Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Latest Threads
Expanded Torpedos
by thevraad
04-18-2024, 09:18 PM
DSCR - Damage Reduction
by thevraad
12-22-2023, 05:03 PM
Karpav's Painting Blog (r...
by thevraad
10-30-2023, 03:08 PM
Deconstructing the Ship C...
by thevraad
10-27-2023, 03:39 PM
Order Issues
by thevraad
10-27-2023, 03:09 PM
Strange Object Imaged in ...
by thevraad
10-27-2023, 03:02 PM
That one source of Star S...
by Smurf
10-17-2023, 11:17 AM
The Dumbo
by Karelian Suomi
10-16-2023, 11:41 PM
Smurf's New Style of Rule...
by Smurf
09-30-2023, 04:31 PM
Complaint about postage
by Karelian Suomi
09-01-2023, 08:11 PM

 
Forum Statistics

Members: 66,   Latest member: MrFixIt,   Forum threads: 172,   Forum posts: 847,   Full Statistics


  Looky what I found!
Posted by: Lance Electra - 12-30-2017, 06:51 AM - Forum: Product Errata - Replies (3)

NOS at the VERY back of the game/hobby/comic shop I visited today to pick up paint supplies and a new hex matt, on a bargain rack where nobody would ever see them, covered in dust and forgotten.

Well - no longer.

They immediately came home with me, and will get primed, painted and put into flight service where they will be destroyed again and again!
I got:
1 Beta Fortress
1 Mega Fortress
3 Pit Vipers
3 Darts
And 4 packs of bugs (which I'm stoked about!)


   

Print this item

  3d Modelling/Building
Posted by: Lance Electra - 12-28-2017, 03:25 PM - Forum: The Shipyard - Replies (1)

So - is anyone 3D modelling/Printing their own ships yet?

Just looking into either getting a 3D printer myself, or if I can find an economical 3rd party upload+print site.

I'm interested to hear what folks are doing! 

Here's a prototype "Bulletproof Monk". (working name for now)

   

Print this item

  SD Rights?
Posted by: Lance Electra - 12-28-2017, 03:05 AM - Forum: MX News and Discussion - Replies (9)

Hey there - 

I'm new here.

Only discovered this website/forum etc. after having a "nostalgic moment" one night not too long ago, thinking back to my days playing SD in highschool.
Anyway  - went online to ebay to find a BNIB (complete) box set of SD:TNM. 
I Bought it right away. It just arrived, and I'm currently digesting all the material, and remembering why I loved this game so much. The story and the history of the 'verse is so compelling.

Anyway, was pretty shocked that I.C.E had gone under, only to lose the rights to the game etc. etc. etc.

So does "Metal Express" own it now? (all expansion books available in PDF format I see in the store section).

Just curious.

Hope everyone has had a great Holiday season!

Print this item

  Any Players in Calgary AB?
Posted by: Lance Electra - 12-28-2017, 01:25 AM - Forum: Gamers Seeking Gamers - No Replies

Hello!

New to the forum. Glad this place exists!

Do we have any members/players from Calgary AB Canada or maybe even Edmonton, RedDeer or area?

Print this item

  Been gone from SD for a while now...
Posted by: Andraax - 11-23-2017, 09:35 AM - Forum: General Discussion - Replies (2)

..and I just rediscovered the site here.  Last time I played was fall of 2014 with the beta Night Brood rules at the time and I see that there seems to be progress towards a revised NB set as well as rules updates with DR being adjusted; I hope this will make the 0 DR, really high DV custom ships less common.  Will sextuple splatterguns still exist as well?

Seems like a new supplement (House Falsaff) has come out; anything else I should know about the current game status?

Print this item

  Thinking. It can be dangerous.
Posted by: Stogie - 11-18-2017, 02:39 PM - Forum: General Discussion - No Replies

I was looking at someone's scratchbuilt Imperial Star Destroyer on another page, and it got me to thinking. This is not always good when I have too much on my plate as is, but...

I do model design for a buddy, and we picked up a vacuum former to make a 1:1 Mercury Capsule. We have been talking about getting into wargaming for sometime, once we get a couple major models done, and how we could use the vacuum former. What do you guys think of a vacuum formed game board, with holes drilled in a hex pattern? The terrain could be a "Death Star" type trench, with turrets and the like, or planetary/asteroid surfaces. You would probably have to paint though.

Print this item

  Drive Thru Books
Posted by: Darksyde - 11-15-2017, 11:51 PM - Forum: Shopper's Guide - Replies (5)

I got a bundle of books a while back and it seems they are in a different place on Drivethru now. Is there a way to fix this or would I need to purchase them again?

Print this item

  Who to contact about orders?
Posted by: Moethegreat - 10-25-2017, 09:17 PM - Forum: Website and Forum Feedback - Replies (1)

Who can I contact about orders?  PayPal shows some business, the order came from another business, neither that shows metal express?   I received only a partial order but no invoice etc saying things are back ordered.

Any info helpful.

Thanks

Shawn

Print this item

  DSCR - Ship Defensive Values
Posted by: thevraad - 10-16-2017, 01:33 PM - Forum: The Shipyard - No Replies

Ship Defensive Values
 
The next item of the list of things to look at is the Defensive Values (DV).  While Drives are a fairly straightforward thing, you have an engine and it makes you go, a ship’s DV is a bit more complex.  I’ll start with a little history of what constitutes a ships Defensive Value before moving on to analyze the cost and slots values for DVs.
 
In Star Strike, there were four basic things that made up your Defensive Bonus:  the ship’s Armor Belt, Electronic Warfare, Screens, and Evade computer programs.  Of these, the ship’s Armor Belt was converted into Damage Reduction (this will be discussed more in a later post).  Both the Electronic Warfare and the Screens see regular mention in the Critical Hit tables for each ship.  Only the Evade computer programs are not mentioned in Silent Death: The Next Millennium (SD:TNM), although you will occasionally see an Evade Thrusters entry on the Critical Hit tables.
 
The first ship construction rules actually appear in the follow-up book to the Silent Death: Metal Express (SD:ME) core rulebook - Overkill: The Ptolemean Wars.  While it may be a stretch to call this “ship construction rules”, we do get some more information on what the definition of DV is:
 

Quote:“Defensive Value is a measure of either how tough a vessel is to hit (particularly if it is small and maneuverable), or how tough it is to affect with damage once hit (particularly for large, well-protected ships).
 
The factors which contribute to Defensive Value include the strength of a vessel’s energy screens, electronic warfare capabilities, and computer-directed fire evasion routines.”
 
Note that in the first paragraph we now have two different measures for DV.  The first basically says that if you are small and fast, you have a higher DV due to those factors.  The second is a nod to the sheer size of an object and just how much you would have to do to affect such a thing, even though it is slow and easy to hit.
 
The second paragraph seems to mark out the three remaining items from the original Star Strike system that apply to both base definitions of DV defined in the first paragraph.
 
While none of the above really helps us with the numbers, it does give us an idea of the conceptual nature of the Defensive Value statistic.  It doesn’t represent just size, speed, or the material a ship is made from; its all those things plus screens, electronic warfare, and evasion programs (and maybe another system or two from time to time).  I’ll break this all down more in a later post when it becomes a little more important to the conversation.  For now, let’s get at those numbers.
 
As with the Drives, we want to throw all the costs into a spreadsheet.  The numbers for the 300-ton SPAC, TPAC, and Scout vessels all appear to match up.  The 400-ton SPAC, TPAC, and Shuttle numbers match up perfectly as well.  However there appears to be an issue with the numbers for the 700-ton vessels.  The 700-ton TPAC and Scout vessels to match up and both have the usual break between cheaper and more expensive Defensive Values (between DV 12 and 13) but the Gunboat appears to not have a more expensive set of DVs at all.
 
If we glance at the other Gunboats we can see they each have a break between cheaper and more expensive DVs, so we know it is not a matter of the Gunboat class of ships behaving differently than other ships.  Additionally we can see that, with the exception of the freighter templates, the costs for DVs are the same across templates for ships of the same tonnage.  Therefore, I can only conclude that the cost values for the 700-ton Gunboat template are in error and this was done in error and we should use the values detailed in the 700-ton TPAC instead.
 
I’ve put all the Defensive Value cost values (except for the Freighter template) into the chart below.  The cheaper DVs are in green and the more expensive ones in blue and grey.

   

As with the Drive costs, the calculation for the values in green are a simple tonnage, times the Defensive Value, times .002 (rounded to the nearest whole number). 
 
The two values in orange are 0-cost Defensive Values.  I believe there are two reasons for their appearance.  The first is the size of the ship.  By their very nature smaller ships should be hard to hit.  The second is a little more practical in nature.  With a need to make certain there is at least some kind of a difference between say an 11 DV and a 12 DV for a 50-ton fighter; if the 12 DV has a 0 slot cost and is calculated to have a 1 for its point value cost, then an 11 DV MUST have a 0 point value cost to make you choose one over the other.
 
The blue numbers are calculated by increasing the multiplication factor from .002 to .003 and rounding to the nearest whole number.  Just like the cost values for Drives, the values are not always spot on.  To arrive at the numbers in grey we need to round our multiplication result down.
 
As for the cost of Freighter Defensive Values, in general these are ¼ the cost of their corresponding Gunboat templates.  Please see the chart below:

   

Both the green and the blue values are simply ¼ the cost of the Gunboat Defensive Value.
 
The number in orange is not just a normal rounding issue.  In this case the number is one greater than anything we can round to.  The value actually calculates to a 10 cost, regardless of how you round or how many times you round up.
 
The number in grey is a fairly simple rounding issue.  Instead of rounding to the nearest whole number, the value is rounded down.
 
As for the values that are displayed in yellow, I noticed that not only are the 3,000-ton cost values the same as the 2,000-ton costs, but the slot values are as well.  This has led me to believe that the data for the 3,000-ton Freighter was copied from the 2,000-ton Freighter and only partially changed.  If we make this assumption, the cost values would be 25, 27, and 30 going from DV 11 to DV 13 respectively.  Unfortunately, we will never know for certain, just like we will never know for certain if the DV 9 and DV 10 costs for the 3,000-ton Freighter should be at the more expensive calculation (following the pattern set out by the 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000-ton Gunboats) or not.  As an additionally note, I would like to point out that while Freighters were also covered in the Kashmere Commonwealth book, the exact same values were used for DV costs and slots.
 
Moving on the slots, we see many of the same issues with the templates lining up that we did with the cost values for DV.  The one exception to this is the Freighter slot values, which are no longer a mere ¼ the value of a similar sized Gunboat but are the same at their Gunboat counterparts.  However we still have the same issues with that 3,000-ton Freighter and the 700-ton Gunboat.

   

As you can see by the above chart, the green values are once again our greatest friends; simple, easy, and accurate.  The calculation is: tonnage * DV * .002, that answer divided by 25, and that result multiplied by the DV again (rounded to the nearest whole number).
 
Just like it was with the Defensive Value costs, the orange values are either a representation of how hard it is to hit small, fast vessels or an attempt to keep the cost/slot combination different for each DV, or both.
 
As you can see, we have a lot more color on this chart than we have had with any of the other ones.  We still have our standard blue and grey numbers that differ from the green numbers by their multiplier (.003) and from each other by their rounding (round up for blue numbers, round down for grey).  Of special note is the DV 14 value for a 1,000-ton ship.  For TPACs and Gunboats this number is 23 and is attained by rounding the result down.  However, for Freighters this value is 24 and can be attained by the more common rounding up.  With two templates showing a slots value of 23, I tend to lean towards that being the originally intended value.
 
The numbers that are displayed in yellow are for 3,000-ton Freighters and as I mentioned in the analysis of the costs for the same values and template, I think they are incorrect.  Assuming that the values should actually be blue, they would be 44, 52, and 61 for DV 11, 12, and 13 respectively.
 
All of this leaves us with a new set of purple numbers at the top of our chart.  I can see two different ways in which these values can be achieved.  The first is that the rounded-up result of the expensive (blue) DVs simply have 1 added to the number.  This works for all three values, but it lacks any elegance or sophistication.  The second option is that the multiplier was increased to .004.  This option gives us results that are spot on with the results we see and is a smooth transition that makes a lot of sense when coupled with the multiplier change we usually see from .002 (green numbers) to .003 (blue/grey numbers).
 
As for why this was done at all, it’s hard to say.  If the designers had kept the usual way of calculating the blue numbers, (from right to left, top to bottom) the three values would have been 2, 4, and 4.  Not much of a difference, but obviously one that someone felt was important.
 
I can’t tell you the hours and hours I have spent looking for the exact thing I am missing in my calculations that would account for the mess you see with the expensive slot DVs.  I hit upon the calculations roughly 10 years ago and played with them a lot at that time.  When I picked this up a couple of months ago I started from scratch, just to see if I could come up with anything different.  Believe it or not, it was only with this most recent work that I came across the idea of rounding being the difference between my values.  This has allowed me to stick with a single multiplier instead of trying to constantly adjust it to match the values, but it still feels a little clunky (especially when compared to the ease and consistency of the green DVs) and doesn’t solve all of the issues.
 
Anyway, thank you for reading.
 
The next post in the series will cover Damage Reduction.

Print this item

  DSCR - Ship Drives
Posted by: thevraad - 10-12-2017, 01:46 PM - Forum: The Shipyard - Replies (5)

Ship Drives
 

One of the first successes I had in deconstructing the ship design rules was with the drive values.  By that I mean that yes, I did figure out formulas that get me exactly (or very, very close) to the cost and slots that are listed in the ship templates.  I’ll explain that statement a little more later.
 
One of the first things I did was to throw all the drive values in a spreadsheet.  Once you start doing this, it quickly becomes apparent that the cost and slots for drives for a 300 or 400 ton SPAC are the same as those for a TPAC.  As you go on you’ll also notice the same thing for the 700 and 1,000 ton TPAC and Gunboat templates.  Skipping the Scout template (we’ll come back to that one in a minute), looking at the shuttle template we can see that while the shuttle is not allowed a drive above a 17, the cost and slots still match up perfectly with their SPAC and TPAC counterparts.
 
So, let’s look at the Freighter templates for a moment.  Of the three templates, two of them match up tonnage-wise with Gunboat templates (1,000 and 2,000 ton).  The second number (slots) appears to still matchup between gunboats and freighters with one exception, the slot cost for a 13 drive on a 2,000-ton vessel.  It’s 39 for Gunboats and 41 for Freighters.  I’ll try to touch on this again later, but after running all my numbers, it appears to me that the correct value should be the 41, not 39.  When one considers how many of the other numbers match up perfectly between these templates, these two should as well.  The cost for a freighter’s drive is different though.  It’s roughly ¼ of a gunboat’s drive cost.
 
For the Scouts, the 300-ton ship matches up perfectly with all the other 300-ton drive costs.  However, the 700-ton vessel’s does not.  In fact, when you look at it closely, the drive costs and slots match up perfectly with the cost and slots for a 1,000-ton ship.  Due to this, I really have to throw out the scout class template at the moment.  I strongly feel that either the wrong cost and slot values were printed or the wrong tonnage was put on the chart, but I can’t tell which by just looking at the drives so we’ll table this part of the discussion for a time when I cover the templates themselves.
 
Let’s start by looking at the cost chart below.  I’ve put all the drive costs for all the templates except the scout and 3,000-ton freighter into it below.  I’ve also highlighted the break between cheaper drives (in green) and more expensive ones (blue and grey).


   


If you look at the columns, particularly for Drive 10, you should see that numbers tend to go up at a steady rate.  If you also look at Drive 20, you can see a pattern emerge as well.  We can probably account for these with formulas. 
 
For the green number the math is pretty simple and straightforward.  If we take the tonnage times the drive value, we can get some large but reasonable numbers.  Multiplying that result by .002 (and rounding to the nearest whole number) will bring them down to exactly what we are looking for. 
 
I’ve always been surprised at how easily this part came together, and how hard the next set of numbers has been to deal with.  However recently I managed to figure out a formula for the blue numbers that has forced me to change the formula for the green numbers.  The results are still the same, but the equation is different.  Take the tonnage times the drive value, divide that result by 5 and multiply by 0.01.  Round the result to the nearest whole number and then multiply it by a factor of 1.  The last part may seem silly, but it becomes a little more important with the blue values.
 
For the blue numbers we run the same basic formula (tonnage times drive, divided by 5, multiplied by 0.01 and rounded to the nearest whole number).  However we now take that rounded result and multiply it by a factor of 1.5 (again rounding to the nearest whole number). 
 
One other note for freighters.  The cost of their drives is ¼ of the drives found on the other templates.  However the rounding for the cost is different depending on if you are looking at green or blue (and grey) cost numbers.  For cheaper drives, you round down.  For the more expensive drives you always round up.
 
Let’s move on to slots.  Again, I’ve put all the drive slots for all the templates except the scout below.  I did put the slots for the 3,000-ton freighter below to show something.  Those numbers match up pretty well with what would have been a 2,500-ton ship.  However, because there is no other data for a 3,000-ton ship for me to draw upon, I am forced to throw it out and not let it affect the work I’m doing.  Once again, I’ve highlighted the break between cheaper drives (in green) and more expensive ones (blue and grey).


   


The formula for the green drives is a fairly reasonable growth out of the cost formula.  Take the tonnage times the drive value and divide that answer by 12.5.  Now multiply that by the drive value again and times it by 0.001 (rounded to the nearest whole number.  Finally, as with the green costs, multiply the answer by a factor of 1.  I strongly believe that the 0 slot cost for the 50-ton fighter’s drive 11 is coincidental and that the 0 slot cost for the same drive on the 100-ton ship is a purposeful design decision. 
 
As with the cost formulas, for the more expensive blue drives we simply need to multiply the result by a factor of 1.5 instead of 1 and round that to the nearest whole number.  The drive 13 for a 2,000-ton ship is the one that has a difference between the gunboat (number in red) and the freighter (shown as black numbers).  The black value of 41 is in line with the calculations, so I think the 39 slots is a typo rather than a purposeful decision.
 
This leaves us with two values in light grey or white.  Each of these values is one point too high.  According to the calculation I have, the values should be exactly the same as the values for the 19 drives for these ships.  While I could be missing something in my calculation, I think this was a purposeful change to force a difference in the slots between these two drives.
 
Again, please leave any feedback you have, including any suggestions you may have for solving the riddle of the expensive drives.  I’ve honestly taken it about as far as I can on my own. 
 
THANKS

Print this item

Online Users
There are currently 8 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 7 Guest(s)
Facebook

User Panel

Welcome guest, not a member yet?

Why not sign up today and start posting on out community forums.


  Register

Navigation


Latest Topics

Forum software by © MyBB 1.8.26 Theme © iAndrew 2016