• Registered: 2008-01-20
  • Posts: 10

Topic: AE Questions

Why would I ever take ROF = 2 on one weapon versus two weapons at ROF = 1? Shouldn't ROF be priced slightly lower? (Where cost = SU usage)

Why is IMP pricier than DMG? The expected value of increasing either is the same; DMG does have a higher std deviation.

Why are ships smaller in AE? (Not a big deal, but hurts conversions, or seems to.)

What happened to "Ignores Shields"?

Apologies if these are answered in an old thread...



PS: This is my umpteenth forum name - perhaps I can avoid losing this password...

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

Re: AE Questions

Naevius wrote:

Why would I ever take ROF = 2 on one weapon versus two weapons at ROF = 1? Shouldn't ROF be priced slightly lower? (Where cost = SU usage)

Why is IMP pricier than DMG? The expected value of increasing either is the same; DMG does have a higher std deviation.

I don't follow your argument -- if you think IMP and DMG should be the same, then so should ROF... all things being equal, a 1/1/3, 1/3/1, and 3/1/1 weapon have the same expected damage potential.

However...

ROF is the most expensive because it's the only factor the has any impact on fighter flights.

IMP is more expensive than DMG because it gives you more chance of scoring SOME damage, rather than the "all or nothing" aspect of DMG. While over time, this averages out, in a typical game, it's usually better to be scoring some damage consistently.

Why are ships smaller in AE? (Not a big deal, but hurts conversions, or seems to.)

It's the latest example of my ever-increasing quest to keep hull sizes down... smile

What happened to "Ignores Shields"?

I wasn't really happy with how it led to rock-paper-scissors effects -- i.e. "Ignores Shields" prevents shields from having an effect, but "Ionic Shielding" prevents "Ignores Shields" from having an effect.

Having said that, something tells me you'll see "Ignores Shields" make a comeback Real Soon Now. smile

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2008-01-20
  • Posts: 10

Re: AE Questions

Thanks for the answers. The questions on ROF vs IMP/DMG were independent...I just wondered why ROF isn't cheaper than having more weapons (which can cover more targets, after all.)

I agree the standard deviation of high DMG is greater than that of high IMP despite them having the same expected value. The couple of games I've played so far haven't been enough to show it making much difference...:)

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

Re: AE Questions

Naevius wrote:

Thanks for the answers. The questions on ROF vs IMP/DMG were independent...I just wondered why ROF isn't cheaper than having more weapons (which can cover more targets, after all.)

Oh, I get the question now. Sorry.

Honestly, you probably have a point -- Ken Burnside and I were going back and forth about this earlier in the month. While there's probably a reason to allow a discount for higher ROF weapons, I'm not sure what it would be; and I'm reluctant to do so considering how badly broken the "banked weapon" concept was back in the Compendium days (essentially, you got a cost break for grouping weapons into "banks" that had to fire at the same target. The same as increasing ROF in Admiralty...)

I'll give it some more thought.

I agree the standard deviation of high DMG is greater than that of high IMP despite them having the same expected value. The couple of games I've played so far haven't been enough to show it making much difference...:)

No, it doesn't make much difference -- but neither is it much of a difference in the point costing.

A range 12, accuracy 4+, 1/5/1 weapon would have a base SU requirement of 12 x 1 x 5.25 x 1.6 / 4 = 25.2, while for a 1/1/5 weapon it would be 21. That's a difference of less than 10% in final point cost.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2006-01-17
  • Posts: 740

Re: AE Questions

Hello from Florida,

Please don't bring back "Ignores Shields" along with Ionic shields; which then leeds to ignores ionic shields... and then un-ignorable ionic shields and...(?)etc<LOL>.
:idea: Instead, as a compromise, possibly "Halves shields" could be brought in.  I find that using piercing on all my heavy weapons is good enough for me, but if some really need it, return "Halves shields".  However since there is no PDS that ignored Half Shields, this ability should cost more than it did in the StarmadaX game.   
If Halves Shields is brought in, I strongly reccomend that there be no "Semi-ionic Shields" that block or counter halves shields.  This could again go from zero to very messy.  :shock:

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

  • Registered: 2005-03-31
  • Posts: 54

Re: AE Questions

I second Beowulf on this : I really, really liked the disappearance of "half-shields" and "ignores shields" in SAE but IF you bring back those then PLEASE no "Ionic" gizmos!

  • Indy
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2006-03-03
  • Posts: 17

Re: AE Questions

cricket wrote:

Oh, I get the question now. Sorry.

Honestly, you probably have a point -- Ken Burnside and I were going back and forth about this earlier in the month. While there's probably a reason to allow a discount for higher ROF weapons, I'm not sure what it would be; and I'm reluctant to do so considering how badly broken the "banked weapon" concept was back in the Compendium days (essentially, you got a cost break for grouping weapons into "banks" that had to fire at the same target. The same as increasing ROF in Admiralty...)

I've also noticed in converting the CN stuff that the factions that use the big ROF turrets are going to lose their ships weaponry faster that the factions that don't.  We are not to the point where where we've tested this out to see if it is really an issue at all, but just something I noticed in the flurry of creating the new stats.

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

Re: AE Questions

Indy wrote:

I've also noticed in converting the CN stuff that the factions that use the big ROF turrets are going to lose their ships weaponry faster that the factions that don't.  We are not to the point where where we've tested this out to see if it is really an issue at all, but just something I noticed in the flurry of creating the new stats.

Actually, that's not the case.

If you crunch the numbers, you'll find that the average battery will lose slightly more than 2/3 of its weapons by the time the ship has been destroyed.

For example... consider the Arcturan Daitenshi (Archangel):

It has 14 hull points, meaning that 28 hits are necessary to destroy it (as 50% of hits become hull damage). Of those 28 hits, 1/3 (or 9.33) will result in weapons damage. Of those 9.33 weapon hits, which are subsequently re-rolled on the weapon damage track, you'll end up with:

3.11 X battery hits (78% of the total)
1.56 Y battery hits (78% of the total)
9.33 Z battery hits (72% of the total)

For the Imperial Indomitable class, the results are:

4 X battery hits (80% of the total)
9.33 Y battery hits (72% of the total)

For the S'ssk Diamondback:

1.78 X battery hits (89% of the total)
9.78 Y battery hits (70% of the total)

It is true that batteries with smaller numbers of weapons will lose proportionally more weapons, that's due to rounding error, and it's not much of a difference.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website