Pre-SysNES2: Beta-testing and Submission

[Kal'thzar]

Dis: I am so confused about that Army Designer, also is there an overall cost anywhere?

Anyway three armies:

200 basic Divisions

AND

18 Basic Divisions (Command Staff, Logistics Centre, Commlinks, Supply Centre, 3 armour, 1 Power Armour)

AND

14 Basic Divisions (Command Staff, Logistics Centre, Commlinks, Supply Centre, 3 armour, 1 Power Armour, Electromuscle, Heavy)

Some of these abilities are very planet dependent...

 

[Symphony D.]

The conflation of high IP with maneuverability grates on me; faster things are less maneuverable, not more, and more predictable, due to difficulty of changing thrust vectors (see also: thrust vectoring tech).

Also, how can you have high implicit maneuverability and yet have a low explicit Dodge? Clearly you can, stat-wise, and that makes no sense. Something maneuverable would not have poor Dodge. IP should be reflective of raw velocity and acceleration; Dodge should reflect maneuverability. A low IP platform has slower missiles but they can manuever way better, which is good for interceptors unless they're kinetic-kill or something equally silly. That or high IP should give a Dodge bonus to reflect this...

Why does Algorithmic Interlocks cost so much e in a design, by the way? It's software, shouldn't it cost s?

I also think it's time a list of arcane engagement (i.e., x will always shoot first) and construction (i.e., Charm needs Z computers) rules start to be packaged with releases, because those are poorly documented throughout this thread and it's becoming clear that there's little point in trying to build a fleet conceptually unless you combat test it yourself first, since that's the only way to see to-hit and survivability.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Well, I guess I'm relying on real world thinking too much, because none of that is terribly intuitive or sensible. (The conflation of high IP with maneuverability grates on me; faster things are less maneuverable, not more, and more predictable, due to difficulty of changing thrust vectors; also, how can you have high implicit maneuverability and yet have a low explicit Dodge? Clearly you can, stat-wise, and that makes no sense. IP should be reflective of raw velocity and acceleration; Dodge should reflect maneuverability. A low IP platform has slower missiles but they can manuever way better, which is good for interceptors unless they're kinetic-kill or something equally silly. That or high IP should give a Dodge bonus to reflect this...)

Kal' has it wrong - IP does nothing to missiles. You are correct that IP is your maximum thrust and dodge is your ability to change the vector and magnitude of said thrust. They are unconnected in the ship designer (though some drives add both). Having a high IP and low dodge would imply you have an a very high power drive that takes a long time to throttle up and switch off.

The ship's int and propulsion tech's are what determine missile on missile combat. Boosting the missile ship to high IP does nothing to the effectiveness of its missiles (though its something you might still want to do if you're planning on fleeing when things go bad).

I also think it's time a list of arcane engagement (i.e., x will always shoot first) and construction (i.e., Charm needs Z computers) rules start to be packaged with releases, because those are poorly documented throughout this thread and it's becoming clear that there's little point in trying to build a fleet conceptually unless you combat test it yourself first, since that's the only way to see to-hit and survivability.

I definitely agree, and will write up a ship design and combat document and FAQ soon. Do you think a statistical section of the battle calc would be useful - where you put in a ship spec and it displays a matrix of performance vs possible opponent attributes, as I think that's doable in excel.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Dis: I am so confused about that Army Designer, also is there an overall cost anywhere?

Anyway three armies:

200 basic Divisions

AND

18 Basic Divisions (Command Staff, Logistics Centre, Commlinks, Supply Centre, 3 armour, 1 Power Armour)

AND

14 Basic Divisions (Command Staff, Logistics Centre, Commlinks, Supply Centre, 3 armour, 1 Power Armour, Electromuscle, Heavy)

Some of these abilities are very planet dependent...

There is no current overall cost though I should add one - you're not going to be building an army in a single year, but rather have to expand a small army into a bigger one over time.

 

[Symphony D.]

Do you think a statistical section of the battle calc would be useful - where you put in a ship spec and it displays a matrix of performance vs possible opponent attributes, as I think that's doable in excel.

I do. That way you could go back and forth while building a ship and see how it does against certain opponent abilities; how your missiles will interface against a particular Dodge or Avoidance, how much damage your Laser will do to a certain armor level, etc. This accords well with how hardware is usually built anyway (to deal with X and Y theoretical capabilities or to have Z level of performance, rather than stacked against a particular opponent piece of hardware).

Also, since it got lost in editing that post over and over again across the 3G network: I'll just ask it again: Why does Algorithmic Interlocks cost so much e? It's mostly software with some specialized hardware (geared toward the ship), shouldn't it increase s development cost more, while only being somewhat expensive in e? This may be based on a faulty understanding of what e represents in terms of costs...

 

[Disenfrancised]

Well it doesn't cost s for two reasons a) Ships currently aren't set up to cost s and b) if it was just software you'd only have to pay it once and copy across the new ships.

Its the interlock part of the Algorithmic interlocks that cost e - your having redundant multiple physical pathways to ensure the signals for instruments are in fact true, and splitting and arranging the computers to check for bugs and inconsistencies. Also part of the e cost is the physical processors the SpaceNorton program is running on, since its additional to the main computer core (and ships without big computer modules can still have error checking).

As to why it costs so much e - I wanted reducing EW vulnerability to be straightforward but not so cheap that it's the standard way of doing things. Its cost may change during the beta obviously. You should also note its e cost scales with the base EW Vulnerability - the more vulnerable it is at the start the pricier it gets to overcome that. (You also made me aware of a circularity bug - now corrected! Algorithmic interlocks will now cost the intended amount (somewhat less) in the next version)

e now loosely represents man/machine work-hours invested in creating a physical product - something small and very complicated will cost more e than something large and simple. Thus running a whole bunch of additional cables and processors and authenticators and virus libraries will take a lot of e. When you trade e you'er trading generalized 'products' made with those man hours.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Apologies again Symphony D. mistake on my part.

I definitely agree, and will write up a ship design and
combat document and FAQ soon. Do you think a statistical section of the battle calc would be useful - where you put in a ship spec and it displays a matrix of performance vs possible opponent attributes, as I think that's doable in excel.

Do you want the actual equations for to hit%? I'm not sure if there is anything else I can do with my own modelling that isn't fairly straightforward to implement.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Since its a uniform distribution the equations are piss-easy

 

[Kal'thzar]

Ayup

Is there any other beta testing? I feel the ship designer is almost done. Army seems easier to do...

 

[Disenfrancised]

Well making the army work right might take some time (since I'm planning to adjust it quite a bit). Then there is the economic sheet testing (for which I'll release a stock race on a stock planet), but I haven't even got round to starting on that yet.

So everyone is on the same page I'm planning to make the statistical predictor look like this:

Where you test a ship spec against a defined range. Since the to hit and damage ones might take a bit of effort I want to make sure people like this idea.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Mhmmm Beta testing

Uh does the table expand if you make the range bigger? And will it handle -ve ints properly? Looks nice though, amazing what you can do with colour coordination

 

[Disenfrancised]

No its always only ten cells, it'll do ten 1/10th gradations between the min and max whatever those values are. If you set it to -100 and 100 it'll do (-100 -78 -56 -33 -11 11 33 56 78 100).

 

[Thlayli]

Have you considered a mobilization mechanic? Ability to quickly add more divisions/traits to an army in return for a temporary e and p penalty.

 

[Kal'thzar]

No its always only ten cells, it'll do ten 1/10th gradations between the min and max whatever those values are. If you set it to -100 and 100 it'll do (-100 -78 -56 -33 -11 11 33 56 78 100).

yeah that works, you can always zoom onto interesting regions.

 

[Frozen In Ice]

So are any more test fleets needed? I was thinking about trying out particle heavy one.

 

[Disenfrancised]

yeah that works, you can always zoom onto interesting regions.

Obvious comment is obvious

So are any more test fleets needed? I was thinking about trying out particle heavy one.

Ship balancing is certainly not in the final state, I would hope Kal does some more!

 

[Kal'thzar]

So are any more test fleets needed? I was thinking about trying out particle heavy one.

Absolutely; some interesting changes in V8 and there are only laser changes slated for V9 so far.

On that note; even when the ship builder has been tested to oblivion I'm thinking of getting people to choose 20 techs, that they think fits their society at game start, and design fleets based on that. At the moment everyone has had access to the same tech and I want to see how some forced tech differences affect things!

EDIT:

Obvious comment is conversation filler...

 

[Frozen In Ice]

I find it really hard making a particle fleet in 600e. I was trying to go with a capital ship, a carrier and then a bunch of smaller fighters, but the fighters quickly ballooned to 30 size making the carrier too expensive to carry many of them. I looked into scaling back the fighters but they quickly became pittiful. So finally, I looked into ditching the carrier, giving some of its roles to the capital, and making all the fighters IS capable, but this made them pretty expensive, making so few of them (or so weak) that it hardly seemed worth it.

From my view it still probably more effective to just build a few large laser or missile ships, but we'll see how this fleets fares. :/

Also, charm drives seem pretty bad compared to the other drives.

Spoiler Ships :

Anthill
30x Burst Drive (REFINED)
5x DHe Core (REFINED)
1x Recycler
1x Hibernation Pod
1x Supply Section
1x Command Staff
1x Command Deck
1x Computer
1x Scanner
1x Comlink
1x Jammer
4x Ion Jet
3x Tungsten Armor
1x Heavy Cladding

Cost: 147e (66e) / 67m / 39v / 0a / 0t / 62s
Size: 150/ Mass: 66/ IS: 1 / IP: 1
Range: 2 / Power: 0 / Heat: -5
Init: 3 (11) / Dodge: -29 / Avoid: 0 / Armor: 39/ Shield: 0

Projectile gun: 4 (long)/ 16 damage
8 Int Fleet Bonus
2 Int Jammer Debuff


Soldier Ant
10x Burst Drive (REFINED)
2x DHe Cores (REFINED)
4x Pulse Drive
1x Computer Module
1x Scanner
5x Coilgun (REFINED)

Cost: 56e (27e) / 34m / 12v / 0a / 0t / 19s
Size: 49 / Mass: 20/ IS: 1 / IP: 4
Range: 0 (2) / Power: 1 / Heat: -5
Init: 1 (9) / Dodge: 0 / Avoid: 4 / Armor: 4 / Shield: 0

Projectile gun: 5 (short)/ 10 damage

Particle Test Fleet
1x Anthill
14x Soldier Ants (REFINED)

602e, includes refining cost of Soldier Ant
Tactics- Soldier Ants engage enemies in swarms, try to deal damage, retreat from shields. Anthill uses Ion Jets to give debuffs from long/short range.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Okay so this redoing of the battle calculator is more than important enough for a partial release:

BattleCalc_V9_A

In addition to the fancy pants stats page, the engagement formula has been modified slightly as has the debuff effects of Particle EMP weapons.

Stats page will eventually include checks for the other parts of the battlecalc beyond ship combat, but I'm tired right now.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Are people finding the Stats page useful? It is a big increase in workload to keep it current as the battle calc main page changes.