Aurora 4x

Astra Imperia => Playtesting => Topic started by: dalord0 on April 21, 2011, 12:14:43 AM

Title: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 21, 2011, 12:14:43 AM
I have a few questions, the rolling mechanic, is the idea to roll less than or equal to the score to hit/lock on etc? Because the formula doesn't make sense else. I'll undoubtedly have more question later.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 21, 2011, 12:32:35 AM
I have a few questions, the rolling mechanic, is the idea to roll less than or equal to the score to hit/lock on etc? Because the formula doesn't make sense else. I'll undoubtedly have more question later.

That is correct. Unless stated otherwise, all rolls against a target value are less than or equal to. Off the top of my head though, I cannot think of any that work the opposite way. And of course, rolls on a table.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 21, 2011, 02:09:22 AM
The pdf jumps from pg 52 to 88 and so am missing the campaign rules, is this intentional?
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 21, 2011, 04:19:51 AM
The sensor locking seems weird, I set up a test round the sample cruiser vs itself, and when locking on the formula says (signature(365) - resolution(40) + ecm(0) + acquisition(? I don't get what you mean do I just ad 40 or is it 40% of something) + crew grade(0 average) ) gives around 325, does that mean autolock or something?
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 21, 2011, 05:33:25 AM
Yet another question :P when you roll a structure result for damage allocation how much structure do you destroy?
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 21, 2011, 12:44:09 PM
Yet another question :P when you roll a structure result for damage allocation how much structure do you destroy?

That's an easy one. You roll on the damage allocation once per point. So 6 internal points would be 6 rolls.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 21, 2011, 12:45:17 PM
The sensor locking seems weird, I set up a test round the sample cruiser vs itself, and when locking on the formula says (signature(365) - resolution(40) + ecm(0) + acquisition(? I don't get what you mean do I just ad 40 or is it 40% of something) + crew grade(0 average) ) gives around 325, does that mean autolock or something?

That is how the formula works. I may have to tweak the resolutions a bit.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 21, 2011, 04:20:28 PM
I know but when you roll a structure result as one internal hit how much structure out of the 1500 or so do you destroy?
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 21, 2011, 06:18:23 PM
I know but when you roll a structure result as one internal hit how much structure out of the 1500 or so do you destroy?

Currently 1 for 1.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 24, 2011, 03:56:28 AM
Hi Erik

I've downloaded the playtest rules and read them through quickly once. I now intend a slower, more detailed perusal to make sure I've not missed any references in the rules to the areas I'm unclear on.

However my first comments are as follows:-

I feel there is a desperate need for some comprehensive examples of play for movement, combat (including missiles) and ground combat. I'm sure this would resolve some of the unclear areas.

On page 1 of combat it says that the to hit number should be exceeded to get a hit - I'm assuming this should be lower than.

On locking on it says that there is a modifier for crew grade but I can't find what that value is - perhaps it could be added to the crew grade table along with the critical hit modifier.

Please tell me what the m stands for in sensor properties.

Okay, back to reading the rules again.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 24, 2011, 11:06:53 AM
Hi Erik

I've downloaded the playtest rules and read them through quickly once. I now intend a slower, more detailed perusal to make sure I've not missed any references in the rules to the areas I'm unclear on.

However my first comments are as follows:-

I feel there is a desperate need for some comprehensive examples of play for movement, combat (including missiles) and ground combat. I'm sure this would resolve some of the unclear areas.
That's doable. I'll write some up.

On page 1 of combat it says that the to hit number should be exceeded to get a hit - I'm assuming this should be lower than.
I'll double check that, but you are right. It should be lower.

On locking on it says that there is a modifier for crew grade but I can't find what that value is - perhaps it could be added to the crew grade table along with the critical hit modifier.
It's the same modifier as to-hit.

Please tell me what the m stands for in sensor properties.

Okay, back to reading the rules again.

Regards

Alan
m = meters
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 25, 2011, 04:43:57 AM
Hi Erik

A few more questions:-

Page 6 - compensator rating. I'm a bit confused over the concept which may relate to my understanding of engine power requirements. Looking at your sample ships, the military ships have a thrust of 8. Power requirements for a basic nuclear torch engine is 6x10 per thrust which for the destroyer (1349 tons) is 120 power per thrust. For a thrust of 8, this means a power requirement of 960 power. The ship has a total power of 140. I suspect I'm misreading something. What is the rating of a compensator. Can you define it as required by paying with power e.g. thrust of 8 with prototype compensators would require 32 power? I also see that, after damage, you are limited to a speed of 4. How do you define speed in a multi-vector system?

Page 7 says that there are hit modifiers for ECM / Sensors - does this mean for target acquisition as I can't find any reference to this under the hit part of the rules.

Page 9 refers to table 2.10 for weapons fire (doesn't exist).

Page 11 - reference to table 2.6 for power plants and 2.9 for compensator damage.

Page 19 - plasma missiles - how is the 5 point reduction in damage allocated where there are multiple entries in damage type? Also, HTK used for both system damage and missile destruction. The former is called HP earlier in the rules.

Page 22 - HTK data missing for all sizes above 20 cm.

Page 38 - A definition of 1AU would be helpful for the non-astrophysicists amongst us.

An example of the warp anchor in action might be helpful.

A couple of suggestions.

For vector consolidation there are couple of other "tricks" to use. If you have positive vectors on three non adjacent ones e.g. at 000, 120 and 240, reduce all of them by the lowest value.
If you have positive vectors on 3 adjacent ones, reduce the two outer ones by the lowest figure and increase the middle one by this amount.

A map of your campaign area would be very helpful to help a new palyer plan a game along with system details. Perhaps this could be a future product with a history of the battles in the war similar to "Stars at War" which I still dig out and read every now and again.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 25, 2011, 04:52:59 AM
Hi again

A quick question on damage allocation. If a hit is obtained, do you apply damage equal to the HTK for the system and reduce the damage to be allocated accordingly and what happens if you have insufficient damage points left to destroy the system?

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Brian on April 25, 2011, 05:26:14 AM
Hi again

A quick question on damage allocation. If a hit is obtained, do you apply damage equal to the HTK for the system and reduce the damage to be allocated accordingly and what happens if you have insufficient damage points left to destroy the system?

Regards

Alan
You are correct on the basic mechanism.  If there is not enough damage left to reach the HTK amount then you have a chance of knocking out the system based on how much damage you did do.  Formula is (damage done/htk) so it is fairly straight forward.  This is important for meson users as they only do 1 point of damage.  If you are fighting a meson user it pays to think of ways to raise the htk of systems.  A good example is to group weapons in turrets as they sum the htk of the individual weapons in the turret.  Larger power plants are also a good idea, ect. 

Hope this helps

Brian
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 25, 2011, 07:06:43 AM
Hi again

A quick question on damage allocation. If a hit is obtained, do you apply damage equal to the HTK for the system and reduce the damage to be allocated accordingly and what happens if you have insufficient damage points left to destroy the system?

Regards

Alan

It is considered damaged and can absorb further hits later.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 25, 2011, 03:54:51 PM
You are correct on the basic mechanism.  If there is not enough damage left to reach the HTK amount then you have a chance of knocking out the system based on how much damage you did do.  Formula is (damage done/htk) so it is fairly straight forward.  This is important for meson users as they only do 1 point of damage.  If you are fighting a meson user it pays to think of ways to raise the htk of systems.  A good example is to group weapons in turrets as they sum the htk of the individual weapons in the turret.  Larger power plants are also a good idea, ect. 

Hope this helps

Brian

That would be for Aurora ;)
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Brian on April 25, 2011, 11:51:05 PM
Sorry, I missed the header that said it was Astra Imperia.

Brian
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 26, 2011, 02:07:00 AM
With the redundant life support systems is the size 1 for every 500 tons of total ship size? Also with the shield aspects say you have alpha shields, are the aspects the total strength spilt in four and distributed over the 4 arcs or is it the total strength on each arc? So say you had a strength 12 shield would each aspect be strength 3 or strength 12?

EDIT: AU is astronomical units and is the distance from the earth to the sun
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 26, 2011, 03:11:58 AM
Erik

The information on power plants in tables 46-47 and 65-66 do not agree with each other.


Also, I can't seem to be able to design the ships in the examples to agree with the cost / tonnage totals etc. Please could you post a design from scratch including tonnage, cost, signature and power requirements for each system which would help a lot to clarify the procedure.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 26, 2011, 03:43:40 AM


EDIT: AU is astronomical units and is the distance from the earth to the sun

Perhaps it would be better to say the minimum jump distance iis 10 LM rather than introducing another measurement scale.

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 26, 2011, 05:38:51 AM
Perhaps it would be better to say the minimum jump distance iis 10 LM rather than introducing another measurement scale.

Alan

Its actually a real scientific scale but yeah we should just stick to light minutes/seconds/years etc.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 26, 2011, 11:16:37 AM
With the redundant life support systems is the size 1 for every 500 tons of total ship size? Also with the shield aspects say you have alpha shields, are the aspects the total strength spilt in four and distributed over the 4 arcs or is it the total strength on each arc? So say you had a strength 12 shield would each aspect be strength 3 or strength 12?

EDIT: AU is astronomical units and is the distance from the earth to the sun

Life support - yes.

Shields - Hmmm. That is poorly worded on my part. It is per aspect, so your strength 12 would be 12 in each aspect. One generator will provide shield coverage for all aspects.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 26, 2011, 11:20:24 AM
Erik

The information on power plants in tables 46-47 and 65-66 do not agree with each other.
Yep. Tables 46-47 are the correct values. 65-66 are older values that I missed.

Also, I can't seem to be able to design the ships in the examples to agree with the cost / tonnage totals etc. Please could you post a design from scratch including tonnage, cost, signature and power requirements for each system which would help a lot to clarify the procedure.

Regards

Alan
I can do that. It'll be a bit later though.

*edit* Comparing the designs in the PDF with my spreadsheet, the PDF is outdated. I'll start a new thread with ship designs.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 26, 2011, 11:24:40 AM
Its actually a real scientific scale but yeah we should just stick to light minutes/seconds/years etc.

AU is used extensively in the system generation sections, but I changed the minimum jump distance to 10 LM.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 26, 2011, 11:55:02 AM
Erik

Thanks for the replies. Please can you explain inertial compensator rating. I feel that this is missing somehow. The rating is mentioned in the rules but doesn't seem to be defined.

Thanks

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 26, 2011, 12:47:20 PM
Erik

Thanks for the replies. Please can you explain inertial compensator rating. I feel that this is missing somehow. The rating is mentioned in the rules but doesn't seem to be defined.

Thanks

Alan

A ship may not exceed a Thrust of 1 without penalty, nor a Thrust of 3 with penalties. Inertial Compensators allow for Thrusts greater than 1.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 26, 2011, 01:35:43 PM
Erik

Does that include all thrust related manoeuvres e.g. Turns, rolls, defensive manoeuvres?

Also, how do you determine the thrust for a type of ship? The maximum thrust used to be in the hull table but that no longer exists. Is 3 the normal maximum thrust rating? From what you said above, that would seem to be the case. I also notice that you changed the thrust rating from the examples in the playtest docs to the ones you posted on the board.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 26, 2011, 02:24:47 PM
Erik

Does that include all thrust related manoeuvres e.g. Turns, rolls, defensive manoeuvres?

Also, how do you determine the thrust for a type of ship? The maximum thrust used to be in the hull table but that no longer exists. Is 3 the normal maximum thrust rating? From what you said above, that would seem to be the case. I also notice that you changed the thrust rating from the examples in the playtest docs to the ones you posted on the board.

Regards

Alan

Are you referring to Chapter 3, General Movement? That section states that ships cannot move faster than their Compensator rating, but each step past incurs penalties to hit and initiative. There is no "maximum" thrust, only the limitation of power you can cram into the hull. Inertial Compensators (IC) require power based on the Thrust.

Chapter 23, Inertial Compensators states that they allow a ship to exceed a Thrust of 1 safely. And basically states what I replied earlier about exceeding the thrust.

As for maneuvers, you are trading forward Thrust to turn, roll, etc. So you still need to be able to compensate for that thrust.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 26, 2011, 05:34:10 PM
I think what Alan is saying is that you say that each compensator has a rating that it can exceed, albeit with penalties, but nowhere in the rules do you actually tell us the thrust rating for each type of compensator.

Is the limiting factor the power consumed? Say when you design a vessel you put in a compensator with rating 3 and it consumes 4x3=12 power and then in a battle you can exceed that rating? If so you could make it a lot clearer than it is now.

Cheers,

Dalord 
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 26, 2011, 06:28:36 PM
I think what Alan is saying is that you say that each compensator has a rating that it can exceed, albeit with penalties, but nowhere in the rules do you actually tell us the thrust rating for each type of compensator.

Is the limiting factor the power consumed? Say when you design a vessel you put in a compensator with rating 3 and it consumes 4x3=12 power and then in a battle you can exceed that rating? If so you could make it a lot clearer than it is now.

Cheers,

Dalord 

If I design a ship with Nuclear Torch engines, they consume 10 power per thrust per 1000 tons. So 1-1000 tons = 10 power per thrust, 1001-2000 tons = 20 power per thrust, etc.

Prototype comps require 4x power per thrust. So if I put in enough engines for 4 thrust, I need 160 power per 1000 tons to compensate.

Higher techs reduce that drastically. I'm in the midst of designing the ships of the TFN and they are built on about 100k RP (compared to the 5000 RP of the sample starter ships).

I'll post some of those designs later.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 27, 2011, 03:58:55 AM
If I design a ship with Nuclear Torch engines, they consume 10 power per thrust per 1000 tons. So 1-1000 tons = 10 power per thrust, 1001-2000 tons = 20 power per thrust, etc.

Prototype comps require 4x power per thrust. So if I put in enough engines for 4 thrust, I need 160 power per 1000 tons to compensate.

Higher techs reduce that drastically. I'm in the midst of designing the ships of the TFN and they are built on about 100k RP (compared to the 5000 RP of the sample starter ships).

I'll post some of those designs later.


Sorry Erik

I still need to clarify.

One important point. Do you need 1 engine for 1 thrust i.e. if I want a thrust of 4 I need 4 engines? If not, how do I find the maximum thrust per engine type per ship type.

Also, i'm confused by your costings above. From table 71 and 72, a basic torch engine requires 6x10 power per thrust point per 1000 tons. An advanced anti matter pulse engine requires 2 (or am I misrreading this section)? The compensator section says that power consumption is 4 times thrust for prototype compensators and I read this as, for example, 16 power for thrust 4 (Dalord is reading this the same way).

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying above. Without compensators, only thrust 1 is allowed or you're squashed flat.

If I have compensators, I can thrust at 2, 3 or 4 (engines allowing) with penalties (table 12) at a power cost of 8, 12 or 16 for prototype compensators. Thus all ships are limited to a maximum thrust of 4. Is this correct?

Two other questions about compensators:-
Page 11 talks about running them at maximum and breaking down. Does that mean at maximum thrust for the ship? Also, if the compensators are destroyed by damage the ship is limited to a speed of 4. I don't see why. Even if the ship is moving at speed 100, provided no thrust is applied, inertia isn't a problem. Wouldn't it be more consistent to only allow a thrust of 1 in this case as well?

For me it would be simpler if each level of compensator had a rating which was the maximum thrust it could allow for e.g. prototype 2, standard 4 etc and the penalties kicking in above this value i.e standard type allows thrust of 4, uses 8 power and penalties apply at thrusts 5, 6 and 7. It also covers the question of running at maximum. Just my 2 cents worth.

Sorry for keep harping on about this, but I feel I need to understand the concept thoroughly and then it will all fall into place.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 27, 2011, 04:49:47 AM

Sorry Erik

I still need to clarify.

One important point. Do you need 1 engine for 1 thrust i.e. if I want a thrust of 4 I need 4 engines? If not, how do I find the maximum thrust per engine type per ship type.

Also, i'm confused by your costings above. From table 71 and 72, a basic torch engine requires 6x10 power per thrust point per 1000 tons. An advanced anti matter pulse engine requires 2 (or am I misrreading this section)? The compensator section says that power consumption is 4 times thrust for prototype compensators and I read this as, for example, 16 power for thrust 4 (Dalord is reading this the same way).

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying above. Without compensators, only thrust 1 is allowed or you're squashed flat.

If I have compensators, I can thrust at 2, 3 or 4 (engines allowing) with penalties (table 12) at a power cost of 8, 12 or 16 for prototype compensators. Thus all ships are limited to a maximum thrust of 4. Is this correct?

Two other questions about compensators:-
Page 11 talks about running them at maximum and breaking down. Does that mean at maximum thrust for the ship? Also, if the compensators are destroyed by damage the ship is limited to a speed of 4. I don't see why. Even if the ship is moving at speed 100, provided no thrust is applied, inertia isn't a problem. Wouldn't it be more consistent to only allow a thrust of 1 in this case as well?

For me it would be simpler if each level of compensator had a rating which was the maximum thrust it could allow for e.g. prototype 2, standard 4 etc and the penalties kicking in above this value i.e standard type allows thrust of 4, uses 8 power and penalties apply at thrusts 5, 6 and 7. It also covers the question of running at maximum. Just my 2 cents worth.

Sorry for keep harping on about this, but I feel I need to understand the concept thoroughly and then it will all fall into place.

Regards

Alan


I think I can answer most of the questions

1. Engines are a hypothetical component in the term that they all take the same size and cost. But when you build the ship the engines are given a thrust rating or whatever, see in Eriks designs they say thrust X after the engines, meaning he has given enough power for the engines to give out X thrust, there is no hard cap on thrust for engines types like Aurora where 1 engine gives X power, in this model you give X power to the engines and they put out X thrust.

Example:
Basic nuclear torch engine uses 60 power per 1000 tons to give the ship 1 thrust. When you put the engine in you decide you want the ship to move at 3 thrust. Say it weighs 1000 tons, you now need to find 180 power so that the engines are powered, you don't ever need more than one engine, as to move faster you just need more power, which means you use more space up on reactors.

2. Yes you are correct, and yes the power requirements of a compensator are worked out like that. Without the compensator you can safely go 1 thrust or you can go up to 4 but you suffer very high chances of dying. But again the compensator is based off the amount of power you can give it, in that on a thrust 8 ship with prototype compensators you need 32 power to keep from getting squashed when travelling at 8 thrust. So the faster you go the more power the compensator needs the keep you alive.

Example:
On the same thrust 8 ship, if you had no compensators you would be limited to only using 1 of the 8 available thrust but with the compensators if you supply them with 32 power you can use all 8 thrust with no negative side effects.

The maximum speed question I think means that on the same ship as above if the ship travels at thrust 8, which is what the compensators are powered to handle , you suffer the failure chance.

And I think Erik uses the terms speed and thrust interchangeably which means that when he says speed for I think he means 4 overall thrust but ill have to let him explain that.

And finally, the system he uses now is actually rather simple to my eyes and allows alot greater flexibility in ship design, but I guess its a matter of perspective

Cheers,

Dalord
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 27, 2011, 05:03:13 AM
Dalord

Many thanks, that helps a lot. Must be time to start pushing a few counters around.

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 27, 2011, 09:01:54 AM
Dalord is correct :)

And yes, I do tend to use speed when I mean thrust.

As a trivia note, earlier versions had chemical rockets as the lowest form of engine. But since the ships could move in any direction with an application of thrust, it failed the giggle test for me. :)
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on April 27, 2011, 05:01:09 PM
Thanks :)

One thing is that does this mean, if I want to, in the middle of a battle can I divert all power to the engines and IC to go faster?

Cheers
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 27, 2011, 05:17:42 PM
Thanks :)

One thing is that does this mean, if I want to, in the middle of a battle can I divert all power to the engines and IC to go faster?

Cheers

Hmmm.. That bears thought. My first reaction would be to say no. Considering it though, the ships I've designed do not have all that much extra power in reserve to make that a viable tactic. The biggest power expenditure would be the thrust. I don't see low-tech ships being able to use this as the power generation being so tight.

I think that if it is allowed, the IC would be considered to be running at maximum for 20 turns (10% chance of failure/turn).


Added to the rules.

Overloading Compensators
Any extra power may be diverted to engines and inertial compensators to increase Thrust. Ships using this run the risk of compensator failure at a rate of 10% per turn. In addition, engines may burn out, with a chance of 10% of turn. Burnt out engines are considered disabled for damage control purposes.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 28, 2011, 07:04:27 PM
Based on a question from Alan...

Hardpoints are only calculated on non-cargo/hangar tonnage.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 29, 2011, 01:23:56 PM
Added to Chapter 17, regarding capital weapons.

Capital weapons have 2x the cost and power of their non-capital cousins, and power requirements of 1.5x.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on April 30, 2011, 07:44:05 AM
Erik

Can you fire one broadside, roll the ship for 1 thrust (assuming you have any left) and then fire the other as a second volley?

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on April 30, 2011, 12:55:03 PM
Erik

Can you fire one broadside, roll the ship for 1 thrust (assuming you have any left) and then fire the other as a second volley?

Regards

Alan

Yes.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on May 01, 2011, 03:26:06 AM
With point defense, do you lump missiles together for lock on purposes? Or do you test for each missile?

Cheers,
Dalord
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 01, 2011, 12:18:35 PM
With point defense, do you lump missiles together for lock on purposes? Or do you test for each missile?

Cheers,
Dalord

Individually. Additionally, each incoming missile to be tracked requires a sensor channel.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on May 01, 2011, 04:36:13 PM
Another thing, it says that point defense can react as soon as a missile is launched within interception range does that mean they can shoot out of turn?

But by far the biggest issue I have is that while shooting at each other is fun, it is followed by at least 3 to 5 turns of moving at lower tech levels, in my opinion the rate of fire for weapons is a bit slow.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 01, 2011, 04:41:44 PM
Another thing, it says that point defense can react as soon as a missile is launched within interception range does that mean they can shoot out of turn?

But by far the biggest issue I have is that while shooting at each other is fun, it is followed by at least 3 to 5 turns of moving at lower tech levels, in my opinion the rate of fire for weapons is a bit slow.

PD can only fire out of turn if missiles are launched within 8 hexes. Otherwise there'd be no chance for intercept.

As for the slow weapons-fire, I wanted to increase the rate of fire with tech, but I didn't want to have the same weapon firing multiple shots (3+) per turn. So the initial techs are going to be maneuvering for a decisive shot type affairs.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on May 01, 2011, 04:57:14 PM
But the thing is a low tech laser is shooting once every 4 turns which means an alpha shield regenerates before it can shoot again albeit your not shooting only one at a time, but that makes rate of damage really low. It takes at least 11 shots from said laser to penetrate armor, and it just seems a bit slow. I understand your reasoning , and I can't offer a reasonable way around it, so I guess ill just have to suck it up and enjoy what is a very good gaming system.

Cheers,
Dalord
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 02, 2011, 06:08:10 AM
Dalord

If you look at the playtest game, you can see that a full double broadside can pretty much wreck all your armor and most of your shields in one go. I know I'm using fire each turn weapons, but after 2 turns of combat, one ship is taking internal hits and the other isn't far off.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on May 02, 2011, 06:30:07 AM
Alan

I noticed that when you hit with the lasers, you add the volley up and then apply mitigation, I do it the other way mitigating each shot and then adding and applying the damage, ill have to ask Erik which is correct because there is a large difference in damage

Cheers
Dalord
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 02, 2011, 07:49:22 AM
Erik

I'm trying to design a destroyer with better equipment but I'm having problems getting enough tonnage to produce enough hard points. I'm assuming I can only have 1 set of shields / armor / ECM / ECCM / engine / FTL engine. However, can I have multiple sensors and compensators? Otherwise, the only way to boost the tonnage is to increase the number of power plants way above my power requirement. Okay, redundant power is not a bad thing but my latest ship has a requirement of 360 and a power generation of 2400 just to get 6 normal hardpoints.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 02, 2011, 08:54:11 AM
Alan

I noticed that when you hit with the lasers, you add the volley up and then apply mitigation, I do it the other way mitigating each shot and then adding and applying the damage, ill have to ask Erik which is correct because there is a large difference in damage

Cheers
Dalord

I apply it per volley, but direct fire and indirect fire weapons produce different volleys, even if they hit at the same time.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 02, 2011, 08:55:43 AM
Erik

I'm trying to design a destroyer with better equipment but I'm having problems getting enough tonnage to produce enough hard points. I'm assuming I can only have 1 set of shields / armor / ECM / ECCM / engine / FTL engine. However, can I have multiple sensors and compensators? Otherwise, the only way to boost the tonnage is to increase the number of power plants way above my power requirement. Okay, redundant power is not a bad thing but my latest ship has a requirement of 360 and a power generation of 2400 just to get 6 normal hardpoints.

Regards

Alan

I personally design ships by giving them a tonnage, say 5000 tons, then calculating the number of hardpoints. That gives me a base on how many weapons I can shove into the hull, which usually tends to suck up a lot of room and power requirements.

Shields, armor, and engines (normal & ftl) are single items. Sensors and ecm/eccm could have redundant backups.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 04, 2011, 02:48:46 AM
Erik

A few issues not resolved with version 3 of the playtest rules.

Page 7 says that there are hit modifiers for ECM / Sensors - does this mean for target acquisition as I can't find any reference to this under the hit part of the rules.

Page 9 refers to table 2.10 for weapons fire (doesn't exist).

Page 11 - reference to table 2.6 for power plants and 2.9 for compensator damage.

Page 19 - plasma missiles - how is the 5 point reduction in damage allocated where there are multiple entries in damage type? Also, HTK used for both system damage and missile destruction. The former is called HP earlier in the rules.

Page 22 - HTK data missing for all sizes above 20 cm.


Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 04, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
Erik

A few issues not resolved with version 3 of the playtest rules.

Page 7 says that there are hit modifiers for ECM / Sensors - does this mean for target acquisition as I can't find any reference to this under the hit part of the rules.
I think that is an artifact of earlier designs. I'll remove it.

Quote
Page 9 refers to table 2.10 for weapons fire (doesn't exist).
Another artifact. Prior weapons had variable signatures.

Quote
Page 11 - reference to table 2.6 for power plants and 2.9 for compensator damage.
Don't you love renumbering tables? :) 2.6 is actually table 9. Table 2.9 is table 12.

Quote
Page 19 - plasma missiles - how is the 5 point reduction in damage allocated where there are multiple entries in damage type? Also, HTK used for both system damage and missile destruction. The former is called HP earlier in the rules.
I'll reword that.
Code: [Select]
Every five points of damage done to a plasma missile reduces the damage of the missile by 2 pts in each type.
Quote
Page 22 - HTK data missing for all sizes above 20 cm.


Regards

Alan
Odd... that was there.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 04, 2011, 02:44:22 PM
As per a question in Alan's game 2, I've added a 9th column to table 8 Damage Allocation that is structure for each roll.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 04, 2011, 02:59:47 PM
Code: [Select]
Every five points of damage done to a plasma missile reduces the damage of the missile by 2 pts in each type.

I changed this back to 5pts in each type. Given a 300cm CS5 plasma missile with 30 HTK. It does 9/27/2 damage. 5 points of damage reduce that to 4/22/0, another 5 (10 total) to 0/17/0, another 5 (15 total) to 0/12/0, another 5 (20 total) to 0/7/0, another 5 (25 total) to 0/2/0, and the last 5 pts destroy it. I think that scales a lot better than reducing only by 2 pts per 5 and simulates the containment field being disrupted over time.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 04, 2011, 03:51:27 PM
Also, HTK used for both system damage and missile destruction. The former is called HP earlier in the rules.

The only place I saw "HP" where it did not refer to "Hard Point" was on page 10, "Each component on the ship has a number of HP." I changed that to HTK. I'll add HP and HTK in the definitions in chapter 1 (if they are not already there).
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 04, 2011, 04:25:02 PM
It's not stated anywhere in the rules (until now), but Compensation does not necessarily need to equal Thrust (the ships I've posted all do). However, Compensation should be at least equal to Thrust.

So a ship with a Thrust of 4, and Compensation of 8 could max out speed at 8 hexes (11 if they are willing to accept the chance of failure). This ship could accelerate by 4 Thrust per turn in a straight line.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 04, 2011, 05:35:39 PM
I think for the v4 document, I'll include the full tech trees also.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 05, 2011, 03:27:07 AM
Erik

The tech trees will be very useful.

A couple of points from my test games.

Detection seems too easy. Everyone seems to detect everyone else all the time and having better sensors makes no different apart from the longer range. The requirement is to get the die roll between 0 and 100 if possible which means either decreasing the signature or increasing the resolution. A quick look at the figures from the test games would suggest that decreasing the hull signature from Tonnage/20 to Tonnage/40 would achieve this but I suspect this would need more evaluation with different ships and detection systems. Another possibility would be to introduce range into the equation e.g. the further away you are, you get a negative modifier to the dr.

My second point is based on the ships I've so far developed and what I see as a major problem. At the moment, the only limitation on thrust is energy available. In all the ships I've built, I've had to cram in masses of power plants in order to get the tonnage up to the required amount such that I've had 3 - 5 times the power I need to run the ship. I hate to think what a 5000 ton capital ship would look like. This means I don't have a need to trade off systems to match the power available. Adding hangers and fighters would add to the tonnage but not the hard points. In the last game, one pirate ship lost a third of its power systems but it still had enough to run all the systems on the ship.

I also find the engine construction counter intuitive. At the moment I can add an engine to a 500 ton ship and generate 3 thrust for example. I can then put the same engine (tonnage and cost) onto a 20,000 ton ship and generate 10 thrust if I have enough power.

If my thoughts are wrong on this then please ignore the rest but I would like to see a 5000 ton ship which was not overpowered by a massive amount.

My suggestion to solve this is to change the engines so that the current cost and tonnage are increased a multiple based on the tonnage/500 rounded up.

I'll give a few examples.

Basic Nuclear Torch Engine. Tons=350 Cost=600 Power/thrust/1000tons=60
Improved Plasma Torch Engine. Tons=300 Cost=3100 Power/thrust/1000tons=24

Primtive Fission PP. Tons=20 Cost=250 Power=20
Improved Antimatter PP. Tons=14 Cost=1200 Power=120

A 1500 ton ship with BNT engine would require 1050 tons for the engine. A thrust of 1 would require 120 power using Primitive Fission or 120 tons of power plant. This leaves 330 tons for other systems which looks about right. A thrust of 2 would require 240 tons of power plant which wouldn't allow for weapons etc although it might make a good scout.

However, at 2000 tons, the engines would require 1400 tons and the power requirement for thrust 2 would still need 240 tons. This leaves 360 tons for other system which should be sufficient with some trade offs.

For a 1500 ton ship with IPT engines, the engines would add 900 tons and a thrust of 5 would need 240 power or 28 tons of Improved Antimatter power plant. This leaves much more room for advanced systems and weapons.

Again, this requires a lot more testing but I think it adds more consistency to engine design and helps to overcome the massed power plant problem.

Feel free to ignore both points but, if you think my analysis is wrong, I would appreciate it if you could post some ship designs using the latest rules which overcome the problem.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 05, 2011, 03:39:26 AM
I've just started building a missile destroyer and seem to be okay for power plant numbers. Perhaps the answer is to increase the weight of the beam weapons. After all, 6 missile launchers is 450 tons plus magazine space. 6x30 cm lasers is 90 tons. Also a 75 ton missile launcher takes 1 hardpoint, a 60 ton laser takes 4!!!

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: dalord0 on May 05, 2011, 06:22:04 AM
One thing about the sensor idea is that when targeting missiles it is already hard to get a lock due to the really low sigs

Dalord
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 05, 2011, 06:42:14 AM
Dalord

Not sure if that's true. A basic missile (Nuclear Torch Engine and 3 fission warheads) has a signature of 60 (40 for the frame, 4 for the engine and 16 for the 4 CP). PD weapons are +10 to hit missiles. For basic class 1 sensors, this gives 60 (signature) - 40 (resolution) +40 acquisition + 10 (PD weapon). This is a base of 70% hit rate. With 2 HTK, one hit will destroy each missile. However, PD weapons have a maximum range of 8 so, with a thrust of 10, if you launch at 9 or 10 hex range, the defender can only use point blank defence (-10 to hit) giving a final to hit of 60%. My latest designs have 6 missile launchers and 10 PD lasers so most of the missiles will be hit (4 missiles have a 16% chance of getting through and 2 have a 40% chance). I suppose, overall, that that is a pretty fair result. Of course, you can also use the PD lasers to create another volley at the same time if they are not needed for point defence.

My next playtest will pit 2 such destroyers against one another once I can finalise the designs and can stop playing with my grandchildren.

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 05, 2011, 12:57:44 PM
This is a reply to Alan's wall of comments :)

I agree detection is way too simple. I'm toying with both decreasing hull signature by an amount and decreasing sensor resolution.

I did add a bit on movement. Each engine provides innate compensation up to its Thrust, i.e. 4 Thrust = 4 Compensation without additional IC. IC adds to the maximum speed a ship may go in one turn. 4 Thrust + 8 IC = max speed 12. Of course it would take 3 turns to get to that speed.

Engines will now require an additional 100 tons per Thrust.
A Basic Nuke Torch requires a base 350 tons. If it is to provide 4 Thrust, it requires an additional 400 tons for 750 tons total. It consumes 60 power per 1000 tons of ship per Thrust. So your 1500 ton ship requires 120 x 4 or 480 power.
An Improved Plasma Torch requires a base of 300 tons. 4 Thrust moves that to 700 tons. It consumes 24 power per 1000 tons per Thrust. The 1500 ton ship requires 48 x 4 or 192 power.
Looking at the power plants, you've got a Primitive Fission 20 tons, 20 power. So for the 480 power you need 24 plants at 480 tons. This gives your ship 270 tons for weapons/armor/shields/additional power.
The Improved AM plant generates 180 power for 14 tons. Your advanced ship requires 2 plants at 28 tons, leaving 772 tons for extras.

Regarding the missile launchers. Base launchers are now 200 tons, Dual are 350, Rocket Pods are 500.

Missile signatures won't change (for now). Missiles should be hard to lock on to. And hit. A 4cp Basic missile with a Nuke Torch drive =60m. With Basic sensors, the formula would be (60 signature- 40 resolution +40 acquisition) for a net of 60% lock. With a Class 5 sensor, the formula would be 60-5+80 for 135% lock.

ECM has been modified slightly to also reduce the to hit chances of indirect fire weapons including missiles. So a ship with 4th Gen ECM reduces its Signature by 40m, and the To-Hit of seeking weapons by 25%. I'm also toying with the idea of the Stealth generation of the ECM be directly coupled to the reduced resolution of the Sensors. Right now Stealth is a blanket 3x reduction in resolution. With the changes I have in mind, lower tech ECM in stealth mode degrades resolution more than 3x, while higher tech ECM degrades it less (but not below 2x).

Now on to some numbers I've been crunching. A 15,000 ton hull currently has a Signature of 750...

Thought derail. There are technologies that reduce the cost of hull on a per ton basis. I'm thinking of utilizing that same tech line to reduce the hull signature. The current baseline would remain Hull/20. There are 9 levels of Hull cost tech. I'm flipping between each level improving that by 3 or 4. So at top end hull tech you have a cost of 1MCr/ton and Signature is Hull/44 or Hull/52. This puts a 1500 ton hull at 75m at the low end of the tech, and either 34m or 29m at the high end. Using Class 1 sensors, you've got 75m - 40 +40 for 75% lock, to 29m -5+80 for 104% lock. Of course the low end sensor against the high-end hull will result in 29-34% lock chance.

One thing about the PD weapons. They have a +10 to hit, not lock on missiles. Lock on only affects to hits in the fact that no lock = no possible chance to hit. So your basic sensors have 60% lock. Lasers are Class VI, so at max PD range, they have a 68% chance to hit a missile. Point Blank PD would have an 85% chance to hit a missile (Class VI 0 range = 95 - 10 for PB PD). So 6 missile launchers vs 10 PD turrets, I'd say you've got fairly decent odds of stopping the salvo.

Maybe I also just need to declare that a roll of 95+ is a failure on target locks.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 05, 2011, 01:41:46 PM
Erik

Thanks for the reply. I think it would best if I wait till version 4 of the rules comes out and have a reread. There look as though there are some fundamental changes coming along and it would be good to include them in the playtest games.

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 05, 2011, 02:53:19 PM
Hi Erik

I'm off again.

You need to be careful to define speed in a game based on vector mechanics. It's okay if you're going in one direction but not when you start applying thrust in different vectors. e.g. if you're going at speed 4 in direction 000 and you apply 4 thrust in direction 120 what is your speed? Not 8, that's for certain.

If you've got a means of dealing with this, then you don't need to read any further.

If not, I have a suggestion.

Vectors can always be consolidated to a maximum of 2 adjacent vectors (see below). Therefore, speed is defined as the sum of the distance travelled along 2 adjacent vectors e.g. speed 4 in direction 000 and speed 4 in direction 060 = total speed 8.

Okay. Vector consolidation is carried out as follows:-

1) If there are vectors in opposite directions, set the lower one to zero and decrease the opposite one by the same amount. e.g. speed 4 in direction 000. Thrust 2 in direction 180. Result speed 2 in direction 000. That's pretty obvious.

2) If you have 2 adjacent vectors only remaining, then that is fine and the sum is the speed.

3) If you have 2 non-adjacent vectors, then you need to do the following (it doesn't matter if the middle one is zero or not e.g. you could have 4 in 000, 1 in 060 and 3 in 120 or 4 in 000, 0 in 060 and 3 in 120 - the method is the same). Subtract the lower outer vector from both outer vectors and add the figure to the middle vector. In the first example the vectors end up as 1 in 000 and 4 in 060. In the second, you end up with 1 in 000 and 3 in 060.

I hope that's clear. Some diagrams would probably help in the rules.

I hope this is useful. I'll try to keep quiet now until the next version comes out.

Alan

Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 05, 2011, 05:17:25 PM
Hi Erik

I'm off again.

You need to be careful to define speed in a game based on vector mechanics. It's okay if you're going in one direction but not when you start applying thrust in different vectors. e.g. if you're going at speed 4 in direction 000 and you apply 4 thrust in direction 120 what is your speed? Not 8, that's for certain.

If you've got a means of dealing with this, then you don't need to read any further.

If not, I have a suggestion.

Vectors can always be consolidated to a maximum of 2 adjacent vectors (see below). Therefore, speed is defined as the sum of the distance travelled along 2 adjacent vectors e.g. speed 4 in direction 000 and speed 4 in direction 060 = total speed 8.

Okay. Vector consolidation is carried out as follows:-

1) If there are vectors in opposite directions, set the lower one to zero and decrease the opposite one by the same amount. e.g. speed 4 in direction 000. Thrust 2 in direction 180. Result speed 2 in direction 000. That's pretty obvious.

2) If you have 2 adjacent vectors only remaining, then that is fine and the sum is the speed.

3) If you have 2 non-adjacent vectors, then you need to do the following (it doesn't matter if the middle one is zero or not e.g. you could have 4 in 000, 1 in 060 and 3 in 120 or 4 in 000, 0 in 060 and 3 in 120 - the method is the same). Subtract the lower outer vector from both outer vectors and add the figure to the middle vector. In the first example the vectors end up as 1 in 000 and 4 in 060. In the second, you end up with 1 in 000 and 3 in 060.

I hope that's clear. Some diagrams would probably help in the rules.

I hope this is useful. I'll try to keep quiet now until the next version comes out.

Alan



It does make sense. After I drew it out :) I'll have to come up with some examples to put in the book.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 06, 2011, 04:05:07 AM
Erik

I've quickly read through the v4 playtest rules. I suspect I'll have some questions as I work through the various weapon types but I have a few comments and/or questions.

1) On the subject of missiles, am I right in assuming that they have a speed = thrust? The use of the thrust rating to determine speed could suggest that they increase speed by their thrust rating each turn. e.g. with a thrust of 10, they move at speed 10 on turn 1, 20 on turn 2 etc. Maybe using the title speed rather than thrust would be clearer.

2) Chapters 2 and 3 disagree on the cost for missiles and small craft to change hexsides.

3) I like the surrender roll. Perhaps there could be a penalty associated with how many requirements have been met, maybe higher for lower crew grades?

4) Page 7 - firing - still says percentile roll should be higher than the hit number.

5) It also says weapons may fire once - shouldn't that be determined by rate of fire.

6) Can passive sensors perform target acquisition at reduced range and performance? If not, it seems strange that you can under stealth but not under passives.

7) Applying damage. I think it could be clearer that the total damage points are reduced by the HTK of the damaged system. Also, that a partially damaged system (insufficient remaining damage points to equal the HTK) is regarded as disabled (as per your previous email).

8) Page 11 - Compensator damage - This should probably say - If the compensators are damaged the ship cannot exceed a speed equal to its engine's thrust rating without penalty (now engines have their own in-built compensators).

9) Coment - Lasers - the maximum detection range from sensors is 35 hexes. Why go above 75 cm aperture when the only advantage is increased range which you can't use. Also, why would you go from 30 to 35 cm aperture as you gain a slight increase in range with a halving of your broadside damage (twice the number HP required)? Perhaps you could get an increased damage potential for each HP increase.

That's all I've spotted for now. I'll need to adjust my spreadsheets for the changes and I think I'll use the starting technologies for the Terrans and start building some basic ships based on the systems available. This should give some interesting match-ups with different weapons.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 06, 2011, 04:53:36 AM
Erik

Are lasers the only weapons to suffer from Rate of Fire modifications? Some have a fire delay but all the rest seem to be able to fire every turn. Looking at the damage caused, this seems to give them an advantage over lasers (although some of them only have short ranges). It looks like the only weapons available at low tech (assuming slightly different starting tech) are lasers, mass cannons, kinetic beams, particle beams and particle bombs along with missiles. How do you determine the signature increase for these weapons (other than lasers) - is it based on the power supplied? It is specifically stated for lasers but not for the others. If it's okay, I'll send you an updated spreadsheet with an escort or picket sized ship for each types of weapon for comment via email for comment.

I'm not sure why you have increased the size of missile launchers by so much. It's pushed a ship with 10 missile launchers up in size by 1250 tons which has made the discrepency between a 1 hard point missile launcher and a 1 hard point laser even worse. Just a comment.

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 06, 2011, 11:14:51 AM
Erik

I've quickly read through the v4 playtest rules. I suspect I'll have some questions as I work through the various weapon types but I have a few comments and/or questions.

1) On the subject of missiles, am I right in assuming that they have a speed = thrust? The use of the thrust rating to determine speed could suggest that they increase speed by their thrust rating each turn. e.g. with a thrust of 10, they move at speed 10 on turn 1, 20 on turn 2 etc. Maybe using the title speed rather than thrust would be clearer.

2) Chapters 2 and 3 disagree on the cost for missiles and small craft to change hexsides.

3) I like the surrender roll. Perhaps there could be a penalty associated with how many requirements have been met, maybe higher for lower crew grades?

4) Page 7 - firing - still says percentile roll should be higher than the hit number.

5) It also says weapons may fire once - shouldn't that be determined by rate of fire.

6) Can passive sensors perform target acquisition at reduced range and performance? If not, it seems strange that you can under stealth but not under passives.

7) Applying damage. I think it could be clearer that the total damage points are reduced by the HTK of the damaged system. Also, that a partially damaged system (insufficient remaining damage points to equal the HTK) is regarded as disabled (as per your previous email).

8) Page 11 - Compensator damage - This should probably say - If the compensators are damaged the ship cannot exceed a speed equal to its engine's thrust rating without penalty (now engines have their own in-built compensators).

9) Coment - Lasers - the maximum detection range from sensors is 35 hexes. Why go above 75 cm aperture when the only advantage is increased range which you can't use. Also, why would you go from 30 to 35 cm aperture as you gain a slight increase in range with a halving of your broadside damage (twice the number HP required)? Perhaps you could get an increased damage potential for each HP increase.

That's all I've spotted for now. I'll need to adjust my spreadsheets for the changes and I think I'll use the starting technologies for the Terrans and start building some basic ships based on the systems available. This should give some interesting match-ups with different weapons.

Regards

Alan

1 - Yes.
2 - I'll fix that.
3 - How would you have the crew grade modify the roll? Would an elite crew be more likely to surrender in a hopeless situation or not?
4 - I'll fix that too.
5 - Relic from when there were no increase/decreased rates of fire.
6 - Currently you cannot acquire a target under passives. I'll play around with that a bit.
7 - Good point
8 - Another good point
9 - I will most likely end up increasing sensor ranges.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 06, 2011, 11:40:05 AM
Point 3. I think an elite crew would be more likely to fight on and a green crew to surrender.

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 06, 2011, 11:42:52 AM
Point 3. I think an elite crew would be more likely to fight on and a green crew to surrender.

Alan
But wouldn't the elite crew recognize the futility of trying to outrun a faster opponent, or continue to fight on with minimal or no weapons?

I can really see it going either way, actually.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 06, 2011, 11:58:28 AM
1 - Yes.
2 - I'll fix that.
3 - How would you have the crew grade modify the roll? Would an elite crew be more likely to surrender in a hopeless situation or not?
4 - I'll fix that too.
5 - Relic from when there were no increase/decreased rates of fire.
6 - Currently you cannot acquire a target under passives. I'll play around with that a bit.
7 - Good point
8 - Another good point
9 - I will most likely end up increasing sensor ranges.
1 - Fixed
2 - Fixed
3 - still open
4 - Fixed
5 - Fixed
6 - Fixed. Stealth is now only an ECM mode. Passives may lock on with -25% chance.
7 - Clarified
8 - Fixed
9 - Still toying with.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 06, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
Going back to sensors and range.

The maximum current lock range is 35 hexes, which is just over a light-second. Maximum detection range is 70 hexes, or just over 2 LS. The mod, Basic Sensor Boost provides a 50% increase in targeting range. So the lock range becomes 53 hexes.

Without increasing sensor ranges, the only thing I can think of for lasers would be to decouple range from aperture and put it back on frequency, and shifting damage from frequency to aperture.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 06, 2011, 12:41:22 PM
Erik

Are lasers the only weapons to suffer from Rate of Fire modifications? Some have a fire delay but all the rest seem to be able to fire every turn. Looking at the damage caused, this seems to give them an advantage over lasers (although some of them only have short ranges). It looks like the only weapons available at low tech (assuming slightly different starting tech) are lasers, mass cannons, kinetic beams, particle beams and particle bombs along with missiles. How do you determine the signature increase for these weapons (other than lasers) - is it based on the power supplied? It is specifically stated for lasers but not for the others. If it's okay, I'll send you an updated spreadsheet with an escort or picket sized ship for each types of weapon for comment via email for comment.
I am contemplating increasing the rate of fire on lasers, substantially.

I'm not sure I'd call particle beams and particle bombs low tech. Particle bombs need Astrophysics I which requires Physics IV. Normal tech starts are 5000 RP, Low Tech is 3000 RP, and High Tech is 7000 RP. A basic start on tech for a viable ship is 4250 RP. That's only granting lasers as the weapon system. Adding missiles puts you up to 4350. To add mass cannons, you need minimum 1200 RP (Military Science I and Kinetic Wpn Tech I).  Enough digression :)

Unless otherwise stated (seeking weapons are usually by containment strength), it is by the power used to fire the weapon.

I'm not sure why you have increased the size of missile launchers by so much. It's pushed a ship with 10 missile launchers up in size by 1250 tons which has made the discrepency between a 1 hard point missile launcher and a 1 hard point laser even worse. Just a comment.

Alan

So you are saying missile launchers should be lighter than lasers?
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 06, 2011, 12:47:35 PM
Going back to sensors and range.

The maximum current lock range is 35 hexes, which is just over a light-second. Maximum detection range is 70 hexes, or just over 2 LS. The mod, Basic Sensor Boost provides a 50% increase in targeting range. So the lock range becomes 53 hexes.

Without increasing sensor ranges, the only thing I can think of for lasers would be to decouple range from aperture and put it back on frequency, and shifting damage from frequency to aperture.

Erik

At least with a 53 hex targeting range you can fire the laser to its full damage range and beyond. I hesitate to try to suggest anything as so much is interwoven that changing things may unbalance the game in ways I'm not aware of.

A few things I've noticed on the research trees.

Shields VIII has Shield Regen VI, should be Shield Regen IV.
Force Tech II and III have Electron Torpedo Tech I and Proton Torpedo Tech I attached accordingly. However, these shouldn't be available till Physics IV - in fact they're the only tech trees associated with that tech so this looks like a typo. I'm working through these and putting them on a spreadsheet so I should pick up any other anomalies at some point.

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 06, 2011, 12:52:27 PM
I am contemplating increasing the rate of fire on lasers, substantially.

I'm not sure I'd call particle beams and particle bombs low tech. Particle bombs need Astrophysics I which requires Physics IV. Normal tech starts are 5000 RP, Low Tech is 3000 RP, and High Tech is 7000 RP. A basic start on tech for a viable ship is 4250 RP. That's only granting lasers as the weapon system. Adding missiles puts you up to 4350. To add mass cannons, you need minimum 1200 RP (Military Science I and Kinetic Wpn Tech I).  Enough digression :)

Unless otherwise stated (seeking weapons are usually by containment strength), it is by the power used to fire the weapon.

So you are saying missile launchers should be lighter than lasers?

Just goes to prove I'm still working through the tech trees.

The last question. No but a 1 hardpoint laser is 15 tons, a 1 hardpoint missile launcher is now 200 tons.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 06, 2011, 01:08:12 PM
Just goes to prove I'm still working through the tech trees.

The last question. No but a 1 hardpoint laser is 15 tons, a 1 hardpoint missile launcher is now 200 tons.

Hardpoints don't really have a set tonnage. I think of hardpoints more as external surface facing than size.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 06, 2011, 01:14:35 PM
Erik

At least with a 53 hex targeting range you can fire the laser to its full damage range and beyond. I hesitate to try to suggest anything as so much is interwoven that changing things may unbalance the game in ways I'm not aware of.

A few things I've noticed on the research trees.

Shields VIII has Shield Regen VI, should be Shield Regen IV.
Force Tech II and III have Electron Torpedo Tech I and Proton Torpedo Tech I attached accordingly. However, these shouldn't be available till Physics IV - in fact they're the only tech trees associated with that tech so this looks like a typo. I'm working through these and putting them on a spreadsheet so I should pick up any other anomalies at some point.

Alan

Fixed the tech errors. I'm thinking of a few more levels of tech in the Base Sensor Class to extend the ranges out.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: alanwebber on May 07, 2011, 05:07:20 AM
Erik

A few more minor tech system errors.

1) Hull signature of tons/55 occurs in both Composites II and Advanced Composites I

2) Kinetic Weapons only has 10 levels in the list but goes up to XIII in the systems description.

3) Astrophysics I should open up the Particle Weapons Branch

4) Particle Weapons Tech Level 10 is missing "50cm" for the aperture improvement.

That's all I've found.

Regards

Alan
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 07, 2011, 01:43:12 PM
Erik

A few more minor tech system errors.

1) Hull signature of tons/55 occurs in both Composites II and Advanced Composites I

2) Kinetic Weapons only has 10 levels in the list but goes up to XIII in the systems description.

3) Astrophysics I should open up the Particle Weapons Branch

4) Particle Weapons Tech Level 10 is missing "50cm" for the aperture improvement.

That's all I've found.

Regards

Alan

1 - Enhanced Composites should have 60 and 65 for the signature mod.
2 - Fixed the table. Progression is linear from other values.
3 - Fixed description of Astrophysics I.
4 - Fixed.
Title: Re: First impressions
Post by: Erik Luken on May 11, 2011, 10:24:21 PM
I'll be posting a new pdf tomorrow. My brain is all fuzzy and not tracking so it's going to wait. But here is the change log. Some of the entries apply to strategic rules that won't be in the pdf.

1.   Fixed a number of rule discrepancies.
2.   Removed sensor stealth. Stealth is now completely ECM driven.
3.   Added explicit reductions in acquisition for passives.
4.   Fixed error in starting tech example.
5.   Extended Sensor Tech to 8 from 5.
6.   Corrected some typos in the tech descriptions.
7.   Added crew grade modifiers to surrender.
8.   Added advanced movement example.
9.   Cryogenics added
10.   Supply Points/Supply Depots added
11.   Astrographic Terrain