10 replies to this topic

[Sakarissa]

Okay, I'm trying to setup my ship design spreadsheet to automatically figure the defense numbers for my ships. The CIDS are rather interesting. According to the newer Naval Primer, you need to know the generation of the CIDS to determine the Accuracy number for the formula. The Gatling CIDS ANZs actually mentioned what generation they were. The other don't. How do we figure the actual generation level for each of the CIDS. I'm assuming that once I figure out the Mk I generation then the Mk II would be one higher.

Sakarissa
The Circle

[RTGPete]

Sakarissa, on Apr 9 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

Okay, I'm trying to setup my ship design spreadsheet to automatically figure the defense numbers for my ships. The CIDS are rather interesting. According to the newer Naval Primer, you need to know the generation of the CIDS to determine the Accuracy number for the formula. The Gatling CIDS ANZs actually mentioned what generation they were. The other don't. How do we figure the actual generation level for each of the CIDS. I'm assuming that once I figure out the Mk I generation then the Mk II would be one higher.

Sakarissa
The Circle

Don't worry about the Accuracy idea - that was a proposal that didn't work out. The generations of the weapons and defensive systems are not used directly in the combat formula; instead, higher generation units are simply more efficient per ton at what they do.

To figure the defensive values of a ship design, add up the total defensive firepower output and divide by the tonnage of the ship. Damage mitigation is figured by the formula:

firepower_impacting_ship = incoming_firepower / ( 1 + defense_against_that_firepower_type )

For example, suppose you placed 100 x 10cm Gatling CIDS (total tonnage 1,000) on a 10,000 ton Corvette. Total defensive firepower = 100 x 50 = 5,000. If enemy missiles were impacting your ship with, say, 24000 total missile damage, your ship would actually suffer:

24,000 / (1 + 0.5) = 16,000. This would, in turn, impact shields (if any) and then the ship itself.

Thus, your ship essentially sports about 33% damage mitigation because one-third of the incoming missiles were shot down by your gatling CIDS crews before they could hit the ship's shields.

If you used 10cm Gatling CIDS instead, your ship would command an impressive 80% mitigation (incoming missile damage would be divided by (1+4=5). It is not possible to achieve 100% mitigation, but a ship with a lot of defensive systems could get close (it wouldn't be able to do much of anything else, though).

[Sakarissa]

In the first example, did you mean a different level of Gauss CIDS instead of the 10cm?

Let me post another example to see if I understood properly. Let's go ahead and use the 10,000 ton corvette idea. Putting 1000 tons of Mk III Plasma Pulse CIDs would provide 10 (number of CIDS) * 2000 (strength rating) to get 20,000 strength. Divide that by the tonnage to get 2. Putting that into the formula you would have a total mitigation of 3 or 66.67% damage mitigation.

10 (Number of CIDS) * 2000 (strength rating) = 20,000 (total defensive firepower)

20,000 (total defensive firepower) / 10,000 (tonnage of ship) = 2

Incoming_Firepower = X (total damage of that type) / (1 + 2) or X / 3 or 66.67% mitigation

Have I interpreted things correctly?

Sakarissa
The Circle

[Clan Elder 'Keen]

Pete,

Any further thoughts on your plans to tweak missiles as currently they can be countered by both CIDS and AP (which is incredibly easy to obtain)?

[Coconutheads]

Pete,

In your example you didn't factor in the AP of the targetted ship when calculating damage mitigation. How does that work in conjunction with CIDS?

[ShadowKitsune]

Since Pete's example stated defense_against_that_firepower_type my guess would be that the Missile, Fighter & Drone defensive value of the Engines would be added to the CIDS defensive value, before it was divided by the ship tonnage.

Example:
100 Laser CIDS @ 50 = 5000 MFD Defense
30 Mk I Nuclear Engines @ 300* = 9000 MFD Defense

Assuming we're using the same 10,000 ton Corvette...
defense_against_that_firepower_type = (5000+9000)/10,000 = 1.4

Assuming the same 24,000 offensive value Missile attack...
24,000 / (1+1.4) = 10,000
(which is a little over 58% reduction in Missile damage)


*I used the engine Thrust value here, since the actual MFD rating for Mk I Nuclear Engines I do not know. My reasoning was that since AP is a function of total thrust divided by total tonnage, and that AP roughly equates to manueverability and therefore grants some defense from Missiles, Drones and Fighters (as stated in the ANZ Description of every Engine I've researched), I could use the Thrust value as the Defensive value.

FWIW,
-SK

[hobknob]

Clan Elder'Keen, on Apr 9 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

Pete,

Any further thoughts on your plans to tweak missiles as currently they can be countered by both CIDS and AP (which is incredibly easy to obtain)?

Yes, since I have seen defensive ratings of 100%, it seems like missiles either need a boost or there needs to be an upper limit to the defensive rating or there needs to be a bit more of the diminishing returs on the higher ends.

[Paradigm]

RTGPete, on Apr 9 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

24,000 / (1 + 0.5) = 16,000. This would, in turn, impact shields (if any) and then the ship itself.

Thus, your ship essentially sports about 33% damage mitigation because one-third of the incoming missiles were shot down by your gatling CIDS crews before they could hit the ship's shields.

Is that literally shot down in the cast of fighters/drones? How do pulse engines factor in to those? Can you give an example of fighters/drones vs CIDS?

[hobknob]

CIDS actually shoot down fighters and drones. Defensive ratings due to engines only mitigate damage for that run. Against missiles it makes no difference how you get your rating, but against fighters and drones you would want to have CIDS that could reduce the number of fighters/drones for the next pass.

Pulse engines make your fighters/drones better. So in a heads up battle with the same fighters on each side, the side with the better pulse engines would have the upper hand.

There was a draft document that went into lots of details about comparing Pulse engines and other stuff, but those things were never incorporated into the game code as I understand it.

I don't recall off hand if pulse engines make fighters any tougher to shoot down or not. I think that bit was a part of the draft rules that weren't incorporated.

It really became a bit of a mute point when folks got advanced enough and experienced enough to realize that fighters and drones are of very little value. They really have just a couple of uses beyond which they are quickly overtaken by conventional weapons.

[General Miles Avatar]

Paradigm, on Apr 17 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

RTGPete, on Apr 9 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

24,000 / (1 + 0.5) = 16,000. This would, in turn, impact shields (if any) and then the ship itself.

Thus, your ship essentially sports about 33% damage mitigation because one-third of the incoming missiles were shot down by your gatling CIDS crews before they could hit the ship's shields.

Is that literally shot down in the cast of fighters/drones? How do pulse engines factor in to those? Can you give an example of fighters/drones vs CIDS?

Not sure if its how it still works but better pulse engines mitigated the the tonnage shot down by CIDS by a considerable amount. Better pulse engines means less tonnage lost to CIDS. the higher the generation the more efficient just like everything else.

[ShadowKitsune]

While Fighters "top out" at Gunboats and the Drones at Colossus Drones, as far as I can tell in my researchings, the question about Pulse Engines becomes an important and interesting one. To whit, do they stack (like Ground Unit components) or are they an upgrade/replace technology (like starship Engines)?

They have features of both - Pulse Engines are a Horizon Technology. You don't build them. They just "appear" everywhere once they are learned. The combat module only lists the most advanced version you have. Example if you have researched Mk II Fusion Pulse Engines and Mk I Fusion Pulse Engines, it only displays the Mk II Fusion Pulse Engines.

I admit that I am researching the Fighter, Drone and Pulse Engine lines more out of "style" than strategic importance. Fighters & Drones come with such a set of logistical issues that they are almost prohibitive for power projection purposes. Plus unlike other weapons systems, there are a myriad of defense technologies out there that can mitigate their effectiveness.

For example, the Mk I-IV Displacement Devices, which mitigate Gravitic weaponry, require you to have researched up the Gravitic technology tree at least to the Light Tractor Beam. If you go up to the Light Pressor Beam, which also requires the Light Tractor Beam as a pre-requisite, you open up the Repulsor CIDS line. Almost every weapon tree open ups a CIDS form of the technology, which means that unlike other weapons systems (e.g. Gravitics, Frost Bolts, Projectiles) you do not have to "research" Fighters, Missiles & Drones to build specific defenses against them.

Again, this makes a major departure from SuperNova II and the marauding hordes of Drone Carriers.

FWIW,
-SK