Pre-SysNES2: Beta-testing and Submission

[Kal'thzar]

What do the three squares (one half filled) in the illosian design signify?

 

[Disenfrancised]

I dunno, stuff? Probably something deep.

 

[qoou]

Is the following scenario allowed? (or what more is needed?):

- Start of turn
- Ship with 0 range, 2 engineering bays, and lots of cargo bays, drops out of IS into empty system.
- Ship builds base and spaceport (you do need a base before you can build anything else, right?) on some airless moon it can land on.
- Turn ends, ship does not die due to lack of range.

 

[Thlayli]

Boarding sort of confuses me in the stats page of the calculator. Negative ship to ship boarding scores on the target seem to lower the success rate, which I don't think is correct since a low target sts should give you a higher success rate.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Good catch, the error is in the stats page instead of "- 4*defender ship to ship" it is "+ 4*defender ship to ship".

 

[Disenfrancised]

Is the following scenario allowed? (or what more is needed?):

- Start of turn
- Ship with 0 range, 2 engineering bays, and lots of cargo bays, drops out of IS into empty system.
- Ship builds base and spaceport (you do need a base before you can build anything else, right?) on some airless moon it can land on.
- Turn ends, ship does not die due to lack of range.

No this fails, also the ships are struck by lightning.

As kal points out, an errant + sign means the stats ship boarding matrix is the wrong way round.

 

[Symphony D.]

Finally fairly satisfied with it:

 

[Thlayli]

I figured all the pluses should be negatives and vice versa.

Cool stuff Symph.

 

[Disenfrancised]

That's pretty cool sym. Stats are done, still would like some simulated army battles to get done...

 

[Thlayli]

Ohmigoshcanweseestatspleaseeeee

 

[Disenfrancised]

Ohmigoshcanweseestatspleaseeeee

Oh Thlayli, you always know what I say when people demand something .

 

[alex994]

I don't want to see stats until you want us to see them

 

[Thlayli]

Desperate entreaties are always better than blatant sycophancy.

Also, I'm going to put together a T3 battlefleet tonight, 750e with 500e/300s for refinement. I'd like to test it defending against various aggressor fleets. We haven't done any balance testing for fleet battles with the newer versions, and we probably should before the NES starts.

I'll try to incorporate all 3 weapon classes. It would be worthwhile to test a mixed-weapon versus monoweapon fleet, but balanced aggressor fleets are fine too.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Desperate entreaties are always better than blatant sycophancy.

Hey I don't pick favourites, I hate you both equally!

Edit also a lot of ship component refinement costs have been changed!

 

[Thlayli]

Alright this is what I came up with in a pinch. Aggressor fleets can also start with one low-value component refined, and in this scenario I have chosen Heavy Cladding.

CSS Marksman

5x Basic Fusion Core
2x Ice Sinks
1x Microwave Beamer
3x Titanium Armour

Cost: 53e (24e) / 26m / 32v / 0a / 0t / 24s
Size: 41 / Mass: 47 / HP: 46 / Power: 21 / Heat: -10
IS: 0 / IP: 0 / Range: 0
Init: 0 / Dodge: -100 / Avoid: 0 / Armor: 12 / Shield: 0
Refine: 73e / 18s
EM Damage: 42

CSS Razorfin

1x Deuterium Drive
1x Pulse Drive
1x Mirror Sail
1x Intrusion Unit
1x Space Marines
1x Jetpacks

Cost: 48e (22e) / 8m / 5v / 0a / 0t / 22s
Size: 12 / Mass: 10 / HP: 12 / Power: 0 / Heat: 4
IS: 0 / IP: 4 / Range: 0
Init: 0 / Dodge: 4 / Avoid: 0 / Armor: -2 / Shield: 0
Refine: 65e / 16s
Ship to Ship Score: 11

CSS Outrider [Opposition-Class] Mk II

1x Twist Drive
8x Deuterium Drive
1x Recyclers
2x Computer Module
1x Scanners
4x Ion Cannons (Refined)
1x Confinement Field
4x Titanium Armor
6x Carbon Armor
1x Heavy Cladding (Refined)

Cost: 181e (81e) / 37m / 36v / 0a / 0t / 64s
Size: 57 / Mass: 57 / HP: 60 / Power: 7 / Heat: 6
IS: 1 / IP: 3 / Range: 1
Init: 3 / Dodge: -13 / Avoid: 0 / Armor: 22 / Shield: 0
Refine: 274e / 69s
Particle Cannon Damage: 48

~1250e or less for building and refinement.

Costs:

274e/70s to Outrider Refinement
65e/16s to Razorfin Refinement
300e/100s to Ion Cannon Refinement

159e to 3x Marksman
132e to 6x Razorfin
324e to 4x Outrider

Total: 1260e, 274m, 270v.

Alternate fleet arrangement: 3x Marksman, 10x Razorfin, 3x Outrider

 

[qoou]

T3 you say? I like Prop 3.


Inspired by an old design of mine then:

Spoiler :

Bumblebee Fighter

Atmospheric Streamlining

2 Deuterium Drives
3 Pulse Drives

1 Fusion Buster

________

59e (27e) / 11m / 12v / 0a / 0t / 26s

Size: 22 / Mass: 18 / HP: 21
IS: 0 / IP: 6

Surplus Power: 0 / Heat: 6

Int: 0 / Dodge: 6 / Avoid: 0 / Armour: -10 / Shield: 0

#Missile Busters: 1 / Missile Buster TD: 24

EW attacks: NO / EW score: 7 / EW vulnerability: 8
Boarding: NO / -0

Can be built on planetary surfaces, she's a pretty nice, cheap, all-around, fighter to get with Prop 3. The Razorfin can't catch up with her, though a more specifically designed ship certainly can. The Razorfin can easily catch up to her with some Marksman help, so she'll need to come in numbers to be able to compete with Thlayli's fleet. 9 of them should be a sure win with 33% casualties against those fleet compositions, but more Marksmen means more losses.

Edit: Sails are nice, eh? 5 bonus IP...

 

[Thlayli]

The Razorfin could catch up to it once it gets boosted by the Microwave Beamer from the Marksman.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Working on my logo. I've put it together at a pixel scale to get the proportions right, now I'm scaling it up.

 

[Symphony D.]

Final version. Vertically abbreviated, files attached:

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Enlarged and adjusted to fit the style of previously posted icons.