Stealth Gen cost debate shortly before X came out that put us where we are now with this. The feeling was that SG was too cheap before, partly due to combo innteractions.

I like your wording idea. But I am a Stealth Gen fan (white trash cloak)

Uncle_Joe wrote:

5) Rate of Fire. Its been touched on before, but I haven't seen an 'official' response as to what to do (if anything). Its become evident to us that, by far, the most efficient weapon is always 3/1/1 + whatever specials. It takes up less space than 3 equivalent 1/1/1's and is definately more efficient than increasing Pen or Dmg at all. It also happens to be the best build against Fighters. To me, this is a potential major screw as the point differences between 3/1/1 ships and other weapon combos REALLY add up. Everything else even, a 3/1/1 ships will beat another ship with any other R/P/D combo (again, from what we can see). For ourselves, we agreed to limit the number of RoF increases on our ships, but its still an imperfect solution.

Do you min-max it, or do what is fun? Go for fun and don't get hung up on the formula detail - thos since the whole group knows it... smile

I am sure there is no official response yet 'cause Dan is still cogitating. (Or kicking himself for not having noticed it himself.)

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

samuel i. ulmschneider wrote:

> Also, make
> all fighters 'slow', and fast fighters move 10 hexes -- this
> makes fighters a little less unpredictably zippy.

"less unpredictably zippy"... there's gotta be a way to work that phrase into the rulebook. smile

> 2)  We never use PDS.  Period.  It IS just cheaper shielding
> for ships less than 6 or so hull, though it can be taken out
> by one lucky Q hit, this is not enough to render it more
> vulnerable in any material way.

I disagree. PDS is, after all, equivalent to only shields 3, with the possibility of being knocked out with a single shot. Also, it's point-costed accordingly, so even though it may allow small ships to "afford" good protection in terms of freeing up SUs, the CRs will still reflect their durability.

Finally, I never intended that every "race" or faction should have access to all types of equipment -- PDS, if anything, is best suited as an option for a race that never developed shields, or to represent stuff like "interceptors" in Babylon 5.

> Finally, they're just flavorful.

Exactly my point about PDS.

Thanks for the discussion!

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

Taltos wrote:

I like your wording idea. But I am a Stealth Gen fan (white trash cloak)

"White trash cloak". Another phrase that needs to make it into the rules.

I am sure there is no official response yet 'cause Dan is still cogitating. (Or kicking himself for not having noticed it himself.)

I am indeed kicking myself. For someone who prides himself on his math/stats skills, that was a pretty big boo-boo...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

cricket wrote:
Uncle_Joe wrote:

3) Armored Gun Batteries. From what it appears, AGBs simply make your weapons cost 50% more (SUs and CR).

Hmm. I believe this might be a typo that never got fixed. The 50% increase in SU is right, but the CR multiplier should only be 1.3...

Before anyone jumps on the FAQ and makes this "official", let me reason this out -- I'm pretty sure 50% is actually right.

Consider that while shield level 2 blocks 33% of hits, the CR multiplier is 1.5; this is because by blocking 33% of potential damage, the expected number of "hits 'til death" is increased by 50%:

10 hits without shields means all hits will score damage, thus 10 hits 'til death.

10 hits with shields 2 means only 2/3 of hits will score damage, thus it will take 15 hits to score 10 points of damage (15 x 2/3 = 10). Obviously, 15 is 50% more than 10.

In the same manner, if your weapons have AGB, then only 2/3 of weapon hits will actually take effect; thus the expected "hits 'til death" for your weapons is increased by 50%. If the "save" was 4+ instead of 5+, then the survivability of your weapons is actually increased by 100%, not 50%, as you might expect.

Make sense?

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Re: Some questions, some comments

cricket wrote:
cricket wrote:
Uncle_Joe wrote:

3) Armored Gun Batteries. From what it appears, AGBs simply make your weapons cost 50% more (SUs and CR).

Hmm. I believe this might be a typo that never got fixed. The 50% increase in SU is right, but the CR multiplier should only be 1.3...

Before anyone jumps on the FAQ and makes this "official", let me reason this out -- I'm pretty sure 50% is actually right.

Consider that while shield level 2 blocks 33% of hits, the CR multiplier is 1.5; this is because by blocking 33% of potential damage, the expected number of "hits 'til death" is increased by 50%:

10 hits without shields means all hits will score damage, thus 10 hits 'til death.

10 hits with shields 2 means only 2/3 of hits will score damage, thus it will take 15 hits to score 10 points of damage (15 x 2/3 = 10). Obviously, 15 is 50% more than 10.

In the same manner, if your weapons have AGB, then only 2/3 of weapon hits will actually take effect; thus the expected "hits 'til death" for your weapons is increased by 50%. If the "save" was 4+ instead of 5+, then the survivability of your weapons is actually increased by 100%, not 50%, as you might expect.

Make sense?

Yes, it makes sense, but even it does increase survivability by 50% as shown, why not just add the actual weapons and be able to have 50% extra firepower AND survivability? There should be a benefit to only taking the protection in this case, right?

  • Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Re: Some questions, some comments

It is true that there can be situations in which Stealth is not much better (if at all) than ECM -- however, don't sell short the concept of invulnerability at long range...

and...

I can't explain it... but there was a long Stealth Gen cost debate shortly before X came out that put us where we are now with this. The feeling was that SG was too cheap before, partly due to combo innteractions.

Part of it, I think, is our aversion to Reverse Movement. With the Reverse rules as written, its fairly easy to design ships that maximize Long Range firepower and magnify the effects of the Stealth. But in many other cases, the Stealth is really not that effective vis a vis ECM.

So, in this case, I think its another strike against the Reverse movement rules. smile Without that, Stealth's stock goes down and thus the need to have it so expensive is reduced. Personally, with Reverse Movement reigned in (max of one hex/turn) , I'd leave Stealth costs as is (expensive), but give it the always advantageous modifiers as per above.

Do you min-max it, or do what is fun? Go for fun and don't get hung up on the formula detail - thos since the whole group knows it...

Its not really a question of trying to min-max, but simply that even just 'randomly' occuring, the high RoF is just so superior. So, when designing ships, our players are having to go out their way to avoid the pretext for being called a cheeser. smile

I disagree. PDS is, after all, equivalent to only shields 3, with the possibility of being knocked out with a single shot. Also, it's point-costed accordingly, so even though it may allow small ships to "afford" good protection in terms of freeing up SUs, the CRs will still reflect their durability.

I've done a bit more fiddling and in many cases, it looks pretty close to the mark. We has just hit upon a few cases where it really broke much in favor of the ship using PDS rather than Shields (ie, CR doesnt change, but considerably less SUs or a minor CR change for 1 better protection). I think this is just one of those things that actually seems really appealing in some situations but very costly in others.

I agree that not every race should be able to pile on equipment willy-nilly (or even higgledy-piggledy  tongue ).


OK, I have another suggestion (I'm just full of 'em, aint I?) smile :

For to-hits beyond 6+, the 'natural multiple' system really makes little statistical sense and overly rewards high RoF or large numbers of groups way out of proportion (not even mentioning the RoF issue).

Consider having 2 larger weapons with a 1 RoF in a Battery. To score a hit at 7+ would need 2 sixes or a 1 in 36 chance. If you have twice as many weapons that are half as effective, you are rolling 4 dice to get the same two sixes. Without going through the math, its WAY more likely to get 2 sixes on any of 4 dice than 2 sixes on exactly 2 dice (much more than twice as likely).

As a suggestion, have weapons that need a 7+ to hit roll and every '6' is picked up and rolled again. A result of 4+ on the second die results in a hit. Increase the number of the second die by 1 for each number over 7+ that is needed (so it would be a 6 and then a 5+ for and 8+ to hit number and a 6 and then a 6 for 9+). This means that each weapon has the same (slim) chance of a hit irregardless of other weapons in a battery changing the odds. It does require that extra roll, but this is going to be a pretty rare (but important) case.

Thanks for the responses guys! Its really great to be able to interact directly with the designers on a timely basis. smile If you guys ever decide to put out a new edition and are looking for a group of player to jump up and down on the rules and try to break them, let us know. We dont go out of way to min-max in most cases, but we are mostly analysts by nature or trade, so it just sort of happens in the natural course of us playing or throwing designs together. smile

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Some questions, some comments

RE: Stealth Gen
Stealth Gen was and is and always will be the most broken system in my opinion.  It was worse before X. Long range sensors with SG make an unbeatable fleet.  Try that out.

<sidebar>Now, in defense of Dan: the SG/LRS combo should be fairly easy to defend against with tons of fighters and sunbursts and someone better tactically than me. I spent many years trying to defeat the SG/LRS never getting quite there.</sidebar>

RE: Fighters
Fighters can be countered with ROF3 repeating weapons.  The first time you do 26 hits to a group of fighter flights with a single weapon, you'll see what I mean.

Dogfights suck for drones and marines.  Less so for interceptors, so get some fast interceptors in place to kill those pesky opposing fighters.  Or, you might allow flights to "break off" with a free attack by the opposing flight if you want to be able to stop a dogfight.

RE: PDS
Peter Drake has done extensive mathematical analysis on PDS and found that the return really diminishes after shields of 2.  He can explain more.

RE: Double 6=7
The double 6=7 rule may be statistically innacurate, but it's the only way you're gonna roll a 7 so call it the starmada equivalent of the last-minute 70 yd Bomb.

RE: the FAQ
The FAQ is just a temporary "ruling" and should not be taken as gospel unless the rule makes it into the official "book".  They're just suggestions and open to most anyone who wishes to change them. I moderate the FAQ inconsistently and periodically at best.

RE: Backwards movement
I would not reduce the Backwards movement to 1 hex. It seems pretty expensive to start with.  Try 3mp to move backwards instead.

RE: Tactics
As with most things in Starmada.  There's usually a counter-tactic you can use to get around most of the combos or special equipments. (except the SG/LRS combo, which I may have mentioned are unbeatable)

It is interesting to see where other people have their hang-ups.  They always seem different than mine and everyone else.  I personally realize that the problem I have with SG/LRS is my own inability to wrap my brain around a suitable tactic to defeat it.  It's not really that broken, I just can't go far enough out of my box to figure it out. 

Finally (whew!)
Try to just get over the troubles you have with the system and ignore the pieces you don't like.

Or change them.  It's not like some other company's set-in-stone rulebook that anyone will come and sue you for changing.  If you want backward movement to cost 3mp instead of 2mp, then so be it!  If you want crew to be able to defeat marines when the marines roll a  "1" (Noel and I have adopted that to great fun) then rock on!

Ddon't get caught up in the details and above all, have fun!

  • Registered: 2005-06-15
  • Posts: 94

Re: Some questions, some comments

Uncle_Joe wrote:

Yes, it makes sense, but even it does increase survivability by 50% as shown, why not just add the actual weapons and be able to have 50% extra firepower AND survivability? There should be a benefit to only taking the protection in this case, right?

Actually, I think the extra firepower IS the survivability.  Instead of getting off shots longer, you get to make those same shots earlier.  The weapons themselves are as vulnerable as before, so the only way you've increased survivability is that there will be more shots taken.

If you said you wanted to add survivability, but not more weapons, and added guns that didn't shoot, you would not, in effect, have added anything at all.

If your weapon lasts 1.5 longer, that should be (roughly) the same as if you had 1.5 as many of the weapons.

andy

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

Uncle_Joe wrote:
cricket wrote:

In the same manner, if your weapons have AGB, then only 2/3 of weapon hits will actually take effect; thus the expected "hits 'til death" for your weapons is increased by 50%. If the "save" was 4+ instead of 5+, then the survivability of your weapons is actually increased by 100%, not 50%, as you might expect.

Make sense?

Yes, it makes sense, but even it does increase survivability by 50% as shown, why not just add the actual weapons and be able to have 50% extra firepower AND survivability? There should be a benefit to only taking the protection in this case, right?

Let's see if I can't boil this down to its most basic form:

The Starmada Combat Rating (indeed, all of MJ12's point systems -- except maybe Defiance) can be expressed in the following manner:

(Hits Inflicted Per Turn x Hits 'til Death)^0.5

(This excludes the "Engagement Range" factor, or MOVE+RANGE, which we can ignore since it is assumed to be identical for all hypothetical ships in this discussion.)

Take a battery of 10 weapons; assume that on this ship's particular damage track, it will take 20 points of damage to receive 10 weapon hits, eliminating all weapons. Thus, we can express the "CR" of that particular battery as:

(10x20)^0.5 = 200^0.5 = 14.14

Now, add AGB. This does not increase firepower, but it does increase survivability by 50%, as discussed earlier. Therefore:

(10x30)^0.5 = 300^0.5 = 17.32

As you can see, the final CR has been increased by 22%. Now, increase the number of weapons by 50%; this (on the surface) increases both firepower and survivability by 50%. Therefore:

(15x30)^0.5 = 450^0.5 = 21.21

Thus, while you can add additional weapons for the same amount of SUs, your CR goes up by 50% instead of 22%. There is, however, one more thing to deal with, and that is the fact that an increase in the number of weapons by 50% also increases the number of weapon hits by 50%; meaning that the "hits 'til death" number drops by 33%:

(15x20)^0.5 = 300^0.5 = 17.32

Or, the exact number reached by adding AGB. In other words, both the CR and SU costs for AGB are correct, and the only difference between the two is "flavor".

Class is over... don't forget your term papers are due at the end of next week... big_smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 287

Re: Some questions, some comments

jimbeau wrote:

RE: Stealth Gen
Stealth Gen was and is and always will be the most broken system in my opinion.  It was worse before X. Long range sensors with SG make an unbeatable fleet.  Try that out.

<sidebar>Now, in defense of Dan: the SG/LRS combo should be fairly easy to defend against with tons of fighters and sunbursts and someone better tactically than me. I spent many years trying to defeat the SG/LRS never getting quite there.</sidebar>

<sidebar continued>Continuing the sidebar: In my experience good tactical use of sunbursts and ships with stutterdrives promise the best options for distance closing with lessened damage. Fighters less so... they did for a while but I learned alot about using Interceptors. :wink:

On the other hand, while I will not deny it is a powerful combo (Or with more nasty bits, try using weapons with inverted range modifiers) having commanded lots of SG/LRS ships in those "victories", the commander considered many of them pyrrhic at best.</sidebar>

RE: Fighters
The best defense is more of your own fighters cause they get to act in the fighter phase. High ROF will clear the enemy out fast, but odds are they will get a strike in first. Learn to weather it and a lot of your opponent's fire power will dry up quickly.

(Purpose built some anti-fighter escorts if you want, it adds to tactical play too. And if you can get them in on the opponent's ship they can really rain on a parade there, too.)

You can build a nice hull 3 or 4 ship with 3+ 3/1/1 ranged based ROF or re-roll to hit to keep fighters at bay.

jimbeau wrote:

Don't get caught up in the details and above all, have fun!

There in lies the best advice, and the MJ12 spirit.

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

andyskinner wrote:

If your weapon lasts 1.5 longer, that should be (roughly) the same as if you had 1.5 as many of the weapons.

Not exactly true, although in practice it works out that way since Starmada alters the "survivability" of weapons based on the ratio of number of weapons to hull points (i.e., on average, all ships will have lost the same percentage of their weapons at the point of destruction).

If the reduction was not weighted in this manner, then having 1.5 times the number of weapons is better than having 1.0 times the number of weapons lasing 1.5 times as long:

50% more weapons = (1.5x1.5)^0.5 = 1.5

No more weapons, 50% more survivability = (1.0x1.5)^0.5 = 1.22

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Re: Some questions, some comments

50% more weapons = (1.5x1.5)^0.5 = 1.5

No more weapons, 50% more survivability = (1.0x1.5)^0.5 = 1.22

Ok, this is where I get lost. Are you saying that 50% more weapons increases CR by 50%, but AGB increases CR by 22%?

If so, then I agree that AGB would be fine. However, AGBs, as written in the rules and as indicated by the spreadsheets increase SUs and CR by 50%.

If you go into the spreadsheet and design a ship that has 2 weapons you can see it.

Ok, first add an extra weapon. Note the SU's remaining and the CR of the ship.

Next, remove the weapon and add AGBs. The SU's and CR remain the same as when it had 3 weapons.

So, doesnt that mean that each ship has 50% more 'hits till dead' on the weapons, but that the first ship also has 50% more firepower until the weapons are being lost?

I dont see where the 22% is coming from in an actual ship. Is the formula just listed incorrectly or am I being incredibly dense and just continuing to miss something obvious? smile

  • Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Re: Some questions, some comments

RE: Double 6=7
The double 6=7 rule may be statistically innacurate, but it's the only way you're gonna roll a 7 so call it the starmada equivalent of the last-minute 70 yd Bomb.

Yep, I agree, but why not make it so that it does make statistical sense? Shouldn't a 1/2/2 weapon have half the chance of hitting at 7+ as a 2/2/2 weapon? It does for every other to-hit number from 2+ to 6+. Its only when it crosses that 7+ barrier that its suddenly markedly inferior.

Again, its not a big deal, but if there is a rule about 'improbable hits', why not just have it be consistant throughout the weapon mix rather than skewing it heavily in favor of certain weapons? *shrug*

Stealth Gen was and is and always will be the most broken system in my opinion. It was worse before X. Long range sensors with SG make an unbeatable fleet. Try that out.

and...

RE: Backwards movement
I would not reduce the Backwards movement to 1 hex. It seems pretty expensive to start with. Try 3mp to move backwards instead.

I'm curious as to what the intent is for Backwards movement? Why would you want people to be able to design LR ships with Stealth/LRS and do that? Heck, even without Stealth, any form of fast LR ship and Reverse movement is a pain unless you specifically set out to build a 'counter' with either extreme speed of your own and/or lotsa Fighters.

To me, thats the kinda stuff that encourages min-max'xing. As jimbeau mentioned, its nearly unbeatable in some situations, so its easy to see why people would gravitate towards it. And I think the thing that is causing that is the Reverse movement, not the Stealth/LRS.

I guess what I'm trying to say is what does Reverse Movement really do other than open things up to certain cheesey combos like jimbeau's nemesis? smile What would be missing from the game if Reverse Movement were suddenly reduced to 1? Again, this is just out of curiousity. Obviously Reverse is in there for a reason, so I'm just curious if that reason is something specific that seems necessary or if its just a holdover from previous editions or somesuch.

Try to just get over the troubles you have with the system and ignore the pieces you don't like.

Or change them. It's not like some other company's set-in-stone rulebook that anyone will come and sue you for changing. If you want backward movement to cost 3mp instead of 2mp, then so be it! If you want crew to be able to defeat marines when the marines roll a "1" (Noel and I have adopted that to great fun) then rock on!

Ddon't get caught up in the details and above all, have fun!

smile We already tweaked the things in our group that we dont particular care for. None of our lists are min-max'ed at all (indeed, most would lose to the Stealth/LR/Reverse combo mentioned!).

Mostly these questions/observations are for academic reasons only. First of all to see if we are just missing something and secondly to provide some discussion for potential changes in upcoming editions or FAQs (or to simply hear why a certain thing is the way it is).

None of what I'm trying to say is trying to tell you the game is 'broken' or whatnot. It is what it is....a fun and open game system that doesnt require a degree in engineering to play! smile However if I see areas where I see it could be tightened up, I just feel there is no harm in firing the ideas out there. smile

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 359

Re: Some questions, some comments

Please fire the ideas out. There are no bad ideas.

Personally, I like the idea of having a game where we can send feedback to the originators and actually get heard. That puts this one about a hundred levels of better over any other system.

John

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

Uncle_Joe wrote:

Ok, this is where I get lost. Are you saying that 50% more weapons increases CR by 50%, but AGB increases CR by 22%?
[...]
I dont see where the 22% is coming from in an actual ship. Is the formula just listed incorrectly or am I being incredibly dense and just continuing to miss something obvious? smile

Sorry for the confusion. These are not "real" numbers, in the sense that they demonstrate how AGB affects the final CR value of a particular ship. I was attempting to use the principles behind the Combat Rating formula to demonstrate that AGB, at +50% for both space and CR, is just as effective as increasing the number of weapons by 50%.

What you should focus on is that in each case, the pseudo-CR goes up by 22%, indicating that each option has the same impact on the weapons' damage potential over the expected life of the ship.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Some questions, some comments

Uncle_Joe wrote:

Yep, I agree, but why not make it so that it does make statistical sense? Shouldn't a 1/2/2 weapon have half the chance of hitting at 7+ as a 2/2/2 weapon? It does for every other to-hit number from 2+ to 6+. Its only when it crosses that 7+ barrier that its suddenly markedly inferior.

Two reasons why I went with the system as-is:

1) It's different than any other (e.g., Warhammer).

2) I think it gives some interesting, if not statistically consistent, results.

Obviously, it does reward multiple-ROF weapons, but not by much:

ROF-1 = No chance of hitting on 7+ or more.

ROF-2 = 1/36 chance of hitting on 7+, no chance of hitting on 8+ or more.

ROF-3 = 2/27 chance of hitting on 7+, 1/216 chance of hitting on 8+, no chance of hitting on 9+ or more.

Since we're already weighting the higher-ROF weapons because of their effectiveness against fighters, this slight inequity doesn't seem inappropriate.. especially when you consider the ROF-3 weapon still only has at most a 7% chance of hitting at 7+ or more.

In addition, very rarely will you be firing a single weapon -- usually, even with ROF-1 weapons, you'll still get more than one die, so you still have the opportunity to score hits on "impossible" attacks.

I'm curious as to what the intent is for Backwards movement?
[...]
I guess what I'm trying to say is what does Reverse Movement really do other than open things up to certain cheesey combos like jimbeau's nemesis? smile What would be missing from the game if Reverse Movement were suddenly reduced to 1? Again, this is just out of curiousity. Obviously Reverse is in there for a reason, so I'm just curious if that reason is something specific that seems necessary or if its just a holdover from previous editions or somesuch.

It is a holdover from previous editions, but not one that's ever been seriously questioned (until now). It seemed like a good idea at the time (12 years ago, now), and in all that time no one batted an eyelash...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Re: Some questions, some comments

In addition, very rarely will you be firing a single weapon -- usually, even with ROF-1 weapons, you'll still get more than one die, so you still have the opportunity to score hits on "impossible" attacks.

Hmm, maybe we just like to use big weapons on our ships. smile

It is a holdover from previous editions, but not one that's ever been seriously questioned (until now). It seemed like a good idea at the time (12 years ago, now), and in all that time no one batted an eyelash...

Wow, really? When I was first introducing the game to my group, this was the first thing commented on. smile Part of it is just the Sci-Fi...Battlestars, Earth Force Omegas, and Honor Harrington SDs dont go backwards and the Enterprise always looked stupid when doing so.. wink But part of it too is the ease with which LR weapon can hold their advantage.

I guess what it comes down it what you want to encourage. For us, we wanted to see ships closing and maneuvering a bit to bring the plotting and anticipating more into play. It just isnt as much fun when both sides are content to sit at extreme range and toss dice back and forth. And for LR fast reversing ships, its as good of a counter as any to simply put LR weapons on your own ships and get into the dice-off. smile

Again, I would submit that the Reverse movement is really the culprit in why people think Stealth might be overdone. If you put a gadget Equipment in that simply gave +33% range to your weapons, I'm pretty sure you'd seem the same 'broken' cries...because it lets you fire and not get hit back while you hold the range as much as possible while reversing.

And FWIW, we've reduced to 1 hex/turn and dont see any ill effect. It certainly encourages people to design ship that can close with the enemy as well as standoff and bombard. wink

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 359

Re: Some questions, some comments

I haven't yet seen where the backwards movement has been a major problem......

One of the people I play actually has a Hull 2 ship that moves at 12 with a single weapon. Yes, his backup is 6, but the weapon is only a 1/1/1 for it's
rof/pen/dmg code. I have a couple of ships that carry a few drones, and also several that carry fighters.... it hasn't yet been a major problem.. and he loves to use the backup maneuver.  For most of the ships to get the high speeds that make backing up such a pain, and still fit the extra stuff.... stealth generator, long range sensors, reversed range mods, ect..... They are going to have to skimp on the weapons a bit. If they keep using this, then go ahead, and put either an ECM or Stealth Generator on your own ships. This would force him to close in order to hit you, which negates his tactic. I have also found that when someone starts using "munchkin" (I use the term lightly) tactics, then being forced to face his own tactics tends to fix the issue.
Also, if you use the evasive maneuver option, which bases the modifier on your initial movement value, plus ecm... You not only negate the reversed range modifiers, but also give him a penalty to hit you at long range.  At that point, if he wants to win, he has to close with you. Mix this with a drone carrier (ship with 20 or more drones) and you should be good. Also, remember, drones can be launched in values from 1 to 10 per round, and all of the drones launched in one round form up into a flight, with the same movement as fighters. Since we use the dogfighting rules, I use 2 small drone carriers ( I usually have 6 or so ships at about 2000 points ) and have them launch in groups of 5..... I also assume that the drones do not have to fly in straight lines, they can be programmed or have orders sent to them so I will have the first flight or two stay right near the launching ship, and add more flights each turn. Once I have 4 or more flights of 5 drones each, plus my fighters ready, I advance them all and let my fighters attempt to engage enemy fighters in dogfights, while the drones maneuver through the fight and go for their targets.

This has dealt with most of the times I have encountered the issues you mention.

John

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 65

Re: Some questions, some comments

Nahuris wrote:

I haven't yet seen where the backwards movement has been a major problem......

Even if backwards movement was restricted, what's to stop someone from placing most of their weapons in the rear arc, and going 'forward' to keep ahead of the advancing opponent, while blasting away?

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,286

Re: Some questions, some comments

Justin Crough wrote:
Nahuris wrote:

I haven't yet seen where the backwards movement has been a major problem......

Even if backwards movement was restricted, what's to stop someone from placing most of their weapons in the rear arc, and going 'forward' to keep ahead of the advancing opponent, while blasting away?

That would make an interesting clash...

The Backfire Battleship...running from a battle with you! *chuckles*

  • Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Re: Some questions, some comments

Even if backwards movement was restricted, what's to stop someone from placing most of their weapons in the rear arc, and going 'forward' to keep ahead of the advancing opponent, while blasting away?

Absolutely nothing, and it is something we've considered as well (Spathi anyone? smile ). But at least you cant continue to close the range while staying in arc. As long as there is some form of 'objective' on the map, this becomes a tough tactic to use due to the maneuver system in the game.

I haven't yet seen where the backwards movement has been a major problem......


snipped for space

This has dealt with most of the times I have encountered the issues you mention.

Yep, and we've explored those options and they do work. However when trying to play with a fixed universe of ships, its tougher to ensure that every list has a 'counter' to every otherwise 'too powerful' combo.

The situation leads to what I call 'hit or miss' battles. If someone has the LR/Stealth/LRS backup combo going and you dont have the 'counter' you lose. By reverse, if you DO have the counter, they lose (because they payed so much for a combo that is no longer having the desired effect). So, in essence the presence of that combo makes it difficult to have a 'fun' and interesting battle...it becomes a yes or no equation...Do you have the 'correct counter'. If Yes, then congrats, you most likely win. If No, then sorry, you most likely lose.

The same situations can occur with Fighters or mass shielding from what we have seen. Trying to guard against every eventuality in a completely open environment is problematic at best.

To facilitate more or less 'open' play that still results in (we hope) interesting rather than one-sided battles, I devised a set of Guidelines that players use when designing their lists. It is my hope that these Guidelines will provide enough common ground that the surprise 'gotchas' are more limited and more interesting battles result.

Anyways, I concede that if you know the LRS/Stealth/Backup combo is coming, there are myriad ways to defeat it. The problems arise when players are 'surprised' by certain situations. For me, I'd rather limit the effectiveness of these combos so that the surprise situations (and the attendent uninteresting battles) are less common. YMMV.

Plink, plink....there's my $.02. smile

  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 811

Re: Some questions, some comments

Uncle_Joe wrote:

RE: Double 6=7
The double 6=7 rule may be statistically innacurate, but it's the only way you're gonna roll a 7 so call it the starmada equivalent of the last-minute 70 yd Bomb.

Yep, I agree, but why not make it so that it does make statistical sense? Shouldn't a 1/2/2 weapon have half the chance of hitting at 7+ as a 2/2/2 weapon? It does for every other to-hit number from 2+ to 6+. Its only when it crosses that 7+ barrier that its suddenly markedly inferior.

okay, make it so...

Uncle_Joe wrote:

I'm curious as to what the intent is for Backwards movement? Why would you want people to be able to design LR ships with Stealth/LRS and do that? Heck, even without Stealth, any form of fast LR ship and Reverse movement is a pain unless you specifically set out to build a 'counter' with either extreme speed of your own and/or lotsa Fighters.

We've just never had a problem with the Uncle_Joesbane  big_smile i.e. backwards movement

Uncle_Joe wrote:

However if I see areas where I see it could be tightened up, I just feel there is no harm in firing the ideas out there. smile

Sure thing keep em coming, this has been a very pleasurable converstaion. As long as everyone playing is clear up front; no surprises, no foul. 

I'd like to see those ship designs that are so successful with the backwards movement. Maybe you've found the SG/LRS killer I've been looking for all these years.

  • Registered: 2006-01-18
  • Posts: 90

Re: Some questions, some comments

I'd like to see those ship designs that are so successful with the backwards movement. Maybe you've found the SG/LRS killer I've been looking for all these years.

Since we've changed backwards movement, we have a lot less incentive to design those types of ships. smile

But FWIW, Inverse Range Mods works wonders against Stealth. Its never hurts you and it gives you a bonus whenever you can get into 'Medium' true range. The current Stealth rules alleviate the downside of the Inverse Range Mods (assuming we are doing it correctly). So, fast ships carrying Inverse Range weapons are a great choice and much cheaper than the SG/LRS on a per CR basis.

We've just never had a problem with the Uncle_Joesbane  i.e. backwards movement

Sure you have. smile I think that is the true problem with the Stealth/LRS. Try a game without reverse (or with it limited to 1 hex/turn) and see if that makes the Stealth/LRS combo a lot more manageable. Even ships not designed to specifically counter that combo will be far more effective at it.

I think its fairly evident that Stealth is only marginally more effective than ECM at nearly every other role than when you manage to keep the range long enough to prevent retaliation. Stealth just costs quite a bit more.