Topic: Fighter cost

I'm somewhat confused by the cost of Fighters.

In the rules (particularly in the rules for customizing Fighters), it kind of implies that the CR is pretty much fixed for the Fighters (ie, Bombers cost 20% more or 60 and Assault is 40% more or 70 etc).

But when adding Fighters to a ship, the CR cost varies depending on the ship (the more divergent the Ocr and Dcr on the ship, the higher the Fighter cost for that ship). Is this a problem with the spreadsheets or is it intended that it costs more to put Fighters on some ships than others.

If its the latter, why is that the case? Do different ships seem to derive different bonuses from carrying Fighters or is it a case of wanting to encourage purpose-built CVs that dont do much else besides carrying Fighters?

Thanks!

Re: Fighter cost

Fighters provide 50 CR, I believe, and a quick check in teh SXCA seems to confirm that.

Also, by changing only the hull value with no engines, tech, weapons, or shields the CR provided by fighters is not changing outside of recognizable rounding.

Unless, I am missing something.

Re: Fighter cost

Hmm, OK, I've attached the SXCAFighters sheet.  It has a ship already on it, and its CR is 286. Adding 1 Squadron of basic Fighters is bumping it to 353, so its adding not 50, but 67 to the the CR of the ship.

Is that the way its supposed to work? Incidentally, the Shipyard sheet uses the same cost as well.

Thanks!

Re: Fighter cost

Uncle_Joe wrote:

In the rules (particularly in the rules for customizing Fighters), it kind of implies that the CR is pretty much fixed for the Fighters (ie, Bombers cost 20% more or 60 and Assault is 40% more or 70 etc).

But when adding Fighters to a ship, the CR cost varies depending on the ship (the more divergent the Ocr and Dcr on the ship, the higher the Fighter cost for that ship). Is this a problem with the spreadsheets or is it intended that it costs more to put Fighters on some ships than others.

Yes and yes. smile

The base CR of fighters is fixed at 50, and is affected by whatever options you assign to them.

However, because fighters are considered an integral part of the ship, their cost is combined with that of their carrier by adding 50 (or whatever) to both the OR and DR of the ship before combining them.

For example, if a ship has an OR of 100 and a DR of 250, then its final CR is 158. If you add two fighter flights, then its OR becomes 200 and its DR 350, resulting in a final CR of 265.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Fighter cost

That's about what I thought.... the total CR is based on the combat effectiveness of the unit...... not just a sum total of it's components.

John

Re: Fighter cost

Okie, thanx. I just wanted to be sure it wasnt just a bug in the spreadsheet.

So, from what it appears, its better to have dedicated carriers than hybrid ships. Interesting way of getting there. smile

Re: Fighter cost

Uncle_Joe wrote:

So, from what it appears, its better to have dedicated carriers than hybrid ships. Interesting way of getting there. smile

Heh... never thought of it that way, but it is an interesting side effect.

It might be more accurate to keep the fighters' OR and DR separate (rather than using the final CR of 50), but it's much easier to compute this way.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Fighter cost

It is better from the Min/Max point of view.....

This brings us back around to a discussion we had in my group.... (now down to 4 of us......

Ships are usually designed with various roles in mind.  Most of my ships for my Terran Alliance Fleet contain a science lab, 1 fighter bay, and med centers, ect.

My Kayeshi fleet doesn't even have medical centers on some of it's ships
(I assume that you can have basic first aid without the medical center.... you just cannot do sustained injuries...... kind of following the lines in the book where medical centers are there for campaigns)
All of my fleets include freighters, and I field them on the board with the ships (they carry food, medical supplies, and extra ammo). The only time I don't have at least one freighter on the board, is when the points are really low, and then we assume that my fleet is a short patrol, OR, the freighters are in transit.... and just not available at the moment.

One of the recent players that left us designed all his ships for combat...... if a piece of equipment didn't give an immediate advantage in combat, he didn't use it...... individually, his ships are usually tougher to face.... but he gets limited in storyline scenarios..... In one campaign we ran, he ended up beaten, because he literally ran out of crew to man his ships.... as he wouldn't use medical centers (we even let him partially crew ships, and counted the first hull hits as only hull hits.... there was no crew in those sections to hit. (hull 5 ship with only 2 crew..... the first 3 hits would only hit hull and there was no crew damage until you reached the last 2 hull points)

Also,  as he didn't like designing repair bays... he tended to suffer with accumulated damage.......... it got messy after a bit.

What I like, though, is that Starmada is flexible enough to allow us to design unique fleets from the ground up. The CR system is farely balanced when it comes to the value of ships within the game.....

It's all in how you play it.

John

Re: Fighter cost

It is better from the Min/Max point of view.....

This brings us back around to a discussion we had in my group.... (now down to 4 of us......

Sort of...but in the end, better is better. I mean, if you want your ship to have a viable AA ability, do you put lots of 1/2/3 weapons on it or do you go with 3/2/1 or 3/1/1? Obviously the latter two are 'better', so is that Min/Max'ing?

To me, I call it competent ship design. The same applies here with Fighters. Fighters cost 50SU and ideally 50CR. If you are trying to design a vessel that carries Fighters, do you want to pay 50 or do you want to pay more? If the latter, why would you? Its the same as the above IMO...you have a role in mind for the ship, so you set out to make sure it fulfills that role adequately. Its what any 'real' shipbuilders would set out to do as well.

That said, we've uncovered a number of areas where its pretty easy to 'break' the system. So, we've come up with a series of guidelines to follow so that our games are fun, and not optimized. In some cases some things might not be statistically 'broken', but they dramatically reduce the fun quota of the game if used (or overused).

The real trick is where to draw the line. One person's efficiency is another person's cheese or Min/Max'ing. So, it behooves each group to set the their standards ahead of time IMO. That way everyone is one the same page and you dont have situations like that you quoted above where some member are designing 'realistic' ships with Med Bays and Vehicle Bays while others are simply trying to go for the most combat-effective ship possible per SU and CR.

I think most people arent adverse to playing either way, but it just needs to be established amongst the players. YMMV

Re: Fighter cost

Min / Maxing is not necessarily bad... it depends on the game. If the game is a one off battle of raw tactics, then you definitely want to go for the most combat effective ship you can design.  I have a few of those laying around. In campaigns, you want more equipment to support, other areas..... if you are running a Storyline driven game, then the situation is a tad bit different.

I was stating that if you are going for the most efficient design, then dedicated carriers are the way to go. I have several in some of my various fleets.....

Other fleets are purely story driven.... and against my combat fleets would get pounded fairly quickly.....


I even have one battle that we did where all the ships had a +2 in all categories.  It was brutal, and violent, and we used quite a few points on each side, just to field 6 ships each (it was a while ago.... I think each fleet was somewhere around 8000 points for 6 ships... I know that one of my ships was 3100 points)

You are right when you state that the group has to decide, early on, how they plan to play. Having a group that is in agreement goes a long way towards avoiding arguments.

John

Re: Fighter cost

Uncle_Joe wrote:

That said, we've uncovered a number of areas where its pretty easy to 'break' the system. So, we've come up with a series of guidelines to follow so that our games are fun, and not optimized. In some cases some things might not be statistically 'broken', but they dramatically reduce the fun quota of the game if used (or overused).

I think "we've uncovered a number of areas where its pretty easy to 'break' the system" may be stating the matter a bit too starkly, but the point is taken.

Starmada will never be the end-all be-all tournament system -- heck, the number of failed attempts I've made at "bring your own fleet" events at cons has shown me that. But then, that was never its intent -- it was intended to be a simple (but not simplistic) game of starship combat which has a basic core around which there are enough options to build whatever game you want to play. And I think we've got that.

Having said that, would it be worthwhile coming up with a standard "set" of equipment, options, and rules that make up a "tournament-legal" game of Starmada?

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Fighter cost

I don't think any of these ideas "break" the system..... some allow more options than others..... but as far as games I have been in go, the CR still manages to balance things out.......

I posted this on another Forum (Starship Combat News) but I think it will also fit here..... Remember, you can build the most awesome 20 hull level 8 technology monster out there, and still not win...... There is a final variable that most people don't consider..... the "to-hit" roll.

The weapon may be 3/3/3... but if you had to choose a 5+ targeting, in order to fit it, don't expect to count on it killing someone every turn.

Here's the story.......


Ok, recent game of Starmada. My fiance and I were fightning and decided to use the same forces on each side. Basically 1 heavy cruiser, and 2 lighter ones. We ended up pretty much closing on each other through an asteroid belt, and it became a classic line battle. On my left one of my light cruisers engaged hers, and they both vaped each other in the first turn....... total destruction. On my right, the two cruisers proceeded to damage each other, but could continue to the next turn. However in the Middle, where the two heavies were setting up, we had the most impressive display of weapons that anyone could ever want to see (we decided to run this battle without fighters). Unfortunately, neither ship could seem to hit the other.

Round two, the two light cruisers continue to pound on each other, and due to some impressive luck, hers loses all of it's engines, while mine still has one left. Meanwhile the two heavy cruisers pass by each other at one inch apart, blazing away with everything, and nothing hits....not weapons being stopped by shields, but specifically, that every weapon fired misses. By this time, I am a little frustrated, so as part of my orders for next turn, I intentially give myself a crew hit, and eject my gunnery crew. At the same time, my new bridge crew notes that there are little objects being ejected from our opponent cruiser..... her gunnery crew (we had a ref, and our orders were secret from each other) The light cruisers finally finish their fight by destroying each other's weapons and engines, so they are now sitting 2 inches apart, can't move, and have nothing to fire.

Finally, after 3 more turns, our two heavy cruisers managed to work around the asteroids and go at each other again, and we both open up. This time, only one weapon from each ship hits the other, and both roll 1's for the shield penetration roll......... At this point, my captain offers hers a deal, she can tow away her remaining light cruiser, I'll tow mine, and we'll call it a day......


John

Re: Fighter cost

If this isn't the first entry in the "Official Historic Encounters Library of Starmada"

(OHELS to its registered members)

Then something is seriously wrong around here.