What? I had to wait a few months for free publicity?

Shame on you!

Seriously, no apologies necessary, and thanks for the review -- although Mr. Voysey nees to think about upping the grade. 7.8 out of 10, indeed...

It would appear that "crap" is the only word in the word-censor list...

You are correct. I had left the x2 out initially because it's a constant.

No need for apology -- I confuse myself quite often.

In a perfect world, I would allow the choice of how many armor points are selected. But, in response to Steven's question ("How would I determine the amount of armor on an existing design with armor plating?") I suggested a flat percentage of the hull size.

Never mind. Steven was right.

And so was I, at least before I forgot.

The modifier for Armor Plating in the rulebook is in fact x1.5 (why didn't someone point this out before I got all queasy?)

I don't know where you're getting the "12 extra hull hits" -- armor plating only saves hull on a 1/3 chance, so the average is 8 extra hits.

Either way, you have it correct. The cost will not be EXACTLY the same, but close enough.

And NO, you cannot take it twice.

This might be WAAY too much.

Consider that a ship with armor plating now can effectively get 33% of its hull size in "armor boxes" for a flat 5%. At the same time, I don't think ships should be able to get more armor than their base hull size. So...

SU cost should be:

(Armor/Hull)^2

Expressed as a percentage of total SUs.

For example a hull 12 ship with 5 armor points would require:

(5/12)^2 = 17.4%

In theory, yes.

The reason the "cost" for fighters varies with the strength of their carrier is that you only get victory points when you kill the carrier. Having a flat cost at the back end would not work, because it takes more effort to kill a carrier with 3 shields than one with 2 shields, for example.

If a flat cost for fighters is desired, then we'd have to grant VPs when the fighters are destroyed -- which is, incidentally, how it was handled in pre-X versions of Starmada.

Well, as a starting point...

The current CR formula (with its built-in assumption that you are losing firepower equally as the ship loses hull) is

Square root of (HITS INFLICTED PER TURN times HITS TO KILL)

You can assume that, over the life of the ship, the average firepower is three-quarters starting firepower (since, on average, a ship has lost half its firepower at the time it is destroyed). Sooo... the firepower during the time when ablative armor is being lost is the average firepower divided by 3/4. Thus, the formula just for the time while the ship is losing armor is

(HITS INFLICTED PER TURN divided by 3/4 times ABLATIVE HITS)

Because it's all multiplication, the "divided by 3/4" can be shifted to the number of ablative hits. As ablative hits are lost twice as quickly as hull hits, you must subsequently divide by 2, for a final relationship of:

ABLATIVE HIT = HULL HIT x 4/3 x 1/2 = HULL HIT x 2/3

So, the base defensive value becomes:

((ARMOR x 2/3) + HULL) x SHIELD FACTOR

Sorry. Since the first of the year, spambot registrations have skyrocketed, and it's difficult for me to weed out the real people. Your account has been activated.

Perhaps not, but this is a necessary consequence of treating fighters as an integral part of their carrier. I suppose we could split them out, as in earlier versions of Starmada.

A fair point. I could take a look at costing fighters as a collection of 6 parts, rather than a single whole.

I wouldn't specifically DISallow them... but I do think that way leads to madness.

A good idea, but the cost might need to be somewhat higher since, as damage is being absorbed by the armor, systems are not being affected -- whereas system damage is taken as hull points are lost.

Again, you need to consider the square root effect. Also, range is not a prime factor in the equation -- it is added to the range of the "weapons", which in the case of boarding pods is 1. Thus, the formula should be:

40 / (0.33)^.5 x (0.5)^.5 x ((12+1)/(10+1))^.5 x (1.8 )^.5 = 71.8, rounded to 72.