From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 04:56:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [DS] Capacity, Points - Trying to put it all together. Long post.
Hi all, Ok let's try this again. I spent a while typing out a nice long message, and my email software crashed and I lost it all, when I was maybe 1/2 way through. Hate it when that happens... The upside is it made me think about it all again. This is rather a long post. I hope you have fun though, and don't get bored:) I've been thinking about the DS2 "points system" discussion. The two main "schools of thought" can be summarized, roughly, as follows: 1) Capacity/size is irrelevant. What matters when comparing vehicles is how well they act on the battlefield. This is their "Tactical Value" and when comparing two forces, it is the only thing that matters. How the Tactical Value is achieved is irrelevant. So, a large tank with a big low tech gun but with stealthing (and reduced size class) having the SAME COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS as a small vehicle with a higher-tech and more effective gun doing the same damage, should both cost the same number of points when building a force. My observation: This makes some sense, but *only* if using the "type A" points I talked about last week. That is, the points system accounts for how effective the vehicle is in ONE battle, right here right now. It does not account for "economic costs" and "strategic costs" which are both different. 2) Capacity/size is relevant. First, we want to be able to know that there is some degree of WYSIWYG on the battlefield. Second, we want to be able to know how many of X vehicle we can fit in a dropship, whether the bridge will hold the vehicle, whether it can fit down that street, etc. Also, there should be some *sensible* limits on what people can achieve in terms of tech ie the unicycle-with-noisy-cricket is just silly. My observation: Sure. There is always the "this is silly" test - that is, if your opponent is doing something dumb, you leave. But beyond that, there is something to be said for reasonable limits. However, I agree with the idea that individual battle balancing in a points system should account for TACTICAL value, primarily. Stuff like miniaturization, stealthing effectiveness, etc., is a function of the tech level of the setting, and unless everyone is working to the same set of assumptions, there will be problems. No points system is going to account for every possible tech assumption - it just isn't possible. SO, what to do? I would like to see a points system that does two things. It would model the combat effectiveness of a given combination of systems, such that I can use points to compare my force to your force and use that as a rough basis for game balance. Yes, beyond that there are lots of other factors, such as mission conditions, terrain setup, etc., but at least this would be a good starting point. I would also like to see a construction system that provides some reasonable limits on what you can stick in a single hull, and allows for some variation in technology - i.e. miniaturization and stealthing, for example. It would be really nice to see some kind of system that was better at enabling campaign play, too (and this means modeling relative economic values, which is a much tougher and difficult issue). How about this: Vehicles are created in the following way: Each has a Size Class. The size classes provide a basic Signature level (SIG), and a Capacity (TOTAL CAP) rating - how much stuff you can stick in and onto it (and this includes not just internal volume, but also, to some degree, mass/weight/etc...). The signature level would be able to be modified by stealthing later - i.e., you can pay more to have a lower signature. Armour: Armour classes have a TACTICAL points value (TAC) - a reflection of how effective the armour is at protecting the vehicle in combat - and a CAPACITY (CAP), which is how much space/weight the armour takes up. The TAC value and CAP values change, depending on what type of armour is used on what size class vehicle. Hypothetically: Assuming size 1, 2 and 3 vehicles that have, respectively, 6, 12 and 18 capacity spaces. Size 1 vehicle with armour 1 spends 0 CAP, with armour 2 would spend 1 CAP, and with armour 3 spends 2 CAP. Size 3 vehicle with armour 1 spends 0 CAP, with armour 2 spends 3 CAP, and armour 3 spends 6 CAP. The idea here is that armour 1 takes no capacity, armour 2 takes 1/4 capacity, and armour 3 takes 1/3 capacity (I've just arbitrarily decided on these values - the relative values don't really matter, just the idea that more armour takes more space/weight, and the relative space/weight increases as the vehicle size increases - so armour class 1 is not a fixed weight for all vehicle sizes, but a proportion of the vehicle size). Why would armour have CAP at all? CAP is not just a rating of internal space, but also a rating of total carrying ability. If you have a jeep and you load it down with armour, it doesn't matter how much internal volume you have, you're still going to only be able to carry a limited amount of stuff 'cause it won't move otherwise. Weapons: Each weapon has a TAC rating (how effective in battle it is, this of course based on your game combat mechanics) and a CAP value. Stealthing/Signature: Signature/Stealth is a modifier to TAC value. Stealthing reduces the signature, but increases the TAC value - so a vehicle with stealth and thereby a lower signature than is standard for its size would have a higher Signature/Stealth TAC modifier than an unstealthed vehicle of the same size. Each size class would have a base signature and a base signature/stealthing TAC modifier value. Smaller size (and thereby lower signature) vehicles would have a HIGHER base stealth/signature TAC modifier value (so, a size 1 vehicle would have the highest stealth/signature TAC modifier - being small IS a benefit in combat, because you're harder to see and harder to hit). So, a size 1 vehicle would have a larger TAC modifier for signature/stealth than a size 5 vehicle would. Adding stealth systems to a vehicle (and thereby lowering the signature) would add tactical value to the vehicle, and the changes to TAC would be modified on a scale similar to mobility and armour (i.e. it costs less to add 1 level of stealth to a size 2 vehicle than it would to add 1 level of stealth to a size 5 vehicle). A size 3 vehicle with stealthing such that it has the same signature as a size 2 vehicle would have a higher total TAC modifier for signature/stealth than an unmodified size 2 vehicle would. Mobility: Each mobility type has a TAC value. They also have CAP values. The CAP values scale in a similar way to Armour. Hypothetically: Assuming one motive type (wheeled) and two speed classes (fast and slow) - a size 1 slow vehicle spends CAP 1 on movement. A fast size 1 vehicle spends CAP 2 on movement. A slow size 4 vehicle would spend CAP 4 on movement, and a fast size 4 vehicle would spend CAP 8 on movement. It takes more space to make an engine powerful enough to move a big vehicle fast. This of course would be variable depending on additional motive types and engine tech types. Misc: Troop carrying capability would cost CAP, for example. So far, we have a system that: a) Takes into account reasonable limits on things like weapons and armour for different vehicle sizes - for example, eventually the armour CAP costs would increase beyond the CAP capacity of a given vehicle size, and thus the system is self limiting. b) Provides a measure of both COMBAT VALUE (TAC) and size/weight (CAP). BUT, what happens when we introduce MINIATURIZAION. AND, what happens if I want to take into account things like ECONOMIC costs, so I can plan campaigns. This is where things get a bit more complicated. I'm proposing that we add a THIRD measure to the system. That is a ECO rating. This is a rating of the ECONOMIC costs of the various systems. Each item would have an ECO rating, usually based on how effective it is and how BIG it is. (BUT this is also relative to the tech assumptions of the universe. We provide a baseline in the basic rules, and this changes for different tech assumptions). Thus, the ECO rating for armour would scale depending on the size of the vehicle, the same way mobility and armour CAP values scale. So, putting Armour 3 on a size 1 vehicle would cost less absolute ECO than putting Armour 3 on a size 3 vehicle - obviously, if type 3 armour costs X ECO for 1 square meter, then a size 3 vehicle will use more square meters than a size 1 vehicle. Miniaturization would work into this NOT as a factor modifying TAC cost, but would modify the CAP and ECO costs. And miniaturization would be able to be applied to ANY system, including armour, engines, etc. EXAMPLE: "RULES" FOR BASELINE TECH *****Please don't take me to task over the actual numerical values and the relative balances - I'm not trying to create an actual working model, just demonstrating the overall ideas. Leave it to someone who actually can do the math to work out "real" values for all this sort of stuff***** SIZE CLASSES: size 1 hull = 6 TOTAL CAP, 4 ECO size 2 hull = 12 TOTAL CAP, 8 ECO size 3 hull = 18 TOTAL CAP, 12 ECO (assuming that the cost to produce larger hulls is linear) WEAPONS: laser class 1 = TAC 1, 2 ECO, 1 CAP laser class 2 = TAC 2, 4 ECO, 2 CAP (assuming laser 2 is twice as effective as laser 1, so has double the TAC value and double the ECO cost - again, the ECO cost is part of the baseline universe tech assumptions) ARMOUR (ARM) CLASSES: Size 1 Hull: ARM 1 = 1 TAC, 0 CAP, 2 ECO ARM 2 = 2 TAC, 1 CAP, 4 ECO ARM 3 = 4 TAC, 2 CAP, 8 ECO (assuming that armour 2 is twice as effective as armour 1, and costs double the ECO) So, a size 1 vehicle with armour 1 and a class 1 laser costs 6 ECO points and has a TAC value of 2. It has 4 CAP left for other systems, dismount infantry, etc. A size 1 vehicle with armour 3 and a class 2 laser costs 16 ECO points and has a TAC value of 6. It has 2 CAP left over for other systems. When calculating the OVERALL TAC-value of a given vehicle, we would use the same sort of formula that Oerjan has mentioned several times. I forget exactly what it is, but it would provide the final TAC value of a given vehicle by including certain factors as multipliers (I think it went something like (armour+weapons)*(mobility)*(signature) or something like that). Then we add in MINIATURIZATION. Miniaturization would be a function of the tech assumptions of the universe setting. Example: BASELINE MINIATURIZATION, LEVEL 1: WEAPONS - CAP * 0.5, ECO * 2 ARMOUR - CAP * 0.75, ECO * 3 In this example, they have perfected the ability to make weapons smaller, but have a harder time making lighter armour. So, reducing armour CAP costs more than reducing weapon CAP. Limits: CAP cannot be reduced below 1 for any system. The same sorts of effects would apply to stealthing systems, mobility, etc. The baseline miniaturization factor would reduce them by a certain amount similar to the effect on armour and weapons. SO, for my Jeep above - Size 1 jeep with miniaturized class 2 laser and miniaturized class 3 armour would have 3.25 CAP left over (and the.25 might be relevant later for adding in other miniaturized systems) but have an ECO cost of 36. HOWEVER, the TAC value would not have changed. In game terms, the Jeep (ARM 3, LAS 2) from the first example, and the Jeep (ARM 3, LAS 2 - miniaturized) from the second example would have the same TAC values, as the overall combat effectiveness has not changed. The ECO value has changed dramatically, though. What's the point? Well, in my example, the relative ECO cost differences for miniaturization are surely greater than the benefits, and that is something that would need to be thought about carefully. BUT, when you look at the total range of possible sizes for weapons, mobility (engines), armour, etc., it means that you can get a weapon or combination of weapons into a small hull that you would not be able to otherwise, for example. Or you could create, if you wanted, a large vehicle with a hugely disproportionate amount of weapons, armour, etc. Or combination of weapons, troop capacity, etc etc etc. Now, this is working with the, as I pointed out, "Baseline Miniaturization". There could be a couple of levels of miniaturization in the baseline. *All* of the ECO costs, CAP values, and the effects of miniaturization are a product of the technological assumptions that go into the setting - the assumptions that make up the baseline. These can be changed. SO, for different settings with different technological or economic assumptions, we could change the values. The Basic System would have a set of CAP and TAC values. This makes up the Basic Rules, and works from a set of assumptions about technology that could be mentioned in the introduction. There would then be ECO values. There could be a set of these in the basic system, as "suggested values" working within the same tech assumptions. Then we could provide alternatives. These would be different sets of a) ECO values b) effects of miniaturization on CAP and ECO c) other basic limits/assumptions of the system. We could provide several examples of alternative settings. One for WWII, one for the Mecha genre, with perhaps different CAP values for stuff and different max sizes so you can get bigger vehicles mounting more/bigger weapons, etc. One might ask at this point "why bother separating TAC from CAP at all - just construct vehicles based on CAP points, and have higher tactical value systems cost more CAP. Then you only have ONE set of values to account for." There are several reasons for this (hopefully obvious from my discussion): a)It allows more flexibility in the system - gives the designers more "wriggle room" to model variability between systems. b)It provides the ability to compare units based on tactical value, but not directly based on size and capacity. Thus, when you have different vehicles with the same OVERALL COMBAT CAPABILITY, they get the same (or at least closely to the same) "points value." c) Finally, it enables different technology assumptions to be modeled independently re capacity vs. tactical value vs. economic value. For example, a standard Class-3 laser might cost x ECO, y CAP and have z TAC value. If you allow lasers to be miniaturized in your setting, then it might have x*2 ECO, y/2 CAP, but still maintains the z TAC value. If your points system only used capacity points to compare tactical value, then it would inaccurately model miniaturization - a miniaturized Class-3 laser would have a lower capacity rating and thereby a lower points cost, which clearly doesn't make sense. CONCLUSIONS: This sort of system, if the actual numbers for the Baseline were well thought through, would (hopefully) enable the following: 1. Ignoring ECO values all together, we can have pure tactical value to tactical value comparisons of fighting forces. 2. There are basic reasonable limits on vehicle construction (built into the TOTAL CAP of different sizes and CAP values of various systems), but capacity is not linked *directly* to tactical value. Larger vehicles mounting more armour and greater weapons will have a higher TAC value, but because of the combined effect of the weapons and armour and NOT the size itself. However, there is an inherent limit to how much you can cram into a given hull. The "simple form" of creating a force is not *that* much more complicated than the existing DS system. You choose a hull, add systems, and calculate the TAC values. Each side gets a force of X TAC points. You play. If you want to play in a campaign, you add ECO values to your calculations, and each player builds their forces including to an ECO value rather than a TAC value. Then you still play TAC value based battles. Not that much more complex. 3. Alternative tech assumptions can be made about the universe setting, and these can then be accounted for in the system. For example, you could include the introduction of some degree of miniaturization (a simple version of which would be an optional rule in the Basic rules). 4. An economic model, such that campaign games can be planned with players building their overall armies based on ECO value rather than TAC values. Then, when actual battles are fought, the players would pick their forces based on TAC value. If someone wants to purchase a very high tech force, then they'll get less stuff overall than the guy who purchases the low tech force. But, when you talk about a 500 point battle, that refers to the tactical value (TOTAL TAC) of each unit and NOT the economic investment in the battle, directly (though one could, of course, fight battles based on economic investment rather than direct TAC comparisons this could be quite interesting). The economic model provided would, of course, be entirely dependant on its baseline tech assumptions, but these could be clearly stated. If one was adventurous, alternative economic models could be provided showing the different ECO values for stuff using different assumptions - for example in a MECHA setting, in the GZGverse, etc. If one were *really* adventurous, the alternative sets of tech assumptions could include not just different ECO values, but different effects of miniaturization, different CAP vs. TAC values, etc. This would be for someone with lots of time, BUT if the rules set were to provide, for example, THREE sets of these (one as the BASELINE - based in the GZGverse which is a pretty good near-future Sci-Fi setting, one for LOWER tech, and one for HIGHER tech - i.e. a mecha/anime setting) and some general comments on how one would go about changing the ECO values to accommodate different tech assumptions, then that would give the reader PLENTY to work from. And, of course, lots of advice to NOT mess about with this stuff until the players are experienced or be aware that balance will get thrown out the window. If one was going to be REALLY insane, you could add in a STRATEGIC value (STRAT) for stuff, so that you could model the effect of stuff like wheeled mobility vs. grav mobility in a strategic situation... Then you could model your campaign on ECO and STRAT values, though that would be a bit nuts:) What do these ideas NOT address? 1. The actual relative balance between the various vehicle systems (mobility, weapons, armour, etc), in terms of all these values (ECO, TAC, CAP). I'm just proposing the overall structure, not the *actual* values per se. That would need to be figured out by someone who can do the math (Oerjan...:). The important thing for the basic rules would be the CAP vs. TAC balance. 2. This system does NOT account for HUGE variations in tech assumptions played in a single battle. Allowing many levels of miniaturization and a wide variety of tech types (ie WWII vs. MECHA) will still be hugely difficult, if not impossible, to account for in any points based system. That kind of situation should be scenario specific, controlled by a GM who knows what he/she is doing, and in that case, points don't matter. As such, the assumptions going into the BASIC rules should be clearly stated: "We assume THIS level of general technology. Some miniaturization is available, but only in limited amounts and at great cost. In game terms, it is an optional rule." Then if alternative versions of the assumptions are provided, they will be mostly for relative ECO effects of stuff like miniaturization (unless, as I suggested above, one were really adventurous and provided, say, 3 sets of values with the rules and you included different TAC vs. CAP values also). Making available too great a variety (particularly in the effects of miniaturization) in the basic rules will cause the relative balance of TAC vs. CAP to change, and the greater the variety, the greater the chage and thereby the greater the opportunity for the balance to be buggered up, so alternative sets of values would need to be thought out very well. It would be MUCH easier to just provide alternative ECO values - and when it comes down to it, that would be simple to customize to any given setting. It would be much more difficult to provide alternative TAC vs. CAP balancing, other than the relatively small range provided by the basic miniaturization rules in the "Baseline" setting. 3. This does NOT address the "but I can't make this WWII vehicle legally in the system because the system doesn't let me have more than 1 main weapon, etc etc" problem. That is one of those "there is perfection in the details" items that I wasn't trying to look at. Personally, I would want to work things something like this (in general): A fire control unit costs 1 CAP, irrespective of how big the vehicle is. Each FC can operate one gun in a fire action. If you have four main guns, and you buy four FC, then they should all be able to fire in the same turn. If you have 2 FC and four different weapon systems, then you can fire two of them. Each FC represents either an AI, or a crewman and targeting system. FC's could be rated in terms of levels of effectiveness, and this would change their ECO and TAC values, but they would always have a CAP of 1. Again, though, this is "fiddly detail" stuff that I wasn't really intending to deal with in this <frighteningly long monologue...> Anyway, I've run out of steam. Hope those of you who read this to the end found some value in it!!:)