120 replies to this topic

[RTGPete]

Attached is the draft revised version of the Naval Combat Primer. Check it out and see what you think. Notable additions include point defense and defensive system formulas. These do represent modifications from the current system, and are not officially in place for actual combats at this time. If any changes need to be made, I'd rather do them now, before they become official

For example, currently it is often better to simply place more armor on a design than to add defensive systems, even if you know precisely which weapon the enemy might be using. Defensive systems have been beefed up a bit to make them more effective, though they still only work against their specific weapon system types. Armor remains unchanged, and as always is an outstanding way to increase the structural integrity of your designs. An example in the attached documents goes into some detail on this issue, encouraging a balance between armor and defensive systems.

One note: I'll add a section talking about FOO and DOO settings: originally they were intended to work by formation, which is how they are set now. In practice, fighters and drones are stored fleetwide rather than by formation, so you should use the same FOO and DOO orders to provide for more predictable results. I could change the system to scan by formation and make guesses as to which fighter/drone types are assigned to carriers that might be in each formation, but since it would be difficult for you to predict that outcome, it's better to just use one overall FOO/DOO for the fleet, so one will need to be used for the fleet.

Attached File(s)

•  Naval_Combat.pdf (51.11K)
  Number of downloads: 382

[Locklyn]

Thanks Pete, it'll make for an interesting read! I'm curious about the Drone and Fighter Options...since various drones and fighters are varied in their efficiency against certain things doesn't one fleet wide option only degrade from those that would like to keep their defensive gunboats on close and their offensive Combat Gunboats on Deep strike? Or have I misunderstood it and the defensive capacity of them are always the same whatever their option chosen is, only any attack capacity or their risk taking for loss purposes are affected by options?

Taking the Primer to bed

Cheers
/Locklyn

[RTGPete]

Locklyn, on Sep 7 2005, 01:46 PM, said:

Thanks Pete, it'll make for an interesting read! I'm curious about the Drone and Fighter Options...since various drones and fighters are varied in their efficiency against certain things doesn't one fleet wide option only degrade from those that would like to keep their defensive gunboats on close and their offensive Combat Gunboats on Deep strike? Or have I misunderstood it and the defensive capacity of them are always the same whatever their option chosen is, only any attack capacity or their risk taking for loss purposes are affected by options?

Taking the Primer to bed

Cheers
/Locklyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Avoidance and attack strength vary by FOO/DOO, but their point defense capabilities remain standard, so they won't suffer from a fleet point defense standpoint. Your choice as to how many point defense type fighters you have in your fleet would be the way to increase the PD umbrella, or you could design more PD weapons onto the ships themselves for dedicated coverage.

[Justinian]

RTGPete, on Sep 7 2005, 01:20 PM, said:

These do represent modifications from the current system, and are not officially in place for actual combats at this time.  If any changes need to be made, I'd rather do them now, before they become official 

Defensive systems have been beefed up a bit to make them more effective, though they still only work against their specific weapon system types. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pete, when will the combat primer represent the the actual in-game combats? Will we get a little notice when such changes go into effect? This is an important question since some of us (who shall remain nameless) are planning significant "exercises" let's say. In other words, I have this friend who has been building defense ships for a LONG time and is worried that all that time and effort is about to be overturned without notice. Perhaps you can understand the anxiety my friend has about the phrase you used above..."not officially in place for actual combats at this time."

Regarding defensive systems...are these beefed up NOW? Or do they also fall under the above not-officially-in-place clause?

Justinian

[RTGRuss]

Quote

Regarding defensive systems...are these beefed up NOW?  Or do they also fall under the above not-officially-in-place clause?

Any balancing changes from the current system, including increased effectiveness for dedicated defensive systems, are not officially in place at this time. They still work as they always have. You should begin planning for the fact however that these systems will be more effective in the future since they currently don't stack up as well as they should vs general armor. You'll know in advance before the final version goes live.

Russ

[Justinian]

RTGRuss, on Sep 7 2005, 03:53 PM, said:

You should begin planning for the fact however that these systems will be more effective in the future since they currently don't stack up as well as they should vs general armor.  You'll know in advance before the final version goes live.

Russ

Russ, I realize that you will give us notification--that was not the thrust of my concern. However, you must be a little bit sensitive to the fact that large battles are not planned in a turn, or even five turns. The fact that defensive systems don't stack up like they should vs armor does not change the defenses I've spent many turns building...nor does it change years of research I've been doing based on battle outcomes. If the span of time until implementation equals the time spent on preparing the Naval Combat Primer, I'm ok with that as it gives time to those us that adapted to how things ARE in the SNROTE world, rather than to what will soon be a CHANGED SNROTE world. In battles involving integrity values in the hundreds of millions (and even billions), it takes time to build the armor and firepower necessary.

So my concern is for the changes you propose. I was expecting a primer on how things ARE, not how things WILL BE...that's all. Please don't read anger in my post. I'm just asking what I think is a very legitimate question about timing. Thank you for posting the primer and giving us a chance to chew on it before making these proposed changes.

Lastly, is it so unbalanced right now that changes need be made? I never knew what that balance was exactly...the balance we currently have is all I've known, derived from the battles I fought. Can we know what the current balance is to properly determine the viability of your proposed changes?

Justinian

[RTGPete]

Well, the current defensive system setup makes it so armor is often a better addition to your ships than some defensive systems combinations. If you've built up your defenses around a specific plan, it will still work. Armor is most definitely not being downgraded. Any defensive systems that you've designed onto your ships will simply be more effective. The precise formulas are listed in the new combat primer.

[Dr.0]

Hi
I have a question and a comment.
Question - what is affect of subterraean and aquatic fortresses?

Comment - Pete, in the case of defensive systems adding out-of-date components to a design will reduce the affect of the hi tech systems becuase the old systems will cause the tonnage percent of the new systems to decrease. Which probably will outweigh the gain caused by old systems.

Jack

[hobknob]

I am very happy to have some idea, any idea, how defensive systems are going to opperate. It is also nice to know that my research is not wasted in those areas.

I suppose I will have to read it a few more times since I seem to have missed something.

Back in a few...

[Paradigm]

RTGPete, on Sep 7 2005, 10:20 PM, said:

One note: I'll add a section talking about FOO and DOO settings:  originally they were intended to work by formation, which is how they are set now.  In practice, fighters and drones are stored fleetwide rather than by formation, so you should use the same FOO and DOO orders to provide for more predictable results.  I could change the system to scan by formation and make guesses as to which fighter/drone types are assigned to carriers that might be in each formation, but since it would be difficult for you to predict that outcome, it's better to just use one overall FOO/DOO for the fleet, so one will need to be used for the fleet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fleet wide FOO/DOO doesn't seem to me to work very well. I don't think it's a huge deal, but it would be better if there was a way to do something like send our Attack Gunboats on a Kamikaze Attack while keeping our Police Gunboats, Hummers, etc. back on Cover.

Within the current system there is no way to assign particular fighters/drones to particular ships. If the MOVE and NM orders would accept multiple fleets at once, then groups of fleets with different FOO/DOO settings could all be moved as a single task force.

Will the combat system support multiple FOO/DOO settings if there was a way to divvy up which fighters/drones went with which fleet in a multi-fleet engagement?

Pete, how does it currently work when allies are fighting together, and both empires have carriers with different FOO/DOO settings?

[hobknob]

I am looking at the formula used in the defensive system example and I am having trouble figuring out what some of the numbers are or how they would relate to anything.

What is the " 10*250,000=2.5M " suppose to represent?

thanks

[Ur Lord Tedric]

Thanks Pete! Now we know why you've been quiet!

Lots of useful info, would add to Hobnob's above though.

Can we request that the Weapon Range and Defensive bonus vis a vis DepLoc detail be added before the final document?

And, if the FOO & DOO options are confimed at the fleet level only, please could the FBP order process be modified so that changing the FOO & DOO for any Ship Class we're changing DL for; changes the FOOs & DOOs for ALL the Ship Classes at once?

Regards

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[Locklyn]

Pete,

I have trouble comparing the "new" stuff that will be incorporated vs how it is now since how it is now isn't really detailed.

Further I agree with Paradigm and would like to see the capacity as originally detailed in the rules to actually separate my frontline Combat Gunboats from my Hummers when it comes to what risks they take in combat and I want my picket drones and Science Drones to hold back. This seems impossible if it is only on a fleet level.

Further I would like to see the Primer also point out the small fact that drones and fighters are through on the first round on a WP assault whether their carriers have come through or not.

Also I found no discussion on Boarding Combat and the facts of atmosphere on weaponry fired into it or out of it which would be good to know.

I agree with Urlord Tedric about the need to have actual ranges explained for the various DLs

So with CIDS they first actually mitigate Fighter/Drone/Missile damage done on a tonnage rating like other defensive systems and then they can also destroy the fighters etc according to that formula?? Is that all done simultaneously? Does Fighters deal out their damage which is reduced by CIDS and manueverability and then the CIDS deal their damage to the fighters or that damage dealt afterwards??

There are more questions coming

Cheers
/Locklyn

[octagon999]

Thanks, Pete.

I would be against making any changes to the engine you have described in this document. People have requested further clarification, etc, and that's fine, but I don't think the players should be able to change the actual combat rules at this point, especially since players are notorious for wanting to nerf someone else's setup in favor of their own design philosophy. (even unconciously)

I assume the "will work" part is for the repair of ships and specialized repair modules/facilities?

Appreciate the work,
Tom
The Rathe

[Paradigm]

hobknob, on Sep 8 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

I am looking at the formula used in the defensive system example and I am having trouble figuring out what some of the numbers are or how they would relate to anything.

What is the " 10*250,000=2.5M "  suppose to represent?

thanks :cheers:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you only wanting a responce from Pete or are you asking the board for opinions? I assumed that Type A Black Sphere Generators have a 5:1 strength ratio, not that I have a clue where that 5x came from.