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 → Unity: Seeking Weapons deployment Limits?
Hi Glen, good to see you here on the forum again. I like what you have suggested. We have just agreed to stop using seekers.
Now we are experimenting with using Modulating as a trait. I have 700 point version of my USS Arizona design with Mdl on the main battery... :ugeek:
You could limit the number of seeker flights launched, equivalent to the maximum of fighter flights launched (sqrt of ship hull, drop fractions). It still can be a lot of seekers, but at least anti-seeker defenses might be able to handle it some.
I've seen your Arizona designs. Here's one of my Klingon designs, but now obsolete if you're going with Mdl. (that's expensive). I put the damage limits in front of the weapons/categories. IMO, seems more intuitive than at the end.
(700) Klingon D10-class Attack Cruiser
Tech: Engines +2; Shields +1; Weapons +2
Shields: 4 4 3 2 2 1
Screens: 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Hull: 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 5 4 3 2 1
Weapons: 22 19 15 11 8 4
Disruptor 6-12-18 1×3+/2/2 Pr1
(1) GHIJ ☐| GHIK ☐
Phaser-1 6-12-18 1×3+/1/3
(3) GHIJK ☐☐| GHJ ☐☐| GIK ☐☐
Phaser-2 6-12-18 1×3+/1/2
(1) JKL ☐☐
Gatling Phaser 3-6-9 4×3+/1/1 Dfn; Pnp
(1) 360 ° ☐
Defense Array 1-2-* 2×3+/1/1 Crn; Dfn; Pnp
(3) 360 ° ☐☐☐☐☐
(3) EQUIPMENT
Hyperdrive ☐| Tractor Beam ☐☐☐☐☐
MUNITIONS
Marines : 4 3 2 1
Traits: Cargo (1); Science (2)
I like the idea of limiting the number of seeker flights based on the ship's hull size. We may try that. Perhaps we should use this when we plan down in S.Fla.
The USS Arizona design with the Mdl only has this trait on the main 14"PlasmaGuns, but otherwise is the same design. It raises the ship's cost to (700).
Cheers
Never mind my suggestion on limited shots. That's already been discussed and I had forgotten.
This is the weapon I came up with to counter that Volcano, I put 2 on a ship:
Seeker Killer 1-2-* 5×2+/4/1 Crn; Dfn; Pnp; Prx
(1) 360 ° ☐☐
This weapon is expensive. It could be made cheaper by reducing it's arc.
On average, 1 seeker out of 2 flights of 6 should survive to make it's attack. With 10 flights the Volcano can launch, every turn, that still is 5 seekers attacking at 3+, so 3 hit doing 3 damage each. Still going to hurt and there's probably a second wave coming in next turn.
Guess I should put 3 on the ship.
All of this is true. While I haven't gone to the extent of 1000 missiles, this design is simple enough:
Munchkin MIGHTY MITE-class Uber-Frigate (278) Hull: 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 Engines: 5-4-3-2-1 Weapons: 323-259-194-130-65 Shields: 3-3-2-2-1 Mini Missile (MA 6) 1×6+/1/1 (Exp) 323x ABCDEF // (162)This may seem impressive, but consider:
On average...
323 will be fired, but only 54 of those will hit (not counting defensive fire).
Of those, 27 will be blocked by an average shield rating (3).
Of those, only 14 will cause hull damage.So, this design can be reasonably confident of eliminating one CA-sized target in a single volley; after which, it is useless.
So you took one lousy example, show that it's not all that effective, and say the game is good.
I took your example, which I cost out to 242 but that's not important for this discussion, and I changed the missile to have a 3+ ACC, launching 162 missiles for 242 cost. 108 missiles will hit, 54 will penetrate average shields, 27 do hull damage, and killing just about anything on the field. With a speed of 6 several seekers could be shot down before reaching their target, but that is too subjective to judge and you avoided that issue as well. By the way, very few book ships have a chance to shoot down the seekers at striking time since few book point defense weapons have Dfn. Pnp by itself is nearly worthless as a point defense option.
Just to show I've looked at it more than once.
Target: Commonwealth Republic-class Dreadnought. With 5 shields only 18 seekers get through doing 9 hull damage which is half of its hull.. Survivable, but it is wounded by a frigate less than half its cost.
With 69 Mdl seekers: 46 hit, 23 hull damage. Dead dreadnought.
Target: Arcturian Thunderbolt-class Advanced Cruiser. With 4 shields only 36 seekers get through doing 12 hull (18 but 1/3 negated by Ionized Hull. It has 13 hull points. It will not be in good shape, and all other systems will get hit 6 times out of the 7 boxes each has.
With 69 Mdl seekers: 46 hit, 15 hull damage. Dead cruiser.
Target: Arcturian Cromwell-class: 18 seekers, 6 hull damage (Ionized). Half of its hits.
With 69 Mdl seekers: 46 hit, 15 hull damage, another dead cruiser.
Target: Kalaedinese Heavy Cruiser, with AFB and Countermeasures this seemed interesting. Seekers now have 5+ to hit, so 36 hit, 18 penetrate shields, doing 9 hull damage out of the 11 it has. Each system takes 6 hits, which is all they have, so the ship is mission killed.
With 69 Mdl seekers: 23 hit, 11 hull hits (favoring the defender), no matter, dead cruiser.
Target: Korath Dreadnought. Oh, a toughie, that one will put up a fight. Too bad all those point defense don't have Dfn. Fire at its support ships, let the rest of the fleet deal with this one. But here goes... tell ya what, I want to save this post I've spent a lot of time making this so I'll follow up with another post later. Besides, I want to redesign it with Dfn on its point defense system.
Broken? Maybe. But given a game or two, I'm sure any competent opponent can find a way of countering it.
I'm working hard at this, but so far I've only come up with an expensive solution.
Fun to play? Not really. And that, frankly, is the ultimate answer to any attempt to min-max the game; "Is it fun to play and/or play against?"
That's not how a lot of the real gaming world works. Min-maxing is part of competitive play and miniatures gaming is very competitive. This is not some mamby-pamby Euro-trash board game (said with tongue in cheek since my game store sells lots of those).
That's not how a lot of the real gaming world works. Min-maxing is part of competitive play and miniatures gaming is very competitive
It's about what you enjoy. Some people really enjoy the challenge of out-designing their opponents and the cat-and-mouse of design/counter.
I don't.
I would rather both sides have identical designs and try to outplay or even outluck an opponent. The beer and pretzels taste better to me when I win a game like that.
Any game with a design aspect will see people try to find ways to “min/max” as part of the challenge. When the game becomes all about that it becomes Rock Paper Scissors as far as I am concerned.
But each to their own.
Maybe the game is broken, and might require an exercise of restraint among designers to keep it tactically interesting. Otherwise it becomes a strategy game played mostly by oneself trying to weedle different combinations so that when you show up to the table the issue is decided one way or another. I would once again recommend setting all the TLs to 0. Much much much harder (in my opinion) to create “broken design” conditions.
I may be ranting a bit in my old age, but I have seen a lot of games “broken” over the years by exploiting design process or rules. You know what I have consistently found? The game becomes a lot more fun for myself and the people that I have played with when we find a way to eliminate an exploit through a house rule or imposed restrictions. Seen it in board games, card games, and miniatures games. A few people have chafed at “restricting rules” but most come around when the games get fun again.
Some have left and never came back.
But that's ok, it means there is more pizza for the rest of us.
Cheers,
Erik
So here's the Korath Dreadnought...
162 missiles, let's say that the ship's Point Defense gets to fire on the seekers on the turn before they strike (speed 6 seeker vs range 6 weapon). Luckily it can fire 10 in an arc the seekers are in, at ROF 3 and 4+ to hit is 30 *.5 = 15 seekers destroyed (and this is at medium range). That leaves 147 incoming, hitting at 3+ means 98 striking the level 4 Shields. So 1/3 penetrate = 32, which is 16 hull damage out of 19. It's not fairing well either.
Put in SFB terms, seekers let the Kzinti take over the galaxy and eat everyone. :twisted:
Let me see if I understand this; the Kizinti use seekers, conquer the galaxy and all become... cat-food :!: 
<LOL>
PS: I posted the BB with Mdl in the 'Basin
Let me see if I understand this; the Kizinti use seekers, conquer the galaxy and all become... cat-food :!:
PS: I posted the BB with Mdl in the 'Basin
Have you read any of the Man-Kzin Wars books? Kzinti pretty much treat all other species as prey. The reason humans have won every war against the Kzinti is because they're lousy strategists and tend to think all other species are inferior. They do now give humans some respect.
GamingGlen wrote:That's not how a lot of the real gaming world works. Min-maxing is part of competitive play and miniatures gaming is very competitive
It's about what you enjoy. Some people really enjoy the challenge of out-designing their opponents and the cat-and-mouse of design/counter.
I don't.
I would rather both sides have identical designs and try to outplay or even outluck an opponent. The beer and pretzels taste better to me when I win a game like that.
And I find that boring as... watching paint dry. I want to play different types of ships, but point wise should be balanced.
Any game with a design aspect will see people try to find ways to “min/max” as part of the challenge. When the game becomes all about that it becomes Rock Paper Scissors as far as I am concerned.
No one is saying that is all the game is about. I like ship designing, ever since Traveller's 3 little books came out. But if exploits exist in the system they should be fixed, not house ruled by people who paid for the game.
Maybe the game is broken, and might require an exercise of restraint among designers to keep it tactically interesting. Otherwise it becomes a strategy game played mostly by oneself trying to weedle different combinations so that when you show up to the table the issue is decided one way or another.
No one is saying that the game is broken, just some parts of it are. Perhaps all that is needed is a re-evaluation of some of the values. For instance, I see by Beowulf's new design that Carronade is too cheap.
Weapon A1: 6-12-18 1x3+/1/4 Mdl : SU = 90.6
Weapon A2: 9-18-* 1x3+/1/4 Crn; Mdl : SU = 81.5 - has a longer short range and won't suffer the long range penalties at range 13-18 like A1 does. All my weapons will have Crn now. We should not have to house rule not to use Crn. Fix the value. I'll play around in the spreadsheet and maybe come up with a proper value. Carronade looks like it's more of an advantage than disadvantage, so it's multiplier might need to be over 1.
I would once again recommend setting all the TLs to 0. Much much much harder (in my opinion) to create “broken design” conditions.
Yet the designer says that should not matter. What the high TLs do is show the flaws in the system. Broken designs only show the problem in a big way, designs that happen to use exploits unintentionally will have an advantage. A very small one that will most likely have less effect due to actual tactical play and die rolls, but it is there.
We use high TLs to create designs based on real or fictional vessels from other games, without the need to have huge hulls.
I'm not poo-pooing the entire game. Those of us raising issues just want the issues addressed, probably corrected.
So you took one lousy example, show that it's not all that effective, and say the game is good.
No, I took an extreme example and demonstrated that while powerful, it's not quite as jaw-dropping as it looked at first glance. I didn't say the game was "good"; I was inviting further discussion.
By the way, very few book ships have a chance to shoot down the seekers at striking time since few book point defense weapons have Dfn. Pnp by itself is nearly worthless as a point defense option.
Because none of the book ships were designed to counter ships with seeking weapons, much less ships whose entire arsenal consists of seeking weapons. (As you imply, the point values should still account for this, but don't disparage the designs for failing to defend against things that don't exist. 
)
Any game with a design aspect will see people try to find ways to “min/max” as part of the challenge. When the game becomes all about that it becomes Rock Paper Scissors as far as I am concerned.
No one is saying that is all the game is about. I like ship designing, ever since Traveller's 3 little books came out. But if exploits exist in the system they should be fixed, not house ruled by people who paid for the game.
Agreed. I will, however, wait until all the evidence is in.
No one is saying that the game is broken, just some parts of it are. Perhaps all that is needed is a re-evaluation of some of the values. For instance, I see by Beowulf's new design that Carronade is too cheap.
I had not really looked at Carronade from this angle. (Of course, doing so requires expanding available weapon ranges to 27, but that's neither here nor there.)
When comparing apples to apples (i.e. a carronade weapon and a non-carronade weapon with the same base range value), the multiplier of 0.6 makes sense. For range-based traits, I assume 50% of combat will occur at long range, 33% will occur at medium range, and 17% at short range. I further assume a default to-hit of 4+. For the non-carronade weapon, this means an average hit chance of 44%. For the carronade weapon, the average hit chance is 28%. 28%/44% = 0.64, rounded to 0.6.
However, if you compare apples to oranges (which I freely admit I never did), the carronade weapon does gain an advantage. Doing the math, a carronade weapon of range 18 costs 90% of a non-carronade weapon of range 12, but has the same effective range and a better average hit chance (using the above assumptions, 56% vs. 44%). Overall, that makes carronades about 40% more powerful than their point cost implies.
Clearly, the multiplier needs to be adjusted. I would recommend 0.8 as a starting point.*
Yet the designer says that should not matter. What the high TLs do is show the flaws in the system. Broken designs only show the problem in a big way, designs that happen to use exploits unintentionally will have an advantage. A very small one that will most likely have less effect due to actual tactical play and die rolls, but it is there.
You are right. The TL should not matter. The point value is based on the final capabilities of the ship.
However, adding weapons without also adding to defenses means ships become fragile eggshells which only last a turn or two in combat. This not only makes the game less fun (IMHO) it lessens the opportunity for die rolls and tactical choices to even out. Point costs are based on an average across a number of turns, and there is an implicit assumption that games will last a certain amount of time. If ships are designed in such a way, via a combination of high weapon TLs and a seeking arsenal, that they can dish out a crap-ton of damage in one blow, and the opponents don't have a commensurate defensive capability, the game is going to "break".
---
*FWIW, regarding carronades, the discrepancy is that, while I weight the long range band for purposes of evaluating range-based traits, for ease of computation, the range value of a weapon is treated as a linear multiplier.
Just in case you were wondering.
Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order or leading to any conclusion:
In order for seekers to be balanced, the target has to have the capability of shooting down 60% of incoming seekers. This brings to mind one important point: there always has been, and always will be, a certain rock-paper-scissors component to Starmada (indeed, any game with an open-ended design system). It is impossible to completely balance every design against every other. To take a simple and obvious example, a ship that has Mdl on all of its weapons is wasting 60% of its offensive cost against an unshielded target.
The question should never be, is this design balanced against everything? It should be, is this design UNBALANCED to the point that nothing can counter it?
You'll note that as the damage potential of the seeking weapon goes up, its comparative cost goes down. The 4+/1/1 seeker above has a divisor of 2.5; a 4+/5/5 seeker has a divisor of 9.8. This happens because each defensive "shot" has the ability to eliminate proportionally more incoming damage potential. Thus, you can fit 2.7 of the 4+/5/5 seekers in the same space as ten 4+/1/1 seekers.
On first blush, this would seem horribly unbalancing: the large seekers have a damage potential of 67.5 compared to 10 for the small seekers. However, remember that each defensive shot is eliminating 25 times as much damage potential. Assume the target has enough defensive firepower to eliminate 6 seekers (60% of the incoming small volley); this will be enough to eliminate the entire large volley twice over.
Thanks for listening and replying.
Our battles here, between Beowulf and myself mostly, with our longer ranged weapons than those in the book (we go with 18, where as I see a lot of range 12 & 15 in the book), tend to be at medium range a lot more than long. Usually one turn is at long and several at medium before 1 - 3 turns at short range After that it becomes a mix of short and medium, with cripples heading off to deep space 
and at long range for a bit.
I thought max range was 30? (goes to spreadsheet to check). Yup.
Any issue having seekers at speed 15? I haven't played a game yet, so maybe 12 is fast enough.
I changed a couple weapon line limits from -12 to -15, for the plasma torpedo, to see how it turns out. Perhaps I'll drop it back to speed 12. Just to give a hint to Beowulf what the Romulan Condor DN might be armed with:
Plasma-R Torpedo Launcher MA-15 1×2+/5/5 Cts; Pr1; Slw [Base SU=53.3]
(1) AB ☐☐
Plasma-F Torpedo Launcher MA-15 1×2+/4/2 Cts; Pr1; Slw [Base SU=32.6]
(1) ABC ☐ | ABD ☐
(yeah, could put double Slw on them, but these are quick charge plasma torps. 
)
An option I thought about would be to have a degrading IMP per turn, sort of like Sct but only for seekers. Plasma torpedoes in SFB lost damage potential the further they travelled. Don't know how to implement that idea.
IMO, the Mdl trait is cheating. I could understand it for a certain cyBORG faction. But just willy nilly anyone can have it? *ugh*
Maybe I should call Beowulf "Borgwulf", based on his new ship design. :mrgreen:
Our battles here, between Beowulf and myself mostly, with our longer ranged weapons than those in the book (we go with 18, where as I see a lot of range 12 & 15 in the book), tend to be at medium range a lot more than long. Usually one turn is at long and several at medium before 1 - 3 turns at short range After that it becomes a mix of short and medium, with cripples heading off to deep space
I assume you start around 20-24 hexes apart?
I thought max range was 30? (goes to spreadsheet to check). Yup.
You are right. In my head game ranges will always max out at 18.
Any issue having seekers at speed 15? I haven't played a game yet, so maybe 12 is fast enough.
12 is fast enough IMHO. We've found that seekers faster than 8 are REALLY hard to avoid. Remember that, the Dfn trait aside, a seeker's MA defines the range within which it is essentially a direct-fire weapon.
(FWIW, the SFU Starmada stats give plasma torps a speed of 8.)
An option I thought about would be to have a degrading IMP per turn, sort of like Sct but only for seekers. Plasma torpedoes in SFB lost damage potential the further they travelled. Don't know how to implement that idea.
See Romulan Armada.
I'm not liking the seeker save chart much. That looks to be new to Starmada.
But without it, I wouldn't bother using the Plasma Torpedo I mentioned previously as it would be too easy to take down and definitely less intimidating than the big ball of plasma coming towards you (remembering the scene from ST TOS). I'll have to break out my plasma torp counters from SFB (I kept a counter sheet of them for just such an emergency ).
Have you considered using IMP as an indicator for hit points of a seeker? Each point lessens the damage potential and once it reaches 0 the seeker is destroyed (makes for a better simulation of the SFB plasma torp since you can reduce its damage with phaser fire). Most seekers have IMP-1 then one hit destroys them. Seems better than a save roll, which is an extra die roll (and a kludge from some *ahem* RPG), IMO.
See Romulan Armada.
Oh. So it has been thought of, good.
But I really don't want to buy another book for some design options. Maybe I'll just stick to flying Klingons as I got lots of miniatures of those, just a few Romulan ships.
But I really don't want to buy another book for some design options.
A fair point. Once it has been tested outside of the SFU, I may make the trait (Evp = "Evaporating") available in the spreadsheet.
For now, however, it has a 0.7 multiplier and works as follows: at the end of each move, if the seeker flight does not impact its target, its IMP is reduced by 1. When reduced to 0, the flight is removed from the game.
For now, however, it has a 0.7 multiplier and works as follows: at the end of each move, if the seeker flight does not impact its target, its IMP is reduced by 1. When reduced to 0, the flight is removed from the game.
Thanks! I can add it myself. Is it ranged based? The spreadsheet has a column for that.
I'm going to need it to keep those pesky Beo-Mart armed freighters from setting up shops in my vast Glenian empire. :roll:
Our map is about 48 hexes long and 24-30 hexes wide. We like maneuvering room (well, I do).
Thanks! I can add it myself. Is it ranged based? The spreadsheet has a column for that.
No, it is not range-based.
Hello everyone,
The games that we had played here in Jacksonville with seekers demonstrated that speed 12 was plenty. When we used some of the book ships, we changed their Pnp trait to Dfs on point-defenses to allow them to fire b4 getting hit. The cost is the same and it made those ships with point-defense more effective against seekers and fighters.
If we do re-allow seekers in games that we play here in Jacksonville, the idea of limiting the number of seekers a ship can fire based on its mass (like fighter launch) seems to be a balancing solution.
We play twice a week and I have been having much fun.
Cheers.
Steven
Hello everyone,
I am in South Florida this weekend and played a 3200 point game against Gaming-Glenn &teamed with my father. I used six Ds and thee BBs.
Four of the DDs had two launchers for seekers. These four-hull DDs cost 125 each the seekers they launched were speed 12, and were 1x3+/5/5; very powerful. My fleet launched eights flights of these per turn, and I focused all eight flights on one ship per turn. These seekers dominated the game. One of my dad's 700 point BB with level 3 shields was hit by 19 of 48 missiles after lots of AA fire. The ship took 235 points of damage and vanished. Another One of Glen's damaged 800 pt BBs was also wiped out. His biggest ship was targeted by a flight of eight seekers and had to move out of the battle. These DD-TTs were 500 of 3200 points and did over half of the damage. The three BBs I played did not do nearly as much harm as the seekers.
We have concluded that seekers, as they are now are just too powerful, so we are not gonna use them again.
Thoughts?
Was that the ship SSD you showed me with lots of CD2 mounts or was that the other anti-seeker ship SSD?
(edit, after seeing the SSD at another game time: it was the other ship)
Can seekers be put in multi-weapon mounts?
I had a ship with (my version of the weapons) 4x Plasma-Rs (5x2+/5/5 Evp; Slw) and 2x Plasma-Fs (5x2+/2/2 Evp; Slw), all MA-9, that either got shot down or were used to attack his massive wave of seekers. I did manage to destroy the first wave of his seekers using plasma torpedoes and the close-ranged "anti-seeker" weapons my ships had, but not so much any others.
Speed 9 was not fast enough for plasma torpedoes. I can't believe they are speed 8 in Romulan Armada. Ships could not go as fast as plasma torpedoes in SFB. Never. In Starmada ships can out run them fairly easily at speed 8 or 9. Mine are being upped to speed 12, not that we're allowing them any more.
GamingGlen wrote:But I really don't want to buy another book for some design options.
A fair point. Once it has been tested outside of the SFU, I may make the trait (Evp = "Evaporating") available in the spreadsheet.
For now, however, it has a 0.7 multiplier and works as follows: at the end of each move, if the seeker flight does not impact its target, its IMP is reduced by 1. When reduced to 0, the flight is removed from the game.
Interesting! What I have done in house is made the plasma torpedoes DMG is reduced by one at the end of each move and IMP reduced by one for every hit it takes. Either one goes to zero the Plasma Torpedo is removed. No cost change because of its ability to take hits. Having a Plasma R go down to one little hit was a no go in my book. :shock:
Also, it makes you balance the IMP and DMG on your torp designs and not load all into one or the other. Well you can but it will make your torp vulnerable or very short ranged.
Another thing i will be play testing next Wednesday is Seeking weapons but they do NOT get any type of save. My friend has these nasty 4/4 catastrophic, piercing, kinetic missiles that only one needs to get through and thats game. His base saves are 4+. My ship is crippled or destroyed unless i build nothing but PD but even then it only takes one typically.
Soooo... I am hoping that removing these doomsday weapons saves my be a way to mitigate their OP status :roll:
He also plays with another guy and the have house ruled NO SEEKERS AT ALL. Yikes! I hate to gut a game like that so i keep using them at my place. I want to believe that is is our faults that we just are not designing the ships correctly. We get stuck in our minds what should work and not what does work. I don't believe Seekers should be house ruled out but after many different approaches to this problem, it still feels to hard to counter. 
I went with ROF 5 for each plasma torpedo so each one is like a flight of seekers and each hit on the torpedo reduces the warhead strength.
Plasma R: 5x2+/5/5 Evp, Slw
Plasma S: 5x2+/4/4 Evp, Slw
Plasma K: 5x2+/3/3 Evp, Slw (the Klingon experimental variant for the D7's nose)
Plasma F: 5x2+/2/2 Evp, Slw
Plasma D: 5x2+/2/1 Evp (anti seeker/fighter torp)
We also eliminated the save option for seekers. We finally barred seekers after a day of experimentation. Even the restriction of number fired did not help. Without the Evp trait they can go forever, which seems wrong.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Unity: Seeking Weapons deployment Limits?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.