Topic: Relation between various defenses

With Nova, we have access to three different defenses. But how do they fare between each other.
I mean, I can see that, unless mistaken, a shield 4 is equal to have as many armor as hull.

But what about ECM?

For example, I want to convert a SNE ship with a shield 5 and would like to know how much ECM it will have.

As a side note, I noted that the Daitenshi, on the rulebook 1.1, has a shield whislt other arcturan ships have traded SAE shield with SNE armor. Is there a reason for that?

Marc

Re: Relation between various defenses

I see armor as a the most reliable defense.  I know exactly what I paid for, and it gives an exact amount of protection.  For instance my TEC ships for the most part have 50% more armor than hull, giving the 150% more health than hull alone. 

Shields give you a chance, which as it degraded lowers your chances to survive.  With 4 shield your are 50% harder to kill, but the 50% of shots that get though will eventually force a systems check and perhaps lower your shields performance.  This mean in the end you won't get as much out of your shield when some real heavy fire comedy your way. 

Same goes with ECM, I think is 2 ECM for the 50%...but like shields they can degrade as you take fire.  However if you want to pay a bit more stealth doesn't degrade, making it s better on paper choice.

When we were testing we ran into this debate, as while my ships lacked ECM or shields thier armor made the stipidly hard to kill, while my opponents shields and ECM were worn down by my ACR weapons and fire control.

These things change when you ad stuff in like reinforced systems, where its much harder to knock out systems.

Re: Relation between various defenses

madpax wrote:

With Nova, we have access to three different defenses. But how do they fare between each other.
I mean, I can see that, unless mistaken, a shield 4 is equal to have as many armor as hull.

From a starting effectiveness point of view, Shields 4+ is the same as ECM 2 is the same as Armor = Hull. However, the armor is slightly MORE effective over the course of a battle, because it doesn't degrade like shields or ECM.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

Re: Relation between various defenses

I agree with your analysis. While I don't try to know which is the better, but mainly, which value of one defense is more or less equal to another, knowing what you said is helping me to design some ships.

Marc

Re: Relation between various defenses

The ships that I design for personal use are spece versions of the large Dreadnoughts that onece ruled the seven seas.  As a result their main weapons are in FX and AX mounts.  They also have heavy armor, more armor than hull.  They have no shields, no ECM, no stealth and are speed 4.  I like the idea of these ships being heavily armored brutes capable of taking a pounding and firing all heavy weapons into either broadside arc.  It works for me.
I have made some Federation & Klingon type ships for my friends to use, and for the Recon2012 gaming convention in Cocoa Beach next weekend.  These ships have strength 3+ shields which enables them to deflect 2/3 of incoming hits.  Until they get degraded by damage checks...
BTW, I will be running several S;NE games at this convention; it should be lots of fun. 
The resort the con is being held in is on the beach.  Temps should be in 80s, lots of sunshine.   
Its Good to live in Florida...  8-)

Re: Relation between various defenses

BeowulfJB wrote:

  Temps should be in 80s, lots of sunshine.   
Its Good to live in Florida...  8-)

I was out working on my boat today and it was 40 and cloudy here in Wisconsin.

Do I have say how much I hate you right now? :evil:

Re: Relation between various defenses

Thinking about those various defenses made me regret even more that there is no counter against armor, the same way piercing and fire control exist...

Marc

Re: Relation between various defenses

If you face fighters &/or drones, you will want shields3+ because fighters & drones have no piercing option and are easily rendered Not-Cost-Effective by shields3+.  I think this more than counters there being No Armor-piercing options.  If such an unneeded weapon trait such as armor piercing does come out, I will probably change my Hull 22, Armor 45 design to Hull 67...(!)  The cost the same and the ship would gain over 6100 extra hull spaces.  I would make this 6100 cargo and call my Arizona design an armed freighter... lol
Any Armor-piercing trait will become useless.  It is Not Needed IMHO.
Armor gets hit and ground down by fighters & drones...

Re: Relation between various defenses

BeowulfJB wrote:

If such an unneeded weapon trait such as armor piercing does come out, I will probably change my Hull 22, Armor 45 design to Hull 67...(!)  The cost the same and the ship would gain over 6100 extra hull spaces.  I would make this 6100 cargo and call my Arizona design an armed freighter... lol
Any Armor-piercing trait will become useless.

Funny. This doesn't say to me that the idea of an Armor Piercing trait is useless so much as the entire concept of Armor is pointless as currently implemented. You're right, mechanically it's just more sensible to buy a bigger hulled ship, and for me to buy Dx3 on my "AP" weapons to chew through it more quickly.

But what if, instead, AP didn't mean what most of us have assumed, and instead there was a trait that said "If you've managed to hit in the face of their ECM, and their shields didn't stop the hit, it doesn't do any damage to armor, or to hull, and instead goes straight through to damage systems as though the ship had reached 'damaged' or 'crippled' status" - this would represent what I was after, a weapon that got through to cause internal explosions without even so much as touching the hull itself, armored or not...

Re: Relation between various defenses

In Starfire, there was a weapon similiar to that called a Primary Beam.  It pierced/bypassed shields & armor damaging the hull directly.