36 replies to this topic

[Ur Lord Tedric]

To the Great Oracle and Author of the Naval Combat Document:

The following is an extract from the document in the example of the Defensive Systems and the Excalibur...

Quote

......You decide to use up some of the 450,000 other tons on Type A Black Sphere Generators, which provide defense specifically against Plasma Torps, and design 10 of them into the Excalibur. This takes up 50,000 tons, or 10% of the ship, and provides 10 * 250,000 = 2.5 million, for a Plasma weapon mitigation of 5 on this 500,000 ton ship.  This means that instead of each Plasma Torp inflicting 20,000 firepower divided by 1, for 20,000 damage, only 20,000 / (1 + 5 ) = 3,333 damage would get through..........

Now, the bolded bit is ours.....

Now we have the ANZ details, we can see that the Type A BSG has a Black Sphere Generator Strength of 25,000 - not the 250,000 that appears in the example above.

Our question is simple - is there a 10x multiplication factor that we need to be aware of and could actually be applied to every figure we see in the ANZs? Or is the above example wrong?

As it stands - having 10% of your ship with Type A BSGs (the first generation of such) gives a Defense Mitigation of 83.33% - which is very impressive.

If the 10x factor is taken out, it changes the '5' in the example to 0.5 - which would give a Defense Mitigation of 33.33% - which, whilst not as good, is still pretty damn good.


And, whilst we're on the subject of defense....

Has your recent information on the Mitigation Factor of Manoeverability being limited to 8, and no higher, had any effect on the Agility vs Missile/Torpedo Range Table given on the next page?

If either prompts a change, could this please be incorporated into the document and the link updated - especially for all the new guys?

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric and all at the War College

[Ur Lord Tedric]

Dear Oracle,

We've now looked more closely at a number of battles that have occurred since the changes to the reports - and contain some simple designs.....

For all sensors, EDAC, Defense Screens, etc perused the numbers are consistent.

And we are now fairly confident that we have answered our own query - and are afraid that the example in the Naval Combat document is indeed in error.

The '250,000' should actually be 25,000 and therefore all the following sums and examples are wrong.....

The 10 x Type A BSG will actually produce a Mitigation of 0.5 and not 5...

Thus will reduce the incoming Plasma FP by 33.40% (most numbers seen seem to round up) and not the 83.4% shown......

Please could you confirm this and edit a copy of the Naval Combat document? Unfortunately the whole remaining example of fitting or not fitting also therefore contains false conclusions.....

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric + Sundry Mathematicians

[RTGPete]

Use the values you get back on your ANZ's, so the 25,000 that shows up on ANZ results right now is correct. This would mean that a 50,000 ton ship with a single Type A Black Sphere Generator (a 5,000 ton unit, representing 10% of the ship) would have 25,000 defensive output for a rating of 0.5 This translates into a mitigation value of (1 / 1.5 ) = about 67 % damage taken, or about 33 % damage reduction.

It's relatively easy to get 33 % damage reduction, or 50 % with category 2 defensive systems (the next generation up).

Ignore references to agility versus missile generation as damage mitigation is being used instead.

Of note: the values for EDAC (Energy Dispersion Armor Coating) are substantially higher than they were supposed to be, and are being reduced on this cycle. I hate to make changes of this magnitude but EDAC was way out of line for such an easy-to-build defensive system that covers a whopping 5 areas. It was supposed to equate to being a category 2 defensive system with a total of 10 coverage points. Instead, it had 10 points in each of the 5 areas <gasp>. That has been reduced to the correct 2 points in each area. EDAC will still provide 10 total points of protection, but it is spread out over 5 areas. Thus, a 50,000 ton ship with 5,000 tons of EDAC will have damage mitigation of about 17 % in each of those 5 areas. That's still pretty good mitigation for using cheap EDAC, but it's not nearly as good as using specific defenses for the same tonnage unless you're looking to fight enemies who by incredible chance happen to have more than one of the 5 areas covered. As with all defensive systems, much depends on what weapons are being used by your enemies.

I had considered tweaking Stasis Field Generators, another unusual defensive system, slightly upward, but decided against it - this is an item that covers a lot of areas and while its cat 1 and 2 versions are fairly weak, it does see substantial improvement when superior models are used. As with EDAC, coverage in a specific area is not as good as if you had used a specific defense, but you cover more than one type of damage type. For the best possible mitigation against a particular weapon type, a specific defensive system is definitely the way to go.

It is possible to achieve substantial damage mitigation when using the top-end defensive system versus a particular weapon class. Though you cannot achieve 100 % mitigation no matter how many defensive systems you place on a ship, it is quite possible to get 80 % or even higher.

[Paradigm]

RTGPete, on Jul 14 2006, 03:08 PM, said:

Of note: the values for EDAC (Energy Dispersion Armor Coating) are substantially higher than they were supposed to be, and are being reduced on this cycle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I applaud this change. When I saw the new ANZ on EDAC recently I seriously thought about writing Pete and asking him to check if it was an error. It made no sense that such an early and simple tech to research was twice as good in 5 areas than any first generation defense specific to a single area. If it had applied equally to all, it wouldn't be so bad, but it was unfair to those that had invested research in those weapons branches.

How about Tedric's question about "information on the Mitigation Factor of Maneuverability being limited to 8"?

[Ur Lord Tedric]

Thanks for getting back to us so quickly!

Sadly, we do have to agree with the EDAC assessment, it is incredibly effective in its current form - as, indeed, a number of battles have shown, but hopefully without significant effect.

If we may, however, as you have already been looking at the SFGs and having done a good bit of analysis recently.....we would ask that you might possibly reconsider 'tweaking' them just a bit as they are so important.

Whilst they do indeed cover all the damage vectors, the values are a little low - especially when considering the actual build costs - nearly, sometimes more than, 10x as much as other defences for equivalent tonnage!!!

Yours,

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[Damiano]

I would have to agree, Even a very small increase would be appreciated, just to get rid of some of the odd fractions, rounded up mind you!

[RTGPete]

Let's suppose that the Stasis Field Generator line continues to double in effectiveness as it rises in tech. If this is true, then the progression would be 15,000 - 30,000 - 60,000 - 120,000. For a 25,000 ton unit this would mean that a 250,000 ton ship equipped with a single 25,000 ton Type D Stasis Field Generator would have a damage mitigation value of about 67 % damage taken, or about 33 % damage reduction. A similar category 4 defensive system that protected against a single weapon type would (assuming it is also installed at 10 % of the ship tonnage) grant an 80 % damage reduction. Now....80 % reduction in enemy firepower is pretty impressive compared to only 33 %, and the SFG's are expensive to build. The kicker is that SFG's protect against an extremely broad spectrum of damage (much better even than EDAC).

In general terms, 33 % damage reduction means that a ship would be about 1.5 times harder to destroy than normal (150 damage output would be needed to inflict an effective 100 points of real damage). 80 % damage reduction would mean that the ship is about 5 times harder to kill than normal (500 damage output would be needed to inflict an effective 100 points of real damage). Considering the broad protection offered by SFG's, I think this is a pretty good ratio - 33 % across-the-board versus 80 % in a single category.

Lower generation versions of the Stasis Field Generator provide less protection, and considering their expense one has to carefully consider whether a broad spectrum approach to damage mitigation is worth it. Perhaps the protection is worthwhile, or perhaps it would be better to continue research, delaying the advantages of any mitigation until later.

There is a balance that should also be considered between armor and defensive systems. It doesn't do much good to give a ship 80 % damage reduction if the ship is nothing but Fuel Tankage and an engine. Such a vessel would have so little structural integrity that you would have been much better off splitting the 10 % assigned to defensive systems into some armor and some defensive systems. The exact balance point between structural integrity and damage mitigation depends a lot on what kind of weapons the enemy is using and his total firepower output, fire control, number of ships on your side and so forth.

The higher cost on SFG's might encourage their use on more survivable ships to begin with - just one of many issues for a starship design team to consider

[Paradigm]

Ur Lord Tedric, on Jul 14 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

If we may, however, as you have already been looking at the SFGs and having done a good bit of analysis recently.....we would ask that you might possibly reconsider 'tweaking' them just a bit as they are so important.

Whilst they do indeed cover all the damage vectors, the values are a little low - especially when considering the actual build costs - nearly, sometimes more than, 10x as much as other defences for equivalent tonnage!!!

Yours,

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Type A Stasis Field Generator is the equivalent of a 115,000 ton component (build cost). It provides 15,000 defense in 9 areas for a total of 135,000 defense spread between 9 areas. That is pretty puny considering what it takes to develop the SFG-A and its very high build cost. It is the most expensive thing you can build by ton at that stage of the game.

Pete, is that computer cost a mistake? Seems out of line. Anyway . . .

Most 1st level specific defenses are a 5:1 ratio so 10% will stop 33% of that specific damage type. The revised EDAC is 2:1 (5 areas) so 10% will stop about 17% of one of those 5 damage types. The SFG-A is a 0.13:1 (9 areas) if calculating by build cost or 0.6:1 if calculation by total mass. By mass, a ship with 10% SFG-As would stop about 6% vs any one attack form. By cost it's even worse.

Nobody sensible is going to dedicate 10% of their ship's mass to super expensive to build SFG-As for a 6% damage reduction by the time they can research something that advanced. It's a near useless system in its current form.

[hobknob]

SFG's are good against 15 systems, or better put, against every known system to date in the game. With a single defensive system, no matter the cost, you can defend against everything. That is pretty powerful in my book. In fact it is so powerful that I would really hope that the effectiveness is toned down a bit. There is so much attempt to keep things balanced that this SFG tech really seems to be unbalancing. In this case I do not think that construction costs alone are sufficient to keep the balance from getting out of whack.

My vote is to reduce the effectiveness of the SFG, not increase it. JMHO



I would also voice the opinion that in a system where our commanders aren't smart enough to retreat in the face of overwhelming fire power or strategic mismatches, anything over 50% reduction from a single system is overboard. I really expected it to be much harder to get to the 80% defensive categories and anticipated a layered approach of multiple systems, not just more of the same. Alas, that is not he case and we go forward with what we have.

[TErnest]

Paradigm, on Jul 14 2006, 04:17 PM, said:

Ur Lord Tedric, on Jul 14 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

If we may, however, as you have already been looking at the SFGs and having done a good bit of analysis recently.....we would ask that you might possibly reconsider 'tweaking' them just a bit as they are so important.

Whilst they do indeed cover all the damage vectors, the values are a little low - especially when considering the actual build costs - nearly, sometimes more than, 10x as much as other defences for equivalent tonnage!!!

Yours,

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Type A Stasis Field Generator is the equivalent of a 115,000 ton component (build cost). It provides 15,000 defense in 9 areas for a total of 135,000 defense spread between 9 areas. That is pretty puny considering what it takes to develop the SFG-A and its very high build cost. It is the most expensive thing you can build by ton at that stage of the game.

Pete, is that computer cost a mistake? Seems out of line. Anyway . . .

Most 1st level specific defenses are a 5:1 ratio so 10% will stop 33% of that specific damage type. The revised EDAC is 2:1 (5 areas) so 10% will stop about 17% of one of those 5 damage types. The SFG-A is a 0.13:1 (9 areas) if calculating by build cost or 0.6:1 if calculation by total mass. By mass, a ship with 10% SFG-As would stop about 6% vs any one attack form. By cost it's even worse.

Nobody sensible is going to dedicate 10% of their ship's mass to super expensive to build SFG-As for a 6% damage reduction by the time they can research something that advanced. It's a near useless system in its current form.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree entirely with your analysis, Paradigm.

The physical mass to protection ratio is abysmal. Just 6% protection for 10% of ship's mass.

The production mass to protection ratio is nothing short of horrific.

But combine that with the research one must go through (beyond starting techs) to build the system:
1 level 1 techs,
4 level 2 techs,
3 level 3 techs,
3 level 4 techs, including the Type A SFG itself,
1 level 5 techs
... and the whole thing looks most disappointing.

I did not expect the SFG to be a cure-all to our defensive combat woes... but, still... this is very disappointing, indeed.

I think Pete's error is in defining the 4th generation SFG as a "level 4" device. This device is realistically compared to a 9th generation technology, not a 4th. And frankly, I would expect a 9th gen tech to give me better than 33% protection (at 10% ship's mass) even if against all weapons types, considering its cost of production!

TErnest

[Paradigm]

Hobknob, you must be trying to trick your enemies in to building them. It is obvious the tonnage is better invested in armor and/or shields than Type A Stasis Field Generators. Your ship would be long destroyed before the SFG-A could pay for the equivalent tonnage at 0.6:1 efficiency. Given Pete's extrapolation, the Type D is more worthy of consideration. The Type D is also going to take a hell of a lot of research points to get to. The only value I see in the Type A at this point is as a stepping stone to the Type D. At least there is some chance the Type D is worth the research investment.

[hobknob]

You never look at the first of a tech line as the one to get, rather you count on getting toward the end of the line for the real benefit. At the time that you got Type D SFG's you could easily build ships with 75%+ defenses against every known offensive system in the game. Sure they would be expensive, but coupled with high level shields and Tckon Armor they would be nearly invulnerable against any form of attack.

Try and do that with converntional defensive systems and you would run out of equipment slots in the design and you would need to invest 10% of mass on 15 different sytems each, which makes it pretty tough to limit your ship to 100%.

And if you think that all the reasearch for the SFG is daunting, try and get to a 4th Gen defense in all 15 systems that a n SFG covers. It is much more difficult to do.

While the Type A SFG is a poor defensive system, the Type B and C really come into their own while the Type D breaks the game completely.

IMHO the SFG's should not double in effectiveness but should only increase by 50%. The benefit of the SFG is in protecting against anything really well but in protecting against everything. Also, these examples using 10% of mass for defensive systems are misleading. Most ships I have fought have 40% or better tied up into the various defensive systems, not counting armor. So look at the SFG with 40-50% of mass devoted to them in a ship design and you will be much more realistic.

By Petes example, 30% of Type D SFG's will get you near the 90% reduction area. That completely breaks the system.

[Paradigm]

hobknob, on Jul 14 2006, 06:28 PM, said:

By Petes example, 30% of Type D SFG's will get you near the 90% reduction area.  That completely breaks the system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

30% Type D stops 59% of the damage, not 90% (100% Type D's would stop 83% of the damage by my calculation). That leaves you with 70% of your ship's mass for everything else. If you don't have much tonnage left for armor and shields the damage reduction isn't going to do much good in the end.

[TErnest]

hobknob, on Jul 14 2006, 05:28 PM, said:

You never look at the first of a tech line as the one to get, rather you count on getting toward the end of the line for the real benefit.  At the time that you got Type D SFG's you could easily build ships with 75%+ defenses against every known offensive system in the game.  Sure they would be expensive, but coupled with high level shields and Tckon Armor they would be nearly invulnerable against any form of attack.

Try and do that with converntional defensive systems and you would run out of equipment slots in the design and you would need to invest 10% of mass on 15 different sytems each, which makes it pretty tough to limit your ship to 100%.

And if you think that all the reasearch for the SFG is daunting, try and get to a 4th Gen defense in all 15 systems that a n SFG covers.  It is much more difficult to do.

While the Type A SFG is a poor defensive system, the Type B and C really come into their own while the Type D breaks the game completely.

IMHO the SFG's should not double in effectiveness but should only increase by 50%.  The benefit of the SFG is in protecting against anything really well but in protecting against everything.  Also, these examples using 10% of mass for defensive systems are misleading.  Most ships I have fought have 40% or better tied up into the various defensive systems, not counting armor.  So look at the SFG with 40-50% of mass devoted to them in a ship design and you will be much more realistic.

By Petes example, 30% of Type D SFG's will get you near the 90% reduction area.  That completely breaks the system.



   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make a persuasive point, Hobknob. And I would buy it, if this were any standard manufactured item.

But SFGs cost almost five times as much to build per mass as a standard manufactured item. And the VAST majority of the materials used are highly expensive electornics, for goodness sake!

That 30% of ships mass you are talking about would represent enough production to build almost another one and a half ships of the original ship's design mass. Or nearly four ships of the same mass if you built them all out of mostly Tckon 68!

Yes, that 90% protection would be sweat. Maybe even a tad "unreasonably" sweat. But is it that much out of line with other Level 9 defensive techs? Like 1000 integrety per ton armor? (Actually only a level 7 tech.) Or 250,000 point defensive shields? I think not.

One thing you say, I can certainly agree with. I would not be too adverse to reducing the effectivness of the top level SFG if it would meen making the lower level SFGs effective enough to actually consider building one. That would mean a (signficantly) less than doubling of system effectiveness per tech level to be workable.

TErnest

[hobknob]

Ok, the diminishing returns does kick in.

At 50% of mass devoted to Type D SFG's you would be protected from 70% of incoming fire. That is about as high as I have seen devoted to defensive systems. That is still a hefty reduction.

The beauty of specific defenses is that you can switch to a different damage vector in order to get through. You may have to give up your best weapon system for an inferior system if it gets through better, but with SFG's there is no going around with a different damage vector. So even at 70 I still maintain that the system is broken.

SFG's should be a baseline to give a little protection, not and entire defense. Changing the improvement rate of SFG's to 50% of previous levels would give a final rating of 60,000 for the Type D. At that level there would be sufficient reason to research them and to build them, but they would not break the combat system. IMHO

10% of mass would get you a 20% reduction, which is great for 15 systems and 50% of mass would get you 55%, which is still an excellent defense against EVERYTHING.

Of course, an alternative approach is to have an anti-SFG system that counters the effects of SFG's.