10-16-2017, 01:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2017, 05:01 PM by thevraad.
Edit Reason: added quote box
)
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:
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.
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.