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
Simon_Jester said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Simon_Jester said:
The whole is exactly equal to the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not exactly. Every single ship seems to regenerate a single point of shield every 10 turns, and we don't seem to do damage to hull if shields collapse midshot, which makes things even more lopsided in favor of the Miranda-A's killing it dead with little hull damage.

Here's a section from the last battle that shows this well. I do have a couple of questions for @OneirosTheWriter though.

Turn 59 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 0.14 vs Shields 0.00
Ship CDF Ardok reduced to 31.58 Hp

Turn 60 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 2.53 vs Shields 1.00
Ship CDF Ardok Shields reduced to 0.00

Turn 61 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 1.33 vs Shields 0.00
Ship CDF Ardok reduced to 30.18 Hp

Turn 62 - Ship CDF Ardok is firing upon Ship USS Saratoga
Damage roll - Hitpower 0.85 vs Shields 1.00
Ship USS Saratoga Shields reduced to 0.11
Ship 1 has taken casualties: 1/0/0 out of 3/4/4

First, are ships really meant to be able to take crew damage after shields come back up again due to regen? Because the Saratoga took casualties on Turn 62 when that's the case. The shot didn't even get through the shield too.

Second, why are both ships apparently doing slightly more damage than they should be? Here's an example. Turn 62: Ardok hit for .85 damage, but does .89 for some reason. (Just looking for clarification that this is due to combat damage bonuses.)
 
Last edited:
Probably both ships have damage bonuses that are being calculated to damage applied, not to damage rolled for?

As to the shield thing... If he says 'no, that was a bug,' do we get that particular unit of officers back? ;)

ClawClawBite said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, but that's not the kind of focused fire I'm talking about. There's a difference between "concentrate on blowing up the escorts" and "make sure literally every shot our ship fires hits the same target."
 
Simon_Jester said:
As to the shield thing... If he says 'no, that was a bug,' do we get that particular unit of officers back? ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not even the first time too.

Turn 50 - Ship CDF Ardok is firing upon Ship USS Saratoga
Damage roll - Hitpower 2.91 vs Shields 1.00
Ship USS Saratoga Shields reduced to 0.00
Ship 0 has taken casualties: 0/0/1 out of 3/4/4

This one at least did enough damage to get through the shields, but as I showed, we don't seem to take hull damage when that happens so... :???:
 
Yeah.

The way shield recharge mechanics work right now means a LOT of hits are going to be landing on ships that are already at marginal shields and near the brink of collapse, so this is an important mechanic to nail down.
 
Simon_Jester said:
We WON at Deva IX, exactly what would you consider "not appalling?" For us to literally never take damage, never lose or nearly-lose a ship while inflicting massive losses on the enemy at every turn?

Just how Mary Sue would our fleet have to be, in order to upgrade its performance to 'satisfactory' in your eyes?

Whyfore you hate Sara? :(
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I didn't actually say that Deva was a failure (although I did consider the result somewhat disappointing). However, given how much technology and know-how goes into our ships and crews, I would at least expect our ships to be able to take even fights and not suck at them, even should they loose. We can't expect to have number superiority all the time; if we cannot actually commit to an even fight, then we really ought to rethink our military strategy.

I mean, sure "but Alastor, the RNG!" but I will believe it when I see it. Fool me once, fool me twice...

The Saratoga thing is tangentially related, in so far as it's a combination of several things that make me really dislike the rustbucket boat behind the name. I'd rather leave it at that, since it's neither relevant, nor is it a particularly polite discussion.
 
Alastor Mobius Toth said:
I didn't actually say that Deva was a failure (although I did consider the result somewhat disappointing). However, given how much technology and know-how goes into our ships and crews, I would at least expect our ships to be able to take even fights and not suck at them, even should they loose. We can't expect to have number superiority all the time; if we cannot actually commit to an even fight, then we really ought to rethink our military strategy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What you say you want, and how you react to what's happening, are at odds with one another.

You say you want our ships to "be able to take even fights and not suck at them."

But as soon as the result ends up being something like "our ship got hurt a lot worse, but both ships flew away and our ship protected the target it was trying to defend..." you're going on about how worthless and useless our ships are.

So based on your description of events, "getting damaged worse than the enemy" constitutes "sucking at" an "even fight." Never mind whether the mission was a success or a failure, the bare fact that we took more damage makes it "sucking."

Logically, this indicates that in order to "not suck" at "even fights," our ships would have to never lose. The worst allowable outcome would be 'it's a tie,' with equal damage being inflicted to both sides. Defeat, even a minor defeat or a temporary setback, is simply not acceptable. In which case, in order to satisfy you, our ships would have to be unable to lose an 'even fight.'

If your idea of a 'even fight' is one we literally can't lose... Then your idea of the meaning of the word 'even' is wildly at odds with the version I learned from the dictionary.

By definition, an 'even fight' is one where both sides, being of roughly equal strength, have roughly equal probabilities of victory. By definition, willingness to accept an 'even fight' entails accepting the possibility of defeat. Not railing it against it and blaming your troops for somehow being a bunch of weaklings just because their ship failed to inflict disproportionate damage on an enemy ship of roughly equal size, firepower, and durability.

I mean, sure "but Alastor, the RNG!" but I will believe it when I see it. Fool me once, fool me twice...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Precisely when was the last time? The last combat engine battle we had involved us handily trouncing the enemy and destroying three of their escorts utterly in exchange for damage to two of our ships. We lost a lot of crew, but not much else.

The Saratoga thing is tangentially related, in so far as it's a combination of several things that make me really dislike the rustbucket boat behind the name. I'd rather leave it at that, since it's neither relevant, nor is it a particularly polite discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're making me into more and more of a Saratoga fan by the minute. :p
 
Last edited:
I guess what this all comes down to is that people got comfortable with the old combat system, and its sort of jarring to see the new one so thoroughly toss out the old assumptions.

The new system IS much better, as Shields and Hull were barely relevant in the last version, but the sudden switch is kind of a shock.
 
I wouldn't say "barely relevant." The defining moment of the old combat engine was the battles around Kadesh during the Biophage crisis. And we won those despite the enemy having higher total Combat, because our ships had shields, and with a few exceptions, the Biophage's didn't.

But your point is fairly well taken.

EDIT:

I, for one, never really expected ConnieBees to be significantly superior to Jalduns under the old combat system either. Under the old system, in terms of combat performance and survival in battle, H4 L4 is nearly identical to H3 L5. And in a duel between C5 H3 L4 and C4 H3 L5, who wins is pretty much a matter of luck. That "1.15 exponent" isn't going to help that much
 
Last edited:
Simon_Jester said:
What you say you want, and how you react to what's happening, are at odds with one another.

You say you want our ships to "be able to take even fights and not suck at them."

But as soon as the result ends up being something like "our ship got hurt a lot worse, but both ships flew away and our ship protected the target it was trying to defend..." you're going on about how worthless and useless our ships are.

So based on your description of events, "getting damaged worse than the enemy" constitutes "sucking at" an "even fight." Never mind whether the mission was a success or a failure, the bare fact that we took more damage makes it "sucking."

(...)

If your idea of a 'even fight' is one we literally can't lose... Then your idea of the meaning of the word 'even' is wildly at odds with the version I learned from the dictionary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You are putting things in my mouth again, and being disingenuous. As usual.

I don't go on and on about how worthless we are. I did note that Deva result was disappointing, which is not the same thing. In strategic terms we came even (three chaff escorts for two heavily damaged ships of our own), which is in our favor, but given the firepower we had at our disposal, it's not really surprising a lot of us were expecting a better result.

Then Atomic Rustbucket gets itself wrecked. Forgive me for calling it a suboptimal performance, and thinking we maybe need to reevaluate our ability to fight. This might come as a surprise to you, but these kinds of things actually happen in governments. Post-op analysis is a thing, and so far we uh, haven't actually been doing pretty well in tactical sense.

Fundamentally, sure, it all comes down to some indecipherable numbers game that some people can't follow, but the changes has been pretty jarring. This is nothing against Oneiros though; but with two suboptimal results in a row are you actually surprised people are complaining about it?

For the record - and I will say this only once as to not cause further disruption - my intense dislike of Piece of Shit Boat comes from a really obstinate Kantai Collection fan that used that ship to ruin my friend's RP, to the point we've had to figuratively clobber the guy to death. My subsequent experiences with people that somehow make a big point of liking Sara have been entirely 100% negative, so no, I do not have an unbiased opinion and the name and I despise it with intensity of exploding sun.
 
Alastor Mobius Toth said:
You are putting things in my mouth again, and being disingenuous. As usual.

I don't go on and on about how worthless we are. I did note that Deva result was disappointing, which is not the same thing. In strategic terms we came even (three chaff escorts for two heavily damaged ships of our own), which is in our favor, but given the firepower we had at our disposal, it's not really surprising a lot of us were expecting a better result.

Then Atomic Rustbucket gets itself wrecked. Forgive me for calling it a suboptimal performance, and thinking we maybe need to reevaluate our ability to fight. This might come as a surprise to you, but these kinds of things actually happen in governments. Post-op analysis is a thing, and so far we uh, haven't actually been doing pretty well in tactical sense.

Fundamentally, sure, it all comes down to some indecipherable numbers game that some people can't follow, but the changes has been pretty jarring. This is nothing against Oneiros though; but with two suboptimal results in a row are you actually surprised people are complaining about it?

For the record - and I will say this only once as to not cause further disruption - my intense dislike of Piece of Shit Boat comes from a really obstinate Kantai Collection fan that used that ship to ruin my friend's RP, to the point we've had to figuratively clobber the guy to death. My subsequent experiences with people that somehow make a big point of liking Sara have been entirely 100% negative, so no, I do not have an unbiased opinion and the name and I despise it with intensity of exploding sun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If your talking about who I think your talking about than you have my Sympathy. That guy takes his fixation on the USS Saratoga too far sometimes.
 
I've done some analysis on the recent battles - it's incomplete but I did compute an estimated shield regen rate.
TBG Battle Analysis - 2313.Q2.M3 - Battle at Deva IX
TBG Battle Analysis - 2313.Q3.M1 - Skirmish

First, it looks like shield regen is a chance per turn* for shields to regenerate 1 full point. I'll define this as the shield regen rate.

Battle at Deva IX:

Total # turns: 399

Total shield regens for each fleet:
Federation fleet: 36 (translates to 3.6 points of shield stat)
Sydraxian fleet: 34

Approximate shield regen rate for each fleet (shield regens / # turns*):
Federation fleet: ~9.3% per ship
Sydraxian fleet: ~8.7% per ship

Skirmish of 2313.Q3.M1:

Total # turns: 71

Total shield regens for each fleet:
Federation fleet (Saratoga): 6
Cardassian fleet (Ardok): 7

Approximate shield regen rate for each fleet (shield regens / # turns*):
Federation fleet: ~8.5%
Cardassian fleet: ~9.9%


Conclusions: The measured shield regen rate is about 9% per turn* and doesn't seem to depend on any ship stats. However, there is a bias here in that ships at full shields don't exhibit any shield regen. This is very slight since in both battles, all ships were hit relatively quickly (in Battle at Deva IX, this happened by turn 27). Still, that might bias might be enough to say that the shield regen rate is actually around 10%.

* I'm actually calculating this per ship, then averaging across ships. I'm treating # turns for a ship as # times it fires and # times it's fired on.
 
@OneirosTheWriter one thing that might be helpful for us in the logs is for any bonuses to be displayed, for example say a side had 5% combat increase from tech, 3% due to fleet composition and 2% from Intel, at the beginning of the log where it displays ships on each side it would note that the side has a 10% combat bonus.

Also maybe at the end of each quarter with a lot of combat Tactical can give an overview of combat and what they felt happened. What ships performed well, which underperformed and was performance a matter of skill, luck or good/poor ship design.
 
Void Stalker said:
@OneirosTheWriter one thing that might be helpful for us in the logs is for any bonuses to be displayed, for example say a side had 5% combat increase from tech, 3% due to fleet composition and 2% from Intel, at the beginning of the log where it displays ships on each side it would note that the side has a 10% combat bonus.

Also maybe at the end of each quarter with a lot of combat Tactical can give an overview of combat and what they felt happened. What ships performed well, which underperformed and was performance a matter of skill, luck or good/poor ship design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Could also offer a choice of affiliate/member nation to engage in a battle exercise that you would get the log for...
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
Could also offer a choice of affiliate/member nation to engage in a battle exercise that you would get the log for...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That would be nice. I think what everyone is trying to wrap their minds around right now is, "What is the actual risk of sending X ships versus Y ships?" It's difficult to tell that from a few examples given that there's a fair amount of randomness in the system. That way when, for example, we get our intelligence report on how many ships the Cardassians have put into the Gabriel Expanse, we can look at our own forces and try to get a good grip on how well we match them.

One nice thing about this combined with the new combat system is that it makes getting detailed stats on enemy ships that much more important. You'll notice we've never really prioritized that very highly, but if we're actually trying to game out how much of a menace 5 Kalindraxes are (for example), knowing their exact combat, hulls, and shields becomes more important.
 
OneirosTheWriter said:
Could also offer a choice of affiliate/member nation to engage in a battle exercise that you would get the log for...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One of the core worlds for an example of combat against our own doctrines and designs, the Amarki for something similar yet not the same, and the Caitians for a markedly different combat doctrine. If we could get a shot at seeing how our ships stand up to that Seyek dreadnought that'd be pretty awesome too.
 
lbmaian said:
I've done some analysis on the recent battles - it's incomplete but I did compute an estimated shield regen rate.
TBG Battle Analysis - 2313.Q2.M3 - Battle at Deva IX
TBG Battle Analysis - 2313.Q3.M1 - Skirmish

First, it looks like shield regen is a chance per turn* for shields to regenerate 1 full point. I'll define this as the shield regen rate.

Conclusions: The measured shield regen rate is about 9% per turn* and doesn't seem to depend on any ship stats. However, there is a bias here in that ships at full shields don't exhibit any shield regen. This is very slight since in both battles, all ships were hit relatively quickly (in Battle at Deva IX, this happened by turn 27). Still, that might bias might be enough to say that the shield regen rate is actually around 10%.

* I'm actually calculating this per ship, then averaging across ships. I'm treating # turns for a ship as # times it fires and # times it's fired on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's pretty clear from looking at the recent skirmish that all ships regain a single point of shield at the start of each tenth turn.

Example one:
Turn 8 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 1.30 vs Shields 31.83
Ship CDF Ardok Shields reduced to 30.46

Turn 10 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 0.38 vs Shields 31.46
Ship CDF Ardok Shields reduced to 31.06

Example two:
Turn 15 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 0.99 vs Shields 23.66
Ship CDF Ardok Shields reduced to 22.62

Turn 20 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 2.87 vs Shields 23.62
Ship CDF Ardok Shields reduced to 20.61

Example three:
Turn 28 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 2.97 vs Shields 17.67
Ship CDF Ardok Shields reduced to 14.55

Turn 30 - Ship USS Saratoga is firing upon Ship CDF Ardok
Damage roll - Hitpower 4.42 vs Shields 15.55
Ship CDF Ardok Shields reduced to 10.91

Edit: The best example was the turn 59, turn 60 one I posted before.
 
Last edited:
Kaze said:
It's pretty clear from looking at the recent skirmish that all ships regain a single point of shield at the start of each tenth turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'll give you guys this one for free.

Code: 
public static void DetermineRegenTurns ()
{
    SrcBattle.NextShieldRegenTurn = SrcBattle.TurnCounter + ((SrcBattle.SideOne.CurrentShips + SrcBattle.SideTwo.CurrentShips) * 5);
}
 
Kaze said:
It's pretty clear from looking at the recent skirmish that all ships regain a single point of shield at the start of each tenth turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This would make a lot of sense considering that 10% I got. I was actually trying to match that with the Battle at Deva IX results, but it didn't quite match.

...

OneirosTheWriter said:
I'll give you guys this one for free.

Code: 
public static void DetermineRegenTurns ()
{
    SrcBattle.NextShieldRegenTurn = SrcBattle.TurnCounter + ((SrcBattle.SideOne.CurrentShips + SrcBattle.SideTwo.CurrentShips) * 5);
}
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...and this would explain why - my notion of "turn" for shield regen purposes was off.

In any case, this does verify that no stat, not even shield stat, affects the shield regen rate. This means that shield regen as currently designed benefits smaller ships more than larger ships, in proportion to ship stats.
 
@OneirosTheWriter was it just a coincidence that both sides had the same damage to hitpower ratio in every single battle you have posted (1.0 in the test battles vs the Apiata, ~1.1 vs the Sydraxians, 1.0 in the first run of the Saragota vs Ardok, ~1.05 in the rerun) or is there a Srcbattle.SideOne.DamageMultiplier used somewhere when it should be Srcbattle.SideTwo.DamageMultiplier or the like?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top