Hellfire and damnation, I hate being wrong. But the more I look at it, the
more it's bloody unavoidable that Oerjan's right about the whole issue of
multiplicative values as opposed to additive. it's the only way to reflect the
way all the different aspects of a vehicle complement each other.
I do have a couple of suggestions/observations, however.
First, for the sake of added game flavor, consider some of the added aspects
of firecon that have been suggested, such as increased number of shots, firing
while moving, etc. Then calculate how this effects their combat effectiveness,
and adjust your costing numbers accordingly. In doing this, you'll add flavor
to the game and still balance it.
Given the difference in performance between them, the costing process needs to
take into account full turret vs. fixed arc vs. partial traverse turrets.
Instead of mutiplying the rest of the vehicle times the FireCon modifier, try
calculating the cost for each direct fire weapon using a system similar to the
one I already suggested. Add to this number the value for all other
non-firect fire systems (GMS, PDS, APFC, APSW, etc), THEN multiply that
number times a modifier based on mobility. That way you take into account the
relationship between mobility and EVERY weapon and system on the tank, but
don't cause the FireCon to weigh against systems it doesn't help. Yes,
A*B=B*C, but A*B+C does NOT equal A*(B+C)nor does it equal (A+C)*B.
Be careful how heavily you weigh cost for engine type as opposed to mobility
type. Remember that some of the high end mobility types require
those engine types, as do certain high-end weapons systems. This puts
the DFFG at an advantage over the HEL and MDC, in terms of points, which it
should not enjoy, given it's damage capacity.
I'm looking forward to seeing the results. And please, please, keep it as
generic a system as ever - that was one of it's biggest selling points
with me.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Hellfire and damnation, I hate being wrong.
You're not alone <g>
If it's any consolation, I wrong in exactly the same way for several
years - until I first came across literature on mathematical modelling
of real military weapon systems. (I've been analysing game systems and game
points systems for at least fifteen years... ever since I got
revolted enough with the min-maxing of the local GW gamers to try and
figure out what the models *really* ought to cost. For the past four years
I've even been able to do this before some of the games in
question were published, rather than after :-) )
> But the more I look at it, the more it's bloody unavoidable that
'Fraid so, yes. It's also rather counter-intuitive and complicated, at
least with the way the current DSII design system is built :-(
There are some changes I want to make before any others: First, to make
armour, power packs and propulsive systems use up internal capacity points;
and second, to tie the movement factor of a vehicle to its
power/mass ratio rather than to its "mobility type". The first is
pretty much a must in order to balance armour in particular, while the
latter is merely a hot wish :-/
The current points system gives no logical reason *not* to put the
maximum armour level on any ground vehicle - eg, a Size-5 Grav tank
pays *13* points per armour level (out of a total cost in the 3-600
points range), which is completely out of proportion to how much its
survivability improves for each level. If the armour costs internal capacity
points it is easy to allow customized armour fits (strong top
armour to protect against artillery, assault-gun style vehicles with
really massive front armour plates but weak elsewhere, etc), and there
is a reason not to use heavy armour on APCs, staff vehicles etc - you
can fit more stuff (or grunts) inside if you don't!
If power packs and propulsive systems also use up internal capacity points, I
can drop the current, IMO rather artificial, restrictions on which mobility
types allow how heavy armour or which weapons require
what kind of power pack - these restrictions will hopefully be natural
instead, because the lower-tech power packs necessary to power such
systems should use up so much space that you can't fit anything else in
the vehicle! Similarly, a lightly-armoured vehicle will usually be
faster, and potentially much faster, than a heavily-armoured one - at
least unless they use FGPs.
The big problem with both of these changes - the latter in particular -
is that it will be biased towards what I think should be possible and
impossible respectively :-( I'll try to keep it close to, but more
flexible than, the current DSII system - that way Jon's and Mike's
prejudices also get involved :-/
The end result will be quite similar to (and inspired by) FASA's vehicle
design systems for Interceptor and Centurion, or for that matter to the Fleet
Book ship design system. The latter at least shouldn't come as a surprise to
anyone <g>
Enough day-dreaming (OK, night-dreaming - it's 22:54 pm). Back to
Brian's post:
> I do have a couple of suggestions/observations, however.
I'll look at it. I'd prefer not to change the game mechanics too much,
though - such modifications have lower priority than going through what
effects the official mechanics have, and what the above-mentioned
changes I already want to introduce will have :-/
> Given the difference in performance between them, the costing >process
Yep. The process of semi-traverse and full turrets is rather minimal
IME - it matters for Opportunity Fire and for any future
fire-on-the-move rule, but only if you've positioned or maneuvered your
units badly. Fixed arcs however are a very different matter.
> Instead of mutiplying the rest of the vehicle times the FireCon
The FCS is multiplicative with PDS and APFC, since these systems (along
with ECM, back-up systems etc) improve the number of shots the
FCS-controlled weapon will likely get to fire in a fashion similar to
Stealth.
But you're right: the FCS *isn't* multiplicative with many other systems, like
artillery or GMSs (have their own guidance), APSWs (fired manually), command
posts, engineering packages etc, so shouldn't modify their cost. It is only
additive with them, while all of these are multiplicative with the defensive
systems and most of them are with mobility.
So, the points value of a vehicle is something like
[mobility]*[survivability]*[payload]
where
"survivability" is basically the product of the values of Armour Level,
Stealth/Signature/Size, ECM, PDS, APFC, Back-Up Systems etc
"payload" is the SUM of the weapons (each with its respective FCS, if any),
command posts, or other "working" systems on the vehicle.
Or, at least, the effects will be something like that. I hope to be able to
disguise many of the multiplications to make them look more realistic, and
thus more palatable to the players, though <g>
> Be careful how heavily you weigh cost for engine type as opposed to
Yes indeed. Determining the value of high mobility is one of the
hardest things there are in any tactical game - especially since it is
very closely tied to the tactical skills of the players :-( It would be
a lot easier to balance a game if I could remove all players... <VBG>
> Remember that some of the high end mobility types require those
The DFFG itself is already quite expensive (costs 50% more than an MDC
of the same size), and although you *can* put it on a CFE-powered
vehicle that vehicle needs to be rather fast in order to close to
effective range when facing, eg, an MDC-armed vehicle. In effect this
often means that you need at least HMT power to have a high enough
mobility type to get into range before it is destroyed. But, well -
since I will most likely re-vamp the mobility types, I certainly will
have to be very careful with these issues.
> I'm looking forward to seeing the results. And please, please, keep it
I'll do my best <g> Indeed, the two main changes mentioned at the top of this
post are there in order to improve the genericity even further.
Later,
[quoted original message omitted]
> "Robert W. Hofrichter" wrote:
How about more like the FT Rules?
> Robert W. Hofrichter wrote:
> In other words, make it more like the original Striker rules. Nicely
Doing it the current DSII way can work, but in this case armour needs to be
*very* much more expensive than it is now. Personally I find the
Fleet Book design system - which my DSII variant would resemble quite a
bit - to be both less complicated and a lot more intuitive than the
current DSII system.
> Not that the current system is all that great in terms of realism--I
You can always use the current standard (front is 1 stronger, bottom 1 weaker
than everything else). However, the past eight months has seen at least four
requests for customizable armour in DSII from other players than me <shrug>
> And I like the idea of speed being a factor of P/W ratio, but I can't
Look at the Fleet Book system. Complicated? <g>
Regards,
G'day Oerjan,
> Doing it the current DSII way can work, but in this case armour needs
I'm intrigued, I like the sound of this, how much of a departure from an FBish
system would you anticipate (i.e. obviously no requirement for explicit hull
boxes etc in DS etc so there will be some departure)?
Beth
Just think of me being a little hyper-sensitive when it comes to this
topic--I REALLY want to avoid a serious number-crunching system like
Striker
was--I just don't have the inclination to fiddle with annoying stuff in
my hobby when it's all I do for work.
And there would be a lot more difference in an FB-type design system for
DS
than you're letting on--or have I missed something? You know, there's
the fact that in FB there's really only one drive system (okay, with FB2,
there's 2). In DS, we're talking how many? And how 'bout ground pressure
being used to determine speed in addition to P/W? Especially since most
movement will be cross-country and NOT on roads. And in FB, you only
have total armor, not on facings. I guess I could go on, but I think you get
my point.
Then again, I think that my level of required detail may just be a bit less
than your preferred level :-)
Oh well, each to his (or her--sorry Beth) own.
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
> Beth Fulton wrote:
Ditto. And I can't afford to be 'intrigued' today (too much stuff I gotta deal
with this morning at work here). Lessee....how would you scale the size
classes....to be something akin to 1 Size Class is
approximately the same as 10-20 Mass? (let's use 20 Mass to start
with and reduce from there if need be). Make all vehicles fragile
or weak (10-20% for hull), give it armour out the wazoo (maybe Phalon-
type armour??), then load in weapons.
Hmmmmm! Damn, damn, damn. Now I'm going to be thinking about this
all day....
Mk
> Robert W. Hofrichter wrote:
> Just think of me being a little hyper-sensitive when it comes to this
I've seen "Fire, Fusion & Steel". I have "Brilliant Lances"... and there is a
reason I've never even attempted to play any
Traveller-associated games except 5thFW, Imperium and Dark Nebula <g>
> And there would be a lot more difference in an FB-type design system
You have most likely missed the Sa'Vasku design rules in FB2 <shrug>
[No, Indy - no changes to how DSII vehicles take damage. Only a change
to what armour levels they can have on which sides - much like today's
tank designers are reconsidering the old "heavy armour on the frontal
60 degrees, thin everywhere else" :-/ ]
> And how 'bout ground pressure being used to determine speed in
If you want to worry about ground pressure, you do just that. I'm not going to
bother with details quite that low, just like I don't worry about how many MW
equals 1 Sa'Vasku "Power Point" in FB2. IMO it is quite sufficient to know
that "it takes this large a power pack to get this maximum speed with that
mobility type"...
> Especially since most movement will be cross-country and NOT on
But you have two *different* types of damage-absorbing structure: hull
and armour in F. DSII only has one...
> I guess I could go on, but I think you get my point.
I get the distinct impression that you believe that I'm somehow going to force
you to use my house rule design system against your wish. If you don't like
it, you simply stick with the official rules <shrug>
Regards,