textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Item I:
What would I need to change cost wise to balance a pulser whose die pools
were 4/3/2 rather than 6/2/1?
I considered the above for Goa'uld ships. The regular pulsers gave them too
much firepower close in but not enough in the long band.
Item II:
Is there any reason that a 'Classed Pulse Torp' could not be fired as three
seperate PT's (rather than one to hit roll), only being one system for
threshold/repair? A Class-3 PT is a very swingy weapon if everything
hinges on one die.
I was using these to simulate Asgard Beams (Heavy Beams were too heavy for
small capacitor pools because of the per-arc mass and cost of projectors
compared to a 180 degree class 3 PT). I think in the beam case, having 3
dice and rolling them (for a Class-3 Asgard Beam) would simulate the
possibility of grazing hits. It means average damage won't change, but the
odds of getting no damage go down a lot as do the odds of getting really
hideous damage.
I'm curious if such a change would change the value... I think not. I think it
probably is worth exactly the same, just is less unpredictable.
Item III:
What sort of points adjustment is sensible for ships using Strike The Colours?
I like this from a perspective of 'mission motivation' (and probably high or
low motivation might affect this).
Item IV:
What sort of points adjustment is sensible for ships using Core Systems? It
seems to me this question is especially relevant if two fleets have differing
hull row counts since the likelihood of getting cored out of the
game in a 5-hull-row ship is pretty high and likely far earlier.
Item V:
Can you technically have a negative speed in cinematic movement? (I assumed
so since I can MD -X as an order and that could push me below zero, but
I could be mistaken)
> Tom B wrote:
[ Skip Item I, no opinion ]
> Is there any reason that a 'Classed Pulse Torp' could not be fired as
FT already has K-5 & 6s and the big plasma bolt launchers that
all operate as "I hit, you're really gonna feel it" weapons. If you don't mind
those, "Classed Pulse Torp" launchers may as well do the same.
(I assume this is some kind of PT that increases the damage on each hit, not
the range.)
Me, I'd suggest not. Making separate to hit rolls will *increase* the
effectiveness of these weapons at long ranges. Chance of doing a big hit stays
the same, but now you're more likely to get a smaller 'grazing' hit which
other weapons can't as well. Players who want to even out the probabilities
can always pick ships with smaller weapons on them.
> Item III:
These are battles where only one side, or only some ships, use the striking
the colors rules?
My suggestion would be *no* points adjustment, instead each side *has* to
allocate a certain percentage of ship mass, or a certain percentage of
construction points, to ships
that have poor/unmotivated crews that strike colors.
In my experience, gamers hate using poor quality troops that they can't depend
on. Doesn't matter what genre or period. If the unreliable troops are
optional, they won't choose them, no matter how attractive the points
discount.
> Item IV:
I suggest none. Core System criticals are rarer in FT than other space combat
games such as ACTA where you might get a critical with every shot. For
escorts, hull rows make
very little difference: good shooting for/against is far
more important. With cruisers you start seeing the benefits of 3 row hulls and
it's very real for capitals; but at the same time cruisers also start becoming
more expensive and capitals much more so, so it balances out. Core Systems
just don't fail often enough to be important.
And following up on my argument above about poor quality, I've never seen a
player design warships for their own use with 5 row hulls, but plenty with 3
rows.
cheers,
Item II) Classed PT Launcher from the WDA (top item)
http://nift.firedrake.org/weapons/WDA-Torps.htm
Effectively, I do not believe there is a cost or effect difference for the
Classed PT versus an equivalent number of standard PTs.
Class-3 PTs only difference is one to hit roll versus 3 dice to hit.
Yes, you can hit more often with less than full damage, but that's a two way
knife... for all the statistical benefit you gain with grazes, you don't often
get the full hit. Average damage is identical (do the math if you don't
believe me). The other main distinction is one threshold kills versus 3, but
one repair fixes versus 3.
So, if I wanted to make this 'like' 3 seperate PTs as far as shooting (3 dice
to hit, damage per hit 1D6) with the only difference being a
one-threshold kill and one-threshold repair, which is what I was
suggesting, I believe this also yields exactly the same average damage and
should cost exactly the same (as a Class 3 PT from the WDA which is the same
as 3 distinct PTs).
I'm assuming as 3 seperate systems (3 system kills, 3 system repairs, 3 rolls
to hit for 1D6 each) and 1 class 3 system (1 system kill, 1 system repair, 1
roll to hit for 3D6 damage) are costed identically,
the mid-way hybrid (1 system kill, 1 system repair, 3 rolls to hit for
1D6 each) should be costed the same. Unless someone can spot a flaw in this
thinking?
Item III) Colour Striking Costs
I don't usually play with 'player built' fleets. This is an artifact
of not running pocket empire games with FT-savvy players, moreso
running one offs I set up. Plus it appeals to me from a reality (ish)
perspective in that rarely do admirals build their fleets. It also helps
prevent items like the original Can Am FT battle (one side brings every
fighter they can fit in a hull, the other side brings none). So, my query for
striking colours and for core systems is more
from an on-table impact point of view.
But to specify more specifically:
- Assume all ships use strike the colours
- Does strike the colours affect the CPV of larger ships more or less
proportionately than that of smaller ships? (I suspect not, but there
may be some math/analysis I'm not seeing)
- Basically, I'm just wondering if the effect in combat is
relationally equivalent to CPV or if the impact of striking colours varies at
a different rate with ship mass?
- I may do one enemy that does not strike, but assume I'd give the
other sides a fair sized pile of extra points to compensate (though I have no
idea how many.... any idea?)
- As to players hating this, it isn't bad troops... striking colours
is really mission motivation... how much damage are we prepared to take to get
this one mission (in a larger background of many missions) done? Most of the
time historically, it hasn't been 100%. Look at most
naval engagements from 1600-1945. There were some 'damn the torpedos'
moments, but most recognized when ships were being beaten to bits and they
opted out of the fight (partly to save the crew, partly to save the ship as
repair is easier than rebuild, and partly because there ins't much point in
keeping combat ineffective ships in the line so its a pointless loss).
Item IV) Core Systems
Hugh, did I miss something on core systems? 3 systems, check on the first
threshold on a 6, second on a 5, etc. I expect to lose (statistically): First
threshold: 0.50 core systems Second threshold: 1.00 core systems Third
threshold: 1.5 core systems Fourth threshold: 2.0 core systems
So, I could well lose a core that kills my ship 50% of the time on the first
threshold. On the second, I am likely to take a core. Not sure how that
translates to not 'rare' in your mind (though I could have missed something).
Bridge hit renders a ship hors de combat for an average of 3.5 rounds. Life
support means it'll have 3.5 rounds. Core means it has a 50% chance of blowing
by the second round and about a 28% chance of surviving three rounds worth of
checks. So in aggregate, a core will
render a ship combat ineffective within 2 rounds about 50%+ of the
time.
That sounds like a big change to game balance, no?
So, the questions here are similar to striking the colours.
- Assume everyone is using core systems
- Do core systems scale evenly with CPV? Or are they more or less
statistically significant for larger ships?
- Should the cost of 3 row or 5 row hulls be modified in some fashion
if core systems are in play? (I think 3 row hulls become more valuable
than they are in non-core systems FT and 5 row hulls become more of a
liability)
--------
Unrelated Bonus Topic: Per Ship-Class Threshold Charts
I used threshold charts for speeding up threshold resolution. I bascially
created a matrix for each ship class. Vertical labels were
threshold (1-4 for 5 row ships, 1-3 for 4 row, and 1-2 for 3 row).
Horizontal labels at the top were 1 to 6 (corresponding to a D6). Each cell in
the table listed systems lost. So you just rolled a D6, cross indexed with the
threshold, and took those systems off.
Now, this did mean there were some assumptions about threshold
checks... the first taking 16% of systems (with an average of 1/6th of
systems gone), the second taking 33% of the remaining systems (with an
average of 1/3rd of systems gone), etc. I randomized what went onto
the charts but I did try to make sure the ship's attrition was gradual and
proportional with some variance.
I allowed variances of +/- 1 threshold from average at each level and
cores showed up on a similar random basis... if I generated a core, I
generally damaged 1 less other system as some small compensation.
This obviously can't generate every possible outcome the dice can. But it is
light years faster than rolling through multiple thresholds and gives (I
found) a 'good enough' outcome. It's a great compromise of a little up front
work and a little less variance in the game for a lot more speed.
Has anyone else tried something like this? I thought it worked well.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Item II)
Noam will be pleased someone is looking/using the page. :-)
> Item IV)
IIRC core systems are not hit on the first threshold check, but on the
second. So would/should be more rare.
I could be recalling incorrectly, though.
Not that I use the core systems as described in FT2.5. I have used substitute
core systems that a friend of mine came up with WAY back when FT2.5 was being
first worked on. Said core hits were less catastrophic than the FT ones, but
crippled you in different ways that you had to figure out how to overcome
(e.g., a ship communications hit meant you had to plot two turns in advance)
Mk
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Sounds useful, Indy - could you post a copy of what you use, please?
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> >textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
(actually, ship computer hit; a comms system hit meant you fired last)
> >
Tom B wrote in reply to Hugh Fisher:
> I'm assuming as 3 seperate systems (3 system kills, 3 system repairs,
You are absolutely right, I shouldn't try to do probability calcs late at
night.
Re-thinking about it...generalize this into "turrets." Any
weapons of the same kind, class, and arc can be grouped
together as a turret / cluster / module, to be indicated
by drawing a box around them on the SSD. The turret counts as one system for
thresholds, repairs, needle beams. All the weapons must be fired at the same
target requiring just one FC, but roll for hit and damage individually.
Gets around the FT problem that increasing weapon class increases both range
and damage.
(Now I'm thinking about "multi-barrelled" symbols which
would look nicer on the SSD...hmmm...)
> Hugh, did I miss something on core systems?
As others have pointed out, yes. Core systems only start failing when you've
already lost half your hull boxes and, on average, half your weapons, screens,
and drive capability.
This is why I wrote that I don't consider core system hits or absence of that
important: by the time they start failing, the ship is already in serious
trouble. IMO the extra cost of advanced hulls accurately represents their
value whether playing with or without core system hits.
> Unrelated Bonus Topic: Per Ship-Class Threshold Charts
[ munch ]
> Has anyone else tried something like this? I thought it worked well.
Sounds like a great idea, but I'm too lazy!
cheers,