Topic: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

Since the last designer's notes mini-article didn't generate nearly as much discussion as the first, I assume it's safe to move forward with the third installment: Defenses and Damage.

In previous editions of Starmada, the requirement has been that all ship defenses conform to the same "shield saves" mechanic. In other words, whether the in-universe explanation for a ship's defensive capabilities was "shields", "armor", "interceptors", or what-have-you, all operated in the same way. (This discounts special equipment like "armor plating", "point defense systems" and the like; although many ships used such traits, their primary defensive system was still "Shields".)

With this new edition -- not least because of the shift to an attack-dice centered combat system -- it is now possible for ship designers to select from three different forms of defense, each of which operates in a different way:

1) Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) make it more difficult for the enemy to hit the ship -- defending the ship by avoiding damage in the first place.

2) Shields make it more difficult for enemy weapons fire to impact the ship's hull -- defending the ship by deflecting damage as it occurs.

3) Armor makes it more difficult for enemy attacks to kill the ship -- defending the ship by absorbing more damage than its hull could otherwise survive.

Players are, as always, encouraged to focus more on the effect than the description -- for example, in a setting where ships deflect incoming weapons fire through use of "interceptors" rather than "energy shields", the shield mechanic can be renamed as appropriate.

These different systems can be used to give individual fleets a different "feel" from one another. Alternatively, they can be combined on a single ship: thus, it is possible to have a cruiser of 12 hull points with ECM 1, Shields 5+, and Armor 5. In starship construction, the different defenses are balanced with each other depending upon their contribution to the relative survivability of the ship. For example, ECM 2 is the same as Shields 4+ is the same as Armor = Hull, and all three options would affect construction in the same way. The same goes for combined/overlapping defenses: our sample cruiser with ECM 1, Shields 5+, Armor 5 would have (roughly) the same point cost as if it had ECM 3, Shields 3+, or Armor 22.

Of course, once defenses have been overcome, our attention shifts to the effects of weapons fire. In previous editions, there has always been a damage roll required. In early editions, it was as simple as "1-3 = Hull, 4-5 = Weapon, 6 = Shields". In SAE, it was significantly more complicated. With this new edition, we're taking a step back towards simplicity...

For each point of damage inflicted, one hull box is checked off the target's ship display. That's it. No die roll is required. However, once a ship has been reduced to 2/3 of its starting hull boxes (and again at 1/3), a "damage check" is conducted to determine the effects of that accumulated damage.

To accomplish this, each ship's Thrust, ECM, and Shield values are expressed as a sequence of five numbers. For example, "THRUST 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1". The first number is the ship's starting value: the subsequent numbers are 70%, 50%, 35%, and 25% of the starting value, rounded off.

When conducting a damage check, one die is rolled for each system:

1-2 = Check off two values
3-5 = Check off one value
6 = No effect

For example, a ship might have the following on its ship display:

THRUST  4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1
ECM     2 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1
SHIELDS 4 - 5 - 5 - 6 - 6

When conducting a damage check, the player rolls a 5 for thrust, a 2 for ECM, and a 6 for Shields. As a result, its ship display now looks like this:

THRUST  X - 3 - 2 - 1 - 1
ECM     X - X - 1 - 1 - 1
SHIELDS 4 - 5 - 5 - 6 - 6

For weapons damage, two options are provided. The first is more abstract, and works in the same way as Thrust/ECM/Shields damage:

1-2 = -2 weapons fire penalty
3-5 = -1 weapons fire penalty
6 = No effect

The second is more consistent with previous editions of the game. Roll one die for each weapon bank:

1 = Destroyed
2-3 = Damaged (-2 penalty)
4-6 = No effect

A second "damaged" result means the bank is destroyed. The nifty thing is that, because each option has the same average results (a loss of 33% effectiveness), you and your opponent could use different methods and the game would still be balanced...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

cricket wrote:

Since the last designer's notes mini-article didn't generate nearly as much discussion as the first

Maybe because the first articles were neat! Great pieces of work!

In previous editions of Starmada, the requirement has been that all ship defenses conform to the same "shield saves" mechanic.

Funny to see that 'simpler' can mean 'more detailed'!

1) Electronic Countermeasures (ECM) make it more difficult for the enemy to hit the ship -- defending the ship by avoiding damage in the first place.

It already existed under the for of countermeasures, but at least, here, it seems you can modulate that.

3) Armor makes it more difficult for enemy attacks to kill the ship -- defending the ship by absorbing more damage than its hull could otherwise survive.

I suppose it is considered ablative?

Of course, once defenses have been overcome, our attention shifts to the effects of weapons fire. In previous editions, there has always been a damage roll required. In early editions, it was as simple as "1-3 = Hull, 4-5 = Weapon, 6 = Shields". In SAE, it was significantly more complicated

Not much. After all, a simple glance at the damage dice and you can easily determine damage.

However, once a ship has been reduced to 2/3 of its starting hull boxes (and again at 1/3), a "damage check" is conducted to determine the effects of that accumulated damage.

Will there be rules to destroy 'special equipments' (fighters, fire control, etc.)?

The second is more consistent with previous editions of the game. Roll one die for each weapon bank:

1 = Destroyed
2-3 = Damaged (-2 penalty)
4-6 = No effect

At first sight, I don't much like this option. Suppose a SFU heavy cruiser with 4 torpedoes grouped as one bank. With bad luck (for the cruiser), a single DR would mean all the weapons of that banks destroyed. You can lose your major weapon with an otherwise almost intact ship. Otherwise, I like that you offer the choice.

Marc

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

madpax wrote:

I suppose [armor] is considered ablative?

Yes.

cricket wrote:

In SAE, it was significantly more complicated

Not much. After all, a simple glance at the damage dice and you can easily determine damage.

Perhaps when just considering the damage location roll itself. But factor in the need for individualized damage tracks and a separate die roll for weapon hits, and I think it's fair to say that SAE was more complicated than its predecessors in this regard.

Will there be rules to destroy 'special equipments' (fighters, fire control, etc.)?

Yes.

You can lose your major weapon with an otherwise almost intact ship. Otherwise, I like that you offer the choice.

Remember that checks are completed only after 1/3 of the starting hull boxes are lost. So, at worst, you have a 1-in-6 chance of losing your entire heavy weapons bank at the 33% damage point. YMMV, but I think that's reasonable.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

cricket wrote:

In SAE, it was significantly more complicated

Not much. After all, a simple glance at the damage dice and you can easily determine damage.

Perhaps when just considering the damage location roll itself. But factor in the need for individualized damage tracks and a separate die roll for weapon hits, and I think it's fair to say that SAE was more complicated than its predecessors in this regard.

At least, it seems SAE is more long to play this routine than SNE (is this the name of the new edition ie New Edition?  big_smile )

Will there be rules to destroy 'special equipments' (fighters, fire control, etc.)?

Yes.

Great!

Remember that checks are completed only after 1/3 of the starting hull boxes are lost. So, at worst, you have a 1-in-6 chance of losing your entire heavy weapons bank at the 33% damage point. YMMV, but I think that's reasonable.

Yes, but you can be very unlucky this way. On the other hand, no need to compute cumulative negative modifiers.

Marc

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

Obviously I want to play it to see for sure but at first glance I think I like the

1 = Destroyed
2-3 = Damaged (-2 penalty)
4-6 = No effect

weapon damage version better...it just feels slightly less abstract. It occurs to me that with this method of weapon damage resolution it should be more difficult to "de-fang" large ships that mount only a few weapons relative to their hull size as you actually have to do damage to the ship to get to the weapons. More than once I saw big ships built around big guns lose them to a "lucky" hit, rendering the ship combat ineffective quite quickly.
Erik

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

We've been playtesting exclusively with what I'll call the "standard" damage reduction, which is where a ship potentially suffers anywhere from no effect to a minus two modifier on each of the four systems.
And it works great. There's minimal tracking, and it's four quick d6 rolls at 1/3 and 2/3 damage.

By not using the damaged/destroyed method, if a ship has any numnber of dice at all for a given weapons bank, even two threshhold checks going poorly would still allow that bank to a minimal attack roll each turn.
Kevin

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

underling wrote:

By not using the damaged/destroyed method, if a ship has any numnber of dice at all for a given weapons bank, even two threshhold checks going poorly would still allow that bank to a minimal attack roll each turn.
Kevin

I can see that. It would certainly seem to keep a ship fighting longer.
Another thought for Cricket, will there be optional rules for Damage Control? That way, I could fix my damage or "degraded" weapon bank.
Erik

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

Comments apply to the 23-Nov-11 review copy that I have...

As an SFU player, I very much prefer the new ablative "shields" (actually armour in game terms) the ships have. Works more like the base games. The opponent knocks down a shield and damages your ship a bit, but then you maneuver and turn a fresh shield... So it feels very like how it works in SFB/FC, even if far more abstract.

And it's not faceted any more either, which was a fiddly bit when controlling large numbers of ships. Yes, there is a chance that an unlucky die roll will knock out your ship's main armament. However, if you're running a reasonable number of ships (3 or more), it's not going to be a real problem, because an unlucky damage roll on a single ship will have less effect.*

The copies of the Fed CA and Klingon D7 ship sheets that I have (the revised kind with the illustrations on them) lack weapons damage check boxes.

I don't know if you're rolling less dice. You're rolling a bucket of dice once per attack, rather than one-third of a bucket three times. It's still faster.

*I prefer the simple method of just apply degradation to all ship's weapons myself.

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

Blacklancer99 wrote:

Another thought for Cricket, will there be optional rules for Damage Control? That way, I could fix my damage or "degraded" weapon bank.

Yes.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

I like this level of damage control.  Easy to apply and the effects are significant but not overwhelming. 

-Tim

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

Call me fiddly... but I like tracking individual systems damage. Oh well.

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

KDLadage wrote:

Call me fiddly... but I like tracking individual systems damage. Oh well.

FWIW, you are still tracking the same systems damage as before (e.g. losses to engines and shield rating); it's just that those losses are deferred to the "breakpoints" rather than being determined for each individual hit.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

I think I will like the new system.
Although the S AE one is more accurate as not only you track damage for each weapon, you also track damage to engine and shield in a more precise way.
But that means a lot of dice roll. I like rolling bucket of dice, but note necessarily rolling many successive buckets just to determine one effect.

Two questions though, somewhat related:

Will there be the 'no hull damage trait'?

Will there be provision for crippling ships?
I'd like to have a particular level of damage meaning the ship is crippled and, for example, counting as half points for victory purpose. Now, how are those question related? Well, in SAE, you could design weapons able to mop up ships without destroying them. But then, they didn't count destroyed nor crippled, as this notion didn't exist.

Marc

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

madpax wrote:

Although the S AE one is more accurate as not only you track damage for each weapon, you also track damage to engine and shield in a more precise way.

This is probably true, although I would argue the difference in outcomes between SAE and the new edition are minimal at best.

Will there be the 'no hull damage trait'?

Probably.

Will there be provision for crippling ships?

Yes.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

It will be interesting to see how you pull off "no hull damage", since, from what you've shown, the only way to damage systems is to first damage the hull and force a threshold check.

My design thought would be to have a suite of weapons that don't do hull damage, but instead force threshold checks on one or more of the systems with each successful "hit".  Not sure how that would work with "armour", but it should interact with shields and ECM the same way.  It would of course be quite an expensive weapon - instead of less expensive.  I could see also breaking it down so that it only forced threshold check on one particular system.

-Tim

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

You could 'circle' hull and armor points, instead of damaging them normally. This way, hull and armor points are not eliminated, ie the ship is still 'undamaged', but you still check damage for 2/3 and 1/3 threshold, and the ship becomes 'dead' (may no more maneuver nor fire nor launch fighters...) it the circle damage reach the last hull point.
Those circled hull points can still be damaged normally. And they must be damaged normally from no-non hull damage weapons.

Not sure I made myself understood...

Marc

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

Marauder wrote:

It will be interesting to see how you pull off "no hull damage", since, from what you've shown, the only way to damage systems is to first damage the hull and force a threshold check.

My initial thought was to mark off "hits" for the purpose of triggering a threshold check -- however, "real" damage would overlap that caused by no-hull-damage weapons.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

This seems to be more or less what I thought.  big_smile

Marc

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

cricket wrote:
Marauder wrote:

It will be interesting to see how you pull off "no hull damage", since, from what you've shown, the only way to damage systems is to first damage the hull and force a threshold check.

My initial thought was to mark off "hits" for the purpose of triggering a threshold check -- however, "real" damage would overlap that caused by no-hull-damage weapons.

That would make it a bit useless to mix regular and no-hull damage weapons on the same ship then.

In Full Thrust they have EMP weapons  which force checks on systems outside of the regular threshold check.  That seems to work.

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

Marauder wrote:

That would make it a bit useless to mix regular and no-hull damage weapons on the same ship then.

Not exactly... the worst you can do with the proposed "no-hull" trait is reduce a ship's capabilities by 50%. Once all of the target's hull boxes have been "hit", you can do nothing more, while your opponent is (on average) zipping around with 2/3 of his engines, defenses, and weapons.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

cricket wrote:
Marauder wrote:

It will be interesting to see how you pull off "no hull damage", since, from what you've shown, the only way to damage systems is to first damage the hull and force a threshold check.

My initial thought was to mark off "hits" for the purpose of triggering a threshold check -- however, "real" damage would overlap that caused by no-hull-damage weapons.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding the concept here.

The NAF Salt Lake City (CA) has 12 hull boxes, so they're grouped in three groups of four.
It takes four boxes of "no hull damage," which then forces a systems check.
Let's just say that every system is reduced by a minus one.
Now it gets hits with four boxes of "real" damage, which then forces another systems check (but it's still just at 1/3 overall damage?).
Let's just say that every system is again reduced by a minus one.
So now all systems are at a minus two.

Are you saying that it would then be possible for it to undergo two more systems checks, if it suffers a combination of both "no hull" and "real" damage?

OR...

Are you saying that "no hull" and "real" damage are added together to force systems checks?
If this is so, then no hull damage would be very similar to marines.
Not quite, but very similar.
Kevin

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

In my own view (and thus absolutely not official), I would say that NHD may generate more damage checks if combined with normal weapons. For example, suppose a hull 12 ships is first damaged by a NHD and suffers 4 'NHD' damage points. It is still intact in regards of its hull but have to check damage. Then it suffers 4 regular damage points and thus checks again damage. If its hull is totally 'destroyed' by NHD, that ships becomes a hollow hull, unable to maneuver, fire or anything else and just drift.
It is then ripe for boarding and capture...

Marc

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

The weapons that have the Weapon Ability "No Hull Damage could be used by pirates/privateers to render a ship helpless, but intact, ripe for plundering.  Since using such a weapon and weapons that cause hull damage together can strip strip a ship of weapons, etc without destroying it, I think that this Weapon Ability should Not make a weapon less expensive.  Perhaps it should increase the cost of the weapon. 
In the Space-combat game Starfire, Force Beams hit everything and were regular blast-to-damage/destroy weapons.  Energy beams skipped hull, crew quarters and armor, similiar to No-Hull-Damage weapons.  Yet these energy beams cost 40% more...

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

BeowulfJB wrote:

The weapons that have the Weapon Ability "No Hull Damage could be used by pirates/privateers to render a ship helpless, but intact, ripe for plundering.  Since using such a weapon and weapons that cause hull damage together can strip strip a ship of weapons, etc without destroying it, I think that this Weapon Ability should Not make a weapon less expensive.  Perhaps it should increase the cost of the weapon. 
In the Space-combat game Starfire, Force Beams hit everything and were regular blast-to-damage/destroy weapons.  Energy beams skipped hull, crew quarters and armor, similiar to No-Hull-Damage weapons.  Yet these energy beams cost 40% more...

Agreed in that I have felt that No Hull Damage is at the very least "under-pointed" in SAE. One of the most "destructive" combinations in terms of rendering a ship utterly helpless in SAE was No Hull Damage and Continuing Damage. In Starfire, the often interchangeable partner to Force Beams were Primary Beams. Primary Beams would probably be No Hull Damage & Ignores Shields in SAE terms (in Starfire they essentially ignored the various layers of physical defenses), so without doing any kind of math, the two traits together might help balance them out in relation to Force Beams in purely SU terms. They would also probably be less "accurate" as IIRC there was a lower chance (than a Force Beam damage) that the tiny beam would actually damage anything vital. It seems to me that in most instances where the weapon is based on fluff/narrative, the NHD system has some off-setting flaws or weaknesses. As designers of Starmada weapons systems, none of us really feel the need for such constraints  smile

I think there is a place for a No Hull Damage trait, as that type of weapon appears over and over again in Sci-Fi (which ALWAYS serves as my base-line for what should be in Starmada  wink ) shows, movies, literature, and other games (none of which I would ever actually play, but often provide good conversion fodder).
Cheers,
Erik

Re: Designer's Notes: Defenses & Damage

I agree that there should be a place for "No Hull Damage" in the new edition (Starmada Task Force Edition). 
:idea: But this N-H-D weapon ability should Add some to the cost of the weapon, not subtract from its cost because it can cause double-threshold checks if used skillfully with other weapons...