• Registered: 2011-09-30
  • Posts: 69

Topic: A ridiculous idea about hulls, spaces and armor

Much of the recent discussion and discord over the way that Armor is currently implemented is that it possesses the same impact on damage as simply increasing the hull size does. It occurred to me that the problem here might not be with armor at all, but rather with the way we talk about hulls and their relative size.

Currently, we talk about "hull size" being a small number, between 3 and, oh, I've seen 39 thrown out in a previous thread. What if we were to, instead, talk about the hull size in terms of SUs exclusively. You pick the number of SUs you want to have in your ship, and you calculate a new value, let's call it Structure for the sake of being different, but you could just as easily call it Hull. It's determined by taking the SUs that you decided upon, dividing by 60, and taking the 1.3rd root, and rounding down.

Now, the size of your ship determines your hull strength, and armor comes along and, using some of that space, increases your hull strength directly.

The game impact is identical, but instead of people saying "well, I'll just build a bigger ship" the natural inclination will be to simply say "I'll buy some armor to beef up the structure of the ship."  It solves some of the semantic issues, it makes more sense why it has an effect on Marines, and I think generally makes the prior arguments moot.

Now, more is figured from the current Hull Size than simply hull points in combat - things like Thrust Factor and Defense Factor are directly impacted by the size, and if you use the rounded down figure, you're going to encourage people to find the "sweet spot" where they're not quite to the next hull point, to save space on engines and the like.

My solution is to simply use two values: Structure is rounded down, and it's used to determine how many hull points the ship has for damage purposes, as well as to determine how many drones may be launched in a single turn, and Size Factor is determined the same way as Structure, but rounded up, and then used to determine things like Defense and Thrust Factors going forward. It's a "worst of all worlds" situation for a designer who deviates from the standard options that would be provided in a handy chart, but gives flexibility in exchange.

So, am I out of my tree here? I know it's a pretty big departure in naming conventions, but I think it really solves some of the issues that people have with the standard way that hull and armor interact, as well as making the game just a little more flexible in the process.

Your thoughts?

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

Re: A ridiculous idea about hulls, spaces and armor

I don't see this as ridiculous at all. In fact, I see it as the current process, just more finely tuned.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2009-10-17
  • Posts: 13

Re: A ridiculous idea about hulls, spaces and armor

If you wanted, you could leave the size factor as a non-integer value to pass along for defense and thrust factors.    I like the idea as it would encourage more...thoughtful designs at the upper level without the "let's add 100 science to the ship."

Such elements might have positive impact on campaign design.

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

Re: A ridiculous idea about hulls, spaces and armor

Sounds interesting, but I see nothing wrong with the way ship design is done now; it works well for me and I would not want to complicate it.  All of my ships have ablative armor.  I like it because it the type of armor ships had in Full Thrust, which I played for a while, then abandoned when I discovered Starmada. 
I have modified all my ships so that the amount of ablative armor they have is Not greater than the amount of hull.  It is a personal choice that I would not be in favor of mandating for others.  I shy away from the idea that if I do something a certain way, then I want to make everyone else do it that way...
I think of my ships as having reinforced hull, a trait from another Starmada edition that alllows each hull point to absorb two hull points.  I think of my Arizona class DN, which has 40 hull & 58 Armor (which becomes 39 Ablative Armor) as actually having 20 reinforced hull.  Sot is not so big, just well made.
When I design a ship, i put in the weapons, speed, Fire control & Fragile systems.  Then I fine-tune the size of the hull and amount of armor the ship has.  I put in Fragile systems because I roll so many 1s & 2s when making damage checks.  This way, I can count on it happening and prepare accordingly<LOL>
This works for me.  If someone has a different way they like to design their ships, go for it!  8-)

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

Re: A ridiculous idea about hulls, spaces and armor

Stephen.Tarheel wrote:

If you wanted, you could leave the size factor as a non-integer value to pass along for defense and thrust factors.    I like the idea as it would encourage more...thoughtful designs at the upper level without the "let's add 100 science to the ship."

I suspect players would still gravitate towards the natural breakpoints. Instead of having discrete hull sizes, you'd end up with lots of ships designed with, for example, 4903 Space Units -- which is the most space you would be able pack into a ship with 11 hull boxes.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2006-03-23
  • Posts: 241

Re: A ridiculous idea about hulls, spaces and armor

We do this in my campaign where the size of a shipyard is limited by the SU per strategic turn. So at the beginning, shipyards could build say 100 SU / turn and as techs increased up to 200 SU /turn. Players began defining ships by size so that ships build in one or two turns were ES/DD, 2-3 turns were cruisers and capital ships 5+ turns to build. As time progresses, the ships are getting naturally larger. Players do gravitate toward break points but the SU become very important.