The First Chronicles of the Star League

[Lord Xaar]

1200 Interceptors, 1200 Light Drones, and 800 Standard Drones entered the battle.  These are great weapons in that they keep fighting as long as any friendly vessal remains, until they are destroyed.  Though it doesn't say it in the battle (I got from something else on my turn sheets), 374 Interceptors, 146 Light Drone, and 211 Standard Drone were alive at the end of the battle.  And this despite the 15000 Laser CIDS on the War Cruiser and all the other CIDS on the other ships.  Think of it this way.  10 Dahak ships entered.  A good chunk of their firepower was drone/fighter related.  And even as those ships were destroyed, some of the firepower remained on the battle field chasing and blasting the enemy to the end.  I think I can see why MM and the Eyre have done so well with this branch of tech. 

Um, the NSI side had a kill rate of ~69%, ~88%, and ~74% respectively against the Corcordium fighters/drones. Not casualities, but kills. That's a pretty brutal battle.

 

Still, it is a good point to ask how good 3rd-4th gen fighters must be.

 

How good might 3rd-4th gen CIDS be?

 

 

One question I have though, knowing that some of the fighters/drones survived, where did they land? It doesn't appear the Vindicator had any bays. If all the other ships in the fleet were destroyed (were there ships that weren't listed? - am I just being blind?) then they should all been lost....

 

 

-LX

[WKE235]

Correct. They may have survived the battle. But, with no where to store after the battle, they are lost.

[AKO]

WKE, thanks for sharing this, very much appreciated.

Awesome battle, and congratulations on your victory.

 

From an economical/expansion standpoint: was it worth it? You lost millions of tons in Dahak for securing 1 system.

 

Kind regards,

[Hughestrog]

WKE, thanks for sharing this, very much appreciated.

Awesome battle, and congratulations on your victory.

 

From an economical/expansion standpoint: was it worth it? You lost millions of tons in Dahak for securing 1 system.

 

Kind regards,

For assaulting a warp point.

 

If the system has some nice yields then it could be worth it.

[General Miles Avatar]

not to mention the million or so tons vaporized off the Vindicator. If the NSI have another force

in waiting the Vindicator may go down as well. And then there are the planet defenses if this should happen to be the Homesystem of the NSI. I see a long long road to Victory which could

easily turn into defeat.

[Vince]

WKE - thanks for sharing - definitely a major battle with a great description from our friends at RTG.

 

My read is that you should be thankful that the Vindicator did not jump in first as you intended. While it was ineffectively shooting at screening vessels, all those pups, pooches, etc... would have had your one nice big target Most likely leaving the majority of the NSI force to devour your older designs as they warped through.

 

Anyway, it certainly was an epic clash between two worthy foes. Thanks again for sharing most of the saga of your empire's fight.

[EternusIV]

Ken-

 

I'm glad you are getting the praise you deserve for sharing this information. Talk about the power of information!

 

 

Pete-

 

AWESOME description. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

 

A few concerns and questions, though ---

 

1) Is Fire Control based upon total tonnage/bridge control of the INITIAL size of the fleet? If so, does it ever change as ships warp through or are destroyed?

I suspect that FLEET fire control ratings do not change over the course of battle or depend upon how many ships have warped through.

 

2) How can we optimize our targets? Is a ships target based upon weapon type used? Tonnage sought? We're told its a 'bad bell curve' that results in the lower Deply locations as the more probable whipping post.

 

In essence: what can I do as an attacker to actually choose my targets? (I'd like to hear the Pete version I vaguely remember things about packets, bubbles and bad bell curves)

 

The way I see it, it seems that both sides choose the means to get to the gunfight, put on their trenchcoats and then walk into the OK Carrale with blindfolds on.

 

Shouldn't our fleets - with talented leaders aboard, no less - have the ability to target ships with tactical considerations in mind? Shouldn't they ultimately have a choice in what to aim for?

 

Apparently not. Apparently it depends on where the defender deploys his/her fleets (after offensive deployment considerations are made for weapon types) In fact, the defender can deploy a truckload of fodder to exploit the system in such a way as to make the combat results look like Custer organized the warp assault.

 

The current combat design gives the advantage to: DEFENDER.....once again.

 

 

C) I completely second Ur-Lord's thoughts. An "Assault" class should precede a "Battle" class each and every time....I hope that the 'bad bell curve' applies here as well....it should be a LONG shot that the "B" class shows up ahead of the "A" class....and a much much LONGER shot that the Auxilliary Fuel ship shows up first unless its the only ship in the fleet.

 

Thanks for all the input and data Pete and Ken. Gives us a lot to mull over.

[Ur Lord Tedric]

And whilst we mull things over.....

 

The explanation about how range affects weapons now at the bottom of the report is very useful, thanks Pete.

 

However, could I plead for something similar to be added for:

 

a) What the new numeric for Fire Control now means? It's now easier to understand where it comes from, but can we work out how many ships can be targetted with it? ie it used to say '1' (hadn't seen any higher numbers yet), but is now a number in the 'thousands' like offensive weapons. Obviously the one thing we're after is what sort of bridge rating/fire control number we need to target more than one ship - ie 10,000 for each target...or 100,000....or whether it get's divided by the 'number' of weapons, or even the number of ships firing????

 

What the 3-decimal place rating for the defensive system actually means? - apart for the Maneuver rating which also = AP

 

c) Whether the defensive DepLoc effect is also similar to the offensive effect seen by the weapons - eg a futher 10% per DepLoc? So, for example, a ship firing from DepLoc 5 with standard missiles suffers no range loss if the target was at DepLoc 1, but if the target is at DepLoc 5 also, then there would be a 40% reduction.....

 

& finally

 

d) Whether we can assume that, subject to any range and defensive effects, that the numbers used for Offensive weapons, Ship Integrity and Shields are all commensurate and could therefore be considered Hit Points (sic)? eg if a weapon at DepLoc 1 is firing at a target in DepLoc 1 with 1,100 HPs and that target has Shields of 3,300 and an Integrity of 9,900 then......it could survive 3 hits until the shields were gone and after that take 9 more hits on the ship before being destroyed, but being physically damaged from strike 4 onwards....???

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[ali-t-akua]

d) Whether we can assume that, subject to any range and defensive effects, that the numbers used for Offensive weapons, Ship Integrity and Shields are all commensurate and could therefore be considered Hit Points (sic)? eg if a weapon at DepLoc 1 is firing at a target in DepLoc 1 with 1,100 HPs and that target has Shields of 3,300 and an Integrity of 9,900 then......it could survive 3 hits until the shields were gone and after that take 9 more hits on the ship before being destroyed, but being physically damaged from strike 4 onwards....???

 

And e) On a related point to d) Can we assume that physical damage taken degrades all systems equally? I. e. if the ship in the previous example has 1200 hp of weapons and is damaged for 25% of its hp, the weapons are only good for 900 points? This is alluded to in the rules but I am curious if I am reading them correctly as I think it makes a difference in how I design my warships.

[Pandaemonium]

if a weapon at DepLoc 1 is firing at a target in DepLoc 1 with 1,100 HPs and that target has Shields of 3,300 and an Integrity of 9,900 then......it could survive 3 hits until the shields were gone and after that take 9 more hits on the ship before being destroyed, but being physically damaged from strike 4 onwards....???

 

 

I thought, in the given example, that the ship would survive indefinitely, until damage was inflicted in a specific battle round which exceeded the shield rating, which would then be applied against the integrity of the ship, and that the shield rating would then be restored, except for any value lost due to ship damage suffered.

 

rnd 1: 4400 damage points --> 3300 (shields) + 1100 (ship integrity)

rnd 2: 4400 damage points --> 3300*(shields) + 1100*(ship integrity)

etc.

 

* as modified by previous rounds' integrity damage

[WKE235]

Force Shields do not protect you from damage round after round. They are an added barrier that takes damage first. Once all of the force shields are down, then the ship takes damage.

 

Think Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, the big battle at the end. As long as the shields were up, the ship got knocked around, but the ship itself was not damaged. The shields got weaker and weaker until they collapsed. Only then did the torpedo pierce the hull of the ship, punching a hole and doing damage.

 

Same thing here. The Vindicator had 2,200,000 hit points of shields (Shield rating of Energized). In any battle all damage goes first to the shields (less the effect of other defenses like CIDS, ECM, and the like). Once all 2,200,000 hit points are gone / used up, then the ship starts taking damage.

 

Now --- the one nice thing about shields is, after the battle is over, the shields get recharged. Lets say three actions after the big battle, an NSI reinforcing ship shows up. The Vindicator would get all 2,200,000 shield points again for use in the battle (minus any force shields considered lost / damaged in the previous battle).

 

Using your example:

 

rnd 1: 4400 damage points --> 3300 (shields) + 1100 (ship integrity)

rnd 2: 4400 damage points --> 4400 (ship integrity) (since the extra shield points were used up).

[T'Lariss]

c) Whether the defensive DepLoc effect is also similar to the offensive effect seen by the weapons - eg a futher 10% per DepLoc? So, for example, a ship firing from DepLoc 5 with standard missiles suffers no range loss if the target was at DepLoc 1, but if the target is at DepLoc 5 also, then there would be a 40% reduction.....

 

 

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

 

 

Warmaster

It si my understanding there is no range effet for the Deploc of the defender just the listed % effect. i.e. at Deploy location 12 all weapons are only 10% effectiive (if I remember pete's combat primer corectly). If my guess is correct this means that those wepons that take a range minus get a double hit. one from range and one for the Deploc. So even if a missle doesn't take a hit from range at Deploc 5 it does take an effectiveness hit from it's Deploc

[Ur Lord Tedric]

 

c)  Whether the defensive DepLoc effect is also similar to the offensive effect seen by the weapons - eg a futher 10% per DepLoc?  So, for example, a ship firing from DepLoc 5 with standard missiles suffers no range loss if the target was at DepLoc 1, but if the target is at DepLoc 5 also, then there would be a 40% reduction.....

 

 

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

 

 

Warmaster

It si my understanding there is no range effet for the Deploc of the defender just the listed % effect. i.e. at Deploy location 12 all weapons are only 10% effectiive (if I remember pete's combat primer corectly). If my guess is correct this means that those wepons that take a range minus get a double hit. one from range and one for the Deploc. So even if a missle doesn't take a hit from range at Deploc 5 it does take an effectiveness hit from it's Deploc

Greetings, oh esteemed and scaly reptiloid.....

 

If the answer comes back from the Great Oracle that DepLoc in defense only has an affect on not being targetted so often - provided there are screening ships in front - which the primer alludes to, then that would make perfect sense to us.

 

It would mean that the firing ships have a negative range effect dependant on the range they choose to fire from, but the defender gets no extra negative effect for trying to stay away. This would be very logical in that it would prevent a defender trying to stay at DepLoc 12 in the hope that he'd suffer less damage. If all his ships were at 12 then they'd all just have the same liklihood of being targetted.

 

On the other subject - if the above is correct, then no, it would appear that all weapons are not just worth 10% at DepLoc 12. If the % reductions for weapons are accurate and the reduction is linear (another query actually) then:

 

- A 'point blank' weapon will shoot at 100% at DepLoc 1, 80% at 2....20% at 5 and at 6 and beyond be useless.

 

- A Standoff Missile, however, will be 100% between 1 & 10 and still 80% at DepLoc 12.

 

- The majority of weapons, it would seem (if the effect is linear) and there's a 10% reduction per DepLoc - are therefore ineffective if you try to use them from DepLoc 11 & 12.

 

If all that's true, then at least it makes sense and we can now make plans accordingly.

 

Pete

 

Any chance of a few sentences to the questions posed above?

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[hobknob]

I seem to recall comments by the Oracle to indicate that there is a defensive bonus given to the defender depending on where they are positioned. This has to be the case as you can't have one side at long range and standing off and the other side at point blank range. It would also make a bit more sense if the faster ships were the ones more able to dictate the range seperation.

 

I would say that a defensive value is required else the combat system is broken as it sits.

 

If the only benefit to being further back in the battle is less chance of being target then the system is currently broke. IMHO

 

And as long as I am on the soap box......

 

I have had several battles with various types of ships and systems and I still find most of the battle report to be less than useful. I found the information from WKE's battle report to be about useless also. From what I can gather, just about every scrap of relevant data came in the form of GM moderated comments at the end of the battle (quite nice actually) and from emails swapped between WKE and the GM's. Since that level of GM moderation/interferance/assistance/whatever you call it can not be expected for each and every battle, the battle report needs more work.

 

I really don't want to have to assail the GM's with dozens of eamils after every battle trying to glean the basic information that should be provided to me in the report.

 

....stepping down now...

 

 

[Pandaemonium]

Thanks, Ur Lord Tedric and WKE235. Important information.