Howdy list,
I was wondering if anyone had done any work with determining a combat
effectivness value for ships in FT. I've been toying with the idea over the
last couple of days and I'm trying to come up with values for systems to
measure their effectivness in combat. Point Total!= Combat Effectivness.
Weapons which can cause damage at longer ranges are worth more points,
for example: Beam-1 = 2, Beam-2 = 4, Beam-3=6, etc.
Each hull box is worth 1, each armor box is worth 1.5, each thrust point is
worth 5, etc.
With the numbers I've been using I come up with the following examples:
Warsaw DD = 51.5 Volga DH = 58 Tibet CL = 72.5 Petrograd BC = 125
I havn't found it yet but I'm looking for a range of numbers which will show
that a Petrograd BC is three times more effective in combat than say a single
Warsaw DD. The above values are for human ships. The values for Kravvy tech.
will be adjusted a bit higher because of the nature of the
K-guns and their drives (we use the vector rules).
The problem I'm having is coming up with good values for the various
technologies in the game. If I use the Beam-1 as a base then a K-1
should be worth more...but how much more?
Tough question.
K1:
x2 mass
x2.5 range Less damage potential overall, but more efficient close.24 vs 0.78
over entire range.84 vs 0.78 in 12mu range.13 vs 0.0 at over 12mu range
Ignores screens Slightly better armor penetration.
To really do it you would need to account for the damage done to a standard
ship with screens and armor (whatever ammount you decide is fair fir a basis).
Find the average damage in each arc and at each range band of EACH weapon.
Then add the total. If playing vector, triple the points for the arc with the
most damage (as you can often get the enemy in the correct arc).
> Tough question.
[snip]
Yeah. There was a system for Battletech which would generate a combat
effectivness value quite nicely.
I want a system that takes into account total ability -- not just
vs. a
certain target and/or a certain arc. I thought to just multiply the
maximum value of a weapon by a certain value based on the maximum range of the
weapon. Taking beams as an example you have a Beam-1 at 12" with a
rating
of 2 (two points of damage, mult. of 1 for 12"), Beam-4's will have a
rating of 8. Which would be fine if all we had was beams...
Then divide the effectiveness by cost and get a good idea of how well your
points are being spent.
Bob
[quoted original message omitted]
On Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:23 AM, Damond Walker
> [SMTP:dwalker@syncreticsoft.com] wrote:
Here's some stuff I wound up accidentily doing last year:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/abstract.htm
It should give you an idea of the factors involved. There were some surprises
about ship effectiveness.
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[sstrike] Raider Fleet of War Leader Kel'em'all
Brendan Robertson wrote in reply to Damond Walker:
> I was wondering if anyone had done any work with determining
To answer Damond's question first: yes, someone has done some work on this.
Unfortunately the issue is much too complex for a single number to tell you
how the ship will perform against every potential opponent - eg., what's
the value of strong point defences if the enemy doesn't have any fighters
or missiles? What's the value of level-2 screens when fighting Kra'Vak?
In both these cases the correct answer is "zero"... yet when fighting enemies
who do use fighters/missiles or beams respectively, the values of those
systems are quite high instead. Since a single value can't be both zero and
non-zero at the same time, a single value can't tell you the entire
story -
the best you can get is a reasonable average, and that's pretty much what the
NPV is.
The big problem with the NPV system is that it underprices large ships
compared to small ones - big ships have a number of advantages due to
their size, and since the NPV system only makes you pay for the actual systems
and hull/armour boxes installed the larger ships don't get to pay points
for these advantages. As long as there's no serious mis-match in
equipment and ship sizes between the opposing sides these advantages average
out, but if one side uses significantly fewer and larger ships than the other
it will have a distinct advantage.
As to your example - "I'm looking for a range of numbers which will show
that a Petrograd BC is three times more effective in combat than say a
single Warsaw DD. ", well... assuming that you mean the Manchuria-class
BC (the Petrograd is the ESU BB, not the BC), then you already have the NPVs
which suggests that the Manchuria is 312/93 = 3.35 times more effective
than one Warsaw. However, in my experience you need four Warsaws to get an
even match against a single Manchuria rather than three :-/
Now to Brendan's post:
> Here's some stuff I wound up accidentily doing last year:
All in all a good start, and below I assume that you've all visited Brendan's
page. Some comments to this stuff based on my playtest data:
OV comments:
- Assuming Cinematic movement, I'd make the Arc multiples increase a bit
more steeply. IME 5-6 arcs are somewhere between 33% and 66% more
powerful
than 3 arcs, rather than the 20-30% Brendan suggests. (With the "no
rear-arc
fire if main engine is used" rule in use, there's very little difference
between 5 and 6 arcs.)
- In Cinematic the Arc multiples for 1- (and to a lesser degree 2-) arc
weapons depends on the range band as well as on the ship's engine rating.
Eg., in the L band (24-36mu) Brendan's value of 0.6 for single-arc
weapons
agrees with my data for "human" (capable of 3-point turns or less)
ships,
but I'd put it at 0.75 for very maneuverable ships (capable of 4-point
turns
or more); in the S band (0-12mu) I'd only rate single-arc weapons at
0.25
for "human" ships and around 0.4-0.5 for maneuverable ships (though that
last figure is uncertain - I don't have enough recorded data on such
engine/weapon combinations).
- Assuming Vector movement instead I'd set the Arc multiples to 1 for
1-arc,
and to 1.1 for 2 or more arcs :-7
- I'm a bit curious about Brendan's OV values for P-torps - in
comparison to
the B3 I'd rate it as 4/2/0.4 rather than 4/3/2.
- SubPacs are single-shot weapons, just like missiles.
- I'd treat fighters and missiles as "separate units" rather than as
weapons "fired" by the mothership. How fast the fighters degrade depends
entirely on
how strong anti-fighter defences they face.
DV comments:
- As long as the enemy weapons can't inflict the first threshold check
before your ship has lost all its armour, each armour box is worth approx.
1.5x as much as a hull box. The point where you have "too much" armour
depends on what weapons your enemies use, of course :-7
- Only a 1.4 multiplier for lvl-2 screens? I would've said 1.5 :-/
- I'd lift the anti-fighter/missile capabilities of PDSs and B1s out of
DV.
Otherwise ships like David Griffin's "Furies"-class will cause anomalies
-
this class has 16 hull, 2 armour, 16 PDSs and thrust-4, so using
Brendan's formula it gets a DV of 34 even when fighting an enemy armed with
nothing
but beams :-/
General comment:
Minor issues with the exact figures aside, this system should work well in
Vector. In Cinematic OTOH it runs into problems with maneuvers, though -
eg., using Brendan's system there's no way a pair of NSL
Richthofen-class
BCs can ever defeat a lone ESU Komarov (they'll maul it badly before they die,
but die they will), but in a real game they can take it out if one of the BCs
manage to get onto the Komarov's tail (ie., in the (A) arc and with roughly
the same course and speed). With a thrust rating of only 2, the only way the
Komarov can shake them off in Cinematic is to slow down to
speed 0 and spin in place :-/
Later,
On Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:48 AM, Oerjan Ohlson
> [SMTP:oerjan.ohlson@telia.com] wrote:
> Vector. In Cinematic OTOH it runs into problems with maneuvers, though
> the BCs manage to get onto the Komarov's tail (ie., in the (A) arc and
There was a fairly large fudge factor as I was too lazy at the time to do the
heavy math required. I might get around to redoing it with your comments if I
get some free time.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM