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 → Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability
If only the large expansion I wrote for Starmada (including things like Inverded range based DMG and the like) were publishable... 
Am I misreading the math? At 3.0, three vanilla guns should be equivalent in terms of firepower at optimal range (for the inverted weapon), and they'll cost more in terms of CR (because they're three weapon hits instead of one). To keep the CR the same, you have to accept lower firepower...right?
Rich
But CR is based on the mass of the weapons as derived in the ORat. So 3 x Vanilla weapons is equal in ORat (and CR) to 1 x Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon when the SU mod is 3.0. The vanilla weapons will be equal at the long range band and then totally more powerful as the range drops so why would anyone ever mount the Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapons?
The big concern with the Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF is if they have the ability to keep the range open. This would require a high speed and favorable arcs, both of which will quickly drive up the SU needed and the CR of the mounting vessel.
I completed my tenth game last night between two fleets, one equipped with Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapons and one equipped with plain vanilla weapons. Other than the weapons SU mods, the ships were identical. Each fleet had three ships.
The two designs were as follows:
Inverted Weapon Class Cruiser of the Conjectural Navy ( ? )
Mass: 90.7 KmT, Crew: 315, TL: E:0 W:0 D:0 Q:0
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 4 3 2 1
Defenses: K: 1 | E: 1 | B: 1
[α] Inverted Laser [6/12/18, 3+ 1/1/1, Energy, Inverted Range-Based DMG]
AB
Warp Drive [O]
1[Hα], 2[E], 3[H], 4[D], 5[H], 6[Q]
VBAM Stats
Cost: 7, Maint: 4/2, DV: 6, AS: 4, AF: 0, CR: 6, CC: 3, Base: 0, Spd: 5, Warp: Y, Notes:
Starmada Imperial Stars Edition v1.065
Vanilla Bean Class Cruiser of the Conjectural Navy ( 69 )
Mass: 90.7 KmT, Crew: 345, TL: E:0 W:0 D:0 Q:0
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 4 3 2 1
Defenses: K: 1 | E: 1 | B: 1
[α] Vanilla Laser [6/12/18, 3+ 1/1/1, Energy]
AB, AB, AB
Warp Drive [O]
1[Hα], 2[E], 3[H], 4[D], 5[H], 6[Q]
VBAM Stats
Cost: 7, Maint: 4/2, DV: 6, AS: 4, AF: 0, CR: 6, CC: 3, Base: 0, Spd: 5, Warp: Y, Notes:
Starmada Imperial Stars Edition v1.065
The Vanilla Bean cruisers won eight of the ten battles. During one battle, the Vanilla Bean cruisers were afflicted by horrible die rolling and in one battle they were just plain out maneuvered (congrats to Rob). They had equivalent firepower at long range, 50% more firepower at medium and three times the firepower at short range. To top it off they were marginally more survivable, needing more hits to kill due to their multiple weapons. This leads me to believe that an SU Mod of 3.0 is too high for the Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapons. I agree that 2.1 is too low but I haven't played enough with that SU mod to tell for sure. After these battles, my gut is saying the appropriate mod is around 2.4 ish.
I love it...the Conjectural Space Navy. They only THINK they exist. *insane chuckles* 
I love it...the Conjectural Space Navy. They only THINK they exist. *insane chuckles*
Wouldn't it be Schrodinger's Navy?
go0gleplex wrote:I love it...the Conjectural Space Navy. They only THINK they exist. *insane chuckles*
Wouldn't it be Schrodinger's Navy?
No, if they were Schrodinger's Navy, then no one could PROVE they exist...but only infer it from the results.
And half of the time they'd win battles, the other half they'd lose. 
I completed my tenth game last night between two fleets, one equipped with Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapons and one equipped with plain vanilla weapons. Other than the weapons SU mods, the ships were identical. Each fleet had three ships.
The two designs were as follows:
Inverted Weapon Class Cruiser of the Conjectural Navy ( ? )
Mass: 90.7 KmT, Crew: 315, TL: E:0 W:0 D:0 Q:0
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 4 3 2 1
Defenses: K: 1 | E: 1 | B: 1
[α] Inverted Laser [6/12/18, 3+ 1/1/1, Energy, Inverted Range-Based DMG]
AB
Warp Drive [O]
1[Hα], 2[E], 3[H], 4[D], 5[H], 6[Q]VBAM Stats
Cost: 7, Maint: 4/2, DV: 6, AS: 4, AF: 0, CR: 6, CC: 3, Base: 0, Spd: 5, Warp: Y, Notes:
Starmada Imperial Stars Edition v1.065Vanilla Bean Class Cruiser of the Conjectural Navy ( 69 )
Mass: 90.7 KmT, Crew: 345, TL: E:0 W:0 D:0 Q:0
Hull: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 5 4 3 2 1
Defenses: K: 1 | E: 1 | B: 1
[α] Vanilla Laser [6/12/18, 3+ 1/1/1, Energy]
AB, AB, AB
Warp Drive [O]
1[Hα], 2[E], 3[H], 4[D], 5[H], 6[Q]VBAM Stats
Cost: 7, Maint: 4/2, DV: 6, AS: 4, AF: 0, CR: 6, CC: 3, Base: 0, Spd: 5, Warp: Y, Notes:
Starmada Imperial Stars Edition v1.065The Vanilla Bean cruisers won eight of the ten battles. During one battle, the Vanilla Bean cruisers were afflicted by horrible die rolling and in one battle they were just plain out maneuvered (congrats to Rob). They had equivalent firepower at long range, 50% more firepower at medium and three times the firepower at short range. To top it off they were marginally more survivable, needing more hits to kill due to their multiple weapons. This leads me to believe that an SU Mod of 3.0 is too high for the Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapons. I agree that 2.1 is too low but I haven't played enough with that SU mod to tell for sure. After these battles, my gut is saying the appropriate mod is around 2.4 ish.
Interesting. What were the tactics employed by the two fleets? I assume the Vanillas were trying to close while the Inverts were backing away at two hexes/turn? Have you tried the obvious variation where the Invert ship design mounts the gun to the rear 120 arc rather than frontally? It's all about closing rates in this fight.
Rich
Interesting. What were the tactics employed by the two fleets? I assume the Vanillas were trying to close while the Inverts were backing away at two hexes/turn? Have you tried the obvious variation where the Invert ship design mounts the gun to the rear 120 arc rather than frontally? It's all about closing rates in this fight.
Rich
In the examples above, I ran the vanilla ships five times and my opponent ran the inverted ships. Then we switched for another five games. Eight of the games the inverted ships tried to back up to keep the vanilla ships at long range. As the ships all had 5 engines, the inverted ships could only back up 2 hexes a turn (maybe we should try speed 6?, that will drop the closure rate to 2 hexes per turn), so the vanilla ships closed by 3 hexes each turn. Maneuver to range 19, close to 16 the next turn then 13 and then you are at medium the next turn, taking only two turns of his nasty x3 shooting at long range. Don't forget that with a SU mod of x3, you are doing just as much damage to him.
If we get the time (it took us two weeks to play ten games) we'll try it with the inverted ships firing through arcs EF so they can fly straight away and keep the vanilla ships in arc. I can still see a way to force medium range though. Using pre-plotted movement, your opponent never knows if you are going to follow him or just sit there. If he plots to back up and get you in range, he doesn't know if that's when you plotted to close. Or, you can split your forces and maneuver to either side, while staying out of range (the stern chase is a long chase). Normally, your opponent would then turn to try and crush you in detail, one ship at a time, but with EF arc weapons he loses the ability to close and kill anyone. I think it would be a long battle but again, it shouldn't be too hard to close into medium range.
In the examples above, I ran the vanilla ships five times and my opponent ran the inverted ships. Then we switched for another five games. Eight of the games the inverted ships tried to back up to keep the vanilla ships at long range. As the ships all had 5 engines, the inverted ships could only back up 2 hexes a turn (maybe we should try speed 6?, that will drop the closure rate to 2 hexes per turn), so the vanilla ships closed by 3 hexes each turn. Maneuver to range 19, close to 16 the next turn then 13 and then you are at medium the next turn, taking only two turns of his nasty x3 shooting at long range. Don't forget that with a SU mod of x3, you are doing just as much damage to him.
True. Changing engines to 6 won't affect the closure rate, though. Both sides will be moving an extra hex, remember.
If we get the time (it took us two weeks to play ten games) we'll try it with the inverted ships firing through arcs EF so they can fly straight away and keep the vanilla ships in arc. I can still see a way to force medium range though. Using pre-plotted movement, your opponent never knows if you are going to follow him or just sit there. If he plots to back up and get you in range, he doesn't know if that's when you plotted to close. Or, you can split your forces and maneuver to either side, while staying out of range (the stern chase is a long chase). Normally, your opponent would then turn to try and crush you in detail, one ship at a time, but with EF arc weapons he loses the ability to close and kill anyone. I think it would be a long battle but again, it shouldn't be too hard to close into medium range.
I think you're overestimating the ease of closing on an EF arc ship. He'll always sprint away at full speed if you're in range at the start of the turn, and if you don't close, the next turn he'll shift into park, since the net result will be no range closure. If you don't close, it's not really hurting him, and it's not helping you. Of course if the vanilla fleet has spinal mounts (and therefore a range advantage) that will change the dynamic a lot...
Trying to flank might be possible, but if he's careful about it, he can avoid one part of your fleet while still intermitently getting shots on the other. This is where having an even-numbered movement is more important, since it slightly increases his ability to attack in reverse when needed.
As you said, likely to be a long and possibly frustrating game, at least assuming a floating map...and what space game belongs on a fixed map, outside of tournament SFB?
I'll agree that 3.0 is probably still too high a mod, but 2.4 might be a nudge too low for a ship built specifically to hold the range open...especially if you allow rear arc spinals as well.
Probably a x2.7 would be more reasonable then.
My friends and I have been discussing this, and we've found a couple of ideas that might work.
One, no floating table.... if he goes off the edge of the board, then he is fleeing the battle, and forfeits victory points to the other fleet.
Two, run away from him... since his most effective weapons are rear facing.... he has to point his back end at you to do anything..... That turns his ships into slow moving units that you can use spinal mounts to injure. The other option is to come after you, and then his weapons aren't being brought to bear.....
Three, I have several "flanking frigates" that are fast with a heavy range 18 weapon on each side.... Fire Arcs are ACE and BDF for the two weapons. I can use them to close, or aim them to the rear as I run at full speed... when flanking a fleet, I can always bring at least one of them to bear..... If he wants to chase me, he gets his own medicine, and if I need to close, he still has to deal with the weapons.
Over in the Bourbaki Basin, someone made a weapon that has the fire arcs CD ... at first, I was trying to figure out how a weapon could only fire left or right... but I finally figured it out.... they are torpedoes that fire broadside only... the launch holes are on the sides of the ship, while the loaders and operaterors are in the center.... and where the enemy is they can fire. Use this same idea and work your way around the sides of his fleet.... especially if he uses figurines... as it is really hard to stack figs in the same hex, you force him to move his ships in and around each other, which messes with his movement. Especially if the torpedo ships are really fast... You might be able to skim through his arcs.
Four, use drones... lots of drones.
Five, fighters....
Six, battle satellites.
We haven't had time to sit down and actually work with these ideas.... but we are working on ways to counter the problem. I don't want to start messing with the modifiers to the weapons, as that leads to other un-balances with the system.
John
My friends and I have been discussing this, and we've found a couple of ideas that might work.
There are lots of ways to counter ships built to play keep-away, the tactic isn't unbeatable by any means. But it is a sensible ship design for ships that are trying to maximize the utility of Inverted weapons, and you should always playtest with the most "broken" combos possible. Test to destruction, you know.
One, no floating table.... if he goes off the edge of the board, then he is fleeing the battle, and forfeits victory points to the other fleet.
I still maintain that, barring some kind of special scenario rule (like an "arena" fight, or a vital fixed objective nearby) fixed tables are simply ludicrous in a spaceship combat game.
Over in the Bourbaki Basin, someone made a weapon that has the fire arcs CD ... at first, I was trying to figure out how a weapon could only fire left or right...
If you're not specifically using the "roll ships" option to allow you to flip your port and starboard arcs, *any* broadside weapon could be reasonably mounted as a C+D arc. The ship would simply spin on its main axis to bring weapons to bear in that case. You could even use that trick selectively alongside the "roll ship" rule, with small ships having C+D arc broadsides and larger ones mounting guns that are only C or D, representing their inability to roll as swiftly as a smaller craft. Handy for Honor Harrington-style settings.
Rich
Over in the Bourbaki Basin, someone made a weapon that has the fire arcs CD ... at first, I was trying to figure out how a weapon could only fire left or right...
Believe it or not, there is historical precedent for this.
I believe both the Ise and Fuso class Japanese battleships had a pair of turrets amidship (between the forward and aft superstructure) that that fired port and starboard only.
Kevin
Believe it or not, there is historical precedent for this.
I believe both the Ise and Fuso class Japanese battleships had a pair of turrets amidship (between the forward and aft superstructure) that that fired port and starboard only.
Kevin
That also used to be a British practice, too.
A lot of the 'post-ironclad' era steamers had setups with Turrets in the middle that couldn't fire fore or aft. I seem to recall some Kaiser-era German ships like this...
you can design the ships to fire CD because...er...erm...because
you can design the ships to fire CD because...er...erm...because
Because it has historical precedent?
:wink:
Kevin
jimbeau wrote:you can design the ships to fire CD because...er...erm...because
Because it has historical precedent?
:wink:
Kevin
..because the ship in question is manueverable enough to rotate the guns so as to bring them to bear.
..because the guns are mounted on turrets in the middle of the ship, between superstructures fore and aft.
A lot of the 'post-ironclad' era steamers had setups with Turrets in the middle that couldn't fire fore or aft. I seem to recall some Kaiser-era German ships like this...
Yeah, I know the ones you mean. They had 6 11-inch guns and were the first real post-Ironclad pre-dreadnought battleships the Germans/Prussians had. Im tempted to say Kaiser Freidrich was perhaps one of the class, but I'll know for sure when I get home.
As to the whole Inverted range-based ROF/PEN/DMG issue, I agree that weapons such as that should be allowed...but maybe make them into a piece of special equipment, like a spinal mount. I've never really heard or read of any weapon in SF that has a weapon getting more powerful as it goes along (I've sometimes thought of something like flinging a reactor thats meant to go critical, so the longer its in space the more damage it is going to cause), and I'd reckon any such weapon would be so large it would need to be mounted along the axis of a ship.
As to the whole Inverted range-based ROF/PEN/DMG issue, I agree that weapons such as that should be allowed...but maybe make them into a piece of special equipment, like a spinal mount. I've never really heard or read of any weapon in SF that has a weapon getting more powerful as it goes along (I've sometimes thought of something like flinging a reactor thats meant to go critical, so the longer its in space the more damage it is going to cause), and I'd reckon any such weapon would be so large it would need to be mounted along the axis of a ship.
I can only think of one off the top of my head. Renegade Legion:Interceptor had some sort of weapon that did more damage at range than close in (the PSB behind it had far more B than most weapons, iirc). It wasn't, however, a huge weapon - it was carried by fighters.
Yeah, well...:P
I've never really heard or read of any weapon in SF that has a weapon getting more powerful as it goes along (I've sometimes thought of something like flinging a reactor thats meant to go critical, so the longer its in space the more damage it is going to cause), and I'd reckon any such weapon would be so large it would need to be mounted along the axis of a ship.
It's not at all difficult to justify Inverted DAM, any continuously-accelerating kinetic-kill weapon should become more lethal the farther it travels.
Inverted RoF is a little trickier, but a "shotgun" style weapon might deserve it as a trait (possibly along with standard Range-Based Damage, so you'd hit more often at long range but each hit would be weaker).
Inverted PEN could be a weapon that adapts to the target's defenses, becoming more effective as its travel (and adaptation) time increases.
No need for them to be large, really. At least no larger than a 2.4-2.7 multiplier will make them...
Rich
I still maintain that, barring some kind of special scenario rule (like an "arena" fight, or a vital fixed objective nearby) fixed tables are simply ludicrous in a spaceship combat game.
I had a horrible, horrible experience in a PBEM game of Babylon 5 Wars where a fixed map was used. My ships, who had been sniped at the whole game, had closed on the enemy and were two hexes away from them... but they were one hex off the map at that point, so they magically disengaged and were unable to be shot. Cheap, very cheap.
After that experience, I would never, ever play a game on a fixed map again. I also refused to ever play with that player again, because it was obvious that he was gaming the system to his own advantage (something that is all too common in the gamer community).
Luckily, for most of my in-person games, I have a big enough gaming space so that floating a map is rarely a problem. When it is, we just take note of how many hexes off map the ship is and then float as we can or else note how many turns it will be before the ship can return to the map (if the ship was not being pursued).
As to the Inverted weapon-equipped ship problems, there are several solutions to the problem, and in a campaign environment the advantage would be quickly nullified by a combination of those solutions.
-Tyrel
Don't get me wrong... I can't stand the fixed map.... I learned that the hard way during a Battletech game where one of my opponents put his back to the edge of the board. I told the ref that I was going to flank from both sides and take him down... and the ref's remark was "if you go off the edge of the board, you are considered to have surrendered......" which effectively allowed this mech to use an imaginary line in the middle of a grassy plain as cover.
However, at the same time, this particular ship design is nothing but the same thing... It is designed to use the turn based nature of the game, and the fact that they can continue to just fly away to give them the advantage. In a "true space battle" (or at least a cinematically imagined one), I could have my faster ships race ahead on fast burn to the flanks, and gradually herd the enemy back towards my heavier ships.... and with their rear aimed weaponry, I could stay our of range, until I could close with their flanks..... However, this would rely on a large playing area, and a goodly number of turns to implement. I've had a lot of games where we spend turns trying to jocky for position, and then had to end the game because we ran out of time.
Also, the one player that we have that is most likely to use this combo also is most likely to decide "oh, look, I've gotta get home" if his tactic is not working..... hence the trying to lock him onto a fixed board.
I am just leary of trying to adjust specific costs of stuff within the system, as this starts a pattern of variant rulings that makes it hard to just have a game with other groups of friends....(do you use this optional rule?)
I've already had someone in my group want to increase the cost of the spinal mounts on smaller craft, "to reflect the range advantage that it gives them versus standard weapons on an equivelent sized hull", and yet, he uses a hull 12 ship with a spinal mount as a "fast destroyer" while complaining that the "cost is too high for large ships when the weapon is stuck in a fixed mount" "Your little gunboats can fit 2 or 3 spinal mounts, but my destroyers can only have one." He feels that because I can fit up to 4 - 6 spinal mounts on a small ship (no shields, just engines, spinal mounts, and maybe....PDS), that we should have 4 - 6 spinal mounts on a hull 20 ship.
The only other option that I and my group could come up with is holding the game to the strict definition of terminology. Yes, you have inverted range modifiers, but it actually doesn't change the range bands.... you have a -1 at short range, and a +1 at long range, but the range titles are the same. Which means that it's easier to hit at long range, but more damaging closer in........ I'm not sure that this is acceptable, with the definition for this thread, but it is again, an option.
John
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Inverted Range-Based DMG/PEN/ROF weapon ability
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.