Remove ads

To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest)

Linked contents
To Boldly Go... (a Starfleet quest) Starfleet Ship Design Bureau, Refit ("To Boldly Go...")
Reader mode
Nix said:
But it really shouldn't be? 20% more damage should be better than 33% more of the non-regenerating half of hp?

I don't remember even a single battle, not even in the war games, that went well for us considering the stats of the ships involved (only some where it didn't go badly enough to wipe out an initial advantage). Did you try switching the sides (i. e. our ships are the second fleet)? If that doesn't change things can we please go back to the old engine?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The battle I rolled immediately after the one above gave the following:


=========================================================================
USS Saratoga - Combat 5.00/5, Shield 4.37/40, Hull 30.00/30 - Crew 3-4-4/3-4-4 - Ships killed: 0 - Status:

Fired: 32, Fired On: 29, Hits Received: 24, Damage Dealt: 82.98
=========================================================================
CDF Ardok - Combat 1.18/4, Shield 0.00/40, Hull 11.77/40 - Crew 2-1-2/3-4-3 - Ships killed: 0 - Status: Retreated

Fired: 29, Fired On: 32, Hits Received: 29, Damage Dealt: 41.63
=========================================================================

It isn't the side, you've just been unlucky.
 
i'm a bit confused that a coniee B has a 50/50 shot of beating a ship it has a moderately large firepower advantage over. do Jalduns have like D 7 or something?
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
I'll double check.

Edit: No, it wasn't, but the first result rolled for came out with this:
=========================================================================
USS Saratoga - Combat 1.63/5, Shield 1.00/40, Hull 9.77/30 - Crew 1-3-1/3-4-4 - Ships killed: 0 - Status: Retreated

Fired: 36, Fired On: 35, Hits Received: 35, Damage Dealt: 63.56
=========================================================================
CDF Ardok - Combat 2.72/4, Shield 0.00/40, Hull 27.24/40 - Crew 3-4-3/3-4-3 - Ships killed: 0 - Status:

Fired: 35, Fired On: 36, Hits Received: 32, Damage Dealt: 75.26
=========================================================================

If people want to substitute, I can put that in place. You take an even worse beating, but you also manage to inflict more harm on the Jaldun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, it's a very similar amount of damage with a much less embarrassing amount of retribution.

Nix said:
How about the +1% to us -1% to them from Cardassian Research?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are there any other boosts we should be taking into account, lest we end up rerolling again more than once?

EDIT: Rather than rerolling the entire fight, is it possible to take the rolls we got and apply the +1%/-1% to them? Or is that a lot of work? I don't know how the engine works.
 
Last edited:
OneirosTheWriter said:
I'll double check.

Edit: No, it wasn't, but the first result rolled for came out with this:
=========================================================================
USS Saratoga - Combat 1.63/5, Shield 1.00/40, Hull 9.77/30 - Crew 1-3-1/3-4-4 - Ships killed: 0 - Status: Retreated

Fired: 36, Fired On: 35, Hits Received: 35, Damage Dealt: 63.56
=========================================================================
CDF Ardok - Combat 2.72/4, Shield 0.00/40, Hull 27.24/40 - Crew 3-4-3/3-4-3 - Ships killed: 0 - Status:

Fired: 35, Fired On: 36, Hits Received: 32, Damage Dealt: 75.26
=========================================================================

If people want to substitute, I can put that in place. You take an even worse beating, but you also manage to inflict more harm on the Jaldun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, I'd definitely rather substitute with this. If we have to consign a ship to a year or more of dry dock I want to make sure they have to as well.
 
Last edited:
pbluekan said:
I think we should look at that actually. It feels like ever since the changeover there hasn't been a single battle that went right, even if we held a distinct advantage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To be fair, "hasn't been a single battle" is looking at 2 examples Oneiros has chosen to post out of presumably dozens he's run to rest the results. (The war games don't count since that was him deliberately choosing to post an abnormal Federation loss result.)
 
Is the closeness in the number of shots fired consistent throughout the various tests? We should anticipate the Saratoga firing 25% more if it is based on a combat ratio. If not can you let us know how it is determined which side gets to fire.
 
Nix said:
But it really shouldn't be? 20% more damage should be better than 33% more of the non-regenerating half of hp?

I don't remember a single battle, not even in the war games, that went well for us considering the stats of the ships involved (only some where it didn't go badly enough to wipe out an initial advantage). Did you try switching the sides (i. e. our ships are the second fleet)? If that doesn't change things can we please go back to the old engine?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It looks to me (I don't know anything, nyah!) like hull damage is directly tied to a proportionate loss of combat strength. So in fact, the Cardie stronger hull means they keep more damage when they take hull.

In turn what that means is that the first few evades of a fight are basically the deciding factor in a 1v1. The guy who drops shields first is screwed -- albeit moreso for your part, since you taking 10 pts of hull will shear off ~1.67 pts of combat to 1 point of combat for them.

In turn that means fights are almost comically luck based.
 
It does show the importance of going in with overwhelming force. We had some bad luck with the Sydraxians, but it was still a victory because we massively outgunned them.

As a General Forrest once said, you want to "get there firstest with the mostest".
 
Kaizuki said:
It looks to me (I don't know anything, nyah!) like hull damage is directly tied to a proportionate loss of combat strength. So in fact, the Cardie stronger hull means they keep more damage when they take hull.

In turn what that means is that the first few evades of a fight are basically the deciding factor in a 1v1. The guy who drops shields first is screwed -- albeit moreso for your part, since you taking 10 pts of hull will shear off ~1.67 pts of combat to 1 point of combat for them.

In turn that means fights are almost comically luck based.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, but with higher combat, our ship should be getting more shots in and more damage per shot.

With equal shields, we should be breaching shields first a lot more than 50% of the time, unless they have some ridiculous doctrine or tech advantage to like dodging.
 
Kaizuki said:
It looks to me (I don't know anything, nyah!) like hull damage is directly tied to a proportionate loss of combat strength. So in fact, the Cardie stronger hull means they keep more damage when they take hull.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, but that makes hull less important relative to shields (at equal non-burn-through damage taken a ship with 1H 9L will always have more remaining combat power than one with 9H 1L), and should make working through the enemies shields 20% faster more important.
 
Void Stalker said:
Is the closeness in the number of shots fired consistent throughout the various tests? We should anticipate the Saratoga firing 25% more if it is based on a combat ratio. If not can you let us know how it is determined which side gets to fire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the current system damage is a random percentage of combat, but hit chance is unaffected.
 
Nix said:
Yes, but that makes hull less important relative to shields (at equal non-burn-through damage taken a ship with 1H 9L will always have more remaining combat power than one with 9H 1L), and should make working through the enemies shields 20% faster more important.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sure, but when both sides have equal shields and the combat difference is only 1 there's no decisive advantage. We built the Connie-Bs to take on Jalduns equally, and they do.

On the plus side, the Amarki are going to be taking up some of the slack soon.
 
Yeangst said:
Yes, but with higher combat, our ship should be getting more shots in and more damage per shot.

With equal shields, we should be breaching shields first a lot more than 50% of the time, unless they have some ridiculous doctrine or tech advantage to like dodging.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, I mean, I don't know anything, but if we actually look at the combat log...

It actually seems to me that damage dealt was so utterly schizophrenic on either side that, well...

Ah, so, here's where it all went wrong for you.

Reduced to 33.11 Hp
Turn 50 - Firing upon the USS Saratoga!
Turn 51 - Fired upon by the USS Saratoga!
Successfully evaded!
Turn 52 - Fired upon by the USS Saratoga!
Shields holding, now at 0.76/40.00
Turn 53 - Fired upon by the USS Saratoga!
Successfully evaded!
Turn 54 - Fired upon by the USS Saratoga!
Shields holding, now at 0.55/40.00
Turn 55 - Fired upon by the USS Saratoga!
Successfully evaded!
Turn 56 - Firing upon the USS Saratoga!
Turn 57 - Fired upon by the USS Saratoga!
Shields holding, now at 0.00/40.00

Count that, six shots. You could've hulled that fucker so hard there -- you were ~26.5 hp at that time. Note the evasions.

Hrmmmmm

@OneirosTheWriter, is there a full numbers for this system somewhere?
 
I know war is unpredictable and everything, but Jesus H. Christ, the Starfleet's performance is just outright appalling.

*reads some more*

>USS Saratoga

Of fucking course. I have personal reason to hate the bloody name; now it just makes my mission to permanently scrub it out of the face the universe personal.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top