-----

It was a dull day in San Francisco, all things considered, and for Ensign George Michaels, a dull day on the emergency request lines of Starfleet Medical was a good day. Yet all good things must end, and with a ringing chime, the charm was was broken. "Starfleet Medical, what's the emergency?"

The young andorian on the other end of the screen didn't say anything before looking off to her left with a worried frown curling her antennae.

"Ensign?" George prompted.

She jumped, and turned to face her screen. "Yes, sorry, it's my boss, he-" she stopped to look up in alarm again.

"Ensign, I need you to concentrate," George snapped. "I've got a transport pad ready to lock, and a shuttle on its way, but I need you to tell me what the nature of the emergency is."

"He's laughing," she whispered, a shaking hand rose to dance over her lips.

"Pardon?"

"Rear Admiral Linderly, he's-" again she looked away, her eyes wide porcelain saucers against her paling blue skin.

In the background, George was sure he could hear howling laughter mixed with choked exclamations of "Whozit!"



----
kek
 
On another note, do we have the names for any of the senior staff aboard the Stargazer? I'm working on an omake and want to make sure I can put my character in place without mucking things up.
 
So another lesson from this is that we should probably stop using "total C" as s shorthand for an enemy's combat strength, convenient though it is. We likely need some kind of calculation involving C, L, and H to get a true picture of relative fleet power. Anyone want to take a crack at it?


Do a ratio of friendly hull+shields divided by opposing combat, and the opposite on the other side.

3+4
/4 = 1.75

vs

4+4
/5 = 1.6


We should expect the Connie-B to defeat the Jaldun 1.75 / (1.75+1.6) of the time or 52.2%. This evaluation slightly overvalues ships with weaker relative shields. *And doesn't account for evasion.

4+5
/4 = 2.25

4+4
/6 = 1.33

2.25
/ (2.25+1.33)

62.8% for an Excelsior over a Jaldun



Call it the CR, combat ratio? So the CR of two Connie-Bs vs one Kalindrax (C5 H4 L5 I think?) would be 2.8:0.9

e: If you want to shorthand this in absolute terms, then multiple combat into the equation. Absolute Combat Ratio/Rating would be (H+L)*C. So a Jaldun has an ACR of 32. An Excelsior has an ACR of 54. A Connie-B has an ACR of 35.

e2: Or we could just call the (H+L)*C number CR = Combat Rating? I'm not really a terminology guy.
e3: The C8 H6 L9 Ambassador design has an ACR of 120. The Miranda-A and Centaur-A have an ACR of 15.
e4: As put in the post below this, accounting for evasion is easy. Just multiply by 1+%. So we would expect a Miranda-A to have 18.75.
 
Last edited:
So another lesson from this is that we should probably stop using "total C" as s shorthand for an enemy's combat strength, convenient though it is. We likely need some kind of calculation involving C, L, and H to get a true picture of relative fleet power. Anyone want to take a crack at it?

Possibly just C x (L + H/2) x (1+Evasion)?

The thing that gets complicated is that mixed fleets means that your escorts take hull damage early, and your capital ships take it late (on average) so figuring out combat decay is tricky.
 
There's some difficulty in using H/2, effectiveness doesn't seem to decay quite as quickly as hull does.
e: Part of the problem is we don't have the evasion rating of any of our or the enemy's ships.
 
So another lesson from this is that we should probably stop using "total C" as s shorthand for an enemy's combat strength, convenient though it is. We likely need some kind of calculation involving C, L, and H to get a true picture of relative fleet power. Anyone want to take a crack at it?

Hmm... So we now know that C5 H3 L4 is about 50/50 with C4 H4 L4. We also know that shields are currently more potent than hull (we'll see in a couple decades whether shield burn-through deals with that).

In addition, the usefulness of stats is not necessarily linear with their value. Larger ships tend to be more useful than the equivalent stats worth of smaller ships due to attrition, including higher average time before combat degrades from hull damage. It was already erroneous to add ship stats together when coming up with a fleet-wide total.

Furthermore, it depends a lot on the opposing fleet, so coming up with fleet "totals" in isolation like we've been doing is never going to be great.

edit: Shit, Kalindrax is C4 H4 L5 - was confusing it with Jaldun stat line. So a unit of combat is still more effective than a unit of either hull or shields.
edit2: ...and I was being scatter-brained - this was a Connie-B vs Jaldun fight, not a Connie-B vs Kalindrax fight
 
Last edited:
New designs on the shipyard sheet - we can see the expected evasion rating. Anything else - only if Oneiros tells us.

Any kind of fleet comparison number can only be a rough guide. If we commit CR 300 and they commit CR 50 - then we should expect an easy victory. But that hidden evasion rating could still screw over our crews.
 
Last edited:
Hmm... So we now know that C5 H3 L4 is about 50/50 with C4 H4 L4. We also know that shields are currently more potent than hull (we'll see in a couple decades whether shield burn-through deals with that).

In addition, the usefulness of stats is not necessarily linear with their value. Larger ships tend to be more useful than the equivalent stats worth of smaller ships due to attrition, including higher average time before combat degrades from hull damage. It was already erroneous to add ship stats together when coming up with a fleet-wide total.

Furthermore, it depends a lot on the opposing fleet, so coming up with fleet "totals" in isolation like we've been doing is never going to be great.

Using a rating has always been a shorthand.

I actually do like the C * (durability) * (1+evasion), we just have to assign a few arbitrary numbers. It's not quite as accessible as it used to be.
 
You know if the Federation suffer a big defeat, do you think they start dusting off old earth based tactics and adapt it to space?
 
We might be looking at an SoE, depending on the nature and how severe the defeat is.

A major military defeat vs the Borg.. yeah, likely SoE.
 
Using a rating has always been a shorthand.

I actually do like the C * (durability) * (1+evasion), we just have to assign a few arbitrary numbers. It's not quite as accessible as it used to be.

Problem with putting evasion there is that that only works per ship and not on a fleet level. Maybe some weighted average of evasion?

And this formula has to apply on the fleet level stats, otherwise we get nonsense like an Excelsior being nearly equivalent to 3 Miranda-As, when the latter should beat the crap out of the former.
Excelsior: 6*(4+5)*(1.05) = 56.7
Miranda-A: 3*(2+3)*(1.2) * 3 = 54

Should be more like:
Excelsior: 6*(4+5)*(1.05)*F(1)
Miranda-A: 9*(6+9)*(1.2)*F(3)
where F(n) represents attritional inefficiency of n ships, and is some function where F(n) <= 1 and F(1) = 1

Also, hull should be valued less than shields.
 
Last edited:
Problem with putting evasion there is that that only works per ship and not on a fleet level. Maybe some weighted average of evasion?

And this formula has to apply on the fleet level stats, otherwise we get nonsense like an Excelsior being nearly equivalent to 3 Miranda-As, when the latter should beat the crap out of the former.
Excelsior: 6*(4+5)*(1.05) = 56.7
Miranda-A: 3*(2+3)*(1.2) * 3 = 54

How do you know it's nonsense?
 
So another lesson from this is that we should probably stop using "total C" as s shorthand for an enemy's combat strength, convenient though it is. We likely need some kind of calculation involving C, L, and H to get a true picture of relative fleet power. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
I'm not going to bicker with the idea that we want something like that, but unless someone does something goofy like build a ship with Combat equal to twice its total Shields+HP stat, Combat still remains a useful proxy, and a lot easier to calculate. It's worth bearing in mind that "yeah, but our Combat 40 fleet is a lot tougher than theirs" would matter, but only if that's true. On average, if we're fighting Cardassians or the like, it's at most a partial-truth, and even then that's mostly because the Constitution-B is kind of a glass cannon.

So far the only opponent we've encountered where the durability gap was so great as to be decisive was the Biophage, which was using repurposed Kadeshi ships that had no shields. Aside from them, Combat remains a useful proxy though the validity of 'glass cannon' designs in general has decreased because firepower is no longer a form of ersatz armor.

Hmm... So we now know that C5 H3 L4 is about 50/50 with C4 H4 L4. We also know that shields are currently more potent than hull (we'll see in a couple decades whether shield burn-through deals with that).

In addition, the usefulness of stats is not necessarily linear with their value. Larger ships tend to be more useful than the equivalent stats worth of smaller ships due to attrition, including higher average time before combat degrades from hull damage. It was already erroneous to add ship stats together when coming up with a fleet-wide total.

Furthermore, it depends a lot on the opposing fleet, so coming up with fleet "totals" in isolation like we've been doing is never going to be great.
Total fleet combat still provides a good proxy for "expected DPS," although we'd have to measure a 'round' as something like 'a number of combat turns equal to the total number of ships in both fleets put together.' Now, the changes in the engine do create a situation where Combat 30 Durability 50 will tend to cancel out Combat 50 Durability 30 a lot better than it used to, don't get me wrong. But unless we're in a situation where the enemy has a consistent, major durability advantage across the board- or vice versa- we should be able to keep using "total Combat" as a reasonably accurate proxy.

It at least gives us a way to distinguish clearly between "small squadron," "large squadron," and "daaamn that's a big fleet." We need SOMETHING we can use as a metric, that isn't so befuddling or subject to debate about how valid it is that the playerbase as a whole can't use it.

Which would be a problem with designing a complex formula- we won't all agree on which formula to use. I'd rather have an imperfect standard that enables us all to communicate than a perfect standard that prevents us from communicating.

You know if the Federation suffer a big defeat, do you think they start dusting off old earth based tactics and adapt it to space?
It would probably make more sense to dust off old Tellar based tactics and adapt them to space.

How do you know it's nonsense?
Because there is literally no point at all in having a 'combat rating' system for ships or fleets, if said system does not accurately model which ship/fleets are capable of defeating one another. If three Miranda-As reliably beat one Excelsior (and they should), then they should have a significantly better 'score' in any 'points' system that is intended to accurately model combat.
 
Because there is literally no point at all in having a 'combat rating' system for ships or fleets, if said system does not accurately model which ship/fleets are capable of defeating one another. If three Miranda-As reliably beat one Excelsior (and they should), then they should have a significantly better 'score' in any 'points' system that is intended to accurately model combat.

You miss the point: I am challenging the assumption that three M-As will reliably win against one Excelsior in the current combat engine. I do not believe that to be the case. It would be just over 50-50 one way or the other, depending on how you discount hull.
 
Combat provides a ratio between durability degration in an opposed combat between fleets.

It becomes complicated with hull, though, and shield regen.

And multitargetting. Logical targeting and pure averages actually have an Excelsior destroying 1 Miranda and getting through it's second by the time it's shields dropped.
 
Assumptions - the Miranda-A fleet gets 3 shots to every one from the Excelsior and the Excelsior has no control over which Miranda-A it fires at

Ignoring Avoidance and Combat strength dropping as the Hull takes damage:

An Excelsior (Combat 6, so average damage 3) requires (on average) 17 hits to kill a Miranda-A (H2 L3) - needs 51 hits to kill all three.
A Miranda-A (Combat 3, so average damage 1.5) requires (on average) 60 hits to kill an Excelsior (H4 L5) - but there are three, so 20 hits each.

MAKINGS EDITS AS I THOUGHT ABOUT MY ASSUMPTIONS:

3 Miranda-A vs. 1 Excelsior could see one Miranda-A dead shortly before the Excelsior dies as that triple rate of fire wears the explorer down. Good chance of it being 3 no damage/lightly damaged Miranda-As heading home though.

Add in 20% Avoidance for the Miranda-As and 5% for the Excelsior:

The Excelsior now needs to fire 61 times for a kill on all three.
A Miranda-A now needs to fire 63 times for a kill - so each of the three needs 21 shots.

This is a clear Miranda-A victory - they probably don't lose a ship baring being really unlucky.

I have no idea how to factor in the Combat drop from damage currently, but I suspect it favours the Miranda-A fleet even further.
 
Last edited:
Man, that line and the Indorian...

Waifu Wars for the Rock Whisper? The Rock Whisperer?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, ONEIROS

> : |

That feel when Straak becomes a Harem anime protagonist.

> : P

But, seriously, I think a more mentoral relationship works better.

On another note, do we have the names for any of the senior staff aboard the Stargazer? I'm working on an omake and want to make sure I can put my character in place without mucking things up.

I'll see what I can do.
 
You miss the point: I am challenging the assumption that three M-As will reliably win against one Excelsior in the current combat engine. I do not believe that to be the case. It would be just over 50-50 one way or the other, depending on how you discount hull.
Assuming damage is distributed based on rand(0,1) * Combat...

The Miranda-As get to fire three Damage 1.5 shots per Damage 3 shot fired by the Excelsior. The Miranda-As will inflict an average of 51 HP of damage (enough to bring down the shields ignoring regen) after 34 shots, corresponding to about 12 shots fired by the Excelsior. Assuming no one evades anything (an assumption that favors the Excelsior) the Excelsior has done something like 25-50 damage TOTAL by the time its shields go down.

Even if it were capable of laserlike focus fire on a single Miranda-A, the Excelsior's shields will probably collapse before it can destroy one of the Miranda-As. Absent focused firing, the explorer will have accomplished nothing but shield depletion by then, and the Miranda-As will be decreasing the Excelsior's total Hull pool by an average of 10% or so per shot the Excelsior gets beyond that point.

This is not going to end well for the explorer. And factoring in evasion only makes things worse.

Assumptions - the Miranda-A fleet gets 3 shots to every one from the Excelsior and the Excelsior has no control over with Miranda-A it fires at

Ignoring Avoidance and Combat strength dropping as the Hull takes damage:

An Excelsior (Combat 6, so average damage 3) requires (on average) 17 hits to kill a Miranda-A (H2 L3)
A Miranda-A (Combat 3, so average damage 1.5) requires (on average) 60 hits to kill an Excelsior (H4 L5)

3 Miranda-A vs. 1 Excelsior would actually favour the Excelsior under those assumptions, with the Excelsior being well into Hull when the last Miranda-A pops.
The Miranda-As get to fire three times for every shot fired by the Excelsior because of how the combat engine works. The ship which fires is chosen randomly, and 3/4 of the time that's one of the Mirandas.

On average, in forty combat rounds, the Miranda-As can throw 30 shots (averaging 45 damage total) in the time it takes the Excelsior to throw 10 (averaging 30 damage total).

So even if the Excelsior's shots are all hitting the same target (they're not, realistically) and if evasion is ignored (which favors the explorer heavily), by the time the Excelsior knocks down the shields on ONE of the Mirandas, its own shields are already on the brink of collapse. Once it starts taking hull damage from the other two (fully shielded) Miranda-As, its own ability to finish them off is going to start dropping rapidly.

If we take the more realistic assumption that fire is spread out randomly or semi-randomly across all three Mirandas, the Excelsior doesn't even have a high chance of knocking down any of its attackers' shields before running out of hit points entirely- because it has to do MOST of a total of 90 damage (not exactly 90, but almost certainly at least 70 or so). In the time it takes the Excelsior to do 70 damage, it would take roughly 105 damage in return, even if its own combat score was not decreasing due to the hull damage it was receiving.

The most likely thing to mess this up is shield regeneration, but without more clear information on how that works we can't determine if it's relevant.
 
No, there's no need to do that, it's pretty strictly additive.

Basically, if we ignore evasion and shield recharge and other exotic mechanics, on average, one C6 H4 L6 ship should be roughly a match for two C3 H2 L3 ships, and so on. It's pretty strictly additive. Having half the firepower means having half the damage, but you get to inflict damage twice as often. The reason that an Excelsior loses to three Miranda-As is literally the exact same reason it would lose to a single C9 H6 L9 dreadnought: because that's just plain too much firepower and durability for the Excelsior to overcome before it runs out of strength.

The whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts.

Highly reliable focus-fire capabilities would reduce this effect, but we don't see any sign of such capabilities in the game.
 
No, there's no need to do that, it's pretty strictly additive.

Basically, if we ignore evasion and shield recharge and other exotic mechanics, on average, one C6 H4 L6 ship should be roughly a match for two C3 H2 L3 ships, and so on. It's pretty strictly additive. Having half the firepower means having half the damage, but you get to inflict damage twice as often. The reason that an Excelsior loses to three Miranda-As is literally the exact same reason it would lose to a single C9 H6 L9 dreadnought: because that's just plain too much firepower and durability for the Excelsior to overcome before it runs out of strength.

The whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts.

Highly reliable focus-fire capabilities would reduce this effect, but we don't see any sign of such capabilities in the game.

Targeting priority did show up in the draft offensive doctrines. That included target escorts or lowest hull options among several others. They were deep in the tech trees.
 
Back
Top