• Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Confused By Armour

mikeaxe wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

Ok, the way I look at it Armor is strengthened and reinforced Hull so if you add extra hull the result should be the same in gameplay terms. However, by calling it armor, it is a way to conceptualize the vessel better than if I simply add hull. Let me explain. If I have a 12 hull heavy destroyer with 2 boxes of armor in each section, it's an armored 12 hull ship. If I simply add six hull to the ship, it becomes, to me, an 18 hull ship with no armor, and therefore a totally different kind if ship. Oh, and because that 18 hull ship has lots more SUs, shouldn't I put more stuff in it? I think most people would be REAL hard pressed to have all that extra space and keep their hands off of it. Whoops, now the CR goes up.
So, to me it's all about conceptualization over simply construction. When I see the 18 hull ship all I can think of is all the empty space, which I just don't like. Anyway, that's my opinion before my first cup of coffee...it might change once I'm awake.
Cheers,
Erik

Erik,
I agree about how you (and I) might think about it but thats just 'fluff'. In game play and design there is no difference between armor/screens/whatever and some extra Jacuzzi/cinemas/holodecks for the crew! One of the joys of design within Starmada is the logic of the system. Trying to fit everything you want into a certain size hull/cost (CR) has some reflection of real naval design. But now in NOVA Armor is simply 'fluff' which I think is a pity.

As for an anti-armor campaign, BeowulfJB while house rules can fix the problem locally now is the time to raise the issue before Dan closes the dissuasion and starts printing.

I agree with you, and I think probably the pointing of Armor needs to be adjusted somehow, rather than the function. Also, I was thinking about the whole "we need an Ignores Armor trait" line of thinking. How about a trait that says something to the effect that on a successful attack, only the first point of damage/hit is "absorbed" by the Armor, with the remaining damage/hits going directly to Hull. Call it Penetrating? For  example a weapon with Penetrating scores 3 hits on a ship with 3 armor boxes in each section and 5 Hull, one box of Armor is ticked off and two hull. It would allow the armor to have some effect, and therefore not be useless, but it would allow it to be "bypassed" or mitigated like some other defenses. No idea how you would point that though.
Erik

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

Re: Confused By Armour

mikeaxe wrote:

Conclusion armor is pretty pointless in the game.

No more "pointless" than shields or ECM. Every argument being made about armor can be made about the other two defenses, as well.

Take the Indomitable BB, remove its shields, and increase its hull size by x2.4 (the equivalent multiplier for a shield rating of 3+). Your combat rating drops by 1 (from 361 to 360) and you have 3200 more SUs to fill.

But, now you have a 43-hull ship with no defenses, as opposed to an 18-hull ship with strong shields. <shrug>

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Confused By Armour

mikeaxe wrote:

Trying to fit everything you want into a certain size hull/cost (CR) has some reflection of real naval design. But now in NOVA Armor is simply 'fluff' which I think is a pity.

Okay -- maybe I'm just dense, but doesn't this statement contradict itself? Adding survivability to a certain hull size is what armor is all about... :?:

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Confused By Armour

Blacklancer99 wrote:

Ok, the way I look at it Armor is strengthened and reinforced Hull so if you add extra hull the result should be the same in gameplay terms. However, by calling it armor, it is a way to conceptualize the vessel better than if I simply add hull. Let me explain. If I have a 12 hull heavy destroyer with 2 boxes of armor in each section, it's an armored 12 hull ship. If I simply add six hull to the ship, it becomes, to me, an 18 hull ship with no armor, and therefore a totally different kind if ship.

^ This.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Confused By Armour

Blacklancer99 wrote:

I agree with you, and I think probably the pointing of Armor needs to be adjusted somehow, rather than the function. Also, I was thinking about the whole "we need an Ignores Armor trait" line of thinking. How about a trait that says something to the effect that on a successful attack, only the first point of damage/hit is "absorbed" by the Armor, with the remaining damage/hits going directly to Hull. Call it Penetrating? For  example a weapon with Penetrating scores 3 hits on a ship with 3 armor boxes in each section and 5 Hull, one box of Armor is ticked off and two hull. It would allow the armor to have some effect, and therefore not be useless, but it would allow it to be "bypassed" or mitigated like some other defenses. No idea how you would point that though.
Erik

My preference on this is to not have any kind of "Ignore Armor" trait.
I just don't think it's needed.
That being said, since it's being discussed, I thought I'd throw out the following, which is similar to what Erik has posted.

The ability could be called "Penetrating."
When damage is caused by penetrating weapons, damage alternates between armor and hull, starting with armor; i.e.the first box marked off is armor, the second box hull, the third box armor, and so on. When damage is caused by this weapon and the last hull of a section is eliminated, a systems check must be taken eventhough armor may remain in the section.

In effect, this allows half the armor (if my thought process is correct) to be bypassed by this weapon.

Kevin

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Confused By Armour

underling wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

I agree with you, and I think probably the pointing of Armor needs to be adjusted somehow, rather than the function. Also, I was thinking about the whole "we need an Ignores Armor trait" line of thinking. How about a trait that says something to the effect that on a successful attack, only the first point of damage/hit is "absorbed" by the Armor, with the remaining damage/hits going directly to Hull. Call it Penetrating? For  example a weapon with Penetrating scores 3 hits on a ship with 3 armor boxes in each section and 5 Hull, one box of Armor is ticked off and two hull. It would allow the armor to have some effect, and therefore not be useless, but it would allow it to be "bypassed" or mitigated like some other defenses. No idea how you would point that though.
Erik

My preference on this is to not have any kind of "Ignore Armor" trait.
I just don't think it's needed.
That being said, since it's being discussed, I thought I'd throw out the following, which is similar to what Erik has posted.

The ability could be called "Penetrating."
When damage is caused by penetrating weapons, damage alternates between armor and hull, starting with armor; i.e.the first box marked off is armor, the second box hull, the third box armor, and so on. When damage is caused by this weapon and the last hull of a section is eliminated, a systems check must be taken eventhough armor may remain in the section.

In effect, this allows half the armor (if my thought process is correct) to be bypassed by this weapon.

Kevin

I like your idea much better than my pitch. It seems like an excellent compromise between Armor having a purpose but having the ability to get past it to some degree.
Erik

  • Registered: 2012-04-08
  • Posts: 15

Re: Confused By Armour

Like I stated earlier there should be weapon systems that completely negate something you pay for. 

That said, something like what underlings posted could make sense, where hour armor still works, just not as well much like with piercing and shields.  The flip side is the same as piercing, should your opponent not have shields or armor that (perhaps expensive) attribute on your gun becomes useless.  This is why I don't bother with piercing, is rather bury you under weight and accuracy of my fire than use a attribute that is useless once your shields are gone. 

If all we are talking about is effiecancy, then weapon attributes that negate armor/shields/ECM become meaningless as you can just tack on more hull and get the same protection.  I keep reading meaningless a lot in this thread, but that's not the case.  It's all about how you want to make your ships.  If you want shields take them, armor? Go for it.  If you just wanna add more hull, sure that works too.  In the end it probably all going to balance out.

  • Registered: 2011-06-11
  • Posts: 110

Re: Confused By Armour

The point of armour/shields/ECM is to make the game more interesting.  Those with maths degrees might see the world in a simpler way but us mundanes like to see ships with different styles.  I like to think that one race with shields is different to a race with armour and the same with ECM, even if the numbers disagree.

For those who create ships competitively, you are never going to be 100% happy as it's impossible to catch every flaw.  Just create ships with hull and have done with it.  But for those who want to create interesting ships/nations/races, read on......

I think the "armour is pointless" gang (myself included) feels as though armour has been left behind in the rules.  Shields has piercing, ECM has EPM, Armour has.....nothing.  Neither does hull for that matter.

I think there should be an "penetrating" trait.  I also think there should be an "extra hull damage" trait.  Make these the same percentage damage increase as piercing.  It avoids total negation (which is bad) but gives options to reduce the effectiveness of each defence.

  • Registered: 2009-08-03
  • Posts: 245

Re: Confused By Armour

cricket wrote:
mikeaxe wrote:

Conclusion armor is pretty pointless in the game.

No more "pointless" than shields or ECM. Every argument being made about armor can be made about the other two defenses, as well.

Take the Indomitable BB, remove its shields, and increase its hull size by x2.4 (the equivalent multiplier for a shield rating of 3+). Your combat rating drops by 1 (from 361 to 360) and you have 3200 more SUs to fill.

But, now you have a 43-hull ship with no defenses, as opposed to an 18-hull ship with strong shields. <shrug>

I must respectfully disagree here.  While the expectation for number of hits survived with shields and ECM is identical to that of the same volume / DRAT of armor, they function in a different manner from hull.  ECM can be used to drive the number of incoming shots down to 0 at long ranges, thereby preventing 100% of damage under some circumstances.  Also has applications in ECCM, and can sometimes more-than-halve incoming fire for two points of defense score if the enemy has chosen particular BAS values for his weapons (ex: one weapon at 4.5 goes does 5 hits at -0, but only 2 at -2, for 40% effectiveness).  Granted, it can also sometimes less-than-halve, but this is a question of playing the fleet design metagame with knowledge of your opponent.  Likewise, if your dice like you, shields let you use that luck to beat expectation (we've all seen it...  plus, rolling saves is fun).  The trouble with armor, as I (and I think others) see it, is that it fails to distinguish itself mechanically from hull, while also being somewhat inferior to just buying more hull in the general case.

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

Re: Confused By Armour

Nomad wrote:

While the expectation for number of hits survived with shields and ECM is identical to that of the same volume / DRAT of armor, they function in a different manner from hull.

What you (and others) are identifying as a "bug", I see as a "feature". smile

* If you want a ship that has a 50/50 chance of deflecting each point of damage as it comes in, take shields 4+.

* If you want a ship that reduces all incoming firepower by 50%, take ECM 2.

* If you want a ship that has twice the survivability, add armor points equal to your hull size.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Confused By Armour

In fact, the question about armor is, to my sense, how much armor do you obtain for each point of hull:
- If one, then armor is 'pointless'.
- If more than one, then it is ok!

Now, I agree with the fact that you have systems to counter ECM and shield but nothing against armor (either to bypass it or to destroy more than one point of armor per damage), but if nothing is introduced for that, why not...

Marc

  • Registered: 2011-06-11
  • Posts: 110

Re: Confused By Armour

cricket wrote:

What you (and others) are identifying as a "bug", I see as a "feature". smile

* If you want a ship that has a 50/50 chance of deflecting each point of damage as it comes in, take shields 4+.

* If you want a ship that reduces all incoming firepower by 50%, take ECM 2.

* If you want a ship that has twice the survivability, add armor points equal to your hull size.

I'm ok with this in principle, but...

Shields 4+ gets reduced by piercing.
ECM can be reduced by scout or EPM.
Armour cannot be affected.
Also, why not just buy 2x Hull?

For both fluff and balance I think a penetrating trait would be good. 

If you had a weapon trait (or rule like for ECM) to slightly counter each defence then it would make sense that all the traits are basically the same.

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

Re: Confused By Armour

diddimus wrote:

Shields 4+ gets reduced by piercing.
ECM can be reduced by scout or EPM.
Armour cannot be affected.

Which is why the equivalent amount of armor costs more.

Also, why not just buy 2x Hull?

For reasons previously mentioned.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Confused By Armour

madpax wrote:

Now, I agree with the fact that you have systems to counter ECM and shield but nothing against armor (either to bypass it or to destroy more than one point of armor per damage), but if nothing is introduced for that, why not...
Marc

I'm not sure I'm following you here.
Granted, there currently aren't any abilities that by-pass armor.
But there are several abilities that do more than one hit:

Double Damage
Triple Damage
Catastrophic
Volatile

Granted, Volatile damage may or may not, but more than likely will.

Kevin

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Confused By Armour

underling wrote:
madpax wrote:

Now, I agree with the fact that you have systems to counter ECM and shield but nothing against armor (either to bypass it or to destroy more than one point of armor per damage), but if nothing is introduced for that, why not...
Marc

I'm not sure I'm following you here.
Granted, there currently aren't any abilities that by-pass armor.
But there are several abilities that do more than one hit:

Exactly. No ability to bypass armor. I'm still wondering how to simulate some weapons from the Starfire universe.
Will have to make compromises, though.

Marc

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

Re: Confused By Armour

If armor is marginally effective, make it much cheaper in terms of SU cost.

Or, leave the hull-based damage checks as they are, but front load all the armor first. (So that you have to chew through ALL the armor AND 1/3 of the hull before the 'damaged' check is made.) Then have armor-ignoring systems would make more sense.

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

Re: Confused By Armour

:idea: If we made an Ablative Armor that cost twices as much  & takes up twice the space Per Box as regular armor does now, then it could be required that all of this new Ablative Armor must be destroyed before any hull is damaged.  And delete the need for Marines to take over these Ablative Armor boxes.  Ships with lots of Ablative Armor and fewer hull boxes would then be vulnerable to Marines and could need to take defensive Marines.  The amount of this Ablative Armor installed on a ship could be limited to no more than half of the hull size.  A 12 hull ship could not have more than 6, etc.   0r no more A-Armor than hull is another option.
If this "Ablative Armor" (to reuse  term from a Starmada "X"experiement) were availiable as an option, it would make A-Armor similiar to what I experiemented with c5 years ago in the days of Starmada X.  This design is still in the B-Basin Starmada X section.
What does everyone else think about this?

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

Re: Confused By Armour

Naevius wrote:

If armor is marginally effective, make it much cheaper in terms of SU cost.

Armor is just as effective as the other two types of defense, and its SU/point costs are balanced accordingly. The "problem" is not that armor is "useless", but that it is, in the minds of some, "boring".

Or, leave the hull-based damage checks as they are, but front load all the armor first.

Two reasons why I disagree with this approach:

1) Even if armor is conceptualized as steel plates bolted to the exterior of the hull, it makes little sense to think that all of it needs to be blown away before any damage seeps through to the inner hull/systems.

2) This is a nightmare from a point-costing perspective. It also leads to situations where ships are fully operational, fully operational, fully operational, DEAD. This is no fun from a game play perspective.

Seriously, of all the changes/additions to the game, I really thought that armor would be the least controversial...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2010-11-15
  • Posts: 298

Re: Confused By Armour

I like armor the way it is now.  It is consistent with shields and ECM. Maybe a different kind of armor can be provided later in a supplement.

-Tim

  • Registered: 2011-08-12
  • Posts: 31

Re: Confused By Armour

Had a conversation with my armor lovin' friend.  He is against front loading armor but believes there should be a bias toward the front as to where armor would be placed in this new 3 section Nova edition.  We worked on a few formula and think that we will impliment this variant house-rule (and drop the anti-armor weapon rule he was trying to develop - although the 'penetrating' idea mentioned above might whet the grindstone for further debate)

The Formula is:
1st section = Total armor / 3 * 1.5 Round up
2nd section = Total armor / 3 Round up (unless total is more than original total, then subtract 1 from this sections armor
3rd section = Total armor / 3 * 0.5 Round down

1st     2nd     3rd     Tot
  2      1      0      3
  2      2      0      4
  3      2      0      5
  3      2    1    6
  4      2      1      7
  4      3      1      8
  5      3      1      9
  5      4      1      10
  6      4      1      11
  6      4      2      12
  7      4      2      13
  7      5      2      14
  8      5      2      15
  8      6      2      16
  9      6      2      17
  9      6      3      18
10      6      3      19
10      7      3      20
11      7      3      21
11      8      3      22
12      8      3      23
12      8      4      24
13      8      4      25
13      9      4      26
14      9      4      27
14      10      4      28
15      10      4      29
15      10      5      30


3 thru 30 armor look like this.

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Confused By Armour

Marauder wrote:

I like armor the way it is now.

I like it too. I just regret there is no anti-armor ability the way other defenses have their counters. But i can live with that.
And I was wondering if using hull to have armor was a good proposition. Whatever, I will use armor in my designs as it is.

Marc

  • Registered: 2011-06-11
  • Posts: 110

Re: Confused By Armour

madpax wrote:
Marauder wrote:

I like armor the way it is now.

I like it too. I just regret there is no anti-armor ability the way other defenses have their counters. But i can live with that.
And I was wondering if using hull to have armor was a good proposition. Whatever, I will use armor in my designs as it is.

Marc

This is pretty much my stance.  I'm not actually that bothered if armour stays as it is.  An anti-armour trait would just make it a bit different to hull.  Also gives a few of my B5 weapons something that they currently lack wink

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

Re: Confused By Armour

cricket wrote:

Even if armor is conceptualized as steel plates bolted to the exterior of the hull, it makes little sense to think that all of it needs to be blown away before any damage seeps through to the inner hull/systems.

Agreed, I prefer to think of armor as a general reinforcement of the ship's structure and systems. Which also make 'armor piercing' an impossible trait.

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

Re: Confused By Armour

The idea proposed by Vandervecken looks great and seems to be a compromise/combination of those who want all armor hit first and those who want it evenly divided into thirds.  This is Very creative & resourseful.  If the cost of the armor boxes needs to be raised slightly, that would fine.  I like it .   8-)

  • Registered: 2010-11-18
  • Posts: 9

Re: Confused By Armour

Frontloading all the armor may be too much, but what about splitting the armor value in to the first two groups of hull boxes.

So a ship with 12 hull and 6 armor would look like: (Armor x3) (Hull x4) [Damaged] (Armor x3 Hull x4) [Crippled] (Hull x4)

Does that make sense?

This satisfies the 'fluff' desire for armor to be somehow 'different' than hull while allowing it to function mechanically as before. (i.e. more damage points on the ship).

Not sure how to adjust costing there, although obviously it would be a little more expensive.