• Registered: 2006-01-22
  • Posts: 38

Re: Questions about Starmada

Heck, I thought everyone played like this.

It's just like a horror movie with some wacko or other nasty. Simply put if all you did was knock him/it out and then left him/it alone and ran off or are being consoled by the hero, sure enough he'll wake back up and you'll be off and running again.

I have a simple rule and it goes like this "Never leave'em living."

  Same thing applies to starship battles. If all you do is wound 3-4 ships that still leaves 3-4 ships around next turn to pound you. If on the other hand you flat out kill one ship, that only leaves 2-3 to shoot at you next turn (Granted they are undamaged, but hey, their time is coming) and the ship you did kill isn't going to limp off the battlefield and get repaired. Nor is it going to have much in the way of a seasoned crew left over to recrew it for its revenge voyage against you (if you play with veteren crews).
Roy

  • Registered: 2005-03-30
  • Posts: 272

Re: Questions about Starmada

Ironvein wrote:

It's just like a horror movie with some wacko or other nasty. Simply put if all you did was knock him/it out and then left him/it alone and ran off or are being consoled by the hero, sure enough he'll wake back up and you'll be off and running again.

Which is why you should always take the opportunity to relieve any apparently-defunct psycho-killer of his feet (preferably with a chainsaw or axe, but a hacksaw will do in a pinch) and bring them with you when you leave the scene.  Chopping off heads or hands instead may seem like a good idea, but Sleepy Hollow and all those stories about that guy with the hook indicate that the psycho can still cause problems with those appendages missing.  Take his feet, though, and what's he going to do?  Chase you on his stumps?  "Look out, it's the Jason "Pegs" Vorhees!  We'd better walk away at a moderate pace or he'll kill us all!"  "Oh no, he's found a wheelchair!  We're doomed if he finds a way across those speed bumps, over that curb, and up this flight of stairs!"

Plus the feet are good evidence for the inevitable disbelieving authority figures.  "I tell you, the guy tried to kill us with an axe!"  "You got any proof?"  "Just these size 13 shoes with the zombie feet still in them..."  At the very least they'll go take a look for the guy you chopped them off of.

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Questions about Starmada

chuckle. I can see a host of legless zombies now. chuckle

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

Re: Questions about Starmada

hundvig wrote:

Which is why you should always take the opportunity to relieve any apparently-defunct psycho-killer of his feet (preferably with a chainsaw or axe, but a hacksaw will do in a pinch)

Good zombie/psycho killer tip, thanks hundvig.

Seriously speaking, a crippled ship is one that is still firing at you next turn.  Overkill is sometimes a 'bad' thing, but leaving a bunch of crippled small sized ships with guns is 'bad' too...

-B

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Questions about Starmada

I didn't want to start a new thread and this one looked general enough so.. Would it be possible to design a ship with the SU as the starting point as opposed to the number of hull? In other words, if I want a 1,000 SU ship, why cannot I design it as such from the keel up rather than use a HS 7 (1,120 SU) and design down? I mean all of the formulas will easily support the design of a 1,000 SU ship, the only sticking point is how many hull boxes will it have? Round up or down?

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

Re: Questions about Starmada

japridemor wrote:

In other words, if I want a 1,000 SU ship, why cannot I design it as such from the keel up rather than use a HS 7 (1,120 SU) and design down? I mean all of the formulas will easily support the design of a 1,000 SU ship, the only sticking point is how many hull boxes will it have? Round up or down?

I think I understand the question -- but I'm not sure I understand the need... :?:

You could in theory set a number of SUs and then "reverse engineer" the number of hull points. Since SUs = HULL * 10 * (HULL + 9), then...

S = 10H^2 + 90H
S/10 = H^2 + 9H
S/10 + 4.5^2 = H^2 + 9H + 4.5^2
S/10 + 20.25 = (H + 4.5)^2*
(S/10 + 20.25)^0.5 = H + 4.5
H = (S/10 + 20.25)^0.5 - 4.5

A rather cumbersome equation, but it gives the right answers...

500 SUs = ~4 Hull (3.88 )
1000 SUs = ~6 Hull (6.47)
1500 SUs = ~9 Hull (8.55)
2000 SUs = ~10 Hull (10.34)
2500 SUs = ~12 Hull (11.94)

The rounding is really irrelevant, since the number of hull points is a prime factor in the Combat Rating -- so if you round up, but I round down, and Jim rounds to the nearest integer, we'll still have balanced ships because the point costs will be appropriate to our chosen method.

*The magic of the binomial equation! smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Questions about Starmada

cricket wrote:

I think I understand the question -- but I'm not sure I understand the need... :?:

Well, in our campaign construction time is based on ship size as measured by SU. A ship designed to specific SU sizes can be more efficient ( and cram in a little more stuff ) than one designed to an arbitrary size based off of HS and then left empty to fit the SU requirement. For instance say a race can build a 1,000 SU ship in a certain amount of time but a 1,001 SU ship will take another month to finish. The race really wants a 1,000 SU ship. Currently they take a size 7 ship ( 1,120 SU ) and only fill in as close to 1,000 SU as possible without going over. Unfortunately, all of the equipment that is based off of a percentage of the ship's size is based off of the 1,120 SU and therefore eats a little more than would be so if the ship could base it off of the desired 1,000 SU. So take this design:

Test Bed Class Cruiser of the Rectally Exacting Navy   ( 115 )
Mass: 99.6 KmT, Crew: 258, TL:   E:0  W:0  S:0  Q:0
Hull: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Engines: 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Shields:  2 1
Ablative Armor:  0
[α] Missile [4/8/12, 3+ 1/1/2, Increased DMG]
AB
[β] Laser [3/6/9, 4+ 2/1/1]
ABC, ABD
Hyperdrive [O], Anti-Fighter Batteries [O], Electronic Countermeasures [O]
1[HS], 2[EQ], 3[Hα], 4[Eβ], 5[H], 6[E]

As you can see, this design has used 996 SU out of the 1,120 available for a HS 7 ship. Each engine required 69 SU, each shield 84 SU, the AFB 56 SU and the ECM another 56 SU. If the ship were designed from the get-go as a 1,000 SU ship, each engine would have required only 60 SU, each shield 79 SU, ECM and AFB 50 SU each for a total savings of around 94 SU. For 94 SU the design could double its laser armament or possibly shoe in another missile launcher. Yes its point value would be higher ( and that is as it should be ) but the race in question is more concerned with maximizing ComRat / SU.

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Questions about Starmada

New question. I have seen a couple of ship designs where the intent was to have Launch Bays facilitate the launching of additional Drones, Marines, Battlesats, etc. per turn. The Starmada Cheat Sheet on the Yahoo! forum plainly states as much also. However, in the rules, I only see Fighters specifically mentioned. Is is a legal function of the Launch Bay to increase the rate of launch for all fighter-type objects or is this a hold over from a previous edition? If so do they have to be specifically allocated to that. I.e a ship with tons of Fighter Bays and lots of Drones, does it have to decide each turn what type of system to facilitate with its Launch Bays, assuming it only has one or two?

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: Questions about Starmada

Rectally Exacting Navy?

so.... what sub were YOU on?

lol

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Questions about Starmada

thedugan wrote:

Rectally Exacting Navy? so.... what sub were YOU on? lol

Yea, that didn't come out quite right. And I am an eight year veteran of the Army, not the (gasp) Navy. First Gulf War. :evil:

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: Questions about Starmada

japridemor wrote:
thedugan wrote:

Rectally Exacting Navy? so.... what sub were YOU on? lol

Yea, that didn't come out quite right. And I am an eight year veteran of the Army, not the (gasp) Navy. First Gulf War. :evil:

Heh... Uss Omaha (SSN 692)  1980-1985....a coupla years of training before that, three years as an instructor after.

Cold War, not a shooting one.

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Questions about Starmada

thedugan wrote:

Cold War, not a shooting one.

Not exactly a hot war for me either. I was a SIGINT Analyst. We flew racetracks about 50 mi. south of Iraq the whole time and did DF on what was left of the Republican Guards. Played volleyball when we weren't flying missions. Real tough war. lol

  • Registered: 2022-11-15
  • Posts: 1,424

Re: Questions about Starmada

japridemor wrote:
thedugan wrote:

Cold War, not a shooting one.

Not exactly a hot war for me either. I was a SIGINT Analyst. We flew racetracks about 50 mi. south of Iraq the whole time and did DF on what was left of the Republican Guards. Played volleyball when we weren't flying missions. Real tough war. lol

I wasn't SIGINT, but subs do a lot of 'racetracks' at certain locations, doing similar stuff.

Going flank speed with the "pushing end" making little figure-eight oscillations while chasing the submarines of foreign powers was an 'interesting' experience, but one I could have done without. smile

Unfortunately, I spent a LOT of time keeping that thing running. A work week for a submariner back then (and likely still now) was on the order of 80-110 hours a week.

That's why I got out. I was told I had basically ZERO options other than an aircraft carrier, unless I wanted to get busted and screw up my 'record' and loose all my nuke quals - not that they did my any good later on.
:evil:

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: Questions about Starmada

japridemor wrote:

I have seen a couple of ship designs where the intent was to have Launch Bays facilitate the launching of additional Drones, Marines, Battlesats, etc. per turn. The Starmada Cheat Sheet on the Yahoo! forum plainly states as much also. However, in the rules, I only see Fighters specifically mentioned. Is is a legal function of the Launch Bay to increase the rate of launch for all fighter-type objects or is this a hold over from a previous edition? If so do they have to be specifically allocated to that. I.e a ship with tons of Fighter Bays and lots of Drones, does it have to decide each turn what type of system to facilitate with its Launch Bays, assuming it only has one or two?

Any decision on this one?

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

Re: Questions about Starmada

japridemor wrote:
japridemor wrote:

If so do they have to be specifically allocated to that. I.e a ship with tons of Fighter Bays and lots of Drones, does it have to decide each turn what type of system to facilitate with its Launch Bays, assuming it only has one or two?

Any decision on this one?

Well, the short answer would be, if the rules only say that launch bays work for fighters, then they don't work for drones, battle sats, etc.

The longer (and probably more acceptable) answer is that a more expansive view of launch bays won't unbalance the game, so why not?

As with all things Starmada, just as long as all players agree, you can do whatever you want. smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website