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

Topic: RE: Few Questions...

marcussmythe wrote:

> A few interesting things came up as I was fiddling with fighters...
>
> 1.)  A Battlecarrier costs more than a BB and a Carrier.
>
> Hypothetical Ship:  8 Hull, 4 Engines, 3 Screens, 4xR15 4+ 1/2/2 guns,
> 4 Fighter Bays:  402 CR
>
> Same ship, no Fighters:  126 CR
> Same ship, no Guns:  236 CR
> Cost for 2 ships, one with guns, and one with fighters... 362CR.
> ??????

Because of the way in which OR and DR interact within the combat rating formula, this is not surprising. I don't see it as a problem, necessarily.

> 2.)  If fighters are based on the cost of a thrust 13 Hull 3
> ship with a range 1 5+ 1/1/1 gun halves-screens gun and the
> 'moves last and shoots first' special abilities, why are
> fighters specifically immune to any extra PEN or DMG dice a
> weapon might have, immune to weapons which do no hull damage,
> immune to weapons that must reroll shield pens, immune to
> increased damage weapons.  (Note that the latter 3 define
> weapons that are very effective against unshielded ships)
>
> What would fighters look like if they kept all current rules,
> but lost that extra suite of immunities?
>
> Or is that extra suite of immunities included in the same
> cost multiplier applied for 'moves last and shoots first'?
>
> And if all the extra immunities as well as 'moves last and
> shoots first' is a (roughly) x2 modifier on Orat and Drat,
> how do I talk my gaming buddies into letting me take it on my
> non-fighter ships? smile

Don't think of these as "extra immunities", but just a consequence of the facts that (1) fighters always suffer a hull hit, instead of 50% of the time as with ships, and (2) fighters are always destroyed after a single hull hit.

> 3.)  PDS vs. Screens.  Is it the consensus that PDS's
> inability to protect you from 'Increased Damage' weapons is
> paid for by its invulnerability in the face of 'Halves
> Shields' and 'Ignores Shields'
> weapons?  Or is PDS (as it seems to me) just plain better,
> and best combined with either Shields 2 or 4 depending on the
> effect you want to go for?

PDS is neither better nor worse than shields or screens. While PDS may be more "cost effective" for some ships (in terms of how many SUs are required), they are all balanced by the combat rating.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

marcussmythe wrote:

> First, my apologies for doing this all in the yahoo group. 
> I've been unable to get a membership at the MJ12 forums. 
> Sent in an application (x2).

Sorry. Since the first of the year, spambot registrations have skyrocketed, and it's difficult for me to weed out the real people. Your account has been activated.

> > Because of the way in which OR and DR interact within the combat
> rating formula, this is not surprising. I don''t see it as a
> problem, necessarily.
>
> I'll have to respectfully disagree there.  I just dont think
> it makes sense to have fighter bays cost more on one ship
> than on another.  The fighters are going to start off
> launched, and have no reason to land.

Perhaps not, but this is a necessary consequence of treating fighters as an integral part of their carrier. I suppose we could split them out, as in earlier versions of Starmada.

> > Don''t think of these as \"extra immunities\", but just
> a consequence of the facts that (1) fighters always suffer a
> hull hit, instead of 50% of the time as with ships, and (2)
> fighters are always destroyed after a single hull hit.
>
> I respectfully submit that these are still advantages over
> the 3 hull, 6x R1 5+ 1/1/1 Halves Sheilds 13 Thrust ship
> (with the special- phases modifier) that you described as
> being the cost model for fighters.

A fair point. I could take a look at costing fighters as a collection of 6 parts, rather than a single whole.

> Its the fact that there are mutliple shield defeating weapon
> advantages, and none that work for PDS.  There are, I will
> grant, weapons that penalize you for not having shields at
> all (Increased Damage, especially), but there is also Shield
> Resonant which penalizes the ship with heavy shielding.
>
> What is your opinion on allowing Ignores-PDS, Half-PDS, PDS-
> Resonant, etc. weapon abilities?

I wouldn't specifically DISallow them... but I do think that way leads to madness. smile

> New question:  (Probably should be a separate topic)
> Hypothetical system:  Ablative Armor.
> After a weapon penetrates the shields, damage is resolved
> against ablative armor, with each damage point destroying one
> box of ablative armor.  All 'damage' destroys exactly one box
> of ablative armor, no matter what modifers affect how that
> damage would resolve against the ships hull.
>
> Cost:  Equivalent to extra hull equal to the number of
> ablative armor boxes

A good idea, but the cost might need to be somewhat higher since, as damage is being absorbed by the armor, systems are not being affected -- whereas system damage is taken as hull points are lost.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2007-06-18
  • Posts: 128

Re: RE: Few Questions...

RE:  Spambots, et. al.:  No worries, my thanks

RE:  Fighters as part of carrier
-I think that extra 'Q' hit has some value, and beyond that, having hulls designed as carriers definitely has some value, if only for flavour!
Proposition:  'Launch Bays' cost some nominal number of points, and have a Q hit.  Most of their point value comes from that Q hit, but they do let you Launch and land.

The fighters themselves are included in the ship cost, have a system for them just as now.. but have the cost go, rather than into the Orat and Drat, into the back end as a flat amount.  That way we charge for the extra Q hit, but a flight of fighters costs what a flight of fighters is worth.. when their over 80 points on some designs and under 50 on others, we are I fear encouraging soap-bubbles and other 'gamist' solutions.


RE:  Fighter Costs
I dont know what the solution would be.  Its entirely possible that the 'cost model' their based on is just not worth its points.
For my own hulls, I think I'll lean to using 1 mass 'Strikeboats' as demi-fighters.  Now if I just had a system to launch and land them on my ships...  heh...

RE:  Madness
muah... Muah.. MUAHHH HAAA HAAA HAAAAA...
wait.. what was the question?

RE:  Ablative Armor

Agreed that ablative armor has to cost more than the same increase in ship lifespan due to hull boxes.. but ablative armor only provides half the average increase in lifespan under fire as the same number of hull boxes would (as hull boxes get hit half the time, whereas ablative armor always gets hit, but protects other systems by doing so)

Thus a hypothetical Hull 6, Ablative Armor 6 ship will be destroyed by on average 18 damage, while its same-cost Hull 12 cousin would require 24 damage.  Assuming that damage taken is continuous over time, that firepower lost to damage is even over a ships lifespan trending to 0 at the time the last hull box is lost, and ignoring the impact of earlier-lost screens and mobility impacting later survivability and firepower*, we can define the firepower produced by the vessel during its life as the area under a line, where the X axis is firepower at any given moment and the Y axis is time.

Im saying this poorly.. my math is too far gone and I cant draw here!!! sad

For the above ships, and assuming that over the course of one 'unit of time' they receive 6 damage....

The H12 ship will have full firepower at Time 0, 2/3 firepower at time 1, 1/3 firepower at time 2, and 0 firepower at time 3.

This gives us a triangle with a height of 1, and a length of 3.  Firepower over life is 1.5.

The A6H6 ship will have full firepower at time 0, full firepower at time 1, and 0 firepower at time 2.

This describes a triangle with a H and L of 1 and a square of the same dimensions.  Firepower over life.. 1.5.

Of course, the first ship starts loosing firepower immediately, as well as risking loosing other important systems.  That said, well designed ships loose firepower more slowly than modeled above, which I think makes up for the difference, because the 'immunity zone'is not as valuable under a weapons=1/2 hull mass design.

All of that being said, if you think it needs to be higher in value than the extra hull box, I'd be willing to test that condition as well...  where would you start (I DO agree that it needs to tie into the formula pretty tightly, like hull values do... because of the many cascade effects of knowing how much damage you CAN take, as well as the tactical advantages of KNOWING that you wont loose system X on round 1 at long range, barring exceptional firepower on the other side)


PS:  I notice alot of ships in the Bourbaki, but almost no commentary/evaluations by other designers... are those posts intended as archival, or was the initial intent more of a 'request for comment'?

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Marcus Smythe wrote:

The fighters themselves are included in the ship cost, have a system for them just as now.. but have the cost go, rather than into the Orat and Drat, into the back end as a flat amount.  That way we charge for the extra Q hit, but a flight of fighters costs what a flight of fighters is worth.. when their over 80 points on some designs and under 50 on others, we are I fear encouraging soap-bubbles and other 'gamist' solutions.

The reason the "cost" for fighters varies with the strength of their carrier is that you only get victory points when you kill the carrier. Having a flat cost at the back end would not work, because it takes more effort to kill a carrier with 3 shields than one with 2 shields, for example.

If a flat cost for fighters is desired, then we'd have to grant VPs when the fighters are destroyed -- which is, incidentally, how it was handled in pre-X versions of Starmada.

All of that being said, if you think it needs to be higher in value than the extra hull box, I'd be willing to test that condition as well...  where would you start

Well, as a starting point...

The current CR formula (with its built-in assumption that you are losing firepower equally as the ship loses hull) is

Square root of (HITS INFLICTED PER TURN times HITS TO KILL)

You can assume that, over the life of the ship, the average firepower is three-quarters starting firepower (since, on average, a ship has lost half its firepower at the time it is destroyed). Sooo... the firepower during the time when ablative armor is being lost is the average firepower divided by 3/4. Thus, the formula just for the time while the ship is losing armor is

(HITS INFLICTED PER TURN divided by 3/4 times ABLATIVE HITS)

Because it's all multiplication, the "divided by 3/4" can be shifted to the number of ablative hits. As ablative hits are lost twice as quickly as hull hits, you must subsequently divide by 2, for a final relationship of:

ABLATIVE HIT = HULL HIT x 4/3 x 1/2 = HULL HIT x 2/3

So, the base defensive value becomes:

((ARMOR x 2/3) + HULL) x SHIELD FACTOR

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2007-06-18
  • Posts: 128

Re: RE: Few Questions...

So, its CR impact is the same as increasing the hull by 2/3...

Works for me.  I'll let you know if any play results suggest that the value should be higher or lower.

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Marcus Smythe wrote:

So, its CR impact is the same as increasing the hull by 2/3...

Works for me.  I'll let you know if any play results suggest that the value should be higher or lower.

Umm... I THINK so.

It's the same as increasing the hull by 2/3 the number of armor points -- not the same as increasing the hull by 2/3 the number of hull points.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2007-06-18
  • Posts: 128

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Marcus Smythe wrote:

So, its CR impact is the same as increasing the hull by 2/3...

Works for me.  I'll let you know if any play results suggest that the value should be higher or lower.

Im sorry.  I should have been more clear.  I meant to say "Its CR impact is the same as if you had increased the hull value of the vessel by an amount equal to 2/3 the amount of Ablative Armor added"

Example:  Vessel A has 6 Hull.  Vessel B has 4 Hull and 3 Ablative Armor.

Cost for Vessel A=Cost for Vessel B, correct?

Now if I can just learn enough excel to edit that wondermous spreadsheet...

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Marcus Smythe wrote:

Example:  Vessel A has 6 Hull.  Vessel B has 4 Hull and 3 Ablative Armor.

Cost for Vessel A=Cost for Vessel B, correct?

In theory, yes.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Hello everyone!

     I have played Full Thrust, Starfire, and other games where ships can have Armor which is damaged first by any hits that penetrate shields.  So it is with great interest that I read the posts on Ablative Armor. smile   I want to add this to my ships.   
:idea: I have a simple way for me to do this:  How many boxes of ablative armor would a ship get, if "Armor plating" was taken as a Special Equipment, and used instead to generate ablative armor .  This number of boxes would be based on the SUs taken up & cost of armor plating as special equipment.  This would allow me to continue use the newest StarmadaX ship designer, and get Ablative armor. big_smile 
(I would write in the armor boxes  in the same space where shields are, placing them under the shield boxes. 
0r, if some brilliant, computer person could add this in to the ship-designer... :shock:

:arrow: Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: RE: Few Questions...

SU costing is not mentioned above. The Armor plating cost of 5% would be too little.
Should it be a fixed cost per Armor point? 2/3 of a hull point SU? Seems a little high, 66SU per Armor hit would, I think, restrict it to larger ships.

Dan, can you please help with this?

I might even add the option to the shipyard with an alternate Starmada printout showing the Armor. It could lead to flying forts (Deathstalker fortress anybody?)

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Hello Everyone!
I agree that the 5% SU cost may be to small.  But the CR addidion is what is important.  I was hoping to match the Armor Plating option to the # of Armor boxes you can get to make it easy to use this "0ption"... I like having my capital ships  to have armor as well as awesome firepower... big_smile
(My fleets consist of capital ships supported by smaller. escort ships.  In terms of WW II, they are battleships and destroyers.  Few cruisers, if any,except for an Atlanta-type CLAA) :shock:
:arrow: Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonvile, Fla, USA

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

OldnGrey wrote:

SU costing is not mentioned above. The Armor plating cost of 5% would be too little.
Should it be a fixed cost per Armor point? 2/3 of a hull point SU? Seems a little high, 66SU per Armor hit would, I think, restrict it to larger ships.

Remember -- the "cost" of a hull point in SX is variable.

I would set the cost of a point of armor at 50% of a hull point: i.e.,

(Hull + 9) * 5

So, a ship with a hull of 12 would spend 105 SUs per armor point, while a hull-1 ship would spend 55.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

cricket wrote:

I would set the cost of a point of armor at 50% of a hull point: i.e.,

(Hull + 9) * 5

This might be WAAY too much.

Consider that a ship with armor plating now can effectively get 33% of its hull size in "armor boxes" for a flat 5%. At the same time, I don't think ships should be able to get more armor than their base hull size. So...

SU cost should be:

(Armor/Hull)^2

Expressed as a percentage of total SUs.

For example a hull 12 ship with 5 armor points would require:

(5/12)^2 = 17.4%

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

BeowulfJB wrote:

:idea: I have a simple way for me to do this:  How many boxes of ablative armor would a ship get, if "Armor plating" was taken as a Special Equipment, and used instead to generate ablative armor .

For the same effect, you would add 1/3 of your hull as ablative hits. However, this would not necessarily reflect the 'true' point cost... so... I would add one-quarter of your hull (go ahead and round up).

Thus, a hull-6 ship with ablative armor would get 1.5 (rounded up to 2) armor boxes.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2007-06-18
  • Posts: 128

Re: RE: Few Questions...

OldnGrey.. thank you very much for the offer to add it into the SXCA... I've been TRYING to, but I'm an utter excel incompetent.  While the 'How many points of Ablative Armor would I get point-wise' discussion going on re: armor plating is I think a useful stopgap, better by far for the system to have its own line in the SXCA.

Daniel:  Thank YOU very much for the speedy feedback and discussion.

Beowulf:  Thank you for the enthusiasm.  I hadnt anticipated that other people would think this a worthwhile idea!

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Hello everyone,

Let me make sure I understand how to use the armor plating special equipment to get Ablative Armor.
{100% blond here} lol .  My largest ship is my battleship "USS North Carolina".  It has heavy firepower, is speed 6,  and has 24 hull with armor plating.  If I make the armor plating represent Ablative armor, would this ship get six armor boxes instead of the c12 extra hull hits?  And would the CR cost be the same :?:    As the North Carolina stands now, it costs 1601.
:idea: (If I took 2 armor plating's, would I get 12 Ablative armor?<LOL>) :shock:

Steven Gilchrist; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

BeowulfJB wrote:

My largest ship is my battleship "USS North Carolina".  It has heavy firepower, is speed 6,  and has 24 hull with armor plating.  If I make the armor plating represent Ablative armor, would this ship get six armor boxes instead of the c12 extra hull hits?  And would the CR cost be the same :?:    As the North Carolina stands now, it costs 1601.
:idea: (If I took 2 armor plating's, would I get 12 Ablative armor?<LOL>) :shock:

I don't know where you're getting the "12 extra hull hits" -- armor plating only saves hull on a 1/3 chance, so the average is 8 extra hits.

Either way, you have it correct. The cost will not be EXACTLY the same, but close enough.

And NO, you cannot take it twice. tongue

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Hello everyone,

Although it is a trivial point, I calculated that if you have armor plating, which  stops 1/3 of the hull hits you get c12 extra hull hits, not just eight.   (I have been teaching Math for 6 + years). 
I can demonstrate it using this by this method:  :idea:
Every third roll should be an Armor hit, with no hull damage marked..  so if you mark off the 24 hull like this, you get:
    1 2 A 3 4 A 5 6 A 7 8 A 9 10 A 11 12 A 13 14 A 15 16 A 17 18 A 19 20  A 21 22 A 23 24 A 
#s 1 to 24 represents the hull hits.  The "A" represents the Armor hits.  I understand that it is tempting to multiply 1/3 x 24 to get 8, but this actually is not the way to do it...
[Having 24 hull should give you c36 hit pts.'til boom :shock: ]

:arrow: Steven Gilchrist; Math Instructor; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

BeowulfJB wrote:

Although it is a trivial point, I calculated that if you have armor plating, which  stops 1/3 of the hull hits you get c12 extra hull hits, not just eight.   (I have been teaching Math for 6 + years).

It's actually not a trivial point -- I'm quite disturbed... wink

And it's even worse. According to some Monte Carlo simulations I ran in Excel, the actual ratio is closer to 1.6:1, which is 20% better than the 1.33:1 assumed in the rules.

:arrow: Steven Gilchrist; Math Instructor; Jacksonville, Fla, USA

Yeah, yeah... we get it. big_smile

Seriously -- this has shaken me a bit...

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

cricket wrote:

And it's even worse. According to some Monte Carlo simulations I ran in Excel, the actual ratio is closer to 1.6:1, which is 20% better than the 1.33:1 assumed in the rules.

Never mind. Steven was right.

And so was I, at least before I forgot. wink

The modifier for Armor Plating in the rulebook is in fact x1.5 (why didn't someone point this out before I got all queasy?)

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-03-28
  • Posts: 480

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Don't worry Dan. You still da man.

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Tried the SU calculation and it was giving different percentage required for each hull size. Then read the suggestion of 1 Armor point per 4 hull (rounded up). So I went with this.
This gave an overall cost of 6%, 1% more than Armor Plating.
Likewise the CR is slightly more than Armor Plating.

Anyhow, Please take a look at the attached shipyard. Choose Ablative Armor in the equipment (Choosing it more than once will not add more Armor) and see what you think. This was done very late at night but I think it works ok.

Edited 3.20pm UK Time, Oops, Now it will only apply Ablative Armor once. V9.3
Deleted.

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

OldnGrey wrote:

Tried the SU calculation and it was giving different percentage required for each hull size.

That was the point, actually...

*shrug*

The idea was that the percentage would be constant when compared to the ratio of hull hits to armor hits; i.e., a hull 6 ship with 3 armor would spend the same percentage of its space as a hull 12 ship with 6 armor.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: RE: Few Questions...

Maybe because it was past midnight, but I was put off by the variations.
i.e.
Hull 4 Armor 1 = 6% 26SU
Hull 6 Armor 2 = 11% 73SU
Hull 7 Armor 2 = 8%  62SU
Your example, Hull 12 Armor 5 = 17.4% 230SU

This being, I assume on ability to choose how many Armor points were wanted, However your reply to Beowulf seemed to indicate a fixed amount of Ablative Armor based on Ship size as an alternative to Armor plating.


For the same effect, you would add 1/3 of your hull as ablative hits. However, this would not necessarily reflect the 'true' point cost... so... I would add one-quarter of your hull (go ahead and round up).


Sorry, I think I am getting confused, is the intention to allow a choice of how much armor is applied?

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

Re: RE: Few Questions...

OldnGrey wrote:

Sorry, I think I am getting confused, is the intention to allow a choice of how much armor is applied?

No need for apology -- I confuse myself quite often.

In a perfect world, I would allow the choice of how many armor points are selected. But, in response to Steven's question ("How would I determine the amount of armor on an existing design with armor plating?") I suggested a flat percentage of the hull size.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website