You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)
Yaay, Kevin! It's amazing what a little coffee will do. 
On another note, I'm open to other names aside from "front-loaded armor".
Ablative?
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.
Ahh, I see.
Well, leaving the boxes where they are would mean that, in the case a ship's armor is not neatly divisible by 3, the "odd" hull will always be in the first (remaining) section.
Keeping two armor sections could be disturbing with this options, just because someone coult forget that and apply damage to hull instead of armor 2. I don't see the reason why all armor couldn't be located in the first section.
Marc
Keeping two armor sections could be disturbing with this options, just because someone coult forget that and apply damage to hull instead of armor 2. I don't see the reason why all armor couldn't be located in the first section.
Marc
I think Cricket is just trying to simplify the ship sheet by not moving all of the boxes to the first section. Mostly I think it's because OldnGrey will kill him if he has to add that to his Shipyard sheet However, I can't see any reason at all why you couldn't just do it on your designs.
Cheers,
Erik
Agreed!
If that can spare Daniel's life, ok with me. 
Marc
Keeping two armor sections could be disturbing with this options, just because someone coult forget that and apply damage to hull instead of armor 2. I don't see the reason why all armor couldn't be located in the first section.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think if the people playing can get the original Armor/hull/armor/hull/armor/hull splits right; that Dan's explaination a few posts up, will be no issue. And by having the armor split, it allows some diabolical person to be able to come up with an Anti-armor trait that could exploit that division of armor for an optional rule (or a house rule).
On another note, I'm open to other names aside from "front-loaded armor".
Ablative?
Ablative is usefully descriptive, and therefore good. People have been clamoring for Ablative Armor for at least an entire version of Starmada as well I kinda like "All-or-Nothing" for front-loaded armor and "Incremental" for the regular way of doing it. Both are descriptive of function and both have roots in real world armor design (even if slightly different).
Cheers,
Erik
It would be really cool to have this made official and replace the existing armour rules. That way the pricing could be revised and you'd actually buy the amount of armour you wanted instead of getting 2/3 of the armour you wanted (which I guess just means armour is 50% more expensive).
I can totally see this making "anti armour" weapons far more useful - given that the armour itself would be more useful.
-Tim
I think Cricket is just trying to simplify the ship sheet by not moving all of the boxes to the first section. Mostly I think it's because OldnGrey will kill him if he has to add that to his Shipyard sheet.
Well, actually, I'm more concerned about messing with the coding behind the Drydock, but Paul's continued happiness is a beneficial side effect.
More to the point, however, is that this is an optional rule to allow players a desired effect when using existing ship designs. If you want to design ships from the ground up using this rule, we can work on that later. For now, I need to confirm the theory is sound.
It would be really cool to have this made official and replace the existing armour rules. That way the pricing could be revised and you'd actually buy the amount of armour you wanted instead of getting 2/3 of the armour you wanted (which I guess just means armour is 50% more expensive).
I can totally see this making "anti armour" weapons far more useful - given that the armour itself would be more useful.
-Tim
I think having both armor options available for use is a good thing, especially for doing conversions of settings where things sometimes work differently than others.
Erik
It would be really cool to have this made official and replace the existing armour rules. That way the pricing could be revised and you'd actually buy the amount of armour you wanted instead of getting 2/3 of the armour you wanted (which I guess just means armour is 50% more expensive).
It's not going to be made official (even as an optional rule) until I've got some playtesting data behind it. There may be some aspects of this I haven't worked out. Thought experiments will take you only so far.
If, however, you wanted to experiment with building front-loaded designs from scratch, you could take the armor score from p.46 and add 1.17. For example, a ship of hull size 7 with 12 armor points would have an armor score of 4.05 (2.88 + 1.17).
I just want to say that I like both styles, and would love to see some people go for the "Incremental Armor", while others would gravitate to the "Ablative" armor. To me, if this optional rule is tested out to be a "Good Fit", that would make different peoples empire have more personality when fighting against each other.
On another note, I'm open to other names aside from "front-loaded armor".
Ablative?
There are directional defenses, why not directional armor?
Marc
There are directional defenses, why not directional armor?
This is one reason I want to change the name. When I say "front-loaded" I mean the armor is moved to the "front" of the ship display, not that it is at the front of the ship...
On another note, I'm open to other names aside from "front-loaded armor".
Ablative?
Could be O.D.A. or Oda ; which is short for Omni-Directional Armor'
why not directional armor?
Directional armor to me suggest some sort of movement, which I don't see this Armor doing to cover multiple attacks from different specific facings. Add Omni to it and you can take on all commers.
madpax wrote:There are directional defenses, why not directional armor?
This is one reason I want to change the name. When I say "front-loaded" I mean the armor is moved to the "front" of the ship display, not that it is at the front of the ship...
Yes, sorry, I mis-understood that. 'Concentrated armor'?
Marc
Way back in the days of Starmada"X", I experimented with "Ablative Armor". All of the armor was hit first before using the damage chart. Translate this to S:NE, and it is exactly what Dan is proposing. I like the name Ablative Armor.
The Starmada"X" design I made years ago is still in the Starmada "X" B-Basin.
I like this idea and all of shipw which use armor for protection will have it.
proposed Optional Rule's optional Rule: Weapon Trait - Burrowing
Burrowing only modifies damage to armor.
For 'Ablative' armor: the weapon with Burrowing does 2 damage to armor for each actual damage point done to the leftmost armor section. Any single armor box left, is destroyed by 1 point of damage (the extra damage is not transferable). Damage to the other Armor section by burrowing weapons is - do 3 damage, get the 4th box of armor destroyed as well (if the vessel has that many) so 9 points of armor in the 2nd section would only take 7 points of burrowing weapon damage to take out that armor section and 9 points of armor in the 1st section would only take 5 points of burrowing weapon damage to destroy all the armor in that section.
For 'Incremental' armor: the weapon with Burrowing does an extra point of Armor damage for each 2 regular points of damage done on the leftmost armor section, and does an extra point of armor damage for each 4 regular points of damage done to the center armor section.
Example of weapon trait in use vs Ablative armor: The Methosians love their armor and have chosen to use ablative armor. Their Battlecruiser in standard has armor of 7L - 7C - 6R, which translated to 7 - 6 - H1 - H2 - H3 for our Ablative vessel. 3 Gweenee vessels: a Frigate and 2 Destroyers (new builds with Burrowing) find the BC alone and without escort. Battle ensues. In a stroke of luck, the BC long range weapons are ineffective while closing, the next round sees the two forces close, The Gweennee have initiative and DD#1 fires his 2 Burrowing weapons at the BC doing 2 points of damage , this takes 4 armor off the leftmost section of armor. The Methosian BC's main weapon again misses, but it's secondary weapons both hit DD#2, getting 1 box from taking down it's centre hull structure (nothing left of it's leftmost armor/hull and taking the center armor out as well.
It fires back but misses. Then The Frigate with a standard weapon attacks the Methosian BC and does 2 damage at this range, that leaves 1 box of armor left in the leftmost compartment. The next round Has the Gweenee DD#2 attack first, doing 4 points of damage. The 1st point of damage takes the last armor of the leftmost section, no carry over of burrowing to the next section with that 1st damage point. The next armor is hit by 3 points of damage from a burrowing weapon so the other section loses a 4th point, leaving it with 2 points left. The BC fires on the injured DD#2 and destroyes it., DD#1 isn't in his weapon arc save for some close in weapons that are out of range, so he fires on the Frigate with his secondaries, and nearly takes it out. The Gweenee DD#1 fires his Burrowing battery and also does 4 points of damage, if there had been 5 points of armor left, the Gweenee would have gotten a free armor hit, but because there were less, (2) it does standard damage from now on as after the first 2 points of damage, only hull is left. which it does 3 points to, which is not enough to get thru to the middle Hull. The Gweenee were able injury the BC before they met their demise, but it was more main battery poor shooting by the Methosian. Hopefully the Gweenee Cruiser with Burrowing will fare better vs their enemy.
Cost multiplier - T.B.D.
If you want to do double damage to armor, why not add the weapon trait Dx2. This way you not only do double damage to armor, but to hull also. with Dx2, the Burrowing ability is un-needed. Also, if you take ships with this, and your opponant has shielded ships, your ships wasted the points spent on this ability. Dx2 now only has a multiplier of x1.85 points. There is No Need for a trait that damages armor only. Dx2 & especially Dx3 will do that just as well, and will work on hull also. I don't see any need for an "anti-armor" weapon-trait because Dx2 & Dx3 do it better... 8-)
Indeed, dx2, dx3, catastrophic and volitile will make people who only use armor cry. Rather than blocking or disrupting (with shield and ECM) I have to just take it. It works all fine and dandy against normal (and even acr) for, but once dx2 or above gets dropped in suddenly all that armor counts for nothing.
I havnt lost a ship to it yet, but my cyclo-taurite torpedoes (exp, acr, gid, cts) have insta gibbed battleships. Armor won't save you here, you need shields or something to mitigate the damage before you get hit, other wise that 500pt monsters gonna loose to my 200pt cruiser.
I don't see any need for an "anti-armor" weapon-trait because Dx2 & Dx3 do it better... 8-)
There is a need for some settings.
Also, your reasoning could apply to piercing. Why use it if the opponent uses no or 6 shields?
On the contrary, armor is the only defense that can't be 'reduced' by trait or ability. You just have to kill it, whatever.
Marc
Indeed, dx2, dx3, catastrophic and volitile will make people who only use armor cry. Rather than blocking or disrupting (with shield and ECM) I have to just take it. It works all fine and dandy against normal (and even acr) for, but once dx2 or above gets dropped in suddenly all that armor counts for nothing.
If you don't have armor, I suppose your ship will be lost nonetheless...
Armor in that instance would count, as it would delay damage checks.
Marc
That's why I don't ever use piercing on any ife my weapons. Why would I pay for something that I might not need that only gives me a slight advantage? My current design philosophy is more + accurate. If I shoot more and hit more you will fail more saves, and thus lose shield powr and so on. Really though it works on alp the defense types, I'm hitting more so more stir is shot of, your ECM gets degraded. Out side of fluff reasons I don't see a need for piercing or any anti armor weapon type that might show up.
After all my TEC is very efficient, why spend thier hard earned money on toys they don't need?
It would delay, but perhaps I'm just judging my chips against my own weapons. 20 dice of acr cts fire....hurts....a lot.
Sure, I'm more thinking designs from universe, not really optimizing designs.
marc
I do like the idea of anti-armour traits. As armour is now (and I'm okay with it), the anti-armour trait doesn't seem as necessary as armour is just kind of like having more hull. But with front ended armour (which I think I like a bit more than the current), I think you'd want something; otherwise armoured ships are going to be able to absorb a lot of damage before losing any combat efficiency. I see any of these being reasonable anti-armour traits:
1) Armour eater: When this weapon destroys a point of armour mark off one additional point of armour
2) Armour ignorer: When this weapon would destroy a point of armour mark off a point of hull instead
3) Armour penetrator: When this weapon destroys a point of armour mark off a point of hull as well
I like #2 the least. While its simple it really only a good counter against armour if you have a lot of weapons with it. #1 is quite effective and mitigating armour - no two bits about that. #3 seems to me to be the most realistic - it defeats the armour (i.e. armour does not protect the hull) and damages it at the same time (big hole in your armour).
I don't think it should matter what "boxes" the armour/hull points are in - you always just take the first available one to score damage against.
Cricket - fair enough on wanting it tested. I'll see if I can get something done one evening - kind of tough these days as our gaming group had 3 babies over the past 6 months!
Hmm, you know, front-loaded armour plus reinforced systems = I get to keep my guns for a VERY long time. I like it!
-Tim
P.S. Pardon my Canadian spelling of armoUr
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Front-Loaded Armor (proposed optional rule)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.