Heaven Was A Fortress (Built In Heavens CYOA Inspired Quest)

[Raron]

where did you get those numbers from? the cruiser has 6 neutron kill beams each of which deals 10 damage each of the frigate has 60 damage total with 10 range and each of the destroyers has 35 damage with 10 range
altogether the cruiser+frigates will deal 240 damage plus 140 from the destroyers for a total of 380 our slicer beam can then finish it off or we can launch a bomber and have it use its antimatter bombs to finish it off

Click to shrink...

The Fleshrippers have a 10 Resistance value on their shields (or hull). So subtracts 10 damage from each of those attacks. You have so many attacks at just 5-10, that they are just negated outright. 15 instead deals 5 damage and 20 into 10. That reduces the DPS. By a lot.

Destroyers are just for destroying smallcrafts and missiles. Frigates can launch a small punch if needed. Cruiser actually does something, but not much.

I'd put the entire Federation Fleet as being capable to destroy half a Fleshripper. There are way more then half a Fleshripper on the field.

Only point of Smallcraft is to prevent enemy smallcraft od dealing damage. Since they don't have enough DPS to break shields. They may take down subsystems if shields are down, but that is a big if.

 

[Thorgon]

The Fleshrippers have a 10 Resistance value on their shields (or hull). So subtracts 10 damage from each of those attacks. You have so many attacks at just 5-10, that they are just negated outright. 15 instead deals 5 damage and 20 into 10. That reduces the DPS. By a lot.

Destroyers are just for destroying smallcrafts and missiles. Frigates can launch a small punch if needed. Cruiser actually does something, but not much.

I'd put the entire Federation Fleet as being capable to destroy half a Fleshripper. There are way more then half a Fleshripper on the field.

Click to shrink...

shit that's gonna cause problems: alright new plan have the childhoods end remain with the stack and serve as tank as best it can we want to engage Fleshrippers with subspace filaments whenever possible while using the slicer beam to hit the weakest still living Fleshripper that the federation fleet cant kill

 

[Raron]

shit that's gonna cause problems: alright new plan have the childhoods end remain with the stack and serve as tank as best it can we want to engage Fleshrippers with subspace filaments whenever possible while using the slicer beam to hit the weakest still living Fleshripper that the federation fleet cant kill

Click to shrink...

The Federation fleet can survive a Fleshripper battle for a while. They aren't just outright knocked out by a single one. Just don't expect them to actually win. The fact they have Resistance 10, Shield Generation 20 and Hull generation 15 means it will be a slog of a fight, and unless the Federation fleet literally plays everything perfectly, the Fleshripper will win.

I'm currently looking at two plans:

[X] Plan Maneuver
-[X] Federation and Childhood fire at 7 the oclock ship with weapons which can damage the shield.
-[X] Move Federation ships and Childhood 4 hexes left and one hex down-left
-[X] Federation ships to reroute power to shields
-[X] Spare power to Clairvoyance System to expand the range greatly
-[X] If closest Fleshripper is in range of movement at start of next turn, destroy it with Subspace Filament in a micro-turn

This one is simple, fire what you have at a ship in range, and hope that the Fleshripper stays put. The weird movement is to put the fleet just a bit above the range of two Fleshrippers, but still in range of another 2 Flreshrippers. We get to keep our Microjump (remember, one per 3 turns) both hidden and ready to use.

[X] Plan Punchout
-[X] Federation and Childhood fire at 6 the oclock ship with weapons which can damage the shield.
-[X] Move Federation ships to 7 oclock ship, Childhood to Microjump at the top of of 7 oclock ship and destroy it with Subspace Filament in a micro-turn
-[X] Federation ships to reroute power to shields, to maximize it's power.
-[X] Spare power to Clairvoyance System to expand the range greatly
-[X] Upon Fleshripper destruction, plot a course outside of the encirclement. Try to gather up all the Fleshrippers in a stack.

This one just outright destroys a ship, revealing all of our cards turn one. It splits and remakes the stack, leaving us with only a single Fleshripper in range of firing at our fleet. Bonus point is the fact that only single ship (the 6/5 oclock one) can fire at the stack at start of enemy turn, and we are just out of range of missles he can fire (8 hexes, and speed of his missles is 7). General idea for step 2 is to wait for the cooldown out, gather them in a stack by running, deal some damage to already damaged ship with our longer range and then jump in and decimate the other ships with Subspace Filaments.

Technically, there is a third plan, where Childhood and Federation fleet try to break the encirclement by threading the needle of their sensors. I imagine their sensors are also affected, but just not as much as Federations. But I don't know their sensor ranges, and don't really feel like doing that.

 

[TaliesinSkye]

The Fleshrippers have a 10 Resistance value on their shields (or hull). So subtracts 10 damage from each of those attacks. You have so many attacks at just 5-10, that they are just negated outright. 15 instead deals 5 damage and 20 into 10. That reduces the DPS. By a lot.

Destroyers are just for destroying smallcrafts and missiles. Frigates can launch a small punch if needed. Cruiser actually does something, but not much.

I'd put the entire Federation Fleet as being capable to destroy half a Fleshripper. There are way more then half a Fleshripper on the field.

Only point of Smallcraft is to prevent enemy smallcraft od dealing damage. Since they don't have enough DPS to break shields. They may take down subsystems if shields are down, but that is a big if.

Click to shrink...

Oh that's how resistance works. Okay, good catch.

[X] Plan Punchout

 

[Cute Princess]

[X] Plan Punchout

 

[Grete]

[X] Plan Punchout v2

 

[LostDeviljho]

So I will point out there's an option to control your fire, allowing you to time your shots so they all combine against the target's resistance.

 

[Raron]

Uh, there isn't anything about that in the rules?

Moreover, it goes into specifics about attacks. As in, each shot is a attack.

Spoiler

• Resistance is the value by which incoming Damage is reduced before it can damage the Integrity of the relevant object or effect. For instance, if an attack with a Damage value of 3 strikes a ship with 10 Integrity and 2 Resistance, the damage will be reduced by 2, meaning the ship's Integrity will only be reduced to 9. If the same attack struck a ship with the same Integrity, but no Resistance, that ship would be left with an Integrity of 7.
• Resistance values separated by slashes indicate different values for different settings of the responsible Module.
• Resistance values followed by a scaling note in parentheses, such as (+1/p), indicate the rate at which a module capable of overcharge increases its Resistance with additional Power, one point of Resistance per point of Power Draw, in the case of the given example.

Click to shrink...

This is all we know, as far as I know.

This makes me worried, since as much as Resistances screw up Federation ships, they also very much protect Childhood.

Edit: There is a small part about controlling weapon fire, but it is never actually explained what that does, as in, what are the benefits. I assumed it was a anti-torpedo tactic till now.

 

[catDreaming]

Uh, there isn't anything about that in the rules?

Moreover, it goes into specifics about attacks. As in, each shot is a attack.
This is all we know, as far as I know.

This makes me worried, since as much as Resistances screw up Federation ships, they also very much protect Childhood.

Edit: There is a small part about controlling weapon fire, but it is never actually explained what that does, as in, what are the benefits. I assumed it was a anti-torpedo tactic till now.

Click to shrink...

It's not explicitly listed in the rules, but it makes sense to me. Logically, if two different missiles struck at the same time, then their damage collectively might break through armor/shields where they individually would not. This is the same principle, just on a larger scale.

 

[Raron]

It's not explicitly listed in the rules, but it makes sense to me. Logically, if two different missiles struck at the same time, then their damage collectively might break through armor/shields where they individually would not. This is the same principle, just on a larger scale.

Click to shrink...

Not really. You may make a case if you hit the same spot at the same time, but something hitting the same target at two different spots would just mean that you had less penetrating energy. Youngs Modul for example, is very specific about it.

A railgun shell with twice the mass (picking mass due to it being linearly dependentan) will do far more damage to the wall then 2 railgun shells hitting a wall, unless those 2 railgun shell hit the target at same time*. Each part of matter (wall) has it's own stability. Which are pretty independent of each other.

*This is assumimg that somehow magically the railgun shells hit the taget at exactly the same angle. Which is impossible.

Rockets would actually be a bit worse, since they go boom, and the force would theoretically cancel each other out.**

**It's space, and radiation doesn't really affect each other. So not really much to do with canceling. Would be true for atmosphere. Would be weird with thermal forces. Still, efficiency would be lost. Big rocket is probably better then bunch of smaller ones, no matter the timing. In RL.

 

[Crystalwatcher]

Uh, there isn't anything about that in the rules?

Moreover, it goes into specifics about attacks. As in, each shot is a attack.
This is all we know, as far as I know.

This makes me worried, since as much as Resistances screw up Federation ships, they also very much protect Childhood.

Edit: There is a small part about controlling weapon fire, but it is never actually explained what that does, as in, what are the benefits. I assumed it was a anti-torpedo tactic till now.

Click to shrink...

It's actually mentioned under Turns, and doesn't really expand upon it because I personally thought it was a bit self evident at the time or something that i could just explain later, though @Raron brings up a good point.

Here's the specific mention:

Turns

• Turns progress in stages: Weapon Firing > Projectile Movements > Ship Movements > Impacts > End Turn.
• Initiative order for ship movement is: Players Take Action > Enemy Ships Take Action > Allied Vessels Take Action.
• Projectile movements follow the same initiative order as ship movements.
• Moving through a hex with active weapon fire means taking a hit. Damage is calculated on hit, per hit.
• Unless explicitly stated in a battle plan to control weapon fire, the fastest weapon will always impact first. In order to control weapon fire, the plan must state at which hex the sequence of shots will pass through.

Click to shrink...

When controlling Weapons Fire, you can also explicitly have your guns focus down a target to combine output in order to overcome higher Resilience levels. Otherwise later in the quest Childhood's End will begin to suffer from the bad spot of "Literally Invulnerable" which will end up ruining the quest.

As it's stated the idea was that focusing fire to increase the amount of damage done to a target was originally going to be explained as increased energy or mass being thrown all at the same spot to overwhelm defenses. But as @Raron mentioned it's a bit of a touch and go matter considering the nature of Mass-based weaponry.

Most weapons you'll run into in this quest will be some form of energy weapon; be it plasma, laser, or something more exotic. But there are mass-based weapons such as the Empire's railguns and Buster Cannons. But in order to keep the system as simple as I can, I'd rather just lump it all under a single ruleset instead of making individual rulesets between Energy and Mass based weapons that will eventually cause Mass Weapons to lag behind Energy weapons as Resilience values go up.

It should be obvious through the current rules if nothing else, that eventually Childhood's End will be getting fired at by entire fleets. I have to keep in mind that will require her to have both the survivability to tank that, as well as the power to punch back in those scenarios.

But I do appreciate the conversation on the topic; it feeds my ego and thus my desire to continue writing the quest. Even if people are just pointing out logical fallacies or plot holes.

 

[Kaizuki]

it feeds my ego

Click to shrink...

I will cook an entire internet cookie for ur self esteem

 

[TaliesinSkye]

When controlling Weapons Fire, you can also explicitly have your guns focus down a target to combine output in order to overcome higher Resilience levels. Otherwise later in the quest Childhood's End will begin to suffer from the bad spot of "Literally Invulnerable" which will end up ruining the quest.

As it's stated the idea was that focusing fire to increase the amount of damage done to a target was originally going to be explained as increased energy or mass being thrown all at the same spot to overwhelm defenses. But as @Raron mentioned it's a bit of a touch and go matter considering the nature of Mass-based weaponry.

Click to shrink...

I think an example might help me make sure I understand. Let's say a ship with three weapons that each do 10 damage fires all its weapons at a ship with shields up that are resistance 5.

How much damage do the shields take?

The options seem to be 15 damage (5 resistance applied to each weapon shot individually) or 25 damage. (5 resistance applied only once because the weapons are firing together at the same target.)

It sounds like you're saying that it's 25 damage, but only if the plan says something special about concentrating fire?

If so, is there any reason we shouldn't just assume fire is being concentrated when multiple ships and weapons fire on one target in a turn?

 

[Raron]

In addition to the example suggested, can we have a scenario B in which the weapon speed of each gun is different. So weapon A has speed 10, weapon B 20, and Weapon C 500.

How does that affect focus?

I assume Resistance resets without focus according to the rules. But I'd like it confirmed.

 

[The Commander]

But I do appreciate the conversation on the topic; it feeds my ego and thus my desire to continue writing the quest. Even if people are just pointing out logical fallacies or plot holes

Click to shrink...

Just do not forgot to update is feel like year for just one update in you quest

 

[Crystalwatcher]

I think an example might help me make sure I understand. Let's say a ship with three weapons that each do 10 damage fires all its weapons at a ship with shields up that are resistance 5.

How much damage do the shields take?

The options seem to be 15 damage (5 resistance applied to each weapon shot individually) or 25 damage. (5 resistance applied only once because the weapons are firing together at the same target.)

It sounds like you're saying that it's 25 damage, but only if the plan says something special about concentrating fire?

If so, is there any reason we shouldn't just assume fire is being concentrated when multiple ships and weapons fire on one target in a turn?

Click to shrink...

In addition to the example suggested, can we have a scenario B in which the weapon speed of each gun is different. So weapon A has speed 10, weapon B 20, and Weapon C 500.

How does that affect focus?

I assume Resistance resets without focus according to the rules. But I'd like it confirmed.

Click to shrink...

It's a lot simpler than it sounds.

Gun A does 15 damage, Gun B does 20, while Shield C has a resistance of 10.
Assuming Guns A and B hit simultaneously their damage adds to 35, which then has the Shield's resistance of 10 subtracted leading to 25 damage.

Speed is just as simple. Gun A has a speed of 30, Gun B a speed of 10, and Gun C has a speed of 500 as suggested.

[Example] Focus fire on Ship D​

[Example.b] Use Gun C's damage to knock down the shield, have guns A and B combine output.​

Anastasia being Anastasia, she has a layer of "do the smart thing" to act as a cushion for the players. So unless the plan specifies something like this exactly every time, then she'll automatically have the ships under her command synchronize their fire in the face of otherwise insurmountable Resilience of their targets in order to maximize damage.

 

[TaliesinSkye]

Anastasia being Anastasia, she has a layer of "do the smart thing" to act as a cushion for the players. So unless the plan specifies something like this exactly every time, then she'll automatically have the ships under her command synchronize their fire in the face of otherwise insurmountable Resilience of their targets in order to maximize damage.

Click to shrink...

Thank you. Is there a reason you wouldn't want to combine output? Does excess damage that was combined not spill over onto other systems?

Also, how does damage get distributed between systems? Does it default to shields and then hull unless we specify going after guns or something after the shields are down?

 

[Crystalwatcher]

Thank you. Is there a reason you wouldn't want to combine output? Does excess damage that was combined not spill over onto other systems?

Also, how does damage get distributed between systems? Does it default to shields and then hull unless we specify going after guns or something after the shields are down?

Click to shrink...

Several reasons from trying to disable a ship via destroying key subsystems, to blasting leech ships off allied vessels. For example if an allied ship suddenly has a boarding pod attached to the side of it, you don't want to fire your fleet's collective weapons output at it in order to get rid of it. As for the latter is feeds into your next question.

Most of the time, the default assumption is if you're firing at something you're trying to kill it. So damage priority is usually Shields>Hull>Everything Else. Some times it's a better idea to take down specific subsystems like an incredibly strong weapon in order to make a fight go easier. So it's fully possible to set priority in weapons fire to something like this:

[Example] Target Ship A​

[Example] Prioritize disabling Ship A's engines​

[Example] If Ship A's Engines go down, change priority to Gun D.​

If a subsystem is reduced to 0 Integrity, then any spill over damage that would otherwise go into that subsystem instead gets dumped directly into the hull. Which is another reason to be careful with your weapons fire if you're trying to take a specific enemy mostly intact for one reason or another.

Some times though, When just blind firing at a enemy vessel there's also the chance that a large subsystem; like say, Lost Cause's Impactor broadsides, can get in the way of what would otherwise be a Hull hit. Allowing that subsystem to soak up the damage instead of the Hull in a pinch. It's also fully possible to take advantage of this; for example if your Hull is about to crack, it's possible to maneuver a ship to take a hit on one of it's subsystems that have Integrity to spare in order to reduce the damage going into the hull.

Obviously this last part is easier to pull off for ships with Inertia Drives instead of Reaction drives, but it's still a valid tactic for everyone involved.

 

[LostDeviljho]

Does excess damage that was combined not spill over onto other systems?

Click to shrink...

Explicitly does not with the standard shield type unless you're using continuous weapons.

Also you have to select the specific hex in which you are timing everything, which makes it tricky at longer ranges.

 

[Crystalwatcher]

Explicitly does not with the standard shield type unless you're using continuous weapons.

Also you have to select the specific hex in which you are timing everything, which makes it tricky at longer ranges.

Click to shrink...

I forgot to also mention this, yes.

 

[TaliesinSkye]

@Crystalwatcher, are you saying we can't target a ship, we have to say something like 'fire all guns at the hex 6 to the left and one up and left'?

I can't imagine that's what you mean, it'd be impossible for anybody to hit anything that was moving that way. Targeting a ship makes sense, having to pick a hex doesn't work at all. Especially since they're not even labeled. Even just describing which one we mean is clunky and hard.

 

[Crystalwatcher]

@Crystalwatcher, are you saying we can't target a ship, we have to say something like 'fire all guns at the hex 6 to the left and one up and left'?

I can't imagine that's what you mean, it'd be impossible for anybody to hit anything that was moving that way. Targeting a ship makes sense, having to pick a hex doesn't work at all. Especially since they're not even labeled. Even just describing which one we mean is clunky and hard.

Click to shrink...

Let me get back to you on that one.

 

[LostDeviljho]

@Crystalwatcher, are you saying we can't target a ship, we have to say something like 'fire all guns at the hex 6 to the left and one up and left'?

I can't imagine that's what you mean, it'd be impossible for anybody to hit anything that was moving that way. Targeting a ship makes sense, having to pick a hex doesn't work at all. Especially since they're not even labeled. Even just describing which one we mean is clunky and hard.

Click to shrink...

you need to specify how far out you're aiming so the shots are all timed right when they're *there*. It's less of a problem when all your guns are the same speed and range, but if you fire 6 guns an 2 missiles, unless you specify where they're supposed to sync up they'll drift apart and register as separate impacts. Assuming they hit at all.

 

[Thorgon]

@Crystalwatcher, are you saying we can't target a ship, we have to say something like 'fire all guns at the hex 6 to the left and one up and left'?

I can't imagine that's what you mean, it'd be impossible for anybody to hit anything that was moving that way. Targeting a ship makes sense, having to pick a hex doesn't work at all. Especially since they're not even labeled. Even just describing which one we mean is clunky and hard.

Click to shrink...

I think what they mean is that with guns of different speeds we will need to pick when and where they converge

 

[TaliesinSkye]

you need to specify how far out you're aiming so the shots are all timed right when they're *there*. It's less of a problem when all your guns are the same speed and range, but if you fire 6 guns an 2 missiles, unless you specify where they're supposed to sync up they'll drift apart and register as separate impacts. Assuming they hit at all.

Click to shrink...

I can see the intention, but I don't think it's mechanically going to work in this format. Referring to individual hexes is difficult, but the even bigger problem is we couldn't aim at any ship that might move with any expectation of hitting it. And we could evade enemy fire, if we simulate them having the same restrictions, by moving randomly.

I think it makes a whole lot more sense to just target ships (or subsystems), with the computers and predictive algorithms on the highly advanced warships making it work. The various energy weapons are probably traveling at close to the speed of light anyway. For the most part with those either you're close enough that you can't miss, or you're far enough away that random maneuvering means virtually nothing will hit.