Post by ST4Xfan on Oct 1, 2022 21:50:37 GMT -5
I would really like to see how the math of the game works, especially for combat/planetary invasion. I think that's essential for informed ship design (among other things), which in turn adds depth to the strategy. At the moment, there are so many question marks that I can't optimize, even after looking everywhere for more details. This game gives us so much room for strategic choice, but if we don't get the information we need to make those choices, then we aren't really making decisions at all. We're just taking shots in the dark. And that's less fun.
1) How is the attack roll determined? Supposing we have a ship using railguns, which says "guns + piloting." Do those two have different effects, and if so, what are they? Piloting is supposed to be a defensive skill ("Defend against Gun Attacks at 1 Range"). Does it nevertheless impact the attack roll for railguns (and other "X + piloting" weapons), and, if so, to the same degree as guns? Or does pilot reduce the likelihood of counter attacks? Is there a difference between a ship with 3 points in captain guns and 7 in ship gun decks, vs a ship with 5 in each? We need a more accurate view of the math to assign skill points intelligently.
2) How does defense work? Is it a static figure, or a roll (which would then be affected by things like Active Deflectors III, "+1 to all combat rolls)? What is the difference between a bonus to "defense" (provided by most weapons) and a bonus to "evade" (from some claddings and upgrades)?
3) On step three of ship design (ship materials/captain), it says that scores of less than three impose a penalty. What sort of penalties, how big are they, and in what situations do they apply? For example, is it worth it for my strike fighters to invest three ranks in pilot to avoid that penalty, or can I just put more points in evasion (which works against torpedoes, too)? Is it worth investing 3 ranks in stealth, too, even though the fighter has no torpedoes (the only weapons labeled "x + stealth," rather than "x + pilot")? We cannot make these decisions intelligently without understanding the mechanics.
4) How do counter attacks work? How does the game determine when a counter-attack has been triggered? Is the counter-attack resolved using the same mechanics as regular attacks? I know that torpedoes only trigger counter attacks from torpedoes and guns from guns, but are there other factors involved (like piloting skill, or whether or not the initial attack hits)? If we don't know how the math works, we're going to undervalue any factors that reduce our chances of avoiding a counter or increase our chances of getting a counter on the other guy.
5) How does the game determine when a planetary invasion reduces population? What about defense, quality, or radiation? The library entry for transport design says transports use "Sensors, Invasion, Pilot, and Shielding during attacks." What do each of those stats actually do, and is it the same for each attack type (bombard, scout, invasion)? Do gun decks ("bonus to attacks at 1 Range") play a role, too? Perhaps in bombardment? Are the different attack types equally vulnerable to damage from high radiation or defense? The same library entry notes that transports "use their Durability, Shielding, and Armor values to defend against damage from the Xeno Colony." Does evasion/pilot play any role in avoiding or reducing damage? Perhaps only in scouting?
6) How does the game decide when a colony's population increases? It's clear from what I've observed and read that it is largely random, but there are factors that effect those probabilities (politics, morale, surplus hab space, colony quality). If we knew how the math worked, it would create a space for savvy players to use those factors strategically: to encourage growth in research/manufacturing colonies, to discourage it in mining colonies, or to make better plans around the probabilities even if accurate predictions are impossible. If we're just guessing, that space is swallowed up by uncertainty.
I see several ways to go about presenting this information, and the devs could adopt any or all of them. The first and most obvious would be to put the information in the library. This would be valuable, but readers could easily become lost in a library of truly comprehensive answers--unable to find the answer they are looking for either because the library is too big, or because its language has become too technical, or both. Also, the devs would then have to write comprehensive answers in easy-to-parse words.
Many of these questions could be answered if you just presented ship profiles (what we see when we select a particular ship or design) a little differently. Instead of telling us the base numbers (so many ranks in guns, gun decks, and piloting), the game could present us with the derived, aggregated statistics that actually matter (so much attack bonus with each equipped weapon). (If the math doesn't work on the standard "dice + modifier vs difficulty/opposed dice + modifier" model, you could present it as "chance to hit generic target" instead of attack bonus, and so on). Honestly, the information currently presented in ship profiles isn't great, even if we did know how it plugs into the games' math, but that's a complaint for another thread.
Alternatively (or additionally), the game could produce a log of that math, as it occurs (such logs are pretty common practice in turn-based games). For example, when you attack a particular ship or planet, the game could tell you "Your ship rolled X for attack, added Y bonus, and hit (or missed). It inflicted P damage, less R damage resistance (armor/shielding), for a total S." We could then use that data to figure how various statistics affect the math, for whatever weapon we're curious about. It would also give us useful information for evaluating the enemy and our current tactics: Are we missing (and therefore need better accuracy) or hitting but failing to pierce armor (and therefore need more damage)? Are we taking regular damage (and therefore need better armor) or are we taking radiation damage (and therefore need more shielding), or is it mostly alpha radiation (that we can protect against with a ranger crew)? Incidentally, this would also create space to differentiate alien groups and force flexibility in tactics. For example, perhaps the Sidtax deal a broad spectrum of radiation damage but are vulnerable to alpha, while Jyeeta deal mostly theta damage and are vulnerable to beta, and Red Zorga deals only standard damage and is vulnerable to neutron. That would mean a savvy player would use different ships against each: more shielding and Pirate Crews against Sidtax, bounty hunter crews against Jyeeta, and more armor and dark ranger prows for Red Zorga. These could even be randomized, rewarding players who take the time to experiment, analyze the results, and adapt their strategies accordingly.
1) How is the attack roll determined? Supposing we have a ship using railguns, which says "guns + piloting." Do those two have different effects, and if so, what are they? Piloting is supposed to be a defensive skill ("Defend against Gun Attacks at 1 Range"). Does it nevertheless impact the attack roll for railguns (and other "X + piloting" weapons), and, if so, to the same degree as guns? Or does pilot reduce the likelihood of counter attacks? Is there a difference between a ship with 3 points in captain guns and 7 in ship gun decks, vs a ship with 5 in each? We need a more accurate view of the math to assign skill points intelligently.
2) How does defense work? Is it a static figure, or a roll (which would then be affected by things like Active Deflectors III, "+1 to all combat rolls)? What is the difference between a bonus to "defense" (provided by most weapons) and a bonus to "evade" (from some claddings and upgrades)?
3) On step three of ship design (ship materials/captain), it says that scores of less than three impose a penalty. What sort of penalties, how big are they, and in what situations do they apply? For example, is it worth it for my strike fighters to invest three ranks in pilot to avoid that penalty, or can I just put more points in evasion (which works against torpedoes, too)? Is it worth investing 3 ranks in stealth, too, even though the fighter has no torpedoes (the only weapons labeled "x + stealth," rather than "x + pilot")? We cannot make these decisions intelligently without understanding the mechanics.
4) How do counter attacks work? How does the game determine when a counter-attack has been triggered? Is the counter-attack resolved using the same mechanics as regular attacks? I know that torpedoes only trigger counter attacks from torpedoes and guns from guns, but are there other factors involved (like piloting skill, or whether or not the initial attack hits)? If we don't know how the math works, we're going to undervalue any factors that reduce our chances of avoiding a counter or increase our chances of getting a counter on the other guy.
5) How does the game determine when a planetary invasion reduces population? What about defense, quality, or radiation? The library entry for transport design says transports use "Sensors, Invasion, Pilot, and Shielding during attacks." What do each of those stats actually do, and is it the same for each attack type (bombard, scout, invasion)? Do gun decks ("bonus to attacks at 1 Range") play a role, too? Perhaps in bombardment? Are the different attack types equally vulnerable to damage from high radiation or defense? The same library entry notes that transports "use their Durability, Shielding, and Armor values to defend against damage from the Xeno Colony." Does evasion/pilot play any role in avoiding or reducing damage? Perhaps only in scouting?
6) How does the game decide when a colony's population increases? It's clear from what I've observed and read that it is largely random, but there are factors that effect those probabilities (politics, morale, surplus hab space, colony quality). If we knew how the math worked, it would create a space for savvy players to use those factors strategically: to encourage growth in research/manufacturing colonies, to discourage it in mining colonies, or to make better plans around the probabilities even if accurate predictions are impossible. If we're just guessing, that space is swallowed up by uncertainty.
I see several ways to go about presenting this information, and the devs could adopt any or all of them. The first and most obvious would be to put the information in the library. This would be valuable, but readers could easily become lost in a library of truly comprehensive answers--unable to find the answer they are looking for either because the library is too big, or because its language has become too technical, or both. Also, the devs would then have to write comprehensive answers in easy-to-parse words.
Many of these questions could be answered if you just presented ship profiles (what we see when we select a particular ship or design) a little differently. Instead of telling us the base numbers (so many ranks in guns, gun decks, and piloting), the game could present us with the derived, aggregated statistics that actually matter (so much attack bonus with each equipped weapon). (If the math doesn't work on the standard "dice + modifier vs difficulty/opposed dice + modifier" model, you could present it as "chance to hit generic target" instead of attack bonus, and so on). Honestly, the information currently presented in ship profiles isn't great, even if we did know how it plugs into the games' math, but that's a complaint for another thread.
Alternatively (or additionally), the game could produce a log of that math, as it occurs (such logs are pretty common practice in turn-based games). For example, when you attack a particular ship or planet, the game could tell you "Your ship rolled X for attack, added Y bonus, and hit (or missed). It inflicted P damage, less R damage resistance (armor/shielding), for a total S." We could then use that data to figure how various statistics affect the math, for whatever weapon we're curious about. It would also give us useful information for evaluating the enemy and our current tactics: Are we missing (and therefore need better accuracy) or hitting but failing to pierce armor (and therefore need more damage)? Are we taking regular damage (and therefore need better armor) or are we taking radiation damage (and therefore need more shielding), or is it mostly alpha radiation (that we can protect against with a ranger crew)? Incidentally, this would also create space to differentiate alien groups and force flexibility in tactics. For example, perhaps the Sidtax deal a broad spectrum of radiation damage but are vulnerable to alpha, while Jyeeta deal mostly theta damage and are vulnerable to beta, and Red Zorga deals only standard damage and is vulnerable to neutron. That would mean a savvy player would use different ships against each: more shielding and Pirate Crews against Sidtax, bounty hunter crews against Jyeeta, and more armor and dark ranger prows for Red Zorga. These could even be randomized, rewarding players who take the time to experiment, analyze the results, and adapt their strategies accordingly.