I already expressed my concern about this part.

Would it be possible to lower that amount to control < 90%?? Otherwise an series of small GP's attacks can hurt an Starbase more in losing business then during the attack?? I can see people abusing this.

The attack force have to be winning for control, to go below 100%. So someone to do this, they would have to attack with more control factors than you for 1 day and take X10 dmg as the attacker at 100% control. So unless they were planning to take your SB they would be idiots to do it based on what they would lose.

Anyone would has been in ground combat will know that its not trival to drop a SB's control unless it is undefended

Its the full list of exactly what has been implemented in light of coding the 'summer changes' + anything that will be in the forcoming realease that has nott been mentioned.

For instance this was not mentioned before and it quite important:
Added politcal authorisation to override acces to a position
Order: Issue Authorisation (Use remove option to remove it)

Its allows follow authorisation of a political to do what they are allowed to with your positions, it cuts the need for use of security codes with ppl you 100% trust.

Thanks for this, this is really really good and much appreciated.


Thomas

This seems a very large improvement to rail weapons (currently they get increeasing negatives to accuracy); whats the reason for the change on this?

Its to make them more competative with photon guns etc. Its also to make the largest weapons more attractive for fixed positions like platforms. On a platform note, its woth looking at shielding them as their surface area seems to make shields an intereting option.

Its also worth considering that these changes come a long way to simplifying things. GPs are for ground combat, Ships/Platforms for space combat and starbases in the middle. Hopefully this will improve combat when it happens and make it less pissy for those involved.

Also the same time programming was spent on the Industry/Events stuff as the combat stuff. Its just not apparent because one is being finished off and the other is a open can of worms.

I don't want to be difficult, but... will it definitely stay like that, or will it change back when somebody's fleet gets mauled by rail runs and they complain they're too powerful?

It's supposed to make lighter hulled ships less effective so that they fall appart before combat starts. (ie no more missile packed xl hulled single use ships)

Before round one of a battle, each ship gets a number of attacks on all hostile ships in the battle via their engines. For instance a 100 hull ship with 10 ISR3's gets 20x10mu attacks on incoming ships.

So if you have a battle with 2 hostile ships against your single 100 hull ISR3 ship then each hostile would get 10 attacks at 10mus dmg each. The dmg is modifed by stress (XL/L/N/H -> x4/x2/x1/x0.5) and is applied to armour, so it hardly effects heavy ships but ripes XLs to bits.

well, I still don't understand it... maybe I am really dense today..

Does the 100 Light vessels dishes the damage out, or does it receive the damage??? In the latter case, an 10 heavy with one Light Photon Gun could be used to destroy enemy freighter fleets.. I assume that yuo recheck and make sure it can't be abused that way.

All ships in combat dish damage with their engines, against hostile ships. This includes frieghters that are not hostile BUT the targets are only ever hostiles ie they have enemy list etc.

It could only destroy _hostile_ frieghter fleets. If the frieghters are just in the battle, they can not be attacked by this mechanism.

Ok removed that restraint and make sure GPs can not jettison while in ground combat.

Its pure game mechanic - you enter combat you get wacked with pan just to check you are not made of glass. There was lots of options on how to do it but all requires extra x on ships and so engines made sence (+ its vaguly feels right).

You said i was not allowed to do that, and the ISR stuff is coded. As far as i tested it does not remove light missile ships, it just makes sure that are not taking the piss, they have to be shielded and use magazines.

Yep - the Create Cargo dump order is in teh 'creates' tab only so that should ot be too bad ? I will change the Dump cargo orders -> Dump Ships Cargo.

Its the fastest ships that it can stop for battle (since you have to still be faster than the enemy or they can avoid the battle).

Okay Dave..
An very reasonable change then.. it will remove the Xlight unshielded throw away ship option..

Any chances on getting some more smarter weapons??
If I got an Platform with Fighters and Missile Launchers and got attacked with Normal + Heavy hulled ships, I would prefer to fire my kinetic missiles on the heavy hullers and the fighters on the normal hulled..

I have been thinking about the possibility that we can design Batteries of Weapons.. and that we can assign targets list on those Batteries.
So, Battery 1 of 300 Kinetic Missile Launchers :-> target Captial Ships.
Battery 2 of 200 Fighters -> Target Carriers.
etc etc.

This would be nice but the existing work around for this isto build multiple platforms. I know it's less efficient due to higher armor requirements atsmaller platform sizes but I think it still is better than firing the wrong weapons at certain ship types.


Thomas

Its possible because all weapons are fired via a 'weapon package' method, but its unlikely anytime soon.

Will tractor beams be used as part of this check? If you move into range of a static position with a large number of tractors, will they slow your ship down before deciding whether you will be stopped for combat?

Will docked positions be able to deliver as well? Will this and the other orders listed in that section of the changes be for any time a base is in combat, or only when it is at less than 100% control?

Will this be displayed inline? The Quest turns are returned as an attachment, which is fine if you have one or two, but a pain with the number of positions some of us get back must say that the improvements to the offlineeditor (upload data/orders/etc.) sounds very useful indeed!

and finally:

sounds REALLY interesting

Dan

Yes - same as they always did with pinning (really no change there), but ther eis no pin as a result.

Yes docked positions can transact as usual.

Yes the display is inline - i am pritty sure anyway. Besides its an option - so try it with care on a few positions before you commit

Should be good if it works. Its a bit time consuming though, we will have to see where it goes.

Regarding docked GPs; will they be able to simply walk out of the base and not be attacked?

I would hope that the GP would be trapped until combat in the base is resolved (unless it has the ability/troops to fight its way out). otherwise, the Sack Employees option being banned doesnt work - you simply have a 1 man GP pick them all up and walk them out the base to safety.

Mark

PS Im also keenly waiting the industry/infrastructure changes

Just finishing off officers but until the current situation is over (calmed down at least) then nothing that effects combat like we have coded could be released....

This seems like an attempt to get people to withdraw from combat earlier due to the greater risk of losing ships. Have the following also been considered:

- More ships will potentially be lost due to a quicker reduction in AR, even during shorter battles
- Higher repair bills

Yes - players will do what players throughout the universe have always done - used the tactic to give the biggest return for the smallest investment. We are just making sure that the mechanics are appropriate.

WOW....

Ablative armour has its damage divided by 5, the others only by 2.....

Relatively speaking, the designs I've been building around that armour type now look pretty stupid....

I always thought the regular armour was too high in defense based on the way damage can get through it and not destroy it but with the new numbers it is 10 times the defense of ablative armour....

Based on the cost to build the ablative armour and it's almost non existant ability to survive even small damage, is there any reason to use it any more?

It's probably better just to build more hulls....and forget ablative armour altogether.

Goth

My main concern for this change is your further enhancing the use of missle only weapons in combat.

Perviously the damage done by missile weapons ment against most ships they are the weapon of choice. Technically you could do better with engery werapons against heavy hulled ships with full armour but only because of the pentration values meaning you burn through the hull faster than you could the armour and the hull with missle weapons. Now you've removed that barrier as well as made it easier to rearm missle ships with weapons due to new pinning rules.

It sounds like this choice is just going to increase the fact battles run quickly.

Where do i get the new editor from the one on the kjc download page seems to be the old version (at least i see no new orders or update/online bit)

Just think 20 high yeild torpedos blow off 32 ablative armors....

The effect of explosive dmg on armour is limited. The dmg done to the armour is divided by the AF (if the AF >1). So normal missiles are AF 8, so do 200/8->25 dmg per hit to the armour. High yield are even higher AF 10 or something....

Also the dmg done to the armour is only equal to how much they block. So AR 120 will on average only block 60 dmg per hit and can not take more than that dmg onto the armour, so its not as terrible as it may seem.

So for a 100 hulls ship you would would have to be in combat long enough to lose 60 plates before the armour was the same effect as normal armour. Thaty means that the armour would have to sink 6000, and would have to be hit by at least 100 hits of 60+ dmg.

It seems most combat lasts between 2-3 days so its mostly like still going to be effective on day 2 if not on day 3.

400 production = 400 defence on heavy hulls (mineral heavy)
50 production = 100 defence on ablative (mineral light)

Better armour on day one also means that you lose less stuff on day 1, so you can do more dmg. Its still worth it, and now it is actually ablative rather than just as good as normal armour.

I don't see how this is the case. Missiles bounce off heavily armoured ships. 400 kinetics will do 16000dmg to AR80 armour - > 16 armour plates, which is only 8% loss in normal armour plates. Yes that would strip a ablative armoured ship, but thats the point here - the heavly armoured one is still 90% operational. Not to mentioned the point defence issue and the explosive nature of missiles (kinetics were changed to cause 50 dmg when they are hit inside a ship)

Nothing is released yet - not allowed to release new mechanics without massive prior warning to players. Everything is unfortuantly tied together - so not new ordereditor yet.

Its a good job Im not a ship designer, as I didnt know that I had always thought the AF is supposed to be a multiplier to damage caused to Armour. In the missile example, what happens to the remaining 175 damage - it all gets through to internals/hulls?

Could you also explain why ablative have been dropped 5x, whilst the others only 2x?

This might be my ignorance talking again, but I thought the damage armour (or anything) could take is, on average, half the defence ie ablative will now take on average only 50 damage to destroy (has a 50/50 chance of going boom). meaning a single hit will most likely take out a plate.

Does it not effectively remove normal hulled warships as a possibility - their single layered ablative will be eaten alive; a heavy 100 with 100 Light Rail would strip a 100 normals armour in one round. And kill the ship before the end of the day.

By weakening armour, is also strengthens the positions that dont need it (or can have lots of it) ie starbases, platforms and light ships are comparatively better than before.

Mark

The reason you thought this is because the manual states

Which implies, at least to me, the opposite of what David just said, can you just confirm that the manual is wrong beacuse i've based a lot of loadouts on the stuff in the manual.

My understanding is it's just the amount blocked that averages to 50% of the factors, the damage needed to destroy it is always the full amount, although i guess if more is blocked then more damage is taken. Of course i could be wrong

Yes the manual is always fun - it was like that origianlly but it was quickly changed and the manual was not. I am sure one of the editors of the online manual can change it now - if you are interested in doing this iam sure it can be arranged.

Its all absorbed by the armour BUT the armour only takes 25 dmg. Since the armour is x8 effective vs missiles.

Yes and no. When something is hit there is a dmg/defence chance that it will be destroyed. Statistically that means that 100dmg to the plates causes 1 plate to be destroyed (on average). 1mus of damage may cause 1 plate to be desroyed but by the same token 99mus of dmg may not destroy a plate. However if 100 dmg is done the plate is destoyed and the dmg is passed on to the next item in the damage pool (which in the case of armour is another plate).

For 2 shots 50 dmg hits against armour plates. 50% chance of destroying a plate one each hit (so for each branch its 50% x 50% -> 25%)
25% you kill 1 plates and 1 plate -> 200 dmg
25% you kill 1 plates and 0 plates -> 100 dmg
25% you kill 0 plates and 1 plate -> 100 dmg
25% you kill 0 plates and 0 plates -> 0
So average dmg is 0.25*(100+100+200)=100 dmg

For 3 shots 33 dmg ->
300x.33^3=11.111
200x(.33^2+.66)*3=44.44
100x(.33+.66^2)*3=44.44
So on average 100 dmg

Not really - they are not ment to front line, take the dmg warships. And has been stated ablative armour does not disappear as easily as is though. Normal hull ships have a bigger surface area that heavy hull ships so they have more armour ro burn off + since there is less armour thickness the armour takes less dmg.

The main issue here is that ablative armour was not ablative and was starting to be used as standard. Better to stamp on it now that leave it until its a major issue. Thats the reason that ablative was /5.

What is the Stress factor of a ship?

Hull stress is XL/L/N/H -> x.25/x.5/x1/x2

Stress factor =Hull stress x Interigty

Damage cause by ISR = engine dmg (10mus) / Stress factor

Now, I am really getting confused.

I was thinking:
Assume an ship with ablitive armour. 120 thick so 60 on avarge.
An shield with 2500 points, 100 thick, so 50 on avarge.
It get hit by an Normal torp (400 hits AF 10, I recall).
In my thinking it was:

400 hits / AF 10 = 40 hit max for layer 1 -> Shields. Shield thickness is 50 so all damage is going to be absorbed by shields.

So shields will loose 400 hits.
Meaning 2500-400 hits = 2100 hits.


Is this all wrong, and is it really.
400 hits / AF 10 = 40 hits for layer 1.
Shield strength go to 2500-40=2460 and ship will continue to fly happily??

Sjaak

How about letting ablative armour regenerate something

Combat speed and tractor beam effect

Not quite:
If the shield absorbs the average of 50 dmg, the shield loses 50 dmg / AF 10->10dmg. So 2500-10=2490, and hardly any change in shields.

The armour then absorbs 40 dmg and takes 40/10 -> 4dmg.

So finally 400-50-40=310 dmg hits the hulls/internals

We can have a look into platforms and decrease the burnoff.

With 500 defence on ablative armour they were the only choice for mainline battle ships. 400 kinetic only cause 24k dmg to the armour -> so only 48 ablative would have burnt off for a 100hull heavy. So the armour would be 120 AR -> 91AR after 1 day of battle. Still more that standard armour and its unlikly that you would get so much incoming dmg.

Acutally looking at the numbers it seem ablative armour is still better for short battles but not for longer ones which makes sense imo

Surely you mean the sheild loses 400 / AF 10 -> 40dmg and not the shield strength / af because if this is the case then high af weapons have as good armour piercing as low ones

And if my reading your last post is correct the resulting maths goes

400 damge @ AF 10
Sheild take 400/10 -> 40 damage, hit is still reduced by 400 -> 0
missle is absorbed

yes that was wrong by me - orginal posted edit to avoid confusion

yes

Torps do more dmg but lots less dmg to the armour. 100 torps do the same dmg as 100 kinetics to the armour. As soon as the armour is breached all weapons AF >1 do the same dmg to the armour.

I think that is slightly misleading - the albative armour is still likly to be operational well after a medium ship is toasted, unless the ship is being attacked by very low powered weapons. As standard weapons will only cause the armour 30dmg per hit.

Perhap a sample battle would prove it, but dont the maths still show a nomral ship will now be destroyed in only 4 rounds? Whether its targetted with 200 Light Rail, Light Photon, Kinetic missiles - they will all see the ablative stripped within the first couple of rounds and the hulls smashed by the end of the day.

These may be small weapons, but if ablative ships are used, then small weapons will be used as the counter.

Mark

Doesnt this prove that, regardless of weapons size (powerful or small), a normal hulled ship will now die on the first day of combat?

Yes and i think thats the point. If ablative survives with np against lots of small dmg, whats the point of normal armour ?

vs 100 kinetics you only lose down to 47 AR, which is still effective.

also i said its slightly misleading not you are trying to mislead ppl Its not a straight forward effect

I agree ablative should give problems, but it now means normal hulled ships using ablative are pretty much guaranteed to die in a day - regardless of what weapon hits them; isnt that too extreme?

Well the example i described did not include the effect for the reduced armour - i just said howmuch the armour would decrease. IE they are going to die anyway under the current system.

They would die against torps regardless of armour, but under the current system they would survive against small weapons fire for up to 5 days. i agree thats too long, but is dropping it to 1 day for any weapon hit right? it doesnt even give the ship the possibility of withdrawing in the new "escape-from-pin" rounds at the end.

As i said, Im a donkey when it comes to ship design, but if a normal ablative ship is guaranteed to die in 4 rounds, it makes it a disposable ship - which favours either the stupid, or the rich. it also makes it more likely players would switch to light ships even more - you can cram twice as many weapons in and build twice as many for the same production; 4 rounds for normal ships or 1 round of light ships(assuming they get killed straight away) is therefore the same...but 2 light ships use only half the thorlium to build as 1 normal, so tips it towards light ships. A Light Baseship would survive any stress effects from smaller enemies too.

The damage on round 1 will not effect it, maybe take 1 or 2 armour plates off.
One round 1-4 you will get full man dodge. But if someone is targeting you and you have not fleed/left combat then you get the option to leave combat by running the gauntlet. That means you do not get the x2 dodge that you normally get in combat as you are going in a specified direction (away).

Looking at it from this point of view, maybe the modifier to 'leave battle rounds' should be changed or it may be a case for having slightly increased abalitive defence

Its not guaranteed to die after 4 rounds of combat. Everything done has not accounted for shields, PD etc. The whole point was to highlight the effects on armour - not the whole picture.

35k production for 2 light 100 hullers, 25k production for 1 normal. Also the light hull ships would nodoubt only last 1 round of real fire, vs 4 rounds for the normal huller, assuming the light hullers were not mashed by the ISR engine effects.

That is the one line manual

Its all roughly the same

Target Weapon on Enemy
Chance to hit = Base acc (3) + Target profile (~3) + Targeting bonus (computers ~3-4) + Officer bonus (0-2) + Weapon bonus (sum of weapon and launcher) -dodge of enemy (~3-6)

So for a photon cannon with against a 100 heavy hull ship (no officer trainign): 3+3+3+8=15

Chance to hit is a bell curve of 0-15 compaired to acc, so for 15 acc its a 100% chance to hit.
Point Defence
After all weapons have fired and checked if they hit or not then point defence is calcualted. Any fighter or missile is subject to point defence. Point defence weapons fire first and if any point defence targets remain phallax missiles are launched.

Resolving damage
Any actaully hits have their damage resloved induvidually in 4 stages

• Scints: Any energy weapons have an average of AR/2 dmg removed from then. Scints are uneffect by this
• Shields: All weapons have on average the (Shield depth* Weapon AF)/2 removed from them. The shield factors removed is equal to the dmg absorbed/AF.
• Armour: All weapons have on average the (Armour * Weapon AF)/2 removed from them. The damage done to the armour is (dmg aborbed * Interigy factor)/AF.
  Intergrity factor = 100/Intergriy, max 10
• Hulls and internals: The damage is split x(Hulls size)/(Hulls size + cargo size) into hulls, and x(Cargo size)/(Hulls size + Cargo size) into internals. The damage is randomly assigned into items in the internals section of a ship based on the items target area.
• Any internals that are damaged that have cargo space will have their cargo damaged proportionate to the cargo capacity, similar to hulls.

So for a 100 heavy hull ship swith 20 AR scints, 40AR shields and 80AR Armour hit by the following

[1] Photon cannon:
90 dmg -> 80 dmg (scints) -> 60 dmg (shields) -> 20 dmg (armour)
The shields loses 20 factors and the armour takes 40 dmg

The 20 dmg is split (20*(30/130)=4.6) into internals and (20*(100/130)=15.4) into hulls. If the item hit in the internals is a cargo bay etc , then (4.6*(20/(20+25)=2) goes into cargo and (4.6*(25/(20+25)=2.6) goes into cargo bay. The carog bay has a ((2.6*100)/25=10.4%) chance the cargo bay will be destroyed

[2] Kinetic missiles
60 dmg -> 40 dmg (shields) ->0 dmg (armour)
The shields loses 20 factors and the armour takes 40 dmg

No internal issues

[3] High yield Torp
800 dmg -> (800-20*10)=600 dmg (shields) ->(600-40*10)=200 dmg (armour)
The shields loses 20 factors and the armour takes 40 dmg

The 200 dmg is split (200*(30/130)=40.6) into internals and (200*(100/130)=150.4) into hulls. If the item hit in the internals is a cargo bay etc , then (46*(20/(20+25)=20) goes into cargo and (46*(25/(20+25)=26) goes into cargo bay.

The cargo bay will be destroyed and 1*(blast rdius of weapon=1) dmg will be retargeted to another item in the installed section.

I was in the planning stage and ramping up stage (mass producing ablative plate and other needed products) for ships HH and NH based on Ablative.... Had I already built alot of those ships, I would have been pissed....

The problem with sweeping changes that happen quickly is that the designers simply do not know how even one or two of these changes will really effect the game.

I think that based on the fact that a change like this DOES make ablative armored ships kind of silly for real warships. The problem is that unlike other components like weapons and other components that go into a ship, armor can not be removed or changed.

Maybe armor should be a component that can be replaced or changed like any other thing that goes into a Hull. This way if there are rule changes, you are not stuck with obsolete ships (all you have to do is remove and patch along with the changing rules).

Goth

According to the examples shown by David your normal hulled warships will die long before your armour burns off anyway. No change there...

When building normal hulled warships you must remember that they will not withstand any amount of damage.

I once managed to fight it out among my own warships (a bug ) and after 1 day all my normal hulled warships had been destroyed. My heavy hullers barely got damaged.

Its not done yet - hence the discussion part. Normal hull warships will not be heavily effected by the changes as they are destroyed long before the armour is burnt off.

The previous situation with ablative armour made them the only armour to use especially on heavy hulled ships. However on reflection maybe 100 defence is too little, and sightly more would be more approprate based on the leaving combat element.

Also its best to make all the mistakes at once rather than a constant set of mistakes. Thats has been a major complaint in the past.

yes, any dodge above targeting computers is a penalty

Surely you lose a plate for ~every 3.3 shots the ship takes on a normal hulled warship, seems to me this means the armour is almost always burnt off a fair bit before the ship loses half it's hulls (i make it ~50% armour from a single day of combat)

if the build changes are happening would some one care to share the new build requirements plz

This was a consistency error in the production list. It should never have required thorlium and we have no idea how or even when it slipped in. As the widely available mkIII didn't require it, we were surprised that this was not pointed out sooner. The armour should always have been hydrocarbons and REE.
As REE is invariably in less demand at naval bases than thorlium, this modification seemed reasonable to slip in - however in the unlikely event you have been completely knackered by this, we are prepared to convert an appropriate stockpile.
The thorlium for mkII should be REE.

If fighter bay (in a ship) gets destroyed doesn't it mean that the fighter returns home?? Or is that new rule also cancelled??

If this is still the same then the Normal Hulled Fighter carriers will be an prime target, damage the Ablative armour fast enough to cause some small damage, take out some of the fighter bays and the PointDefense/Interceptors will take care of the remaining attacking fighters.

So for a 100 hull normal ship that takes say 200 photon cannon hits with mark II ablative:

Thats 60 plates down. Its also ~50x200=10000x100/150=6666 hull damage. So yes, you lose ~1/2 your armour but the ship is shagged as 2/3 of the hulls are gone. Its not relevent that the armour is at 50%, the ship is dead.

Also at 50% of their orginal value they are marginally less effective than normal armour plates. Also as i have said the defence will be more than 100, most likly something more like 150/190/225 for each mark of plate - increase in defence just balancing the fact the each mark of armour takes more dmg into the plates

I was talking over 4 rounds - so only 50 cannons. Also starbses with atmospheres could not do this dmg with cannons unless they were on platforms - do to atmosphereic scintillator effect ~ 30AR.

No sure why photon guns would be the weapon of choice, kinetics are because you can pack a lot more dmg per mus, however that may change when you have to shoot at ppl leaveing the battle.

Also with the fact that any ship can leave battle, heavy hulls become even more important.

100 kinetics vs Alabitive AR 60, 100 normal hulls:
100x60dmg -> 100x30 dmg -> 2000 hull dmg -> 20% hull dmg, ((150-20)/150=13%) armour dmg AR 52

100 kinetics vs Normal AR 40, 100 normal hulls:
100x60dmg -> 100x40 dmg -> 2666 hull dmg -> 26% hull dmg, ((150-2)/150=1.3%) armour dmg 39.4 AR

ie Ablative is better.

100 photon guns vs Alabitive AR 60, 100 normal hulls:
100x50dmg -> 100x20 dmg -> 1000 hull dmg -> 10% hull dmg, ((150-20)/150=13%) armour dmg AR 52

100 photon guns vs Normal AR 40, 100 normal hulls:
100x50dmg -> 100x30 dmg -> 2000 hull dmg -> 20% hull dmg, ((150-2)/150=1.3%) armour dmg 39.4 AR

but normal hulls are a poor warship

For Heavy hulls:

100 kinetics vs Ablative AR 120, 100 heavy hulls:
100x60dmg -> 100x0 dmg -> 0 hull dmg -> 0% hull dmg, ((200-40)/200=20%) armour dmg -> 96 AR

100 kinetics vs Normal AR 80, 100 heavy hulls:
100x60dmg -> 100x20 dmg -> 1540 hull dmg -> 3.8% hull dmg, ((200-4)/200=1%) armour dmg -> 79.2AR

100 photon guns vs Ablative AR 120, 100 heavy hulls:
100x50dmg -> 100x0 dmg -> 0 hull dmg -> 0% hull dmg, ((200-33)/200=16.5%) armour dmg -> 100 AR

100 photon guns vs Normal AR 80, 100 heavy hulls:
100x50dmg -> 100x10 dmg -> 770 hull dmg -> 1.9% hull dmg, ((200-4)/200=1%) armour dmg -> 79.2AR

I assume this is something to do with how fast armour is burnt off but what? (i really havn't been in that many battles yet)

In platforms where you can put more armour than you can use, the excess armour is burnt off quicker (ie the damage done to teh armour is increased). Before if you had x2 the armour plates you needed the armour took x2 dmg. The maximum dmg modifer was x10.

The effect has now been halved, so having x2 the armour needed it increases the dmg done to the armour by x1.5 (max modifer x5).

This should bring the burnoff of armour roughly what ius ued to be.

To train skills after 1+2+4+8 is +8 for each lvl. So for +2 dodge and +2 targeting = 1+2+4+8+8+8+8+8=47points. This sounded about right for 50% officers, then 100% officers could do other things

yes

*cough*

This makes more sense, Personally i assumed the same as Thomas with the +8 per level wording and the examples provided.

Even so I still don't like the whole officer thing, personally i'd rather not have to deal with it but then that weakens my forces too much.

Although you realise there aren't actually enough naval skills for some of my offciers well assuming i had the kind of cash to train them.

Training with your conversion exp is free according to the update notes.

From the list of updates.

On the same section it does mention basic training complexes for 'new' officers, I think.

Yes all existing exp is free to train and requires no troop training complexes. All new exp requires cash and troop training

6x4 (6 naval skills with 4 lvl each)=24 lvls=1+2+4+8x21=175 points

So unless i messed up no officer can be fully trained in naval, currently

6? hmm i miss counted ahh well need a few more points

50Tus - i will correct to zero for free training

You can do this yourself still, although it'll probably be forgotten when you update, you just have to change

to look like this

All thats changed is the third option, 0x8, which means show in standing orders. As show in basic is 0x10 then if you change it to 0x18 is will show in both

it's the second to last order in the default order.cfg file.

please make a backup before editing this file cause i will take no resposiblity for your planet exploding or something because of it

David, could you let us know when this is corrected?

Fighters do not get any penalty from high dodge....so they are still quite valid. Officers should make up for any loss in dodge.

Always. If there is a change that messes up a plan then you have to be compensated. Its the way it has to work.

I'm fairly sure that KJC have been trying for a while (years/months) to hammer home that light hull ships are not suitable warships, and their use as such should be limited.

That seems reasonable its mainly the x2 dodge thrust that has thrown a spanner in the works.

I think this will bring up new problems if implemented since it easily allows to get +14 acc (mkIII SFs are quite common I would say and having a +2 targetting officer is not expensive) plus base ACC.
With +14 weapon + officer ACC you can hit everything you like. Removing maneuvering dodge and capping base dodge plus officer dodge bonus to 8 just further increase this problem.

Sapce fighters go up in damage already with increasing MKs, increasing the ACC as well will make them very very powerful.

Inrtial dampers could counter this effect at 50 hulls but they are less effective on bigger ships, space fighters get more effective on bigger ships...


Thomas

Judging by the amount of experience we have already gaind it'll take me approximately 3 weeks to gain 15 points with a shipcaptain. Ships are not a problem, everybody will be able to muster at least 20 small ships quickly.

The say 30 captains can then have +2 targetting if wanted, and they are cheap and expandale, so I can add them to any space fighter design, which makes any space fighte effectively +2 acc (mkI 10+2, mkII 11+2, mkIII 12+2).

This goes for all other weapons as well, true,but all other weapons with acc around 10+ are _a_lot_ bigger than space fighter so you cannot mount that many. A 100 heavy hulled ship can easily launch 48 space fighters (mkIII), so that's 48 * 30 dmg @0.2 AR and 14 accurracy.
This does damage and due to the +14 accuracy any dodge will not make a differenece as you cannot get it high enoug.

This is all triggered because specialised captains for dodge or targetting have suddenly become very cheap, beforehand a 25% experienced captain was very valuable and not easy to get.


This is not rying to limit the IMP fleet (we have cariers ourselves), it is just to highlight a real problem (at least I think it is one)!


Thomas

I was more just checking that it's correct that the fleeing ship isn't given the dumped cargo number. I would have thought that the ships captain has some idea where he exactly is and more over, can trace back the flight records to go back and see what's there. But I guess this latter point is really going back and scanning for the cargo which means he isn't given the position number.

Nik

We are all suffering from the changes and yes we have done a lot of research just like you that is now obsolete, so I can't see why something should be done. We are all in the same boat.

Brian, DTR

Don't forget the 20mu*75 hulls internal space that the normal hull had over the heavy hull.

If used for gatling lasers this would have been an extra 150. This would have taken out an extra 100 kinetics mkII per round (20% * 10 * 150 / 3). Which happens to be approximately the difference in the HH v NH.

As David has pointed out before, if a game mechanic change compromises you, you should get compensation, I suggest to talk to Mica about this.

I know its painful to reconfigure a fleet, I have done it a few times due to game mechanic changes as well. I always was not happy about it but there were no other oprions.


Thomas