Seems to me that we're going a bit too far...
I don't know if it is the passion for the game (OT: i like this forum a lot! Passionate players and game designers that discuss about everything! a dream!) or somewhat i have said.... but i don't want that Daniel (Cricket? do you like more to use nicknames or real names?) changes Starmada!
If the game is like it is it have some good reasons for sure.
All what i'm searching for is to find a way that fills my
needs, and asking for a bit of help doing things (the probability math) that are a out from my formal school and knowledge.
If i can find a way to roll only one time to solve the attacks, and if that way is liked by more players, that's even better. But really, i can't ask to change a well tested game like Starmada.
Said this, some replies:
You all could play with smaller ships with fewer weapons.
We have Silent Death for this. What we was searching for was a game with huge ships and Starmada is one of the answers, and maybe the best.
The whole Silent Death map fit just a Starmada hex. We like this change, and we want that insane amount of cannons for each battery
jimbeau wrote:Finally, you may be coming off of a history of old-school, chart-based gaming (nothing wrong with that) and thus some of Starmada may seem alien to you....
Not really. We have abandoned old "chart-based" games from many years. We are a group of 20-30 players, so we play dungeon-crawl games, RPGs, skirmish games and so on with the same frequency... the "hard-core" players plays Axis and Allies every time, now superseeded by The War of the Ring). As i've said, we have not so much time to play (3 hours at max) so we have ceased to play some long games (i really miss Car Wars...sigh).
But the long games we still plays must have "short turns": Game of Thrones, Silent Death and many others all falls in the category of long games, but allows fast rounds.
Come over to my house and we'll play and I can show you how I do it at the conventions.
I'd like this.... where you live?
cricket wrote:The table is derived by combining the chance to hit and the chance of penetrating the shields. For example, to-hit 3+ yields a 67% probability, and shields 5 yields a 17% probability, for an overall 11% chance of causing damage. This is roughly 1 in 6, so on the table if you cross reference to-hit 3+ with shields 5, you get 6+.
Thanks, that's what i've asked for.....
cricket wrote:Further, it doesn't account for the fact that a 3/1 weapon will act differently than a 1/3.
....and this is what i'm trying to figure out, playing with excel and a lot of math that i don't handle so well.
Have you any table, graph, formula or a Rosetta stone that can show this difference?
Thanks to all for the tips and the whole discussion. Have i said that i like this forum?