Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

Naval Combat Primer


RTGPete
 Share

Recommended Posts

EDAC and SFG's are just like the other defensive systems (that add to a single defensive area) except that they spread their values around to multiple areas -- less coverage per area, but they cover more than one.

 

Can you give us an example with real numbers?

 

Real numbers aren't real until the combat system is implemented in-game. However, it's a simple division of defense strength: if one defensive system provides 250,000 total defense value to one defense area, and EDAC covers five areas and happened to be otherwise identical to the first system, it would provide 50,000 to each of those areas. It's not as good in one area, but it covers five.

 

Woah there, surely that would make SFG next to useless? I thought they currently applied their value equally to all the areas they protected against? It would then be cheaper and more efficient to have a specific defence against each damage type (some of us already have good defences in most areas)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Woah there,  surely that would make SFG next to useless? I thought they currently applied their value equally to all the areas they protected against? It would then be cheaper and more efficient to have a specific defence against each damage type (some of us already have good defences in most areas)

 

It depends on the rating of the SFG. If it's high enough, just the fraction that applied to a particular weapon type would still be effective. The thing is, it has to be good enough that simple armor isn't so much better to make the SFG pointless, but not so good that it's better than a specific defense of similar tech level. There is no way for us to judge until we see the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only suggestion I have for the final document is that it includes the clarifications that have appeared on the boards over time.  I think much of the document is already just a restatement of what could be gleaned through the boards; it's main purpose is to consolidate it to one place.  Also to hopefully remove the sense of conjecture...

 

Stuff like the effect of Naval Leaders on fire control should be included.  If other character classes effect things, I think those effects should be included in a general way (I don't think the formulas are necessary).

 

In any case we are glad to see the document out.

 

:(

 

-LX

 

Good suggestion LX.

 

In addition to the comments from Damiano and Marvin I would point out that I assume that the defensive upgrade that Pete is considering will also impact multi-system defenses as well as single system defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only suggestion I have for the final document is that it includes the clarifications that have appeared on the boards over time.  I think much of the document is already just a restatement of what could be gleaned through the boards; it's main purpose is to consolidate it to one place.  Also to hopefully remove the sense of conjecture...

 

Stuff like the effect of Naval Leaders on fire control should be included.  If other character classes effect things, I think those effects should be included in a general way (I don't think the formulas are necessary).

 

In any case we are glad to see the document out.

 

:(

 

-LX

I agree with Lord Xaar. One complete document would be nice.

 

Searching the boards for everything Pete has said on the subject over the years would take more time than he has.

 

Fortunately, Eternus shared a very nice document a while back that pulls it all together, conjecture and all. Maybe Pete could use that as a topic reminder, and help move a lot of this from widely scattered sources and rough suppositions into something more concise and official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

 

So basically you're saying that an Type A SFG (25000 tons) would give 25000/15=1666.6 Tons of protection vs each listed damage vector? Considering it's immense cost that seems little or am I missing something here?

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have assumed that when Pete refers, in the document, to 1st (etc.) generation of a defense system tech, that it was a reference to nominal 3-day (etc.) research techs, rather than Mk I, Type A, Light, etc. systems.  If that is not the case, then the values shift considerably.  Is there any confirmation of his intent?

 

Good question Pandaemonium. I am assuming that when he refers to generations of tech, he is referring to Poor as 1, Fair as 2, Average as 3, Good as 4, etc. but confirmation would be helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've researched up to 10-Magnificient and not found anything beyond that opening up yet.

 

I would think that since Pete considers Laser CIDS 2nd Generation then Poor is 1st Generation.

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In expanded draft of the primer, torpedoes are mentioned in the agility section together with missiles so I would reckon they're just that, fatter missiles :(

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only suggestion I have for the final document is that it includes the clarifications that have appeared on the boards over time.  I think much of the document is already just a restatement of what could be gleaned through the boards; it's main purpose is to consolidate it to one place.  Also to hopefully remove the sense of conjecture...

 

Stuff like the effect of Naval Leaders on fire control should be included.  If other character classes effect things, I think those effects should be included in a general way (I don't think the formulas are necessary).

 

In any case we are glad to see the document out.

 

:(

 

-LX

I agree with Lord Xaar. One complete document would be nice.

 

Searching the boards for everything Pete has said on the subject over the years would take more time than he has.

 

Fortunately, Eternus shared a very nice document a while back that pulls it all together, conjecture and all. Maybe Pete could use that as a topic reminder, and help move a lot of this from widely scattered sources and rough suppositions into something more concise and official.

I don't really care how it's done, as long as the new naval document is complete. If it contains suggestions to refer to the boards or possession of space combat rules from SN II to make it more understandable, then it is a failure.

 

Lord Uriel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand the Point Defense explanation then it provides a double layer of protection. First it provides an 'umbrella' level of protection to destroy fighters, drones, missiles and then provides damage mitigation effects for those units that actually mount them.

 

Now how does the umbrella work during a warp point assault as the attacker? Does the point defense umbrella extend thru the warp point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only suggestion I have for the final document is that it includes the clarifications that have appeared on the boards over time.  I think much of the document is already just a restatement of what could be gleaned through the boards; it's main purpose is to consolidate it to one place.  Also to hopefully remove the sense of conjecture...

 

Stuff like the effect of Naval Leaders on fire control should be included.  If other character classes effect things, I think those effects should be included in a general way (I don't think the formulas are necessary).

 

In any case we are glad to see the document out.

 

:cheers:

 

-LX

 

My sentiments exactly. This board mixes player speculation, hearsay, and vague hints from Pete, to the occasional detailed facts from Pete.

 

I would like to see a document that gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

I would like to add one more request for information – Why do sensors come in short range, medium range, and long range? Does Deployment Location affect them like missiles? Or is there some other reason for sensor ranges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...