Somethings Up?

[Locklyn]

Pete,

 

We asked for numbers, the general recounting of how combat works I think we have a grasp on after all you've told it in the draft. What I don't understand is how you give almost absolute numbers for things like manueverability and PD defense but can't offer defensive divisor numbers or actually tell us what our Space Combat racial feature actually affects in combat or how to attain those effects mentioned in the draft with leaders? We asked for knowledge on what is happening with defensive systems since YOU said you were changing them. Please give us an answer to these things instead.

 

/Locklyn

[Locklyn]

Btw

 

"Degraded behavior" does that mean that a damaged ship also loses firepower during the combat accordingly to its damaged status?

 

/Locklyn

[Lord Uriel]

Pete,

I have a question regarding the modifers that increase damage. Are these from racial modifers, crew experience, or range modifers?

 

I have to agree that the idea of a player writing his own code to figure out the space combat system is frightening for me at least. I have a hard enough time with spread sheets.

 

I know I can't speak for the rest, but I would like to see some sort of indication of racial modifiers and crew experience on the battle reports. I have very limited experience (ie scouts) from battle reports but my own have no indication of modifiers or experience in any form.

 

If the sole contribution from these modiers is a damage increase, could a line be inserted like this: "Damage against the enemy fleet is increased by a total of 12%; 9% from racial characteristics and 3% due to crew experience."

 

Or something like that.

 

FWIW

 

Lord Uriel

[AKO]

Hello Pete,

I am quite happy with your explanation. I do not want SN:ROTE battles to become the game where the guy with the best spreadsheet wins. So, not everything can be calculated: so what?

 

Most real life battles are also won with a lot of luck, chance etc.

 

I trust and have confidence in Rolling Thunder Games, to deliver me a good game. I am having fun and appreciate the overwhelming possibilities of the game. I am playing almost 3 years now, and I am still scratching at the surface of the possibilities. I am looking forward to the next 10 years.

 

Kind regards, André

[Octus Imperium]

I greatly appreciate the summary that Pete has provided. I may be way off base here, but I would prefer to keep enough mystery in the game so one is NOT REQUIRED to be in an alliance with spreadsheet masters to be able to design the ultimate battlewagon. The basic parameters just detailed are enough to go on. Now I can more intelligently determine research and production priorities, role playing as I wish. But if we all know all the numbers and all have magic spreadsheets, we will all design much the same stuff (armor has become a must have as an example) except for the weapons we decide we want to play with. We then will have similar empires with similar strategies optimized to the various spreadsheets based on absolute certainty regarding the math. Boring!

 

Now, I like math and tell my son that everything is based on math (even biology and perhaps human behavior once we get more insights). But please let me have a good time in SNROTE without becoming an Excel blackbelt.

 

Wait, I am having fun without the details. Never mind...........

 

For those of you who love the details, more power to you. But aren't you finding enjoyment discovering the details through experience and trial and error? I play for entertainment and hope you do to.

 

Octus Imperium

[Octus Imperium]

Pete,

I have a question regarding the modifers that increase damage.  Are these from racial modifers, crew experience, or range modifers?

 

I have to agree that the idea of a player writing his own code to figure out the space combat system is frightening for me at least.  I have a hard enough time with spread sheets. 

 

I know I can't speak for the rest, but I would like to see some sort of indication of racial modifiers and crew experience on the battle reports.  I have very limited experience (ie scouts) from battle reports but my own have no indication of modifiers or experience in any form.

 

If the sole contribution from these modiers is a damage increase, could a line be inserted like this:  "Damage against the enemy fleet is increased by a total of 12%; 9% from racial characteristics and 3% due to crew experience."

 

Or something like that.

 

FWIW

 

Lord Uriel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good suggestion which would add a great deal of flavor to the game, rewarding us for racial and other selections.

 

And I just love the tag line!

 

Octus

[Lord Uriel]

The more I think about it, I think racial characteristics could be the true fog of war of naval combat. You might see that your opponent had a 12%, but you may not know why.

If, by any chance, they are not on or not fully functioning yet, they might be changed to limit the damage you take as well?!?

 

Random thoughts.

 

Lord Uriel

[Locklyn]

As I said intially it is good that we discuss this since everyone has an opinion of what they need to enjoy the game.

 

I've played since the beginning so am quite used to no, little, or wrong rules on which I've based my understanding of the game upon. BUT when there is no indication whatsoever on FOBs or Battle Reports that you're leaders or your vaunted and highly invested racial design has any impact you get worried. When you get more and more numbers like from the latest draft you also start to discover more discrepancies which are then fixed by Pete which is great, but what if you hadn't had those numbers so you could actually see there was a problem with that battle? Wing it and hope that the battlefleet that you invested time, orders and money in building, planning, moving and finally using is actually given the correct playingfield?

 

I've asked some pretty straightforward questions that could be answered without giving away too much, some have pretty heavy design deciding implications.

 

Take for example damage to ships: I've been asking if a damaged ship instantly loses firepower and performance equal to the % of damage it has attained which is a basic yes/no question.

 

If a damaged ship continues to fire and defend at maximum throughout the same combat even if it is at 75% damage then armor and just weapons is the way to go for assaults and you need not concern yourself with any other defense since it is that battle alone you are concerned with.

 

If however, a ship does as I hope, lose firepower and defensive capacity as it gets wounded within that combat then suddenly shields look a bit better for smaller throwaway ships or assault ships, you want them to continue dishing out full damage for as long as possible, when the shields are gone the ship is pretty much gone and that is okay...

 

There are other such tactical considerations that come into mind when designing ships.

 

Pete gave the Type A Black Sphere Generator a defensive value of 25000 in the draft, what derived that number? Why not hand out the other defensive systems so you can decide on whether it's worth to have that level of defensive system on your ship when your armor and shields are at x and x level?

 

As for leaders "optimising firepower and defensive capabilities" what leaders? Priests? Scientists handling the Damage Control Board?

 

We have part of the numbers, we don't need all of them but at least a clear handle on them. And we need a way to at least see that the racial modifiers and other combat modifiers actually are in play on the battle reports and or FOBs

 

/Locklyn

[hobknob]

I appreciate the responses that have been given over time. Each one seems to clarify the matter in some small way.

 

There is only one area that I need information on and that is the defensive systems. Without a round by round accounting of damage and a destruction there is little opportunity to see how well the defensive systems did. I can easily see how my offensive systems did as the information is provided in the ANZ's and when compared to location penalties and such you have good information.

 

For defensive systems I am still unclear as to what the numbers that we do have actually mean. The last naval document hinted that some of this is forthcoming so I wait for the answer.

 

For racial attributes I would be happy just knowing that they work and what types of things you might be seeing. I did pay SRP's for space copmbat bonuses but have no idea what they do.

 

I know that there are lots of things to be done during a turn run, but I found the after combat messages penned in by the Oracle to be very enlightening. Without giving away any numbers or details, just knowing that my level of specific defensive systems may have been responsible for victory was more important to me than just about any other data. I miss those messages as Pete's time is required elsewhjere and where my battle is not the biggest or most intersting battle happening.

 

I would also say that screens are vastly over rated. IMHO they are a viable strategy in the short term while you restructure your research to overcome the tech imbalance that you face. If it is shear tonnage and numbers of enemies that you face that is the real problem, then I would start thinking of a new position. The end will come and scrrens will only postpone that ending.

 

I have been playing since turn 0 and still love the game. There are some problems for sure, but by and large things work well.

 

Enjoy your next turns.

 

[RTGPete]

Btw

 

"Degraded behavior" does that mean that a damaged ship also loses firepower during the combat accordingly to its damaged status?

 

/Locklyn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it loses firepower as it takes damage during the battle. Additionally, defensive systems degrade as damage is taken. Armor isn't exactly degraded, because it's a set value from the beginning of the battle, but once structural integrity reaches zero (and all shields are down), the ship is destroyed. Degrading armor and applying damage to a ship's structural integrity would represent a double hit otherwise.

[Paradigm]

In the case of the screens, the non-screened side, if any, simply needs to extend the battle in a superior fashion than his opponent.  After all, that's the entire purpose of screens - to extend the battle for so long that he has a chance to deliver fire into the enemy in a more efficient fashion than he is suffering.  The non-screened side either is not non-screened, bringing a lot of small ships himself, or he raises his fire control to such a degree that the enemy screens are obliterated rapidly enough so as to negate the battle-lengthening effect that they provide.  In some cases this means devoting a fair percentage of one's fleet to computers - if you have a 20 million ton fleet and possess fire control computers that provide, say, 49000 output per 100 tons of computer, you could have a fire control rating of 98 + your leaders (precise details on the leader effect has been published elsewhere) by devoting 20% of your fleet to fire control.  That's 4 million tons to give yourself a better-than-100 fire control and virtual immunity to all enemy forces with even extremely heavy screens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm reluctant to beat this dead horse anymore, but I can't pass up this golden opportunity to discuss it here.

 

Granted the swarm has limitations, but I think you are over simplifying the problems as I see them. I'll start with reasonable assumptions that the two sides are of roughly equivalent technology and roughly the same total mass.

 

Wouldn't "just" 1,000 screens subject your 98 targeting fleet to about 10 rounds of being pounded while they just shoot screens? If the main battle lines are vaguely equivalent, wouldn't that be a huge advantage for the swarm player? The 98 targeting fleet is already at a 20% tonnage disadvantage due to investing 20% of their mass in computers. That can easily make up for the tonnage of the opposing swarm ships themselves. If we had some idea of how long a battle was to last, we could estimate the impact. 10 rounds lost in a 1,000 round battle is a lot less significant than in a 20 round battle.

 

Also, 49,000 targeting is pretty far up the tech tree. That's Mk VII Computer Systems for example. That's something like 120 RC-turns worth of research. Not trivial and the swarm player can build their swarm fleet from the start of the game. For those that didn't have SRP's for maxing out targeting computers as far as SRP's would go, and didn't dedicate significant numbers of RC's to them thereafter, it's going to be many turns before they can realistically have such computers. Until then they'll be highly vulnerable to swarms. If they dedicate a majority of their RC's to computers, then the enemy will have a major tech advantage in some other area.

 

I don't expect a magic solution. I do think the current system strongly compels swarm tactics, at least in the first couple years or so of play.

 

The primary effect of swarms is to cause the opponent to waste most of their damage until the swarm is burned up, while the enemy scores 100% of their damage. There is a significant difference between this wasted damage and the effects of shields, armor, and special defenses. There is no limit to the amount of damage that can be lost to swarm ship overkill. It's not predicated on knowing what weapons branch the non-swarm opponent has pursued. The swarm ships require zero research investment.

 

Rebuttal?

[RTGPete]

At the beginning stages of the game, a swarm strategy can be at its most effective. As the game progresses, swarms become less and less interesting. They might still be used, but the enemy becomes more and more capable of countering it.

 

1000 screens, for instance, is wasted tonnage for all purposes other than being a screen. Both sides might have invested 20% of their tonnage into fire control, so that washes. The screen side wasted an additional million tons into screens. Was it wasted, though? That depends entirely on the enemy. If the enemy does indeed have high fire control, that's a million tons thrown down the drain. In a gigantic battle, a million tons dropped into screens might not be that big of a deal. In a small battle, it's a lot of potentially wasted tonnage that represents a lot of risk.

 

Having 1000 screens on your side does not negate the possibility that the enemy might use screens as well. The research investment by both sides is therefore very similar.

 

Furthermore, a very prepared enemy is what you might consider to be the real threat - not an enemy who is unprepared to face you. Would you send your 1000 screens up against a real threat, who does have 50 or 100 fire control? Would you leave them at your homeworld and hope that the enemy does not simply send in suicide ships to clear them out? Sure, he might be on the wrong end of the tonnage exchange to do that against screens with top-end armor or shields, but tonnage exchange is part of battle...and if you lose that exchange, placing all of your faith in the impenetrability of the screen....you lose your homeworld.

 

So...I don't disagree. Swarm strategies can be extremely viable. They also have downsides, which are so often forgotten when just crunching numbers. Getting those screens to the front in an offensive thrust cannot be accomplished just because the Emperor snaps his bony fingers and wills it to be. Screens are at great risk every time they pop through a warp point. They're also very slow.

 

Personally, I would not use screens later in the game against a prepared enemy. They represent a high-risk, high-yield strategy. They can grant you victory where you should otherwise have lost. They can also get wiped out for no return in several ways. And by the time I might have real enemies, they might very easily have invested the time and effort into researching fire control countermeasures. After all, if screens are so good, who wouldn't have researched fire control to counter the "uber" swarm strategy? I'm not sure I'd like to take that chance.

 

Regarding research, there's no rule against dropping all 25 RC's into fire control. With scientist hits and lifeform research bonuses, it doesn't take all that long...especially if you're looking to counter the "only way to go" screen strategy. Alternatively, trade tech with a friendly neighbor and have him research fire control and you weapons, and cross build for one another. There are all sorts of ways to make things more efficient and a whole lot faster to develop.....

[Lord Uriel]

Uh .... Pete,

Any thoughts on how you indicate racial characteristics and/or crew experience? Or did I not understand something?

 

Lord Uriel

[RTGPete]

Uh .... Pete,

Any thoughts on how you indicate racial characteristics and/or crew experience?  Or did I not understand something? 

 

Lord Uriel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can take a look at adding those in somewhere.

[Locklyn]

I would hold that screen ships are going to be the way to go for a long time. 12 turns ago my 4000 ton screen ships could both travel, pack a punch and each ship stopped 3 500 000 damage per ship.

 

Now they're better.

 

To stop that and a fleet with 500 of those you'd need really high fire control and ridicously high damage per glob to boot.

 

So yes, in two or three more years we're likely to have surpassed the screen ship strategy but not yet

 

Cheers

/Locklyn