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 → Iron Stars → What do you use?
I'm curious, which do you use:
1) the hull size-vs-gun die type modifier chart?
2) the momentum-vs-gun die type modifier chart?
3) neither
I'm in the "two" camp myself, although I'm not entirely happy with it. Is there a default "official" choice?
Rich
I go with size myself because the wet navy battles I've read about seem to show that it's size and maneuverability that throws of gunners more than sheer speed.
I'm curious, which do you use:
1) the hull size-vs-gun die type modifier chart?
2) the momentum-vs-gun die type modifier chart?
3) neither
I'm in the "two" camp myself, although I'm not entirely happy with it. Is there a default "official" choice?
Can I ask why you're not entirely happy with it?
I'm with you, Rich. Although (1) is probably the default choice, I like (2) better... the reason smaller ships are harder to hit is because they are faster. However, if they are not using that speed, then they shouldn't be rewarded for it.
I'm a 2 choice myself. One of the things I used to teach in my BT tactics lectures....Speed is armor! Different game...same type concept. 
the reason smaller ships are harder to hit is because they are faster. However, if they are not using that speed, then they shouldn't be rewarded for it.
If two ships are moving at a decent clip (say 30-35 knots in a wet navy setting), then the one that has an easier time changing direction is going to be harder to hit. So doesn't that mean we're talking size?
Speed and maneuverability are not the same thing.
I could be wrong......
Im a 3) option, myself. In my view, if you've got longer-ranged guns, you should get longer-ranged firepower.
You still have a range advantage with big guns while using one of those mods -- it just reduces it somewhat.
A D12 gun against a Large Ship with an Armor of 3 needs a 10+ (9 + 1 for size if using option 1) to hit at point blank range, but can feasibly hit its target up to, what, 15" away?
A D8 gun trying to hit an Armor 3 target isn't going to be able to damage a similar target at that range.
I guess for me, it's just that it feels right. In wet navies, and we are basing a lot of these designs off old real-world wet navy ships, you wouldn't see a battleship having much luck nailing a destroyer with an 18" gun -- not unless it had ample time to correct its fire. So the the unaltered to-hit roll, untouched by any modifier, just doesn't feel right to me.
hundvig wrote:I'm curious, which do you use:
1) the hull size-vs-gun die type modifier chart?
2) the momentum-vs-gun die type modifier chart?
3) neither
I'm in the "two" camp myself, although I'm not entirely happy with it. Is there a default "official" choice?
Can I ask why you're not entirely happy with it?
I'm with you, Rich. Although (1) is probably the default choice, I like (2) better... the reason smaller ships are harder to hit is because they are faster. However, if they are not using that speed, then they shouldn't be rewarded for it.
I'm a (2) user because size alone does *not* indicate whether a big gun would have trouble tracking a given target. Speed (represented best by looking at current momentum) and maneuverability should be factors, and a ship of any given size can have widely varying thrust and turning abilities.
I'm not entirely happy with it because it feels a little too generous to faster ships (to the point where trading thrust for armor seems iffy to me), and because it's fairly unrealistic in spots. The momentum modifiers would work better for me if they were adjusted for target aspect, eg: halve the modifier if the target ship is facing toward (bow arc) or away from (stern arc) the firing ship, but leave them the same if it's broadside on, because a closing/retreating target is showing less lateral motion. Also, I'd add +1 to any positive modifier if the ship has a Gyrostabilizer, to reflect the enhanced maneuverability...which would also make them a little more appealing.
Historically, heavy guns had a hard time hitting small ships, but they tended to wreck them when they did connect. In IS, they still have trouble hitting, but a single heavy shell hit is likely to just damage the engine room a bit.
Rich
I use #1, actually pretty much the reasons hundvig listed- the implementation of #2 is 'off' as far as I'm concerned. Going fast in a straight line doesn't really help you much- the guy's gunners will just compensate and still bracket you, it will just take longer. It's the ability to zig-zag faster and change speed more quickly that makes smaller ships hard to hit.
So to my mind #1 is more accurate, or at least a better abstraction- the smaller vessels are making continous small course changes that doesn't effect thier movement in game terms to throw off enemy gunners, while the big ships don't have that option (and hence are easier to hit). At least, that's how I envision the rule representing the 'reality' of the situation.
-Will
I use #1, actually pretty much the reasons hundvig listed- the implementation of #2 is 'off' as far as I'm concerned. Going fast in a straight line doesn't really help you much- the guy's gunners will just compensate and still bracket you, it will just take longer. It's the ability to zig-zag faster and change speed more quickly that makes smaller ships hard to hit.
Well, that's assuming that the ship is moving in a straight line, but the point is taken.
The reason I like #2 over #1 is that the latter gives the bonus to smaller ships even if they are sitting still and doing nothing. At least #2 requires some movement for protection.
What about a compromise? It really should be a combination of movement and size that affects gun accuracy... for example, in Grand Fleets we use BOTH as separate modifiers; but that's too much with IS's "half die" mechanic. But if we used both conditions to gain a single modifier, that might work:
0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10
VL d12 d12 d12 d10 d8
L d12 d12 d10 d8 d6
M d12 d10 d8 d6 d4
S d10 d8 d6 d4 d4
VS d8 d6 d4 d4 d4Along the top is target momentum; along the side is target size. The result is the largest gun size that can attack without penalty; for each die size larger, there is a +1 penalty.
For example, the target is Small and has a momentum of 6, resulting in a d6 from the chart. If a d10 gun is firing at this target, there is a +2 penalty.
Looks good to me Dan. 
I was thinking an average may work, but realized it would be apples to oranges. *chuckle*
The reason I like #2 over #1 is that the latter gives the bonus to smaller ships even if they are sitting still and doing nothing. At least #2 requires some movement for protection.
True enough, #2 does have it's stronger points as well. As mentioned #1 is just my personal preference. I like the new chart, seems like it solves the problem neatly.
-Will
That looks like a good compromise to me...although I'd still lobby for Gyros giving a bonus of some kind, maybe a right column shift for on the chart for any ship with a momentum of one or more?
And you need an 11-12 column for those over-engined FACs, of course.
Rich
Historically, heavy guns had a hard time hitting small ships, but they tended to wreck them when they did connect. In IS, they still have trouble hitting, but a single heavy shell hit is likely to just damage the engine room a bit.
This sounds like a separate concern to me... do you think small ships are too durable?
> Yes, and I've thought that since the game first came out.
> Because of the way you do the damage track a small fast ship
> can sometimes take as many or more hits than a larger, slower ship.
> Because in the former there will be very few hull hits on the track.
> But I'm more used to Grand Fleets, where every hit is a hull hit.
There's actually a very good reason for doing it the way we do.
Right now, a very small ship (say, the Alpha DD) costs 5 points, while a very large ship (say, HMES Bantam) costs 166. This is a huge disparity, but not as much as if we had every hit be a hull hit-- right now, the smaller ships get a boost because they are less likely to be hit on the hull... take that away, and you get values of:
Alpha = 9 pts.
Bantam = 620 pts.
Or, 69 Alphas to the Bantam, as opposed to 33 AttB with the current system. Either way, the game would be balanced, but I like the current spread of point values as they are.
I envision the current system as a way to compensate for the fact that ship survivability is likely not linearly related to hull size -- in Grand Fleets, we do this by applying the 0.8 root during the hull points computation; in Starmada, it's done by increasing the number of SUs relative to hull size; and in Iron Stars, it's done by sliding the chance of hull damage.
Perhaps not perfect, but that's the rationale...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
VS d10 d8 d8 d8 d6 d6 d6 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4
Small d10 d10 d10 d8 d8 d8 d6 d6 d6 d4 d4 d4 d4
Medium d12 d12 d10 d10 d10 d8 d8 d8 d6 d6 d6 d4 d4
Large d12 d12 d12 d12 d10 d10 d10 d8 d8 d8 d6 d6 d6
VL d12 d12 d12 d12 d12 d12 d10 d10 d10 d8 d8 d8 d6Okay... I think this is a better chart. It starts with the base target size modifiers, set according to each size class' BTR (e.g., Medium ships can be attacked without penalty by d8 guns, so the entry for the Medium BTR of 6 is "d8").
Speed and maneuverability are not the same thing.
I could be wrong......
No, you're not wrong... but there's (currently) no gauge of a ship's maneuverability; momentum is all we've got.
Looks reasonable...
As another somewhat similar alternative, you could modify the existing two rules a bit. For 'target size modifier' say that a ship that didn't thrust during it's turn doesn't get the modifier (standing still or coasting on momentum doesn't let you dodge) and for 'target speed modifier' say that a ship that doesn't turn doesn't get the modifier (flying straight doesn't help).
-Will
hundvig wrote:Historically, heavy guns had a hard time hitting small ships, but they tended to wreck them when they did connect. In IS, they still have trouble hitting, but a single heavy shell hit is likely to just damage the engine room a bit.
This sounds like a separate concern to me... do you think small ships are too durable?
Yes and no. I think you've got the point costs right (or at least close) for their combat effectiveness, so gameplay is fine in terms of balance. But I dislike the way a point of engine damage seems to mean different things to a destroyer and a battleship. Losing 10% of your thrust is very different from losing 25%, and it feels wrong that a smaller engine room should be less affected by the same amount of damage...especially when that same point of damage will knock out one hull box on either ship, which is a mere scratch to a BB but a possible kill on a DD. And both types of ships just love catching shells on their light guns, which are nearly a free hit for many vessels.
No idea exactly how to fix that, if it even needs to be fixed, though. The game plays all right, it just doesn't simulate "wet navy" realities (ie the fragility of small ships) quite right IMO.
Rich
No idea exactly how to fix that, if it even needs to be fixed, though. The game plays all right, it just doesn't simulate "wet navy" realities (ie the fragility of small ships) quite right IMO.
Hmm... let me muse upon this for a while...
I may have a "solution"...
hundvig wrote:No idea exactly how to fix that, if it even needs to be fixed, though. The game plays all right, it just doesn't simulate "wet navy" realities (ie the fragility of small ships) quite right IMO.
Hmm... let me muse upon this for a while...
I may have a "solution"...
I'm not even sure it needs to be fixed, as such. But it does bother me...if I didn't think it would make different ships too similar in terms of performance, I'd suggest assigning a set number Damage Chart "slots" to engines and having each E hit knock off Thrust/X points. But that would do bad things to the relative vulnerabilities of VS vs VL hulls...
Rich
mj12games.com/forum → Iron Stars → What do you use?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.