|
Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Can someone please explain to me what Emmisive armor does? Bear in mind I am an idiot, so go slow and use small words.
Emmisive armor I says it has 30 KT of structure and negates any hit of 10 or less. What happens if it gets hit with 5? What happens if it gets hit with 15? What happens if it gets this with 35? Answer the questions I don't know enough to ask too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
If damage is 5:
Armor negates the damage. If the damage is 15: Armor negates 10, 5 hits the armor (25 hp left) If the damage is 35: Armor negates 10, 25 hits the armor (5 hp left) If the damage is 50: Armor negates 10, 40 hits the armor and destroys it with 10 going on to damage another armor/component. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
so, just to confirm this... if the armour gets hit with 5 damage, and then another 5 damage, and then another 5 and another... it won't actually have been damaged in anyway at all...
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Dogscoff, is that a question or a statement? Cause I want to know that too.
And what if you get hit with damage exactly equal to the emmmisve value? 10 in this case. Also, what if you have two Emmisive Armor 1's and you get hit with 45? Does it destroy the first comp and do no damage to the second beacsue the overlap is less than it's emmisive value? Geoschmo |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Oh, and is the emmisve value per hit? What if Emmisive Armor I with a Em value of ten and a structure of 30 is being hit with damage 15 shots. Does the first shot take out the em value and the second shot of 15 go all to the structure of the armor? If so the armor would fail on the third shot. Or does the armor absorb the first ten point of each shot until destroyed, in which case the armor could withstand 6 shots from a damage 15 gun before failing.
Geoschmo |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Emissive armor does not stack. Two components will not give you twice as much emissive power. I'm not sure, but if one gets destroyed...I think the other one will retain the negate ability for the next turn.
If it is equal - then no damage is done and the armor remains intact. I'm not sure if multiple hits during a turn count as single shots for the armor or if the total of all the shots for the turn are counted against the armor. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
To test this I am guessing I would:
Create 4 different Escorts with 1 Engine Master Computer One with 1 Emissive Armor One with 2 Emissive Armor One with 3 Emissive Armor One with 4 Emissive Armor And a ship Destroyer, (to pic a size) 6 Engines, (no reason not to) 1 beam weapon, (that does 20 HP Run the Combat Simulator Count the Hits befor it is destroyed Create a 2nd Destroyer with a beam weapon that does 40 HP or am I making this too complicated? |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
here's what i thought happened based on SJ's tests:
What happens if it gets hit with 5? nothing, the dmg is negated What happens if it gets hit with 15? 15 dmg is done to the armor, nothing is negated What happens if it gets this with 35? armor is destroyed, 5 remaining gets negated if there is another emmissive armor, else it will just do 5 dmg to the next component |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
For ships and bases, my understanding is that it could be described by:
The damage from each non-armor-bypassing weapon hit is reduced by X, for every hit on the ship, until this component is destroyed. (Only the highest-rated component with this ability on the ship/base has this effect.) So, if you have unmodded Emissive Armor I (EA 10 and structure 30 on a component that is always hit first), then: * You can shrug off an unlimited number of weapon hits that do ten or less points of damage each, no matter how many times you are hit, even by the same enemy during the same turn (exception - fighter Groups combine their damage, meaning a larger fighter group is more powerful http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ). * If attacked by an enemy ship with weapons that do 15 points of damage, each one would do 5 points of damage to your armor. It would take six hits to destroy your single EA I component. If you had two EA I components, it would take another six hits to destroy the second EA I component. A single 70-point hit would be exactly enough to destroy both EA I components. * If your ship had one EA I component and one plain Armor component with 40 structure, then there would be a 50% chance you would lose the EA I after six 15-point hits as above, and a 50% chance that after eight hits you would lose the plain armor, and then it would take another six 15-point hits to destroy the EA I. PvK |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Lemmy, that was what it did before Gold patch 2 (v.1.78).
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Are armor skipping weapons affected by the emissive armor ability?
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
PvK, thank you. Your perspective of looking at it as reducing the strength of the weapon being fired at it helps me understand it better. I think I have it now.
However, given the facts that you have told me here, it seems to me that emmisive armor is still not very useful even in it's "fixed" form. The reamainder damage going straight to components or other armor means that Emmisive armor is actually LESS effective thatn standard armor agasint any weapon that can exceed it's emmisive ability and structure in a single shot. Since most ship weapons available around the time the emmisive armor comes on line fit this qualification, and since fighter weapons are added prior to impact, the high cost of emmisive armor and low effectiveness would seem to make it quite silly to use. Am I still missing something maybe? Geoschmo |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
I have started using Emissive so I want to make sure I understand it right.
Em Armor III has 50 structure and negates 30 damage from EACH hit. So in the worse case on the first hit your em armor gets wiped out right away and its a wash because two Armor IIIs have eighty structure points equal to the 50 + 30 from the em. If the em survives however then it negates another 30 points on the next hit so effectively you've just added 30 armor (or emissiveness) to your defense. So if you can afford it emissive armor is much better than regular armor. Also I haven't tested but I thought fighters now shoot individually instead of as a stack - is that true? Please clarify [ September 03, 2002, 19:12: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
On further thought probably a combination of regular and emissive armor would be best. I'll leave it up to the probability experts - but my guess would be 1 per x number of armor or even just 1 per ship.
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
The way I see it the emmisive armor is only any good until your enemy starts using weapons that are more than 80 points per shot. Since you only get one emmisive ability per shot, after the first 80 points the additinal armor is only got a 2.5:1 ratio, while yor regular armor has a 4:1 ratio. And the emmisive armor is five times as expensive on a per Kt basis. Five times as expensive for an armor that is only as-good agasint smaller weapons, and worse-than agasint more powerful weapons. I am not math major, but that doesn't add up to me.
Maybe one piece of emmisive armor per ship would be good, since you then have a decent chance of it depleting several shots before it is destroyed. But even then the best it ever gets is the same ratio as regular armor. It's never better than regular armor. I see no point to it unless you are facing an enemy that has weapons weaker than the combined value of the em and structure of your armor. Geoschmo [ September 03, 2002, 19:43: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
There is some value I admit in using a single piece of Em armor and several pieces of standarad armor, but cause you get a small reduction of each shot until the em armor is destroyed as you say, but the effect I think is negligeble and very dependant on chance. You have a percentage chance of losing your em armor on the first shot and then you have just standard armor. Which I guess is no worse than my idea, but I don't see much advantage to it either. And you pay the same cost as 5 standard armors for the same KT of that one Emmisive armor. Geoschmo |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Yes, the default Emissive Armor is fairly weak and becomes nearly useless once cruisers appear and all direct-fire weapons get doubled damage. But a little modding to give more levels of Emissive Armor makes it worthwile much later into the game. Given that the standard APB can become a 195 points-per-shot weapon on a battleship and a 455 points-per-shot weapon on a starbase (!!!) I think that Emissive Armor ought to go to 100 points or more. Just make it expensive enough that it's hard to research early in the game.
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
What would be neat is if you could add a component enhancement ability that increased the emmissive ability. Right now you can make a mount that increases the structure of the emmissive armor, but the emissive ability is going to stay the same.
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Lets say I had the 4 types of armor on a ship
1) Emmissive Armor III 2) Armor III 3) Scattering Armor III 4) Stealth Armor III Lets say I am hit with a 200 or 300 damage shot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Is the above, the order in which damage is taken by the armor? |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
No matter which component is hit first, the emissive armor ability subtracts its level fromt he damage first. Then, the lowest damage armor tends to get destroyed first. Once you ae dealing with internal components the situation is reversed and the highest damage components tend to get hit first. These are not 'fixed' rules, though, so a clear prediction is not possible.
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Geoschmo, your calculation of value is off. EA III is 50 structure + 30 emissive = 80 to kill, and 20kT size. Standard Armor III is 40 structure for 10kt size. You said armor was 4:1 and EM was 2.5:1, but it's really 4:1 as well, so EM III is never worse than SA III.
If you combine one or two EA with a bunch of SA III, you will probably get the EA effect for nearly all of the armor hits, most of the time. Even in mid-game cruiser combat with large-mount PPB's, that can easily get up to a 50% increase in survivability, which can be worthwhile. Throwing an EA component in with a bunch of Crystalline or Organic armor can definitely be worthwhile. EA is relatively expensive, but if you are trying to achieve ship design superiority for some classes, it can help tip the scales. PvK |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
"Given that the standard APB can become a 195 points-per-shot weapon on a battleship and a 455 points-per-shot weapon on a starbase (!!!) I think that Emissive Armor ought to go to 100 points or more."
But then you make any weapon which cannot do 101 damage *utterly useless* against the armor. Phoenix-D |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Ya, 100-point emissive would be yet another reason to only build large ships with large mounts, which IMO wouldn't improve the standard game set. I'd say that battleship-mounted max-tech APB's should be the sort of weapon that will tend to degrade the usefulness of EA.
PvK |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
If one emissive armour component gives all other armour emmissive ability, then emmissive + crystalline could be an interesting combination. Any hit below the emissive threshold would recharge your shields for free. Shots above that threshold... umm... my brain hurts.
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
But I am not sure what you mean by the terms "lowest" and "highest" |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
I do agree that the damage system is overly simplistic. For SE V I hope there will various types of damage. Not just different damage effects as we have now (Quad Damage to Shields, etc.) but really different damage types. Radiation damage (energy eapons), concussion damage (missiles and other explosives), torsion/stress damage (gravity weapons), chemical damage (acid globule, maybe invent some others to make the Category worthwhile... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). Then you can have weapons with damage Ratings in EACH of these fields, and shields/armor/components with damage resistance Ratings in EACH of these fields. Then you can have technologies to create armor/components with better resistance in the various fields and expand the 'rock/paper/scissors' game a bit futher. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Emissive Armor is definately of limited value as larger weapon mounts appear. The problem is that weapon mounts escalate the damage too much and are to cost effective to not use.
On ships, Massive mounts do 5 times damage for 3 times the cost in Space. I would like to see the Mount progression reduced something like 1.3 Space/1.5 Damage, 1.69 space/2.25 damage, 2.197 space/ 3.375 damage. Weapon Mounts make Emissive Armor obsolete with Battleships and of little benefit against high powered weapons on Cruisers. This is probably how it should be. Emissive Armor is a counter against a hoard of small ships (or weapon yielding drones). However, Weapon Mounts already give bigger ships a signficicant advantage over smaller ships. Here is what the game is missing: Critical Hits. Any hit that gets through shields should have a chance to skip armor and do 20 times normal damage. That would give players the option of trying to use lots of small weapons to land a critical hit instead of one big weapon that has a big damage bonus (mount). Emissive Armor would make those little hits do no damage until they obtain a critical hit. Make larger mounts have a reduced chance at critical hits (larger beam or projectile). Make the progression something like 5%, 2%, 1%, 0% (Normal to Massive Mounts). If fighters do not pool attacks together, give them a 10% chance of a critical hit. No one answered the fighter question yet. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Some of the better combat systems I have seen have two weapon factors: Penetration and Damage. In world war two, there were two typical weapon types: Armor Piercing and High Explosive. Armor Piercing actually had little explosive power (usually none) but would penetrate the armor of a tank sending shell and hull fragments around the interior killing the crew, igniting fuel and ammunition. High Explosive would detonate on the outside and need a powerful enough of a bLast to get through the armor.
Each weapon should have a Penetration Factor that is compared agains the targets armor thickness. If Penetration is achieved, the full weapon damage is applied, otherwise, it is reduced by the armors natural emmissive property. Also, to give unform armor coverage, larger hulls should require more KT of armor, based on surface area. An object that is 1 meter cubed, has 6 square meters of surface area. a 2 meter cube, has 24 squate meters of surface area. It contains 8 times the volume, but has 4 times the surface area. It needs 4 times the armor to achieve the same thinkness. Assuming all ships are cubes (kind of boring), each ship's armor thinkness would be (KT of Armor) / (6 x (KT Hull)^(2/3)). You can improve that ratio a bit if you use the perfect shape - a sphere. In reality, tanks tend to be have facings with most of the armor facing forward. This allows armor thinkness to be increased in the most likely direction of attack, thus increasing armor thickness without increase cost as much. This could be acheived by reducing the multiplier (6 x). You can go ever further by using sloping armor to increase the chances of a ricochette. Also, a shot that is not perpendicular to the armor must traverse greater thinkness, but slope gets real complicated. Elongated ships or ships with lots of appendages require an even higher ratio of armor because they have so much surface area. But hey, they look neat don't they. The U.S.S Enterprise is a bad design based on surface area. Thats why they need spherical shields. Borg Ships on the other hand make a lot of sense surface area to volume wise. However, the Enterprise has better slope on impacts than Borg ships. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
As you mentioned, the armor piercing shells were designed to penetrate armor and thereby do damage. High explosive shells seldom did any major damage against heavily armored vehicles like tanks. In the same vein, armor piercing were pretty useless against soft targets. The above being so, the tank commander had to do some strategic thinking in determining the mix of shells he was going to carry for the upcoming battle. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Baron,
I agree about the different damage types. I would like to include nano tech, bio tech and slow acting types. Imagine the damage RUST could to an unprepared empire that has never had to deal with it. Imagine nano disassemblers taking apart a ships hull and eventually plagueing an entire fleet and all the ships it comes in contact with. Imagine infesting ships with spiders that weave microscopic mono filament webs that slice through anything that crosses it's path. Imagine a bacteria that drinks rocket fuel. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Imagine all the people...
Oh, sorry. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif [ September 04, 2002, 20:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Yes, I think armor should work differently than it currently does. I think we've discussed this more than once before in other threads. Rather than being discrete components armor should be an attribute of the hull. And rather than armor always stopping damage until it is destroyed there ought to be a percentage chance to stop damage, to partially stop/deflect damage, and an increasing chance as damage is inflicted that 'holes' in the armor will let damage just pass through. This much more realistic system would take some serious code revision by MM, though. Let's hope for SE V to do something like this.
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Well, the intrinsic part of the hull thing we can't do without code changes, but doesn't the "internal armor" used by some mods pretty well do the second part? That is armor that takes damage, but there is a chance of any particular shot damaging an actual component instead.
And by the way, does a ship with emmisive armor that hits a mine get the benefit of the emmisive value? Geoschmo |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
"That's why you need to make it fairly expensive to research. There has to be a point where certain weapons become obsolete, doesn't there? Would an 18th century brass cannon be any use against a modern warship?"
Yes, but you can stick a weapon capable of damaging a large warship on a small one; in SE4 you *can't* do that without researching an entirely different weapons chain. 100 emissive ability on armor would FORCE players to A. use dreadnoughts or above or B. use wave-motion guns. Those are the *only* options, and that's kind of ridiclous. Phoenix-D |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
I did some fairly extensive tests on emissive armor as part of my revision of the damage FAQ now that I have Gold. This pretty much confirms what others have said, but does talk a bit about damage assignment. I've not yet completed everything, but this is the relavent info for emissive armor:
First, a term: Volly. A volley is a set of damage treated as if it came from a single weapon. Whenever ships fire their weapons, each individual weapon creates its own volley. However, when a fighter stack fires, each type of weapon across all the fighters in the group becomes a volley. Put 3 DUCIII on a fighter, and they fire as a single volley. In a group of 6 such fighers, all 18 DUCIII's fire as one volley. Use 2 DUCII and 1 APBII per fighter, and you get two volleys: 12 DUCII in one and 6 APBII in the other (assuming 6 fighters in the stack). Note that each weapon can still individually miss and so the damage of a volley can vary from shot to shot. Emissive armor reduces the damage of a volley by its value. It does so even if the emissive component is destroyed by that volley. It does not affect damage absorbed wholely by shields. It also does not effect damage that strikes specific components: Engine damage, weapon damage, armor skipping damage, computer virus weapons, etc. Nor does it effect special effect damage such as tractors/repulsors, worm hole guns or increased reload effect weapons. The greatest emissive value present is used against each volley. They do not stack in any way. As far as damage assignment, the game now appears to feature a "if possible, destroy a component" strategy. That means, if you take enough damage to destroy a targetable component, that component will be destroyed and the damage won't be stored up against a possibly tougher component. Suppose ArmorIII and Emissive ArmorIII, 40Kt resistance vs 50Kt. If your enemy has only 70 point damage weapons then use only a single piece of EAIII. Because every hit will do 70 damage, -30 from the EA down to 40, and since 40 is exactly enough to kill ArmorIII, every hit without fail will kill a piece of ArmorIII until you have no more and then finally the Emissive Armor will be destroyed in two hits. However, if he can do enough damage after the EA reduction to kill a piece of EA (80 for EAIII), then any given piece of armor is equally likely to be destroyed. This basically means that greater damage resistant emissive armor components are more powerful since basic armor is more likely to be killed. If you modded EAIII to be 60Kt with 150Kt resistances (same size to resistance ratio) it would be much more powerful than mounting three of the existing EAIII components. No weapon doing less than 171 damage could destroy the EAIII before killing all the Armor III. BTW, the formula given Armor and EA to find the minimum strength damage to have a chance of killing EA before Armor is: E + 2R - A + 1 where: A = damage to kill a piece of armor, E = damage to kill a piece of emissive armor, R = reduction to damage from emissive component |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Zanthis...my head is beginning to hurt... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Can anyone tell me what Baron Munchausen meant when he used the terms "lowest" and "highest" in the following quote? Quote:
But I am not sure what you mean by the terms "lowest" and "highest"</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
You get the 4:1 ratio for emmisive armor only on the first component destroyed by any single shot. So if someone were to go with all Em Armor and the enemy was doing say 180 damage points per shot (Not an exroidnary number mind you with mounts), 180 points would destroy 3 em armor III components because you only get the em value for the one em comp per shot. While the same 60Kt of standard armor III could withstand 240 points of damage. You see my point was the Em armor would never be any better than standard armor, and agaisnt larger weapons it is worse than standard armor. It's the additional comps that don't get to use their em value that have the 2.5:1 ratio. And I did conceed some limited value for a single piece of em armor and several pieces of standard armor. I suppose a mix of one piece of em armor and several crystalline armor comps could be similarly effective. I just am doubtful of the effectiveness considering the chance of the em armor being destroyed on any shot. The only way it's really worth anything is if it lives through several shots, and you can't predict that it will with any certainty. Geoschmo |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Lowest damage meant whichever armor takes the least amount of damage before it gets destroyed. Highest damage is whichever takes the most to get destroyed. Between Armor III and Emissive Armor III, Armor III is the lowest at 40 damage to kill and Emissive Armor III is the highest at 50 damage to kill.
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
Where you have armorIII and emmissive armorIII and a volley: 1) the emmissive armor absorbs 30 damage. 2) then the armor III is destroyed 3) then the emmissive armor is destroyed Is this how it works? But your formula implies that emmissive armor can be killed first. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
The standard armor in Proportions mod allows for a "critical hit" phenomenon, because it is not "hit first" - it just usually is hit first if you load a bunch on a ship. But even a light weapon can still get lucky and take out the bridge or the electronic warfare or something.
PvK |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
To answer your question tbontob, understand that components (which includes armor) are either totally destroyed or uninjuried. As a result, every ship tracks "unassigned damage" which is the extra damage that has not yet been used to destroy a component.
Suppose you somehow built a ship with only two pieces of Armor III. It takes 45 damage. Since it requires 40 damage to completely destroy a component, one of your Armor III components will be destroyed. That leaves 5 damage, and since the only remaining component takes 40 damage to destroy, that 5 damage becomes "unassigned". The next time that ship gets hit, that unassigned damage gets added to the new damage to try and destroy more components. So another hit for 35 damage will kill the second Armor III component since 35 new damage plus 5 previously unassigned damage equals the 40 damage needed to kill a piece of Armor III. Got that so far? Ok, the game appears to try and never leave too much unassigned damage on a ship. As a result, the game builds a list of all components that can be destroyed given the current amount of new damage plus unassigned damage and picks one at random to destroy. It repeats this process until the list is empty. Consider you had Armor I, Armor II and Armor III on a ship. Two of each. They take 20 damage, 30 damage and 40 damage to kill respectively. Visually, they could be written out like this: > 20, 20, 30, 30, 40, 40 Now suppose this ship gets hit for 10 damage. The game builds a list of all components that can be killed with 10 damage. If such a list is in []'s, it would look like this when combined with the above list of armors: > [] 20, 20, 30, 30, 40, 40 Nothing in the list, so nothing gets destroyed and the 10 damage becomes unassigned. Now the ship gets hit for 15 more damage. A list is built of all components that can be killed with 25 damage (the 15 from this hit plus the 10 unassigned from Last hit). This list looks like: > [20, 20,] 30, 30, 40, 40 So one of the two Armor I components will be destroyed. That will leave 5 extra damage, for which a new list will be built. That list will obviously be empty and so that 5 extra damage gets kept as unassigned damage on the ship. Lets reset our ship to undamage, and consider what happens when it gets pounded on by a 30 damage weapon repeatedly. Each single hit is one line. I'm listing weapon damage on the left before the '>' sign and previously unassigned damage there too, after the '+' sign. So "30+5>" means hit for 30 and there was already 5 unassigned damage on the ship. 30+0> [ 20, 20, 30, 30,] 40, 40 30+0> [ 20, 20, **, 30,] 40, 40 30+10> [ **, 20, **, 30, 40, 40 ] 30+0> [ **, 20, **, 30, **, 40 ] 30+10> [ **, **, **, 30, **, 40 ] 30+10> [ **, **, **, **, **, 40 ] 0> Now lets do 11 damage per hit: 11+0> [] 20, 20, 30, 30, 40, 40 11+11> [ 20, 20,] 30, 30, 40, 40 11+2> [] **, 20, 30, 30, 40, 40 11+13> [ **, 20,] 30, 30, 40, 40 11+4> [] **, **, 30, 30, 40, 40 11+15> [] **, **, 30, 30, 40, 40 11+26> [ **, **, 30, 30,] 40, 40 11+7> [] **, **, **, 30, 40, 40 11+18> [] **, **, **, 30, 40, 40 11+29> [ **, **, **, 30, 40, 40 ] Ok, I stopped there, but notice how the Armor III is now a valid target? That is because using the formula: E + 2R - A + 1, 11 is the minimum damage value needed if you want a chance to kill Armor III before destroying all the Armor II. Effectively, E should be the damage to kill the component you want to kill (40 in this case), and A should be the damage to kill the component you don't want to kill (30 in this case). Since their is no emissive armor in this example, R is zero. I hope that cleared it up a little. I'm still running tests, especially since there has been indication in this thread that internal damage assignment may vary from armor damage assignment. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
Looks like someone could exploit it with a few weak weapons added to the front of their ships firing order. It could become more effective then engine damage weapons, after the armor and shields are gone. [ September 05, 2002, 17:21: Message edited by: Wardad ] |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
My tests (with 20+ of each type of armor) have shown that it does not work that way.
Armor is targetted somewhat randomly. Lower hitpoint armor components are targetted much more often, but not always. Damage proceeds normally. If there are multiple armors of different sizes, occasionally the tougher one may be hit but not destroyed, and the next shot will kill two or three of the smaller armors. Internals are targetted in the opposite way. In general, it is close to "one lottery ticket per hitpoint" type of thing, although there is a tendency for stronger internal components to be hit more often than that. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
In prior Versions, I am pretty sure I have seen Colonizers take no damage from a hit, presumably because the 150 KT Colony module was hit. However, it may have just been a Ram attack and not a weapon hit, which should take out something else. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
|
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Arkon,
Not only would the control componants go first, but also the ecm, sensors, engines and supply storage. DEATH... So first you can hardly move, then your easier to hit, then your punches start missing, and then your life blood leaks out, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif ...pls excuse the drama... all before your weapons are gone. Hmmm, too bad there isn't a "Fire until all fuel is gone" check box on the strategy menu. Maybe 50% damage would be enough. ----------------------------------------------- Arkon, Is your footer a quote from Capn Kirk? [ September 05, 2002, 22:16: Message edited by: Wardad ] |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Quote:
If you use this targeting Fastest Ship with no Multi-tracking, you will keep shooting the same ship for that round. Next time you fire, you will switch targets, which is good if you actually made it as far as the Talisman, bad if you just fell short. Shooting until 30% damaged might work better. You would have to tune the damage % to their design. |
Re: Emmisive Armor for Dummies, please...
Further testing revealed that I was not entirely correct. I have a new theory, but need to test more.
In case you were wondering what I used to disprove my previous thought, it was a base ship with a Master Computer III, one piece of Armor I and 147 pieces of Armor III. A single hit from an DUCIII failed to kill the single piece of Armor I as I had said. Back to the testing board. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.