• Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Topic: Stand-Off Weapons

Yesterday, I was thinking, as I usually do, and I realised that there was something missing from Starmada X. Namely, weapons that take a while to arm.

Some weapons (in published SF as well as in my own universes) have weapons that, when fired, are not automatically armed, but take a while to arm. Missiles, especially. Sometimes this is due to the warhead being carried (i.e., if a AM torpedo went boom just outside your port bow, you'd get slightly hurt)

So heres a proposal.

For these types of weapon, a fourth range band is added, equal in size to the first three. This range band has a -1 to hit. The long-range band has a 0 to hit, and the medium range has a +1 to hit. BUT, the short-range band can't be fired into at all.

Example: A Gyorvar heavy cruiser fires a Longbow Missile at a Ferenkon dreadnought, which is 23 hexes away. The Longbow Missile has a range of 18, so normally it wouldn't hit. But with the Long-Range enhancement, it's got a range of 24, so the missile can attack.

Example: The same cruiser fires another shot, this time at a Ferenkon destroyer. However, when looking at the range, the destroyer is five hexes away. Cursing, the Gyorvar player can't fire at the destroyer, who (if the Longbow missile was the only weapon system on board) now has a free shot at the cruiser.

Discuss big_smile

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

Hello everyone from Jacksonville!

The idea of "Stand-off weapons"  that have an extended Long range, such as the Longbow Missle, but no short range, is an excellent idea.  Something similar to the second example happened in the Pacific during WW2.  In one night naval battle off Guadalcanal between US warships and  Japanese warships, one US destroyer (USS Laffey?) was so close to the Japanese battlecruiser IJN Hiei, that the Japanese BC could not fire its 14"guns at the US DD.  Also, the destroyers torpedoes would not arm before hitting the BC, so they were ineffective also.  The BC almost rammed the DD ,they were that close!  The US Destroyer could and did fire its 5"guns and heavy 40mm AA guns at the big Japanese BC and caused some harm. 

    If this became an official change, I would use it for the Heavy Guns of all my personally designed ships.  How much would such an addition cost? 

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Florida, USA

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

I have no idea, unfortunately, because no-ones discussing it--much...:D

I'd guess that it would be a fairly high cost, but not too extortionate. Maybe in the x2 range?

Anyone?

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

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

I like the idea, and X2 does sound fairly good.....

It's not excessive, as you can counter these weapons with emergency thrust to close range, and or fast smaller ships and fighters.

I'd like to see this discussed more by the players here.

John

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

Exactly. It would offer more tactical options, because you can reach an enemy ship at longer ranges than he or she thought possible, but you can also be caught out...

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 330

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

Hey all:

Would have replied sooner, but I was at Gencon (and have yet to recover)... I would say that instead of adding a new 4th range band (that could be an issue) that the weapon with this special loses the ability to target anything in the short range band.  There is already a way to boost a weapons range (with LRS) and if you wanted really long ranged weapons, include a 21 and 24 to the range bands.

Your guess is as good as mine as what the cost would be, but I'm sure that someone who is more mathematically inclined could tell us.  My vote on the name is "lethargic" which is how I feel at the moment.

-Bren

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

My brain was buzzing with ideas yesterday (whaddya mean, thats the first time thats happened? big_smile), and I now have a couple of good weapon ideas.

They're named Anti-Fighter and Increased DMG(TH)

Anti-Fighter

SU Modifier: x1.0

Effects:

An Anti-Fighter weapon cannot attack ships--the limited damage potential makes such a practice all but useless. Even light freighters are able to stand up to a few AF weapon hits. However, while it can't attack ships, it CAN attack fighters and other similar craft (such as boarding pods, drones and battle satellites) with two advantages:

1) It attacks during the Fighter Phase of a turn

2) It ignores the -1 modifier to hit

Example: The HMS Good Hope has got a battery of eight Anti-Fighter Laser Cannons [R: 12, TH: 3+, 3/1/1, Anti-Fighter] and in the Fighter Phase there are six squadrons of Evil Empire bomber flights. The Good Hope wins initiative and engages four of the squadrons, who are at 7 hexes, with two weapons each, needing only a 3 or higher to hit.

Increased DMG(TH)

SU Modifier: x2.3

Effects:

A weapon with this modifier has increased damage potential. But rather than relying on the PEN roll, the amount of damage inflicted depends on the accuracy of the shot.

Example: A Vree saucer fires its AM cannons at an enemy. The TH roll needs to be 4 or more, and the roll comes up a 6. The shot hits, and the damage is doubled--if the PEN dice penetrate...

What do you think?

  • Registered: 2006-08-21
  • Posts: 24

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

Hi to everyone (being my first post this line is obligatory...  big_smile )

Recently I was thinking exactly on the same lines about stand off weapons and similar thing (,maybe beacuse I have just read Stars at war?).  But then I have noticed that these longer range weapons can be treated like drones, In effect the delay in targetting and the need to phisically move them are a way to show the close range limitations of these weapons (and the thing already exist).

About the other two proposed special attributes for weapons...

The Anti-Fighter one is good, but I will restrict its range. IMHO the increased effectiveness of such a system is acheived by fast response tracking and aiming system who will lose effectiveness at longer ranges.

THe increased damage option seems intrguing to me, but I don't see the rationale to associate hit to the TH roll instead of Pen; maybe an accurate weapon capable to actually exploit dead zones in shielding?

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

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

What is the specific rule for Increased Damage (TH)?

(Roll - To Hit) x DMG?  That's what I got from the example.

However, if you roll the exact to-hit, you'd get 0.  Your example had roll of 6 minus to-hit of 4, and you said result was double damage.  What happens if you roll 4?  Should the example have been triple damage?

You'd have to remember a result past the PEN roll.  And each die could be different.  That seems cumbersome to me.

andy

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

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Anti-Fighter

1) It attacks during the Fighter Phase of a turn

2) It ignores the -1 modifier to hit

One of the things I've tried to stick with while developing new stuff for Starmada is that each ability should do ONE thing...

Since the -1 can be countered by other equipment (EWS), I'd stick with the "attacks during the Fighter Phase", allow it to attack starships, and call it "Rapid Fire" or somesuch. This would require a x2 multiplier. If you want to reduce this to x1 (and make it pretty much only useful against fighters), give it a 1/2 ROF -- but that's separate from the ability.

Otherwise, I like it.

Increased DMG(TH)

A weapon with this modifier has increased damage potential. But rather than relying on the PEN roll, the amount of damage inflicted depends on the accuracy of the shot.

I think I like it... but it might be a bit fiddly. It's worth playing to see for sure.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

@andyskinner:

The Increased DMG and Increased PEN abilities (from which the Increased DMG(TH) is derived) says that 0 and 1, when rolling the appropriate dice (TH for Increased PEN, PEN roll for Increased DMG), are the same.

So, it would work like this:

TH+0 (i.e., right on the To-Hit roll): DMG x1
TH+1: DMG x1
TH+2: DMG x2

And so on.

@Arrigo: The Anti-Fighter ability shouldn't be negated. If you want such weapons to have a short range, then do so. If, however, you want the Anti-Fighter Laser Cannon to have an exceptional range, then do so. Starmada is all about flexibility, and I'd much rather have people decide to keep AF weapon ranges short as a house rule rather than make AF weapons short-ranged by default.

The Vree (in B5W) have such weapons. In the rules for AM weaponry, the damage potential of many weapons are determined by how accurate the shot was, thus giving the Vree the ability to cause severe damage with a fantastic TH result, but also giving them the ability to fall flat on their face and score minimal damage.

@cricket: The Anti-Fighter weapon as is wouldn't be able to attack ships. But I like the idea of Rapid Fire weapons which can attack enemy ships in the Fighter Phase.

With your idea, there would be two abilities. One, called Anti-Fighter, which allows a ship to use its weapons to attack enemy fighters ONLY (without the second ability I listed--I forgot totally about EWS). The second one, called Rapid Fire (or maybe Rapid Tracking?), would allow the weapon to attack enemy fighters and ships in the Fighter Phase, but possibly give a -1 to attacks on ships with such a weapon? Otherwise, such a weapon could rule the battlefield. Imagine a weapon with Rapid Fire, Ignores Shields and Increased DMG. This weapon, if multiple installations exist, could rip an enemy to shreds before it got the chance to return fire. The very 'problem' I have with fighters right now.

As I've said above, it wouldn't. After all, we all roll for Variable ROF/PEN/DMG before the declaration of fire, don't we? It's just a simple matter to note how much damage such a shot could have. If you get a bit confused, simply note how many dice get x1 DMG, how many get x2 DMG, etc, on the same bit of scrap paper.

Now, I'd better start reading other threads before my time runs ou--

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

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

I like the anti-fighter ideas.... but I would make them anti-fighter only. Range doesn't matter as much, but if you take anti-fighter, then the weapon is strictly there to shoot at fighters during their phase of the turn.

Basically, the weapon is either an extremely low calibre, or very light energy level, and isn't up to blasting it's way through capital ship hulls.  If you go with that, then the other weapon mods become moot..... Fighters don't have shields, so ignores shields would be a waste of SU's.

That's a lot of what I envisioned in some of the other threads where this has come up.

John

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Stand-Off Weapons

True, but I think you missed something with my example (assuming you're replying to me). I was talking about a Rapid-Fire weapon which can harm ships, which is why I suggested an additional -1 modifier for it to hit.