-nods-  Evasive as a quasi-defense against Increased Pen, since increased Pen is dependant on the to-hit roll.  Makes sense.

I'll be honest... alot of times when I look at the force correlations for my own pet navy (Ive got like.. 5 or 6 designed, but one that is my baby), the solution so often seems to be 'and then we hit the Erratic Manuvers...'

For the record.. I envy you the amount of SMX you seem to get to play.

-thinks-  Can anyone think of times where there was actual synergy and an appropriate return on investment in separating your fleet?  Even with explosions cutting down the 'stack it all' tendancy, I cant think of any time in my games that I've (widely) separated elements on a battle map to advantage. (barring instances where on element was vulnerable carriers that had launched and were running, or that like).

Something like the cloaked point-blank ship of doom, influencing your foes manuver because of where it MIGHT be?  Or separation to allow one element to close on the tail-pipes of a clumsy, narrow arc fleet (and, of course, sacrificing the other element to said clumsy fleets guns)

Well, this may be a function of weapon ranges in Starmada -- there have occasionally been questions about whether longer-ranged weapons should be weighted more in the points value.

But... quoting from Hughes, "The tactical maxim of all naval battles is Attack effectively first." By virtue of having nothing else with which to compare, starship combat games have (almost) exclusively been analogous to naval warfare -- and as Tim Swenson pointed out in an essay published in the Compendium, Hughes' principles can be applied to great effect in Starmada.

Theoretically, there should be no reason to split your force. Practically, this is easier said than done -- at the very least, battle damage will require some dispersion. At the same time, you certainly don't want to allow your entire fleet to become immobile, as then you allow the enemy to take the initiative.

So, I've always felt it was important to have enough separation to allow me to dictate the timing and location of the first blow -- but grouped enough to prevent being destroyed in detail by the enemy.

Very nice initial posting. Thanks for starting this discussion.

Recently, in a small group that I discuss Starmada issues with, a topic of similar theme came up. The basic question boiled down to this: does Starmada offer the sorts of give-and-take choices to the player -- in the game phase , not in the design phase -- that make for interesting battles?

The answer is many-faceted, and likely to be arguable no matter where you land. But, in my humble opinion as a great fan of this game, the answer to this question is not as many as it should.

The number of choices made by the commander -- in the game phase -- is limited to "where do I move?" and "whom do I shoot?" And this is about it. So lets look at these one at a time:

(1) Where do I move? The problem with a game like Starmada in this particular choice is that, given the formulae used to design the ships in the first place, the definition of a "quick" ship in Starmada is about 5 or 6 hexes of movement once you get into the ships of hull 5+. Below hull 5, you have some more speed that can come into play. But the bulk of your firepower is wrapped up in ships that are moving slowly enough that accurate predicitons of movement are highly likely.

(2) Whom do I shoot? The problem with a game like Starmada in this particular choice is that, give the fact that the game (by default) allows all weapons a firing rate of at least one shot per turn, at no time are you trying to decide if firing this turn is a good idea. If an enemy is in range -- fire! Always. Never hold back. Never wait for a better shot, because if the better shot comes, you can shoot him again.

So, I have to say (again, stressing that this is despite my love of the game) the number of potential tactical choices that can be made (under the default conditions of Starmada) is drastically limited. This is exacerbated by the certain additional design philosophies that are built into the game:

(3) Universal Defenses: When I have shields in the game, I have universal, omni-directional shields that come down at a uniform rate. In other words, not via design nor via battle damage will I ever have a weak side of the ship that needs to be protected above and beyond the others. Granted, there is the screens rule; but (in my humble opinion, and in my experience), screens are among the more abusable rules in Starmada. Set up 12 screens (at the cost of 3 shields) and you effectively have shield 4/4/4 on the front three zones; move up to screens 16 (at the cost of 4 shields) and you have 5/5/5 on the front zones with a screen to spare... if shields were designated and fixed in given directions (ie: I had 6 different shield ratings that protected and were damaged independently) then things might be different. I might have a weak shield that causes me to have to maneuver to keep the stronger remaining shields at the enemy.

(4) Forward Arcs: The game treats any and all arcs as equal. And this is demonstratably not true. Consider: in the formulae for the OCV of a weapon, the range of the weapon and the engine rating are combined, as a method of incorporating the additional range a good movement score will grant a weapon. But this is most effective for the AB arcs, less effective for the CD arcs, and have relatively little impact on the EF arcs (if at all). Combine this with the low movement rates discussed above, and you have the core reason so many home-brew ships have every single weapon in the AB arc.

(5) Simplicity: Dan has created an amazing game that is simple, and as advertized, is not simplistic. However, simplicity and depth are at odds with one another in game design. One can go too far and become too simple (how many people continue playing candyland after the age of 8? How many tactics manuals could be written for that game?); just as one can become too deep (Star Fleet Battles has a compiled, complete rulebook that is over 500 pages with options for its options; The initial investment in time to learn the game can be tremendous.). However, if anything, the gaming world has proven that it can strike a balance between simplicity and depth without becoming too complex. For example: Chess.

In Chess, you have 6 different pieces that have 6 unique sets of simple rules that define them. You have a fixed playing field (8x8 checkerboard pattern). You have a fixed starting condition (piece locations). You have two basic mechanics in the game (move, capture). You have one basic restriction rule applied (blocking). And you have a handfull of "advanced topics" -- pawn initial movement and en passant; king-rook castling; pawn promotion.

From these simple rules -- which take up no more space to write than the current Starmada X rules (minus the design rules!) and yet this is a game that has a depth that has taken centuries to explore. And some people claim today, it has not been fully explored, even today.

So what conclusions can be drawn?

Starmada is a good game. Starmada has the potential to become a great game if Dan wants to make it one. But he has to be willing to push the envelope a bit, and see how far the basic framework will let him go.

And from what I have read, and from the conversations I have had with Dan... I think he is not only willing... he is ready.

One point I'd like to make before getting into specifics -- and you reference this as well, in saying "a game like Starmada" -- is that these are issues that face ALL miniatures wargames, with few exceptions.

True. One potential fix with little (if any) potential to break the game would be to change the formula for engine size to (SU/100)^1.3*2 instead of *3.

We're getting into areas where the "game vs. simulation" debate will rear its head. Obviously, we're not simulating anything with Starmada other than preconceived notions about what space combat should be like -- but as has been mentioned already, there is a close parallel with naval combat. And there it depends upon what era of wet-navy you're talking about -- WW1 and WW2 battlefleet clashes don't need to worry about ammo. Modern navies do, but that's because ships are nothing more than missile and aircraft platforms. Starmada (at its default) is clearly more aligned with the former than the latter.

An optional rule that ranks the shield rating of each "hex side" separately would be easy to implement.

Aside from giving the different firing arcs varying costs, I can't see how to avoid this. For example:

A/B = 3
C/D = 2
E/F = 1

Thus, a weapon that fires into the AB arc would cost three times as much as an EF weapon, and 20% more than an AC or BD weapon.

One glaring problem with the analogy -- Chess is devoid of the chance/luck factor. In addition, players are limited to moving one piece at a time. So, the decision points is the same as in Starmada (where to move and whom to "attack"); it's just that your resource (time expressed in "moves") is finite.

Starmada, as a pseudo-simulation, really needs to allow all ships to move each turn. Even "command points" as in For the Masses would not work -- ships just don't sit and do nothing without orders.

Thinking about this further, I think what you're arguing for are "resources" of some kind -- for example, in SFB there's "power"; in Battletech, there's "heat"; in Jovian Chronicles/Heavy Gear, there's "actions".

I can see adding one or more of these as options -- but I hope you're not suggesting that the basic framework of Starmada should be changed?

Hold your tongue! Starmada is a great game -- but it can be greater...

This is true. And I would like to say that, generally speaking, in the games where more choices are offered (or where the choices involved in the two listed become more critical), the game tends to benefit from it.

This would be a step in the right direction, in my opinion. But I would need to see how it impacted things -- and you would need a lot more than just my word, I am sure.

This is odd, in that I did not see this as a "gamist vs. simulationist" debate would get involved. But you are right. I was looking at this from a "force the player to make choices that have an impact on more than just this turn" aspect. Currently, when I fire a weapon, my opportunity cost is that I cannot fire that weapon at a different target this turn. I feel that more opportunity cost needs to be built into the game -- and a simple "weapons cannot fire in successive turns" option would provide the additional opportunity cost in that it is unavailable to fire at any target next turn as well. Simulationists can call this a cool down, or a realoading period... it really doesn't matter much in my eyes. Then, in games like this -- I am a gamist at heart.

Yes. Yes it would.

I am not sure how to fix this, to be honest. Right now, we rate the number of arcs a weapon fires into and use this to calculate the SU and OCV. The current rule is good for SU; but the ruling would need to impact OCV differently than it does SU. Which is a violation of some of the concepts that go into Starmada... so I am not sure it would be worth doing, in the end.

True. This was not meant to be an exhaustive comparison. Just that from simplicity can be born a great deal of depth if care and thought go into design of the game itself.

I am certainly not suggesting a "sit and do nothing command points" concept. I am suggesting that things be modified to make maneuver more important in the game. Make it possible to seriously out-maneuver the opponent. Right now, the ability to do this is somewhat lacking (in my opinion).

Yes. Back when I first approached you with the idea of doing a Mecha-like game based on the Starmada X engine, I told you that (in my opinion), something was needed. Some sort of expendable resource, or "thing" that was tracked that caused you to have to make choices that, absent that "thing" would be obvious. I pointed out that "Heat" in Batteltech was that thing -- and that one simple mechanic adds a lot -- in fact, a tremendous amount -- to the tactical considerations of the game. Far more times than I can count have I designe d amech that was deficient in the number of heat-sinks it needed to operate efficiently...

The basic framework? No. The basic framework needs to remain as simple and "vanilla" as it can be without removing all tactical consideration. But the options that define a setting or a particular game need to create problems and tactical considerations that are otherwise absent from the core game.

At the same time, the options need to be designed in such a way that any number of ships from any number of universes can be played against one another in a reasonable fashion without creating trouble.

For example, it is obvious that the universe that has the USS ENTERPRISE and the universe that has the SUPER-STAR DESTROYER is not the same universe. I am sure that the rules that define the ships in questions will be different. But they should not be incompatable. I should be able to fly my ENTERPRISE and battle my SUPER-STAR DESTROYER without too much trouble.

Sure. I can buy that. After all, I have paid for and purchased seven copies of Starmada (from the two copies of the COMPENDIUM to BRIGADE to the X rulebook...) I think I like this game enough to say it is GREAT with room for improvement... </r>

I think we have to leave arc costs where they are.

AB arcs favour ship designs that want to close with the enemy.  Most ship designs, for better or worse, do.  Mid to short range guns.

CD arcs favour ships that like holding the range constant, or at least diminishing the rate of closure.  Ive built some ships like this.

EF arcs favour ships that want to open up the range, or at least deny the foe the ability to close the range.

Now, if were saying we think the game would be a more interesting game if arcs mattered more?  I agree.

But how to get there?

Thought:  Make ships less nimble.  Not slower.. less nimble.  Its realtively easy to build a ship (6 thrust) that can pull a 180 in a single turn.  If ships were a bit more clumsy at the helm, then there would be a greater risk of ending up with enemies outside of your AB arcs and closing fast... raising the need for off-arc weapons.

Just as long as we dont let it degenerate into 'giant space fighter dogfights', Im golden.

EDIT:  Rate of Fire Thought
One idea to 'reign in' the lower cost of ROF, and add more decision points at the same time...

Assume that the generic, ROF1 weapon fires once every three turns.
ROF 2 weapons may fire twice within those three turns...
and an ROF3, every turn.

As damage now is always better than damage later, this would somewhat pay for the cost break ROF 3 guns get...

My only concern with vector style movement, or any movement method that allows ships to cover more than their MP in hexes per turn, comes from my time playing Full Thrust.

In Full Thrust, its VERY easy to fly VERY fast (in either of their movement systems).  By very fast I mean 'close from outside of effective engagement range to point blank in a single move'

Now, granted, in the 'very simple' system, you couldnt move very fast and turn at the same time.. unless your willing to go slooowww...

What does the very simple system do about the tendancy to build 2 arc AB ships, around move 3, that just quite literally sit and spin?  We dont really have 'you must move or die' seeking weapons in SMX, so the penalty involved in being very slow is somewhat limited.  Sure, you might face foes that will attempt to dictate the range.. but your a low-speed hull, meaning you can probably outgun most foes at most rangebands.

This has some cross-fertilization problems with the 'variable shield arc values' and the 'power allocation' discussions.  Even SFB ultimately sometimes has trouble, outside a seeking weapons paradigm, getting ships to spend power to move...

One of the things I most love about SMX is the fact that anyone attempting to make like Nelson at Trafalger HAS to accept significant incoming fire as their price for closing to point blank.  You just cant (in SMX, normally) get from 'out of range' to 'point blank (or even worse, overshooting)' very easily.

This feels more like 'big ships with big guns', which is what I like about it.

Wouldn't it be the same?
And maybe even moreso?
Kevin

I have uploaded the relevant pages from the Compendium:

www.mj12games.com/tactics.pdf

If Vector is what gets us there, I can live with it.

Maybe some sort of upper speed limit, and a fairly strict one... I'm just trying to avoid the 'out of range' to 'point blank range' jump...

And thanks for the upload.  The article was a good distilliation of Huges, applied to the space context.

KD:  I could live with quasi-vector in that format.  And I do like breaking up ROF to give interesting shoot/no shoot decisions.