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

Topic: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

In Starmada, "armor" is intended to represent general reinforcement of a ship's hull, providing ongoing resistance to enemy weapons fire. It is not meant to be seen as "plates" of armor bolted onto the outside of the ship which must be blown off before damage can reach internal systems. However, some players may wish to simulate just this effect; therefore, the following optional rule can be implemented.

When using the Front-Loaded Armor rule, check off the third section of armor boxes at the start of the game: they will not be used. As ships take damage, check off all of the boxes in the first two sections of armor before moving on to the first section of hull boxes. In other words, in a normal game, damage is applied like this:

ARMOR 1 -> HULL 1 -> ARMOR 2 -> HULL 2 -> ARMOR 3 -> HULL 3

When using the Front-Loaded Armor rule, damage is applied like this:

ARMOR 1 -> ARMOR 2 -> HULL 1 -> HULL 2 -> HULL 3

EDIT: It may make more sense to ignore the middle section of armor, rather than the last...

ARMOR-1 = ROUNDUP( ARMOR / 3 )
ARMOR-2 = ROUND( ARMOR / 3 )
ARMOR-3 = ROUNDDOWN( ARMOR /3 )

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

AWESOME!  I will use this Front-Loaded armor when I play again.  I think that this will work well.

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

What does this do to the point cost of the armor?
It seems like it would change it significantly.

Kevin

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Wouldn't it make armor even better than it was before?
In fact, it could 'kill' shield and ECM in term of efficiency.
Also, I don't see the reason to have two armor as you have to kill both of them before damaging hull.
Will there ba a counter?

Marc

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Unless there is a: Double damage to armor weapon, or a Half of damage skips armor, or a ??? vs Armor weapon also used with this optional rule, I see armor as being too powerful.  I've worked on some sort-of-front ended armor styles that give players a taste that armor isn't hull, without making it much better than it currently is, and even then I'm thinking of some weapon trait that will prevent the 'Armor Aficionado' from ruling over Shields and ECM equipped vessels.

Dan, because you blocked the armor into 2 halves, perhaps you have an Idea  :twisted:  in mind for those who rely on armor as their only defense ???

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Well, as I read it, it reduces the total amount of armour by 1/3, but armour is hit first.

If we have a unit of eighteen hull and six armour, in normal circumstances you go through 2 armour, then 6 hull, and so on. Here, you have four armour at the start, then you start taking hull damage as normal. I think that the 'all armour muust be destroyed before hull' is off-set by losing 33% of the armour to start with.

This also could make sense in one of my settings where shields composed of two effects--the normal 'shield' effect which had to be penetrated, and the ST effect where the shields had to be ground down by fire to reach the actual ship...

Hmm...

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

cricket wrote:

In Starmada, "armor" is intended to represent general reinforcement of a ship's hull, providing ongoing resistance to enemy weapons fire. It is not meant to be seen as "plates" of armor bolted onto the outside of the ship which must be blown off before damage can reach internal systems. However, some players may wish to simulate just this effect; therefore, the following optional rule can be implemented.

When using the Front-Loaded Armor rule, check off the third section of armor boxes at the start of the game: they will not be used. As ships take damage, check off all of the boxes in the first two sections of armor before moving on to the first section of hull boxes. In other words, in a normal game, damage is applied like this:

ARMOR 1 -> HULL 1 -> ARMOR 2 -> HULL 2 -> ARMOR 3 -> HULL 3

When using the Front-Loaded Armor rule, damage is applied like this:

ARMOR 1 -> ARMOR 2 -> HULL 1 -> HULL 2 -> HULL 3

I like this option, particularly to model "ablative"-type shielding. I especially like that you essentially pay a surcharge to gain the benefit.
Cheers,
Erik

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

This should be balanced against "normal" armor, and thus not affect construction/point-costing in any way.

The theory is that hull hits in the first section are worth more than those in the second section, which are in turn worth more than those in the third section. (Because until you reach that first damage check, you have all of your weapons, your shields/ECM are at full-strength, etc., meaning your ship is more efficient earlier in the game.) So, you could think of a ship's "effective" hull strength as follows:

( 3 x HULL-1 + 2 x HULL-2 + 1 x HULL-3 ) / 2

Since all ships have the same split in hull boxes (33% in each section) there's usually no need for this equation (we're ignoring rounding here). Armor simply adds to the number of hull boxes in each section:

( 3 x (ARMOR-1 + HULL-1) + 2 x (ARMOR-2 + HULL-2) + 1 x (ARMOR-3 + HULL-3) ) / 2

If, however, all the armor is added to the first hull section, the equation becomes:

( 3 x (ARMOR-1 + ARMOR-2 + ARMOR-3 + HULL-1) + 2 x HULL-2 + 1 x HULL-3 ) / 2

Comparing an armor 12, hull 12 ship in "normal" and "front-loaded" versions:

NORMAL: ( 3 x (4 + 4) + 2 x (4 + 4) + 1 x (4 + 4) ) / 2 = 24

FRONT-LOADED: ( 3 x ( [4 + 4 + 4] + 4) + 2 x 4 + 1 x 4 ) / 2 = 30

In this case, front-loading increases the "effective" hull size by 25%. However, if you drop the armor by 33% (i.e. ignore one section of armor), you end up with:

NORMAL: ( 3 x (4 + 4) + 2 x (4 + 4) + 1 x (4 + 4) ) / 2 = 24

FRONT-LOADED: ( 3 x ( [4 + 4] + 4) + 2 x 4 + 1 x 4 ) / 2 = 24

Voila!

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

murtalianconfederacy wrote:

Well, as I read it, it reduces the total amount of armour by 1/3, but armour is hit first.
If we have a unit of eighteen hull and six armour, in normal circumstances you go through 2 armour, then 6 hull, and so on. Here, you have four armour at the start, then you start taking hull damage as normal. I think that the 'all armour muust be destroyed before hull' is off-set by losing 33% of the armour to start with.
This also could make sense in one of my settings where shields composed of two effects--the normal 'shield' effect which had to be penetrated, and the ST effect where the shields had to be ground down by fire to reach the actual ship...
Hmm...

That's not how I interpret it.
I interpret it as you get the armor you pay for, but it is now distributed over two sections instead of three.

If you actually lose 1/3 of the armor you pay for because of the front loading, then that would make more sense from a point costing perspective.

Kevin

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

underling wrote:

If you actually lose 1/3 of the armor you pay for because of the front loading, then that would make more sense from a point costing perspective.

It may be poorly-worded in my initial draft of the rule, but the intent is that one section of armor (probably the middle one, instead of the last one) is crossed off before the game begins. So in effect, you're losing 33% of your armor.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

cricket wrote:
underling wrote:

If you actually lose 1/3 of the armor you pay for because of the front loading, then that would make more sense from a point costing perspective.

It may be poorly-worded in my initial draft of the rule, but the intent is that one section of armor (probably the middle one, instead of the last one) is crossed off before the game begins. So in effect, you're losing 33% of your armor.

My reading of the initial post was that you were "losing" the third armor section ("paid" for as normal construction) for the benefit of shoving the second "forward".
erik

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Blacklancer99 wrote:

My reading of the initial post was that you were "losing" the third armor section ("paid" for as normal construction) for the benefit of shoving the second "forward".

Indeed -- the point is to allow for "ablative" armor through a special rule, rather than a separate construction process. You build your ship normally, print out your ship display normally, and just cross off one section of armor before the start of the game.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

My reading of the initial post was that you were "losing" the third armor section ("paid" for as normal construction) for the benefit of shoving the second "forward".

Indeed -- the point is to allow for "ablative" armor through a special rule, rather than a separate construction process. You build your ship normally, print out your ship display normally, and just cross off one section of armor before the start of the game.

Ok, so I build a ship with 9 armor, 6 go "forward" and 3 are essentially removed from the design. This was what I thought initially and led me to say what I did about a "surcharge". Probably not the best word, but what I intended to convey was that you are "paying" for 9 dispersed armor, but getting 6 front-loaded armor, not just paying (less) for six armor total which are then placed in a single block.
Cheers,
Erik

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Blacklancer99 wrote:

Ok, so I build a ship with 9 armor, 6 go "forward" and 3 are essentially removed from the design.

Actually, only 3 move "forward", since 3 were there already.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

Ok, so I build a ship with 9 armor, 6 go "forward" and 3 are essentially removed from the design.

Actually, only 3 move "forward", since 3 were there already.

True. I guess in my mind all 9 armor boxes were jumping up and down yelling "pick me, pick me!" in surprisingly high-pitched voices (one would have expected armor to be more of a Basso Profondo). Six then gleefully pranced forward while three shuffled home, hoping that tomorrow would finally be the day they are chosen. So really, I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Erik

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Hmm...  promising.  I look forward to seeing this in play.

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Blacklancer99 wrote:

True. I guess in my mind all 9 armor boxes were jumping up and down yelling "pick me, pick me!" in surprisingly high-pitched voices (one would have expected armor to be more of a Basso Profondo). Six then gleefully pranced forward while three shuffled home, hoping that tomorrow would finally be the day they are chosen. So really, I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

Heh... wink

Don't know if you're a "Black Books" fan, but I have visions of Manny in the wine cellar...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

True. I guess in my mind all 9 armor boxes were jumping up and down yelling "pick me, pick me!" in surprisingly high-pitched voices (one would have expected armor to be more of a Basso Profondo). Six then gleefully pranced forward while three shuffled home, hoping that tomorrow would finally be the day they are chosen. So really, I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

Heh... wink

Don't know if you're a "Black Books" fan, but I have visions of Manny in the wine cellar...

Alas, never seen it...I hate missing a reference :oops:
Erik

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

After rereading the proposal :oops: , I kinda like this proposed Armor optional rule. Will it matter if the extra armor is in first or second batch when there isnt a neat 3 to 2 armor divider ratio, or is there any rounding?  What would happen if there was  7, 8, 10, or 11 original armor?  Can you give me the breakdown, or did I miss that too?  I still like my own version of standard Armor - giving in another Subject Post, but this can work quite well. Way to go Dan !

I'm gonna run this by my friend with the armor fetish later tonight (he has an old copy of Starmada X-Brigade, while I'm still trying to get wife to let me spend just a few more bucks on space games, with Solar Starfire in hand and the Boardgame 'Eclipse' (2nd Printing) on order. They were this year's previous purchases). I was hoping to buy the Starmada Nova pre-release already but it looks like May will have to be my new target. Then I'll sneak in VBAM 2E in July (if they ever get it done, hehehe), then possibly look at what Stephen Cole has done in his latest version of Star Fleet Battles.  2012: the year of space games !

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Blacklancer99 wrote:
cricket wrote:
Blacklancer99 wrote:

My reading of the initial post was that you were "losing" the third armor section ("paid" for as normal construction) for the benefit of shoving the second "forward".

Indeed -- the point is to allow for "ablative" armor through a special rule, rather than a separate construction process. You build your ship normally, print out your ship display normally, and just cross off one section of armor before the start of the game.

Ok, so I build a ship with 9 armor, 6 go "forward" and 3 are essentially removed from the design. This was what I thought initially and led me to say what I did about a "surcharge". Probably not the best word, but what I intended to convey was that you are "paying" for 9 dispersed armor, but getting 6 front-loaded armor, not just paying (less) for six armor total which are then placed in a single block.
Cheers,
Erik

So if I understand this correctly, three would go forward, with two of the three in the first section, and the third in the second section.
So the new armor configuration would look like:

5 / 4 / X

It'll be interesting to see how this plays.

Kevin

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Vandervecken wrote:

Will it matter if the extra armor is in first or second batch when there isnt a neat 3 to 2 armor divider ratio, or is there any rounding?

My thought is to "ignore" the middle section of Armor, which neatly takes care of the rounding issue. e.g., 5 armor (2-2-1) becomes 3 (5 * 2/3 = 3.33), 7 armor (3-2-2) becomes 5 (7 * 2/3 = 4.67), etc.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

in the 5 armor that becomes 3 Front-Loaded armor, will it matter where that 3rd armor goes: Armor area 1 or Armor area 2 ??

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Vandervecken wrote:

in the 5 armor that becomes 3 Front-Loaded armor, will it matter where that 3rd armor goes: Armor area 1 or Armor area 2 ??

The idea is to use the same ship display (divided 2-2-1) but just ignore the middle section (2-X-1).

The 3rd armor doesn't "go" anywhere -- it stays in the third section, where it was to begin with.

(I'm not sure I'm understanding the question... :?:)

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

cricket wrote:
Vandervecken wrote:

in the 5 armor that becomes 3 Front-Loaded armor, will it matter where that 3rd armor goes: Armor area 1 or Armor area 2 ??

The idea is to use the same ship display (divided 2-2-1) but just ignore the middle section (2-X-1).
The 3rd armor doesn't "go" anywhere -- it stays in the third section, where it was to begin with.
(I'm not sure I'm understanding the question... :?:)

Ah, okay...
Now I think I get it.
It's Monday morning.
You set up the ship display as normal, and then simply cross off the second section of armor, leaving the first and third sections.
But...
All damage is taken in those first and third armor sections before any hull is crossed off.

Kevin

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

Re: Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)

Vandervecken wrote:

in the 5 armor that becomes 3 Front-Loaded armor, will it matter where that 3rd armor goes: Armor area 1 or Armor area 2 ??

If you ever allow an anti-armor weapon function , it could make a difference depending on if that function used the difference in those two block for whatever.

Cricket wrote:

The idea is to use the same ship display (divided 2-2-1) but just ignore the middle section (2-X-1).

roger I got it finallly.  I was using extra math, why, I don't know

Edited this in as a favor to my sick 5th grade daughter who is watching me enter stuff on this forum as an amusement while she does some Minecraft adjacent to me.  She said to me "Dad, extra math is BAD, very BAD."   I agree, thats why Nova has a lot going for it, fewer die rolls, and some nice simplification of rules (with the possible exception of Firing arcs needing a special function on a calculator - if I have read correctly).