Stealth and Scattering Armor bonus

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You just worded your question poorly.

As I have already stated:

The values would be based on how many hit points (from shield points) an equivalent size of shield generators make that you give up.

No, it was not worded poorly. And it is the same question in my third post of this thread.

Unfortunately, you choose to interprete it to refer to something else.

Take a look at my third post at the beginning of this thread, and you will see that my question asks for the formula as to how the 290 and 165 values were derived.

So if you do not know the formula which will give the 290 and 165 values, just say so.

[ March 19, 2003, 22:27: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[Gryphin]

tbontob
I think it has something to do with
comparing the cost per kT of protection between Standard Shields and the two armors.

I can't do the math but I think it is in there

[PvK]

As I think Spoon said, however, such a formula can't reduce the choice of to-hit modifiers versus shields to a simple exchange rate, especially given the way SE4 adds to-hit chances.

Since SE4 to-hit mods aren't true factors, but additive modifiers, any such formula would only apply to specific examples requiring all the other factors to be known. Unless you are only fighting one type of enemy unit, and they always fire at the same range, etc, the formula will give different values in each case.

PvK

[tbontob]

Originally posted by Gryphin:
tbontob
I think it has something to do with
comparing the cost per kT of protection between Standard Shields and the two armors.

I can't do the math but I think it is in there

Yes, I think you are right about the kT.

But I don't think the formula I am asking for is in the SJ's posting to the Newbie thread.

I also suspect the protection given by the armor is probably factored in too.

So, it may be a complicated formula. I have dealt with many a complicated formula and one more should'nt throw me.

I am asking for it because the formula will help me to understand the relationship between shield and scattering/stealth armor.

[Suicide Junkie]

That was quite a while ago...
I don't remember how exactly I got those numbers.

PSG: 375/40 = 9.375
StA: 100/30 = 3.333
ScA: 150/50 = 3.000

Lets see if I can't figure out what I was thinking...
Due to its use, it has to be related to the change in firepower required to kill your ship.

Perhaps a much simpler way would be to:
A) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo the enemy will need to throw at you if you use shields.
B) Use steps 1 and 2 to find out how much ammo they have to use if you replace some shields with Stealth/Scattering armor.
C) The ship design which gives the bigger number is stronger.

[ March 19, 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[spoon]

Originally posted by PvK:
Since SE4 to-hit mods aren't true factors, but additive modifiers, any such formula would only apply to specific examples requiring all the other factors to be known. Unless you are only fighting one type of enemy unit, and they always fire at the same range, etc, the formula will give different values in each case.

Yup. Step (2) has the problem of being extraordinarily difficult to calculate, esp. for a newbie. It's probably best to simply advise players to always research armor up to 6, and to always put def. armors on all attack ships.

Also, I think I'm reversing my reversal, and going back to thinking the formula SJ gives is wrong. Death to SJ! Down with the formula!

-Spoon

[tbontob]

Originally posted by PvK:
As I think Spoon said, however, such a formula can't reduce the choice of to-hit modifiers versus shields to a simple exchange rate, especially given the way SE4 adds to-hit chances.

Since SE4 to-hit mods aren't true factors, but additive modifiers, any such formula would only apply to specific examples requiring all the other factors to be known. Unless you are only fighting one type of enemy unit, and they always fire at the same range, etc, the formula will give different values in each case.

PvK

PvK, I suspect you and Spoon may be right.

But we will not be able to determine that with any certainty until we have the formula.

But if so, then the values of 290 and 165 should be used with some care.