I'd like it to be no. I like the weapon SU costing as is, and its 'realistic'. If you've got someone that will abuse the construction rules like that, don't play with them.

Dual mounts have always been slightly more efficient, space-wise, than single mounts, while triple mounts are more space-efficient than dual mounts. Otherwise, dreadnoughts would have had ten single mounts, instead of five dual mounts...

Well, if I were to make an official change to the formula, I would still want it something simple enough to do by hand. I am leaning towards RPD+R; although not perfect, it is more perfect (?) than (R+1)PD, and is still very simple.

Different Tech Levels per equipment: I will see what I can do.

Technical Readouts: You bet I am interested!

Different Tech Levels for equipment?

Check out Tables sheet Equipment Column K, changes tech level for each type of equipment..
Did that a little while back.

Is that what you are wanting Nahuris?

I would like to see the ROF thing addressed, though it seems silly since I've only played once.  (Seemed good with my wife playing, but I want to see what my son thinks. 

However, the most important thing is that I am designing with the spreadsheets, and I just want it to be easy to keep up.  If there is a fix needed, I'd like to be able to apply it to what I have already.  Or at least to easily take the data from one sheet and put it in another.  It seems that the spreadsheet is almost an integral part of the rules, and I'd like it to hold still, or at least be easy to follow.

But I still like the idea of wiggling the ROF thing. 

andy

Once again, the existing rules are OK. Any change will be detrimental. If you have players that abuse the ROF thing for their own gain, stop playing with them.

Every game will have some real or imagined loophole which allows you to build a cheesy ship. If your opponent does this, thats his or her fault, not the games.

[size=150]I SAY LEAVE IT[/size]

Honestly, I've been playing Starmada for a really long time, and I've never noticed the huge difference as you're implying here between 1/1/3 and 3/1/1 ships.

but the beauty of Starmada is that you can change it if you like.

However, I don't think I'll follow until it bocomes "official"

It all depends on the ships involved. A 1/1/3 weapon will be 50% more expensive than a 3/1/1 weapon and is one third as effective vs Fighters. That is a huge swing IMO. If you play with fleets that have roughly equal proportions of weapons, you'll be fine.

As I indicated above, the problems for us came when people who had no idea about the formula showed up with ships with high RoF weapons just because thats what they wanted to design. They were quite easily beating the 'non cheese' fleets by virture of having between 25-50% more weaponry. That is not a small margin...at all.

Of course if you are playing with fleets that are using weapons in the same proportions, you probably wouldnt need CR at all. Just balance it out to make sure everyone is using roughly the same power.

But the who purpose of having a CR in the first place is give a numerical indicator of that ship's relative power. With that formula error, it could be off by as much as 50%, but more than likely closer to 20-30%...still big enough to turn the tide in otherwise even contests.

And, FWIW, I didnt post it up there to try and force it on other people. You dont like it? Dont use it. Its not official. Its not going to BE official. You are safe. No one is going to come and ruin your game. Its all good.

Some equipment added from older versions of Starmada.
ROF NOT CHANGED. Who would have thought that one little question could cause so much debate!
My last posting for the Shipyard - Will now leave well alone.

Go to the copy of the text page.

In Edit/Find&Replace,

Find All "Template"

Replace All with the name of the Template copy you wish to link the text page to ie "Template_2"

Paul

Is there a current link for this file? The ones I've found seem to be dead...