Naval Combat - Defensive Calculations

[Ur Lord Tedric]

And more....

 

The build cost for SFGs certainly is very odd.....

 

It has twice the BSG and twice the Computer requirements that the simple 5 x Mass normally assigned to components would lead us to expect.

 

Halving those, would certainly make a difference, even if the defense mitigation provided wasn't to be raised at all....

 

Chief Planner to Ur-Lord Tedric

[Paradigm]

Seemed unusual to me too. One of the saving graces of this complex system is consistency, yet here is an exception.

 

You can buy a tremendous amount of SI for the cost of one SFG.

[RTGPete]

Stasis Field Generators are deliberately expensive because they have such vast defensive coverage. Anything that covers everything is unusual and needs downsides or nobody would build anything other than SFG's. They are great items but have downsides to compensate.

 

When you begin researching down the Light Beam Laser - Medium Beam Laser - Heavy Beam Laser - Siege Beam Laser line, you are not doing do because the Light Beam Laser is efficient and worth building. You are doing so to get to the higher-end Beam Laser models such as the Heavy and Siege versions. For all practical purposes, the Siege Beam Laser has a research cost equal to the Light, Medium, Heavy and Siege versions combined because you have to research all of them to be able to build them. SFG's are no different. If you want to use the top-end Type D SFG's for their efficiency, you have to research Type A,B,C and D SFG's. If the Typa A's, B's and even C's are not worth building, that might be ok if you're shooting for the D's anyway. The whole concept of protecting against everything means that I don't care so much that Type A's and B's, say, are not really very good builds. Anyone who wants that level of protection for their ships will have to spend a lot of research points to get to the "real" SFG's and be prepared to spend an unusually high amount of production to build them.

 

Assigning 50 % of a ship to be Type D Stasis Field Generators, and thus (assuming they crank out 120,000 SFG strength for 25,000 tons of unit) a 70 % damage reduction is a hefty investment on the defensive side of things. With such a design, you probably also put at least 10 % armor on the ship and perhaps more. That's 60 % or more of the ship devoted to survival. With SFG's that is pretty good because it's all-around protection, but it also took a lot of research and unusually-high production in the process. On the other hand, if your enemy knew that you used a single weapon type, he could devote 10 % of his ship to that weapon's defense and achive an 80 % damage reduction. This would leave him with an extra 40 % tonnage to play around with. Furthermore, his ships could be a lot smaller than yours, because SFG's are big units and simply cannot be placed on ships smaller than 25,000 tons (and a 25,100 ton 1-SFG + 1-engine ship isn't worth much Indeed, he could pick out 5 weapon categories and give himself 80 % reduction in those areas for the same % of ship - that would cost him less to build than the equivalent in SFG's (because SFG's are unusually expensive) but the research requirements would be higher.

[TErnest]

OK, let me get one point out of the way immediately. Reasonably advanced specific class defensive systems (CIDS, deflectors, thermal regulators, etc.) should always be more efficient than SFGs. Or put another way, SFGs should not be so efficient that they are better in any one area than two (or perhaps three) advances in the corresponding specific defense technology.

 

However, any given defensive system, SFGs included, must reach a certain efficeincy threashold before they are a worthwhile ship component.

 

If all construction costs (per ton) are equal, then if I devote 10% of ship's mass to a defensive system, then it darn well better improve that ship's survival rating by at least 10%, or I should be building something else in its place.

 

By this reasoning, EDAC is barely worth including in one's design, providing you know in advance that your enemy is using one the weapons it defends against, about one third of the time. Considering how easy EDAC is to research "barely worth including" "about a third of the time" seems about right.

 

Now, let's remove the assumption that all components are equally easy to manufacture. If I devote 25% of the cost of building a ship to a defensive system, then it darn well better improve that ship's survival rating by at least 25%, or I should be building something else instead. Maybe by adding all that production capacity in extra armor or shields, I could actually as much as double my ship's survivability. (Friendly reminder here, armor and shields also work against all weapons classes.)

 

(Side note: Under these assumptions, EDAC starts to look quite a bit better.)

 

By this reasoning, SFGs are worthless up through about Type C. If one has to devote 25% of ship production for a 10% - 20% improvement in durability, I don't care how your enemy designs his ships, or what weapons he uses, it is bad buy.

 

Now, at Type D SFG, you cross a threashold, and it (always!) becomes just better than effort it takes to build. At this point, it becomes barely worth including in one's design. Considring how difficult, long, and arduous the tech path is to get to Type A SFG, let alone Type D, "always" "barely worth including" seems...

 

... very disappointing.

 

TErnest

[RTGPete]

OK, let me get one point out of the way immediately.  Reasonably advanced specific class defensive systems (CIDS, deflectors, thermal regulators, etc.) should always be more efficient than SFGs.  Or put another way, SFGs should not be so efficient that they are better in any one area than two (or perhaps three) advances in the corresponding specific defense technology.

 

However, any given defensive system, SFGs included, must reach a certain efficeincy threashold before they are a worthwhile ship component.

 

If all construction costs (per ton) are equal, then if I devote 10% of ship's mass to a defensive system, then it darn well better improve that ship's survival rating by at least 10%, or I should be building something else in its place. 

 

By this reasoning, EDAC is barely worth including in one's design, providing you know in advance that your enemy is using one the weapons it defends against, about one third of the time.  Considering how easy EDAC is to research "barely worth including" "about a third of the time" seems about right.

 

Now, let's remove the assumption that all components are equally easy to manufacture.  If I devote 25% of the cost of building a ship to a defensive system, then it darn well better improve that ship's survival rating by at least 25%, or I should be building something else instead.  Maybe by adding all that production capacity in extra armor or shields, I could actually as much as double my ship's survivability.  (Friendly reminder here, armor and shields also work against all weapons classes.)

 

(Side note: Under these assumptions, EDAC starts to look quite a bit better.)

 

By this reasoning, SFGs are worthless up through about Type C.  If one has to devote 25% of ship production for a 10% - 20% improvement in durability, I don't care how your enemy designs his ships, or what weapons he uses, it is bad buy.

 

Now, at Type D SFG, you cross a threashold, and it (always!) becomes just better than effort it takes to build.  At this point, it becomes barely worth including in one's design.  Considring how difficult, long, and arduous the tech path is to get to Type A SFG, let alone Type D, "always" "barely worth including" seems...

 

... very disappointing.

 

TErnest

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Treat Type D's as items that have an unusually high research cost (equal to the Type A,B,C,D costs combined) and pretend that the A,B,C versions don't even exist and we'd arrive at the same conclusion. Type D's can be a very good build, while Type A and B versions are low efficiency builds.

 

A Type D SFG can be significantly more than "barely worth including", but this does depend on one's ship design.

 

A ship with 30% armor could double its personal survivability in three ways:

• Add another 30% armor, bringing it to 60% defensive tonnage (all armor in this case). This gives the ship 0% damage mitigation but doubles its structural integrity out right, which is good against everything anyway.
  
• Add 2.5% of a category 4 specific defensive system, bringing it to 32.5% defensive tonnage. This would give the ship 50% damage mitigation against a single enemy weapon type, doubling its survivability against that class of weaponry.
  
• Add 21% Type D Stasis Field Generators, bringing it to 51% defensive tonnage (30% armor and 21% Type D SFG's). This woudl give the ship 50% damage mitigation against everything, which is identical to 30% armor or 2.5% specific, but at 21% ship tonnage and covering everything just like armor does.
  

The first option (add only armor) is good because it's cheap and effective. You might not have Type D SFG technology at your disposal, don't know what kind of weapons the enemy might use, or you just want to cover yourself against everything at a relatively low production cost - at the expense of ship tonnage.

 

The second option (add a tiny 2.5% of specific defenses) when you know the enemy is using one weapon class. You save on production (2.5% is a lot less than 30% even when you consider that armor is easy to build). No expense here in production cost (you actually save a lot) and ship tonnage realizes a huge boost as well over the armor option (2.5% versus a whopping 30% added).

 

The third option (add 21% Type D SFG's) is a niche choice. It's identical to the 30% armor addition for ship survivability because it continues to cover everything. You save a precious 9% of the ship's tonnage over the 30% armor option - but there is a cost: SFG's are more expensive than armor. Does this even out the 9% ship tonnage difference? That depends: you might be awash in resources that can be used for SFG's but not for armor, and thus final ship tonnage is more important to you.

 

The SFG option is a niche choice - it lies between only-armor and specific-defense. The specific-defense is by far the best choice if you know that the enemy is using only one weapon class. Hands down, case closed - it's the best in that event. Armor is cheap, SFG's are expensive, but SFG's can save on ship tonnage depending on how much more survivability you want to add to your ship.

 

SFG's are disappointing if your ship designs do not lie in the area between adding-armor and adding-specific-defenses. Armor is disappointing if you don't have defensive systems and thus cannot achieve damage mitigation--you might add armor anyway, but it's just not as good as adding that sweet small % of a specific defense. Specific defenses are disappointing if the enemy is using a weapon you can't mitigate.

 

Argh! Nothing but disappointment! Each choice has its niche - which one you pick depends entirely on your ship designs and those of your enemies. Even the controversial SFG has its niche. Whatever you don't pick is disappointing, and the one you choose is good

 

As a final note, once you achieve the best armor tech, and you still want to make your ships more survivable, you either research shields, specific defenses, SFG's or something else that you managed to open up that nobody knows about. In this event even "barely worth adding" is still better than "not worth adding"

[SargonKingOfSlith]

I have to agree with HobKnob for the most part. Although I strongly state that there doesn't need to be any changes made to the SFG, either pro or con.

 

You just can't make a mathematical comparison.

 

1. If you don't have the Type D SFG:

You have to scout out the enemy and find out what weapon systems they use.

Then you have to research those specific defenses.

Then you have to hope he didn't hide some weapon tech from your scouts.

 

2. If you DO have the Type D SFG:

You are covered.

This is worth extra research and extra production. How much extra?… Hmmm…

 

There is no mathematical comparison. It’s the art of war, not the science of war.

 

Look at it another way. This is one of the best examples of how good trade partners can be invaluable. I am going to devote an enormous amount of research into Sensors. I’m looking for a trade partner that will devote an equal amount of research into achieving the Type D SFG, because I just plain can’t do both.

[WKE235]

There is no mathematical comparison.  It’s the art of war, not the science of war.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nope. It is the Science of War. The Art of War is merely a fancy title over something which hides a lot of science and psychology within it. Those who best carry out the science of war will maximize their wins and minimize their losses leading to defeat of the enemy. Both in the game and in real life.

[Clan Elder 'Keen]

A ship with 30% armor could double its personal survivability in three ways:

• Add another 30% armor, bringing it to 60% defensive tonnage (all armor in this case).  This gives the ship 0% damage mitigation but doubles its structural integrity out right, which is good against everything anyway.
   
  
• Add 2.5% of a category 4 specific defensive system, bringing it to 32.5% defensive tonnage.  This would give the ship 50% damage mitigation against a single enemy weapon type, doubling its survivability against that class of weaponry.
   
  
• Add 21% Type D Stasis Field Generators, bringing it to 51% defensive tonnage (30% armor and 21% Type D SFG's).  This woudl give the ship 50% damage mitigation against everything, which is identical to 30% armor or 2.5% specific, but at 21% ship tonnage and covering everything just like armor does.
  

 

Isn't there a 4th choice here? What about adding Force Shields? I don't have the ANZ, but my understanding is that Mk IXs provide more integrity per ton than the top armor but at a higher production cost. I would assume then that a ship could go with the brute strength approach of boosting integrity similar to the all armor option but at a more efficient tonnage ratio.

 

 

The third option (add 21% Type D SFG's) is a niche choice.  It's identical to the 30% armor addition for ship survivability because it continues to cover everything.  You save a precious 9% of the ship's tonnage over the 30% armor option - but there is a cost: SFG's are more expensive than armor.  Does this even out the 9% ship tonnage difference?  That depends: you might be awash in resources that can be used for SFG's but not for armor, and thus final ship tonnage is more important to you.

 

If in fact shields provides another option that is more efficient than straight-up armor and also beats out the 9% advantage of SFG, then it becomes an issue of production costs. And if you are awash in the mats to build SFGs, you have all the stuff you need to produce shields instead, at a huge discount.

 

I'm left with the sinking feeling that SFGs aren't really a rational choice at all.

[RTGPete]

A ship with 30% armor could double its personal survivability in three ways:

• Add another 30% armor, bringing it to 60% defensive tonnage (all armor in this case).  This gives the ship 0% damage mitigation but doubles its structural integrity out right, which is good against everything anyway.
   
   
  
• Add 2.5% of a category 4 specific defensive system, bringing it to 32.5% defensive tonnage.  This would give the ship 50% damage mitigation against a single enemy weapon type, doubling its survivability against that class of weaponry.
   
   
  
• Add 21% Type D Stasis Field Generators, bringing it to 51% defensive tonnage (30% armor and 21% Type D SFG's).  This woudl give the ship 50% damage mitigation against everything, which is identical to 30% armor or 2.5% specific, but at 21% ship tonnage and covering everything just like armor does.
  

 

Isn't there a 4th choice here? What about adding Force Shields? I don't have the ANZ, but my understanding is that Mk IXs provide more integrity per ton than the top armor but at a higher production cost. I would assume then that a ship could go with the brute strength approach of boosting integrity similar to the all armor option but at a more efficient tonnage ratio.

 

 

The third option (add 21% Type D SFG's) is a niche choice.  It's identical to the 30% armor addition for ship survivability because it continues to cover everything.  You save a precious 9% of the ship's tonnage over the 30% armor option - but there is a cost: SFG's are more expensive than armor.  Does this even out the 9% ship tonnage difference?  That depends: you might be awash in resources that can be used for SFG's but not for armor, and thus final ship tonnage is more important to you.

 

If in fact shields provides another option that is more efficient than straight-up armor and also beats out the 9% advantage of SFG, then it becomes an issue of production costs. And if you are awash in the mats to build SFGs, you have all the stuff you need to produce shields instead, at a huge discount.

 

I'm left with the sinking feeling that SFGs aren't really a rational choice at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely, Force Shields are another option entirely. They present another dynamic, so I left them out, but that does not mean they are not worth building - indeed, high technology shields can be more efficient than armor. The catch is that they don't gain the benefits of 3x integrity for orbitals or 9x for surface forts, so armor is still better for those types of units. Shields, especially high tech shields, can be better than armor on starships. A separate but distinct advantage of shields is that the ship they are on does not take any damage at all until the shields drop, while an equivalent ship with armor slowly is slowly degraded as it takes damage. Once the shields drop, its weapons and other systems begin to suffer, but delaying that unhappy event as long as possible is not something to ignore.

 

There are so many options available that it's important to note that I don't think any one of them is clearly superior to the others in every situation. SFG's are indeed expensive, and they might be difficult to fit onto a ship in many cases because of their expense. This does not mean that it is pointless to use them - it just means that your design philosophy and that of your countless <grin> enemies will dictate your best choices.

[RTGPete]

By the way, I am looking into the cost/value structure for SFG's. Currently there is a narrow % band where the Type D is very useful, but its cost and mitigation values makes this a pretty narrow band. One of the more likely possibilities will be the addition of another generation of SFG to introduce some more efficiency to that line. It's still a long research road to get the good ones, and they are expensive, but all-around coverage is the stuff legendary ships are made of, and that must be treated carefully.

[TErnest]

I am looking into the cost/value structure for SFG's.  Currently there is a narrow % band where the Type D is very useful, but its cost and mitigation values makes this a pretty narrow band. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you, Pete! That is all that I was saying. I very much appreciate your continued analysis on the SFG issue.

 

Ultimately, I trust your judgements on game mechanics. The number of differences I have had with your game design decisisions could be counted on one hand, with a number of digits left over.

 

(Considering the extreme complexity of this game, that is signficant! Especially since, like most PBM gamers, I'm an opinionated soul.)

 

TErnest

[Locklyn]

By the way, I am looking into the cost/value structure for SFG's. Currently there is a narrow % band where the Type D is very useful, but its cost and mitigation values makes this a pretty narrow band. One of the more likely possibilities will be the addition of another generation of SFG to introduce some more efficiency to that line. It's still a long research road to get the good ones, and they are expensive, but all-around coverage is the stuff legendary ships are made of, and that must be treated carefully.

 

Pete,

 

What happened with your thoughts about adding a E generation to the SFGs?

 

 

/Locklyn

[RTGPete]

Well, look at it this way:

 

If you put a single 25,000 ton SFG on a 250,000 ton ship, you achieve 1 / (1 + (120,000 / 250,000) ) = roughly 33% damage mitigation against many weapon types.

 

If you put 3,000 tons of a top-level specific defense on a 250,000 ton ship, you achieve the same result but against only one weapon type.

 

If you want to cover as many areas with specific defenses as the SFG currently does at the Type D level, you'd be using up more tonnage than the SFG itself - making the SFG more cost effective. If you only want to cover one area, or a few areas, or even half a dozen areas, you're better off using specific defenses. Covering as many areas as the SFG is more costly in tonnage (with specifics) than the SFG.

 

Additionally, you would have had to research a whole lot of specific defenses to even be able to cover that many areas, whcih adds up to a whopping lot of research along many different lines.

 

If there were a Type E SFG in the game that put out, say, 250,000 defensive output in many areas, the following would result:

 

A single 25,000 ton theoretical Type E SFG on a 250,000 ton ship would achieve 1 / (1 + (250,000/250,000) ) = 50% damage mitigation against many weapon types.

 

If you put 6.250 tons of a specific defense on the same ship, you would achieve 50% mitigation against a single weapon type.

 

This would mean that for the Type E SFG, you could only cover 4 areas with specifics for the same tonnage and mitigation. As soon as you wanted to cover a fifth area, you'd be better off using the Type E SFG.

 

If you're looking for 80% mitigation against many weapon types, you can achieve that with TYpe D's....but it would take almost the entire ship to do so. However, it would take more than the entire ship's tonnage to do so right now with specifics, because there are so many areas to cover. Maybe some of your researchers down in Hyperspace Tunneling (3rd door on the left, sub-level R) can figure out a way to give a ship more tonnage than it actually has......hmmmm.....

 

If a Type E SFG has been added to the game, and you haven't found it yet. you could threaten to punish some of them by sending them to very cold, unhospitable worlds without their beloved Mk IV Hot Cocoa makers

 

If a Type E SFG has not been added to the game, and not surprisingly you haven't found it yet, punishing your existing scientists will only make them irritable, naturally causing them to immediately shift all work to Razor Wire development

[hobknob]

Well, that says to me that there is not and will not be a type E SFG, for which I am grateful as I never liked the SFG's anyway. I am also happy that I have not spent time researching them as opposed to specific defenses.

 

[RTGPete]

Well, that says to me that there is not and will not be a type E SFG, for which I am grateful as I never liked the SFG's anyway. I am also happy that I have not spent time researching them as opposed to specific defenses.

 

If you want 80% mitigation against a few weapon systems then the Type D SFG definitely is not for you, as specific coverage would be more efficient in ship tonnage. Researching several top of the line specific defenses is not trivial, depending especially on the particular weapon types.