Military Grade Composites: Why are they so bad?

Dear FDev, please explain Military grade composites and why they are so terrible compared to Hull reinforcement. Do you really value a single internal slot so highly that it exceeds the core bulkheads in importance and value?

Here's an example using a Federal Corvette:
Military composites add 629 hull integrity, ZERO extra resistance, 60 Tonnes and cost 169 Million credits.
A 5D HRP with G5 heavy duty (deep plating) adds 738 hull integrity, 22 Tonnes, 13% of each resistance, and costs just 450K CR.

Am I going mad? Because I'm struggling to see why I should choose Military grade composites over a single class-5 HRP:


  • 375x more expensive to fit
  • 375x more expensive to repair
  • 2.7x heavier which affects agilty, speed, and jump range.
  • Have no scaling effect on HRPs, unlike the shield generator does on boosters.
  • Add no resistances whatsoever, when resistances become more important than integrity beyond an easily-achieved value anyway.

I thought you were trying to make hull tanking more appealing - or am I mistaken?
 
Last edited:
If you engineer the military grade armor it will add closer to 1k armor and 5% resists across the board. It is heavier and way more expensive, yes, but not useless. You don't have to choose between the 2 either.

If you want best hull, pretty sure reactive is the way to go anyway.
 
Yep, HRPs are a good deal - my big combat ships usually have a few on board for the smaller internal slots where a SCB isn't as valuable (in a cutter rocking 9k shields, an extra few hundred doesn't matter much). Of course, HRPs take up internal space; whereas armor is just strapped onto the outside of the ship without taking up additional space - I usually end up fitting thermal reactive armor with heavy duty HRPs on my big combat ships, and on the small ones it's usually engineered lightweight armor (reinforced) with some small HRPs, mainly for the resistance.

Armor is probably most important in a transport ship. It doesn't take away from cargo space and provides protection if your shields go down.
 
I think hull upgrades are bad for a different reason -- What good is doubling your HP if a wood elf can magically snipe your guts with complete disregard your platemail armor and you die from a ruptured spleen with nary a scuff mark on your entire suit of knight's armor?
 
I think hull upgrades are bad for a different reason -- What good is doubling your HP if a wood elf can magically snipe your guts with complete disregard your platemail armor and you die from a ruptured spleen with nary a scuff mark on your entire suit of knight's armor?

for a simple reason
hull penetration is chance based
the less % of your hull is remaining, the more likely a shot will penetrate and hit an internal.

if you got no hull, even the smallest weapon will deal so much % damage per hit, that the maximum chance to penetrate will be used for any further hit.
there is only one weapon with a higher chance to penetrate then others, namely cannons,
and only two that got 100% penetration chance - and no, not railguns: dumbfires, torpedos and RR Flak/flechette
 
for a simple reason
hull penetration is chance based
the less % of your hull is remaining, the more likely a shot will penetrate and hit an internal.

if you got no hull, even the smallest weapon will deal so much % damage per hit, that the maximum chance to penetrate will be used for any further hit.
there is only one weapon with a higher chance to penetrate then others, namely cannons,
and only two that got 100% penetration chance - and no, not railguns: dumbfires, torpedos and RR Flak/flechette
Isn't penetration chance determined by hull integrity? As in, that stat that goes down while you are in supercruise that you have to go to advanced outfitting to deal with? That was the impression I got.. At least, based off the terminology. That means in a single dogfight, that ship is going to have the same breach chance at 100% HP or 1% HP because their integrity isn't going to drop any while fighting in normal space.

If that's not how it works, it's another case of FD not explaining things very clearly and using one word to describe multiple different concepts.
 
Nah, there are two different stats to worry about with hull damage:

1. Armour piercing
Your ship has a fixed hull hardness based on what ship it is and weapons pierce this based on their armour-piercing rating.
Example - An AspX has a hardness of 52. C2 multicannons have a piercing value of 37, C3 multicannons have a piercing of 54.
So the 52 hardness is more than the C2 multicannon piercing, meaning that some of the damage fails to pierce the armour. 37/52 = 71% of the damage gets through, 29% is ignored completely.
Meanwhile, C3 multicannons with a piercing value of 54 fully pierce the hull hardness and always do 100% of their damage against an AspX before resistances.
After the incoming damage has has been modified for piercing vs hardness, and then modified again vs resistances, you have the RAW damage that gets done;
Let's take a stock AspX and the C2 multicannon again; 71% of the damage makes it past hull hardness, so that's a 0.71 multiplier. Kinetic rounds do 1/(100%-20%)=1.25 because of the -20% kinetic resists.
Each individual multicannon round does 2.2 damage, so 2.2 x 0.71 x 1.25 = 1.95 RAW damage.
RAW damage is done to something's integrity, either the hull or a module and to decide what that is you need to understand penetration chance.

2. Penetration chance
So, that single multicannon round did 1.95 RAW damage.
If it hits the spherical hit-zone of an external module first, then 1.95 integrity is deducted from that module.
If it misses an external module, then there is first of all a penetration check; Many weapons have a 40-80% penetration chance.
At 100% hull integrity (immediately after shields have dropped for the first time) there is a 40% chance that 1.95 RAW damage will penetrate.
At almost 0% hull integrity (immediately before the AspX explodes) there is an 80% chance that 1.95 RAW damage will penetrate.
If the round fails to penetrate, that's 1.95 RAW damage to hull integrity. Nice and easy so far.
If the round penetrates, a check is made to see if it hits any internal modules. Pretty much everything except super penetrator rounds go just over half-way through the hull before stopping.
If no modules are hit, all 1.95 RAW damage is deducted from hull integrity.
If the round penetrates and hits a module, most of the 1.95 RAW damage is done to the module, and a small fraction is done to the hull integrity.
I don't actually know what the ratio is but it's probably 2:1 because FDev like that ratio for the word "most". That means 1.3 RAW damage to the module and 0.65 RAW damage to the module.

In summary then an incoming round goes through the following two modifiers:
1) Armour vs hull hardness
2) damage type vs hull resistance
Then penetration determines whether the remaining RAW damage gets done to hull or modules.

There's an interesting quirk of penetration, which explains the phenomenon of ships being seemingly soft as butter immediately after the shields drop, but then their hull drops more slowly the closer they get to death.
The reason for this is that with high hull percentage, there's a 60% chance the shot *won't* penetrate, so lots of your shots will reduce your target's hull integrity. As their hull integrity drops closer to zero, 80% of your shots are penetrating and there's a very high chance this damage is being soaked up by modules instead, which makes it seem like the hull is actually getting tougher. I guess in reality there's just less of it less to actually hit and the bulkheads are more hole than they are bulkhead at this point!
 
Nah, there are two different stats to worry about with hull damage:

1. Armour piercing
Your ship has a fixed hull hardness based on what ship it is and weapons pierce this based on their armour-piercing rating.
Example - An AspX has a hardness of 52. C2 multicannons have a piercing value of 37, C3 multicannons have a piercing of 54.
So the 52 hardness is more than the C2 multicannon piercing, meaning that some of the damage fails to pierce the armour. 37/52 = 71% of the damage gets through, 29% is ignored completely.
Meanwhile, C3 multicannons with a piercing value of 54 fully pierce the hull hardness and always do 100% of their damage against an AspX before resistances.
After the incoming damage has has been modified for piercing vs hardness, and then modified again vs resistances, you have the RAW damage that gets done;
Let's take a stock AspX and the C2 multicannon again; 71% of the damage makes it past hull hardness, so that's a 0.71 multiplier. Kinetic rounds do 1/(100%-20%)=1.25 because of the -20% kinetic resists.
Each individual multicannon round does 2.2 damage, so 2.2 x 0.71 x 1.25 = 1.95 RAW damage.
RAW damage is done to something's integrity, either the hull or a module and to decide what that is you need to understand penetration chance.

2. Penetration chance
So, that single multicannon round did 1.95 RAW damage.
If it hits the spherical hit-zone of an external module first, then 1.95 integrity is deducted from that module.
If it misses an external module, then there is first of all a penetration check; Many weapons have a 40-80% penetration chance.
At 100% hull integrity (immediately after shields have dropped for the first time) there is a 40% chance that 1.95 RAW damage will penetrate.
At almost 0% hull integrity (immediately before the AspX explodes) there is an 80% chance that 1.95 RAW damage will penetrate.
If the round fails to penetrate, that's 1.95 RAW damage to hull integrity. Nice and easy so far.
If the round penetrates, a check is made to see if it hits any internal modules. Pretty much everything except super penetrator rounds go just over half-way through the hull before stopping.
If no modules are hit, all 1.95 RAW damage is deducted from hull integrity.
If the round penetrates and hits a module, most of the 1.95 RAW damage is done to the module, and a small fraction is done to the hull integrity.
I don't actually know what the ratio is but it's probably 2:1 because FDev like that ratio for the word "most". That means 1.3 RAW damage to the module and 0.65 RAW damage to the module.

In summary then an incoming round goes through the following two modifiers:
1) Armour vs hull hardness
2) damage type vs hull resistance
Then penetration determines whether the remaining RAW damage gets done to hull or modules.

There's an interesting quirk of penetration, which explains the phenomenon of ships being seemingly soft as butter immediately after the shields drop, but then their hull drops more slowly the closer they get to death.
The reason for this is that with high hull percentage, there's a 60% chance the shot *won't* penetrate, so lots of your shots will reduce your target's hull integrity. As their hull integrity drops closer to zero, 80% of your shots are penetrating and there's a very high chance this damage is being soaked up by modules instead, which makes it seem like the hull is actually getting tougher. I guess in reality there's just less of it less to actually hit and the bulkheads are more hole than they are bulkhead at this point!

correct - except for "penetration damage" is a given in the weapon details these days, and it differs from weapon to weapon.
best example, are AX missiles that got their penetration damage turned down to next-2-nothing whent the thargoids "adapted"
 
Isn't penetration chance determined by hull integrity? As in, that stat that goes down while you are in supercruise that you have to go to advanced outfitting to deal with? That was the impression I got.. At least, based off the terminology. That means in a single dogfight, that ship is going to have the same breach chance at 100% HP or 1% HP because their integrity isn't going to drop any while fighting in normal space.

If that's not how it works, it's another case of FD not explaining things very clearly and using one word to describe multiple different concepts.

that integrity is just a leftover modifier to all damage dealt to your hull.
i forgot what it was exactly, but think at zero integrity, every damage your ship takes is multiplied by 1.5
should not be a battle relevant attribute to begin with, since you can always repair it up to 100% at every port, and it mostly only wears down in supercruise
 
Can’t justify the mass either unless you skip it and fo straight to reactive surface and mod for thermal. Most expencive route but highest EHP gain you can give a ship by far.
 
Military grade freed up optional slots in my python and got me a desired level of survivability before I did much engineering. Every time I lost shields and managed to jump out ar 40% or less, I think to myself, I wouldn’t have made it...
 
for a simple reason
hull penetration is chance based
the less % of your hull is remaining, the more likely a shot will penetrate and hit an internal.

if you got no hull, even the smallest weapon will deal so much % damage per hit, that the maximum chance to penetrate will be used for any further hit.
there is only one weapon with a higher chance to penetrate then others, namely cannons,
and only two that got 100% penetration chance - and no, not railguns: dumbfires, torpedos and RR Flak/flechette

I’m not sure hull penetration works the way you think it does...

Military grade freed up optional slots in my python and got me a desired level of survivability before I did much engineering. Every time I lost shields and managed to jump out ar 40% or less, I think to myself, I wouldn’t have made it...

Unless of course, knowing you have a military grade hull just made you more reckless...

Sorry, devil’s advocate and all...
 
I think the biggest mistake with HRP and Armor is that armor increases your base hull by a percent while HRP increases your hull by a set value. At least part of HRP's reinforcement should have been a percent of your base hull after armor effects are applied. This way going from lightweight to military would both increase your base hull and the effectiveness of you HRP.

Similar to how going from e rated shields to a rated increases both your base shield strength and the amount of MJs a shield booster provides. Then these extreme costs could be more justified because they increase the effectiveness of all your HRP instead of just increasing your base hull by a percent.
 
I figured military grade hull was a nice balance between the weakness of lightweight metal, and the insane cost of reactive metal. I prefer reactive, but on my larger ships the price is just exorbitant.
 
Hull options were in the game before HRP and MRP were.

I guess it's there for people wanting to min max, but also you can't get Reactive or Mirrored HRP. So yeah Military Grade are not a viable option, but still, they're an option.
 
Back
Top Bottom