I can't see why Hi tech's need an advantage such as this more shots or
move-shoot-move. Since i'll agree a LoTech Tank force vs. Hitech Tank
force will virtually always go to the LoTechs. A Lo v Hi
Army/Corp/whatever
will go to the general with the better tactics.
The reason being Lotech is extremly forgiving of mistakes. (Ooops i've lost a
tank platoon, oh well got another 3 to get the objective) Hi tech can't suffer
losses like that.
But Hitech has the firepower increase. And i dont mean bigger guns. A
High tech HKP/4 has more firepower than a loTech HKP/4. Because
the high tech is on a better chassis. It will tend to be firing at closer
range, at side or rear armour, etc.
High tech is also far more dependant on being combined arms. It can't afford
to use tanks to hold objectives. It's tanks can't fire fast enough to wax a
superior number of enemy tanks, so it has to call in its planes and arty.
I would also like to see the stats for hte two forces that started this
discussion Since, from what i could tell, they were rather multi-purpose
toys.
Just my 2 pence
> From: Graeme Bradbury <graeme.bradbury@btinternet.com>
Because some of us feel that, given the difference in cost for a Superior
system over a Basic system, the advantage should be a little greater than just
a slight increase in the odds of hitting. You should get what you pay for.
Since i'll agree a LoTech Tank force vs. Hitech Tank
> force will virtually always go to the LoTechs. A Lo v Hi
Granted, the superior tactician has an innate advantage, but I disagree that
the playing field is level and that tactical brilliance alone will win games.
Again, the advantages you get with high tech should be enough to
bring you even with the player who spends his points on a mass of low tech
fodder.
> But Hitech has the firepower increase. And i dont mean bigger guns. A
How so? FireCon levels don't improve the quality of the chassis in the game at
all. Last I checked, according to the rules, a Low tech tank, with basic
firecon, basic ECM, no stealth, and an HVC 3, if it's Fast Tracked, has the
exact same movement ability as a High Tech tank, with Superior FireCon,
Superior ECM, full stealth, sporting an MDC 5. And this gives IT the
advantage, since closer ranges actually favor the Low Tech side (Their odds of
hitting go up, while the High Tech side wants to hold the low techs at bay,
out where the Hi Tech guns can hit and the Low Techs can't).
> High tech is also far more dependant on being combined arms. It can't
And Infantry, and engineers... I do agree with you here.
> I would also like to see the stats for hte two forces that started this
Ditto.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> I can't see why Hi tech's need an advantage such as this more shots
Bad example. Upgrading from a Basic to a Superior FCS is quite probably
the *best* investment you can make in the current DSII points system -
the cost of the vehicle usually increases by somewhere between 5% and 10%
(unless it is a very small, very cheap vehicle with a very big gun), but its
hit rate goes up by somewhere around 70% (boosting the combat power of the
vehicle by about 30% compared to if it had had Basic FCS).
Because of this, Superior FCs are very much *under*priced - if you
really want to pay for what you actually get, they should cost about three
times as much as they currently do! *Reducing* them in cost will
do virtually nothing to correct the hi/low balance problem - even if
you got them for free you won't save much more than 5% the cost of your
high-tech tank.
It's all those other fancy gadgets - advanced power packs and mobility
types in particular - that make high-tech vehicles so overpriced...
I agree with the rest of your comments to Graeme's post <g>
Regards,
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
Point taken. However, I still like the idea of enhancing their capabilities,
with the higher rates of fire and mobile fire.
> It's all those other fancy gadgets - advanced power packs and mobility
Agreed. Which is why I feel even a high-tech force should use them
sparingly and judiciously. I don't recommend using FGP unless you're also
fielding
MDC's, HEL's, and/or Fast GEV/Grav vehicles. And I don't reccomend Fast
GEV's or Gravs for MBT's - reseve them for fast attack/recon work.
Although I DO like MDC's. While most of my forces use CFE or HMT engines, my
MBT's
use FGP to allow them to wield the MDC 5 - IMO the nastiest, most
all-range
all-around effective direct fire weapon in the human arsenal.
> I agree with the rest of your comments to Graeme's post <g>
Thanks. Now remind me what it was I said, so I can repeat it and look good.
Sorry About the time it took to reply. But ya know how inconvinient
writing a Dissertation is :-)
> But Hitech has the firepower increase. And i dont mean bigger guns. A
> Superior ECM, full stealth, sporting an MDC 5. And this gives IT the
You above example is medium tech, not high. Grav/Fast GEV is 25% or 250%
faster depending on travel mode. Generally more because of additional
advantage of easier terran choice
And as for the range advantage. (on average the below results are true)
Basic fire control (stationary(half Move)/moving full)
Short range against D8 target
miss/miss
Medium range against D8 target
miss/miss
Long range against D8 target
miss/Can't Fire
Superior fire control (stationary(half Move)/moving full)
Short range against D8 target
Hit/Hit
Medium range against D8 target
Hit/Miss
Long range against D8 target
Miss/Miss
So basically your average basic FC can't hit a barn door. And at long range
Sup
FC needs luck to hit a MBT. The hi-techs speed advantage needs to be
used, to get close to their target.
I think you also mis-understood what i meant by close. Since close is
very relative to what you are armed with. High techs long range HEL's and
MDC's have a close range on par with your average lo techs long or medium
range.
My 2 pence
> From: Graeme Bradbury <graeme.bradbury@btinternet.com>
A
> >>High tech HKP/4 has more firepower than a loTech HKP/4. Because
> basic
Splitting hairs. High Stealth levels, an MDC, Superior ECM and FireCon all
seem like High Tech to me. The choice of Fast Tracked may mean it's not
Highest of high tech, but it's still a fairly hi tech design. Tracked vehicles
also have a few terrain advantages of their own, and for an MBT,
their speed is quite acceptable (Though I do advocate Fast GEV/Grav for
recon and quick response forces).
> And as for the range advantage. (on average the below results are true)
No, on the average the above is NOT true. A statistically low chance of
hitting should NOT be equated with "It will miss", this is courting disaster.
At close range, against a D8 signature, Basic Firecon has an even chance of
hitting. And even at medium they have SOME chance. Now, I didn't do well in my
statistics class, but I do remember that the more often you try something, the
more likely you are of getting any of the possible results. Which means low
tech forces, with their low chance of hitting, are going to hit, if they fire
enough shots. And with more units out there, they WILL fire enough shots.
> So basically your average basic FC can't hit a barn door. And at long
No, but they CAN hit the barn itself. And Luck does happen. Which is why
superior range is as important as superior FireCon to a hi-tech force.
> I think you also mis-understood what i meant by close. Since close is
Close is relative, period. It doesn't matter that your weapon has a greater
range than your enemy, if he makes it into HIS close range. At that point, it
becomes a matter of who is quicker on the draw. Superior FireCon should have
some way, besides accuracy, of reflecting a quicker response time.
High techs long range HEL's and MDC's have
> a close range on par with your average lo techs long or medium range.
A fact of which I'm fully aware. But the discussion was the merits of
tinkering with FireCon, not the weapons themselves.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Bad example. Upgrading from a Basic to a Superior FCS is quite
<sigh> You reason just like the Swedish government. "Oh, the biggest problem
with our economy is that the taxes are so high that
average-income families can't live on their wages but have to accept
social security money to survive? Then we have to raise the taxes further so
we can give them more social security money to live on!"
Improving the Superior FCSs won't improve the game balance. Your
high-tech force will still get crushed by an otherwise low-tech force
which has paid the few extra points to get modern FCSs (which BTW is one of
the easiest, and most common, ways to upgrade a tank, so this is
a quite realistic scenario) - they still only cost between one-third
and half of your tanks, and shoot just as good as you do :-/
> It's all those other fancy gadgets - advanced power packs and
The alternative is to set the price of those fancy gadgets to what
they're actually worth in combat. Takes more work, though :-/
Regards,
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> >Point taken. However, I still like the idea of enhancing their
I already acknowledged that the proposed enhancedments don't do anything to
address the imbalance. The reason I like them anyway is because they add more
flavor to the concept of FireCon. Admittedly, these enhancements should be
tempered by some adjustment in the point system to prevent firecon from
completely dictating the game, but they do add another aspect to the game.
> >>It's all those other fancy gadgets - advanced power packs and
Another possibility is coming up with ways to even further enhance THEIR
usefulness. Perhaps higher tech power types provide greater speeed for
vehicles. Perhaps Grav vehicles should be allowed to perform Pop-up
attacks like in Renegade Legion.... just some ideas, I'm sure there are others
out
there...
OO said:
> The alternative is to set the price of those fancy gadgets to what
This is a very common problem with Microarmour games. I think the worst
example
was the Challenger 2000 rules, where an all-options M1A2 cost about as
three
times as much as the most basic T-54, and was at least 50x as effective
under all possible circumstances. (vs $5mill as opposed to $20thou)
In one game I had, playing a low-tech army vs a very hi-tech army, I
didn't get to detect the enemy, nor have any troops remaining on the table
when it got around to my 2nd turn (the first turn was "move on to the table"
with no direct LOS to any enemy). Now in some cirumstances this would be
relatively realistic, but when the terrain was very close, full of woods,
hills etc. as this was, it isn't. The execution was caused entirely by an
unrealistic model of indetectable observation helos connected by
unrealistically timely communications to batteries of unrealistically
effective artillery with unrealistically accurate fire control.
But I digress.
In the Hi-tech vs Lo-tech balance question, the points values should
reflect their combat effectiveness (what else are points values for?), but
this CE will
vary with circumstances. As it should. The points is to make the lo-tech
have its CE higher than its PV would indicate under some circumstances, the
hi-tech
ditto. The tactical problem then becomes one of, given your army's tech level,
maximising your effectiveness while minimising your weaknesses.
A PV system can be said to be broken irrepairably iff the CV is
disproportionate to the PV under all circumstances, and broken badly if it's
disproportionate under most circumstances that are under the players' control.
The question is, what circumstances will make Hi-tech better than
lo-tech and
vice versa? And more to the point, which of these are reasonably within the
player's control? So, forex, a war in flat desert will tend to favour
Hi-tech,
with long engagement ranges the norm. But this is usually part of the ref's
set-up, not under player control. A war in bad visibility will also
favour Hi-tech,
with NV devices etc being worth far more than their dollar amounts would
indicate.
But a war in really bad visibility - during a sandstorm or blizzard -
would
favour low-tech. Are these circumstances under player control? Well, the
time
of day/night of an attack is, but although you can lay smoke on demand,
you can't conjure up snowstorms the same way. Or dissipate them.
What's worse is the concept of a "force multiplier". As OO has pointed out,
adding cheap FC equipment to a lo-tech vehicle makes it far more
effective. So in order to get CV proportional to PV, the PV effects should be
multiplicative as well as additive, just as the CV effects are.
Do I have some magic solution? No, just trying to point out what the goals
should be. IMHO.
Wow. Excellent post. This one gets saved.
> From: aebrain@dynamite.com.au
> Do I have some magic solution? No, just trying to point out what the
From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
> Wow. Excellent post. This one gets saved.
Thanks for the compliment, glad it was useful.
> Alan Brain wrote:
[snip lots of good stuff]
> What's worse is the concept of a "force multiplier". As OO has pointed
Very true. FCSs and Stealth really should be paid for as percentages of
the (rest of the) vehicle's cost much like Back-up systems already are,
but it is rather tricky to do this with FCSs - most players won't
accept that the Superior FCS for a HKP/5 on a cheap tank is cheaper
than the Superior FCS for another HKP/5 on an expensive tank :-/
OTOH, for systems like ECM or PDS which only defend against certain specific
threats, multiplicative PV effects usually aren't very
successful since it rapidly makes high-tech vehicles *REALLY*
expensive. In such cases additive PVs work better.
> Do I have some magic solution? No, just trying to point out what the
Spot on, too. Now the only problem is to achieve them <g>
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Very true. FCSs and Stealth really should be paid for as percentages of
And I would probably agree with them - to an extent. I WOULD agree to a
point system which tied FireCon cost to the weapon TYPE as well as to it's
size class - a Superior FireCon on an MDC 5 does have more effect on the
game than a Superior FireCon on a HVC 5, and as such should cost more. But
having to pay even MORE for the same FireCon because it's mounted on a Grav
Tank instead of a Slow Tracked? Now I think you're being overly harsh. As for
the stealth levels, they're already double costed, because they're costed for
both the levels and the size of the vehicle (Level 1 stealth on a class 1
vehicle is cheaper than level 1 stealth on a class 5 vehicle). This does make
sense, because it takes more to hide a larger vehicle. But it doesn't seem to
make sense to charge me even MORE for stealth if I mount a MDC than if I mount
an HVC. If you base FireCon and Stealth costs on the overall vehicle cost,
this is exactly what you'd be doing.
Some might argue that higher tech levels would actually render better FireCon
and stealth easier to achieve and thus cheaper. Someone already
mentioned the flatter arc and better accuracy of a gauss weapon. A weapon that
is already fairly accurate BEFORE you add FireCon shouldn't then be
forced to pay MORE to make itself accurate than an inferior weapon does.
And with stealth, it could be argued that the signature of a vehiclehas to
do not only with it's sheer size, but in it's emissions - how hot it's
engine is, etc. Perhaps HMT's run cooler than CFE's, perhaps it's easier to
baffle a FGP, I don't know, maybe they DO look hotter than their
low-tech
cousins. On the other hand, maybe Anti-Grav drives give off some sort
of funky gravitic signature that's easier to detect and harder to mask. In the
end, with stealth, there's so many variables we could fritter the game away on
them.
Besides, what it comes down to, ans both you gentlemen have pointed out, is
impact on the game. And while I agree that typing FireCon costs into both the
quality of the FireCon AND the quality of the weapon would be both fair and
workable, I do object to basing the cost of the FireCon on factors other than
the weapons it controls.
Not to mention the conundrum of: Do you calculate the rest of the vehicle
cost, then base FireCon on THAT number, then base Stealth on the NEW number,
or vice versa? Should Stealth affect FireCon, or should Firecon affect
Stealth?
> OTOH, for systems like ECM or PDS which only defend against certain
This I agree with.
Oerjan observed:
> Very true. FCSs and Stealth really should be paid for as
Brian Bilderbeck grumbled:
> And I would probably agree with them - to an extent. I WOULD
Why? That's the way it works in reality. I'll bet that anyone who has worked
in military procurement could testify to that. I was until very recently an
employee for a company that provided materials to the government, and I know
we bought one item at
$0.16 and sold to the Marine air station for $50--that's right,
$49.84 profit out of $50; another item we bought for $17 and I sold the next
day for just under $5000 plus air freight. We weren't normally thieves to
quite that an extent, but everyone knew that if you have a billion dollar boat
at the dock waiting for your part, you could sell at considerably higher
margin than you could to a civilian outfit. The military procurement people
didn't know the materials and didn't care how much it cost, as long as you
could make delivery and promise to hit the specification on the drawing.
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> Why? That's the way it works in reality.
Because, last time I checked, we were discussing the impact of the point
system on game play, NOT how well the point system reflected the byzantine
world of military expenditures. If the high-tech advancements become so
overly expensive in points that you can't win by using them, then noone WILL
use them, which will detract from the variety, and ultimately, fun of the
game.
Did I point out that this is about a game?
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
Looked to me like you were saying it was hard to swallow because it didn't
make sense that a system attached to a
low-tech/low-price gun would cost less than the same system
attached to a high-tech/high-priced gun. Okay, now we can
agree that, while it doesn't make sense, it still happens in reality. What
effect it does or doesn't have on the game, I couldn't say.
> If the high-tech advancements become so
> Did I point out that this is about a game?
I missed that, I thought _this_ was reality...Certainly some
people on this list have been getting stressed enough lately...
Actually, not only it is just a game, it's a game I've only
played once, so I have no feel whatsoever for the balance. My
personal preference is for a mix of anti-grav tanks armed with
DFFG, backed up by power armor and combat walkers--but just
because it makes sense for for what we laughingly refer to as
our environment (vacuum, low grav, lots of radiation). Oh--and
because I like the idea of grav panzers and fusion guns, and have ever since I
first ran in a Traveler campaign, nearly 20 years ago. It seems to me that the
advantage of a higher grade FC ought to be susceptible to numerical analysis.
No, I'm not volunteering, but you have a limited number of combinations of
weapons, armor, ranges, and FC's, so you should be able to plug in a
spreadsheet and see what difference does it really make..
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:08:48 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
<snip good point to point stuff>
> Did I point out that this is about a game?
You mean this ISN'T more real then what passes for reality here on earth?
> Actually, not only it is just a game, it's a game I've only
While I don't yet have any of these rules (saving shekels...) I admit to
a bias also. Starguard (30+ years old rules), Ratner's Space Marines
(Way older then current space marine phenomena) rules, The Forever War, EARLY
Andre Norton books, Starship Trooper, et. al., has me oriented towards body
armor jump jet troops, Power Armor support elements,
lasers/blasters, subsonic sniper guns, and ultimately finding rules to
span fleet actions, flotilla battles, space to land assaults, large units (at
least battalion per side), and skirmish for SF (Science Fiction.)
> It seems to me that the advantage of a higher grade FC ought
Uh, I'm still working on getting all the weapons in Starguard put in Excel but
this might be done soon as I get enough money for DS (my #2 priority
currently.) This might be weeks or months, anybody else want to do it sooner?
This would be a great idea for discussion.
Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.) Prefers Fantasy Dwarves, Starguard
Science
Fiction, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes, the First Crusade.
> From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
Actually, that wasn't my point either. I can understand a FireCon system
being more or less expensive based on the quality of weapon it's attached to.
I just had a problem with basing the cost of FireCon on the cost of the
overall VEHICLE.
Besides, another thought struck me after I replied to you last night, In terms
of military expenditures. Hopefully, High Tech Superpower X is going to have a
larger military budget than the People's Republic of the Middle of Nowhere.
Thus, as you pointed out, they'll be more able and willing to spend money on
those overpriced Fancy Gadgets. So even though the high tech costs more, they
can AFFORD more. Therefore, if we look at points not as a direct correlation
to money, but rather as a reflection of a certain percentage of a country's
military buying power, it could be argued that the points should NOT be so
widely divergent. Again, though, in the end the
question is playability, not 100% realism.
> Okay, now we can
People who expect reality to make sense end up in insane asylums. That's the
beauty of being a gamer - you have access to a world that runs, to some
extent, more like you think the real world SHOULD. Ain't escapism grand?
> >If the high-tech advancements become so
I hadn't noticed.
> Actually, not only it is just a game, it's a game I've only
Perhaps personal preference and comfort level of the player with a particular
tech mix is just as important to successful tactics as the capabilities of the
weapons themselves.
> It seems to me that the advantage of a higher grade FC ought
I'm mulling over an idea which would not only address the need for FireCon
cost to be based on the quality of weapon, but also, surprisingly enough,
further streamline the costing procedure. Take a look:
Currently, you calculate weapon cost by multiplying the weapon's class times a
modifier based on weapon type. Thus the weapon itself IS costed based on tech
level. Then you cost the FireCon by multiplying the SIZE of the weapon times a
modifier for FireCon quality. Thus the Firecon Cost is based on
FireCon Quality and weapon SIZE, but not weapon TYPE. It would be easy to
change that to a system that bases overall weapon system cost on Weapon Class,
Weapon Type, and FireCon Quality, all affecting each other. Below are some
math equations expressing the old system and my new idea:
A = Cost modifier for weapon TYPE. B = Cost modifier for FireCon QUALITY. C =
Weapon CLASS
X = Cost of WEAPON. Y = Cost of FIRECON. Z = Overall cost of weapon SYSTEM.
Current system:
X=A*C
Y=B*C
Z=X+Y
My system:
Z=A*B*C
Granted, the values for A and B may need to be tweaked some, but as you can
see, the overall cost for the systems would go up, especially for
High-Tech
weapons, and the costing process would be shortened by a step.
> From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
Actually, I think it could be as simple as making the modifier 1 for Basic
FireCon, 2 for Enhanced, and 3 for Superior. Try it.
(This is weird, replying to myself)
> A = Cost modifier for weapon TYPE.
> Brian Bilderback
Let me get this right
If you compare a MDC/5 with superior FC with a HVC/5 with basic FC
In the old way it would be:
MDC 5 x 10 = 50 + 5 x 6 =30 total cost 80
HVC 5 x 8 = 40 + 5 x 2 = 10 total cost 50
The MDC costs 1.6 times more than the HVC
In your way it would be MDC 5 x 3 x 10 = 150 HVC 5 x 1 x 8 = 40 the MDC now
costs 3.75 times as much. The only problem is; at long range a superior FC
will hit 2.3 times as often as basic at medium 1.76 times and at close 1.43
times averaging out at 1. 83 over the 3 range bands. There looks like an
unbalance here
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Very true. FCSs and Stealth really should be paid for as percentages
> But having to pay even MORE for the same FireCon because it's >mounted
Not at all - from the game balance point of view. The combat value of
the FC is multiplicative with the combat value of "the rest" of the vehicle,
and the mobility type provides part of "the rest".
But as I said, most players - you included, it seems ;-) - won't accept
such a solution since it is offends their sense of realism "and damn the game
balance" <g>.
> As for the stealth levels, they're already double costed, because
The same Stealth level buys them both the same (average) number of "extra
shots" that they wouldn't have lived to fire if they hadn't been
stealthed, but the MDC-armed tank can (on average) inflict more damage
with those shots than the HVC-armed tank can. If Stealth costs the same
for both tanks, putting it on the MDC-armed tank is better value for
money than putting it on the HVC tank.
As a very simplified example, if you call the number of extra shots "X"
and the difference between the MDC and the HVC "Y", the MDC-armed tank
gets "X*Y" more value out of the points spent on Stealth than the
HVC-armed tank gets out of the *same* amount of points spent on the
*same* level of Stealth.
So yes, from the game balance point of view it does make sense. You can get
around it in other ways, eg by balancing the HVC and MDC costs for
*stealthed* tanks - which means that if you *don't* use Stealthed
vehicles, MDCs will be overpriced compared to HVCs. Such a Stealth
points cost is harder to get right than the multiplicative one - but
since the players never get to see this "extra points cost" fewer of them will
complain about it!
> From a *realism* point of view, which again is what you base your case
Hell, the entire reason for technological progression in the real world
is that new technology is *NOT* identically cost-effective as old
technology! It is *better* - ie, you get more "bang for your bucks" if
you use the new stuff than if you retain the old unchanged.
Unfortunately you need to play large-scale campaign games (with time
scales large enough, or compressed enough, to allow the players to develop and
field new tech toys) to be able to get any sort of correlation between
"realistic" costs of tech systems from different
tech generations and their respective in-game points costs.
> Not to mention the conundrum of: Do you calculate the rest of the
If they're multiplicative it doesn't matter which order. A*B*C = A*C*B, as
long as you're not talking matrix algebra (and IMO any points system, however
accurate, which requires working knowledge of matrix algebra is *way* to
complicated!).
> Should Stealth affect FireCon, or should Firecon affect Stealth?
They reinforce one another, so they should both affect one another. Which, of
course, they do if they both are multipliers to the rest of
the vehicle cost rather than a fixed value :-)
Regards,
> Laserlight wrote:
> It seems to me that the advantage of a higher grade FC ought
<snort>
You don't really believe I'd go around claiming that Superior FCs are
roughly 70% better per-shot (or +30% to the vehicle cost) than Basic
ones unless I had already done the numbers, do you? :-/
Later,
> Laserlight wrote:
Oerjan snorted:
> <snort>
Didn't see that one. So what's your DS2 Revised Points Cost Table?
Anthony Leibrick wrote in reply to Brian Bilderback:
> Let me get this right
You seem to forget that we already *have* an imbalance. I hope you don't
expect a system attempting to correct this very imbalance to give the *same*
(or even similar) points values as the current, faulty system...
What imbalance, you say? The MDC/5 with Superior FCS is currently badly
underpriced compared to the HVC/5 with Basic FCS. Apart from the
difference in hit rates caused by the different FCSs, the MDC also has roughly
50% longer range bands than the HVC and has higher chit validities to boot.
Compare the average damages these two guns will inflict at, say, range 34" and
range 42" (just to pick two completely arbitrary ranges <G>), and you'll see
what I mean.
And, of course, you forget the fact that you don't buy a gun on its own in
DSII; you have to buy an entire vehicle as a single package. In the current
system, the cost of the gun and its FCS tends to be less than half the total
cost of the vehicle (and, from the designs I've seen so far, more commonly
around a quarter) which pushes the real cost ratios
between these two guns - installed in otherwise identical chassis - way
down.
It may be that Brian overshoots, of course - I haven't had time to
crunch the numbers on his idea yet, so I can't tell - but at least it
is a step in the right direction.
Later,
> From: "Anthony Leibrick" <a.leibrick@virgin.net>
Yup, you're right so far.
> The only problem is;
Until you take into consideration the fact that the MDC's range bands are
greater than the HVC's, and it's validities are also greater. An MDC is firing
at long range at distances the HVC can't even touch, and drawing red only.
When you DO get into the HVC's long range, it's validity is GREEN
only. At this range, or at least part of it, you're already into the MDC''s
medium range, where it draws red AND yellow. The HVC, in the meantime, only
draws red at medium range. and finally, when they're both in short range
(And the MDC will get there faster), the HVC is finally drawing red and
yellow, but the MDC gets ALL colors valid. your figures don't account for ANY
of that.
> From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> It may be that Brian overshoots, of course - I haven't had time to
Actually, given your opinion of how FireCon and Stealth should be based on the
overall vehicle cost, you'll probably find I UNDERSHOOT, in your view. But it
is, as you say, a start.
> Laserlight wrote:
> It seems to me that the advantage of a higher grade FC
There won't be one until I've done all the *other* numbers (there are a *lot*
more variables in DSII than in FB2 which I've been working on for the past
half year or so...), and preferrably done a lot more playtesting as well. The
FCS comparison is one of the easiest DSII
mechanics to analyse :-/
To expand on the value of good FCSs (parts of this was posted in a reply to
Brian some days back), upgrading from Basic to Enhanced FCS improves the total
value of your vehicle by around 20%; upgrading from Basic to Superior FCS
improves it by around 30%. Very rough numbers,
since they are averages over a rather wide span of situations :-/ (The
average improvements in hit rates is ~40% and ~70% respectively, though since
the tank with the better FCS is no harder to kill once hit the value of the
entire vehicle doesn't go up as much.)
Later,
I said, drily:
> Didn't see that one. So what's your DS2 Revised Points Cost
Oerjan:
> There won't be one until I've done all the *other* numbers
So we should work on SG2, which IIRC--and remembering that I am
a Full Thrust player, not a gropo--can be described as a
"pointless system."
Despite not having the rules yet, I am following this in a general sense.
SO, besides wanting to see the numbers/spreadsheet, say in the shared
files (or sent to my attachment friendly account
[WargamerGMW@hotmail.com]); I have a thought about the long term
campaign idea to see if the progression of advancement of technology 'pays for
itself' (USA position) or not (much of the rest of the world) under either
system.
Does DS2 allow for this or would this require another set of rules (for
those who remember SPI - like the "grand strategic galaxy/generation"
part of their trio of SF board games that had Starsoldier at the "SG" end of
the triad) that would present some kind of comparison? I am not sure that is
too clear.... HOW would you run such a campaign (short of number crunching on
your computer)?
Also, are there 'standard' weapons system types? And if so, do they get the
"mass production costs' benefit that new designs might not get? Or does the
system treat your creations as 'standard' for your particular
version of a star-state (to coin a word for governments beyond nations
and/or planets.)
Good discussion so far, at least the parts i can follow.
Gracias.
Glenn Wilson, Triple Threat Wargamer - (loses equally well in
SF/Fantasy/Historical Games.) Prefers Fantasy Dwarves, Starguard
Science
Fiction, 1500-1700 North America Skirmishes, the First Crusade.
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> >But having to pay even MORE for the same FireCon because it's
Which is why the system sensibly charges different multipliers for different
mobility types.
> But as I said, most players - you included, it seems ;-) - won't accept
Personal insults are not necessary. I am very cognizant of the issue of game
balance. I just have a difference of opinion from you on how to achieve it. I
feel that the cost of the FC should be a direct function of the quality of the
FC, the type of weapon, and class of weapon, but NOT of the type of mobility
or engine used, and I feel it's possible to achieve a balanced method of
determining overall vehicle cost without making FC a multiplier for the
overall vehicle.
> >As for the stealth levels, they're already double costed, because
OK, on this point I see and accept your arguement. making stealth levels a
multiplier for the entire vehicle WOULD enable you to balance the advantages
of high tech over low tech. Again, the numbers would have to change from the
current system, but you are winning me over on THIS point.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
or multiplication in any non-Abelian group, for that matter, although
then you might not want to call it multiplication.
> (and IMO any points system, however accurate, which requires working
same goes for other non-Abelian groups. you have been warned - don't try
no funny stuff!
anyway, i guess my points system based on symmetry operations isn't going to
see the light of day any time soon.
slightly more seriously, how about a vector points system? each vehicle gets a
rating of the form (a,b), and you have to design a force with
either not more than certain totals of a and b, or a + b, or ka + b
where
k is a constant, etc. this might resolve tensions between play-balance
and realism based systems, or might solve the problem of finding a single
points cost which works in all environments (infantry, armour or artillery
dominated battles, for instance). alternatively, it could be 4 o'clock in the
morning, in which case my brain is falling out of my left nostril. just let me
check... oh. oops.
tom a
ps Abelian = commutative operator, right? if not, i now look like a fool.
pps again.
> Anthony Leibrick wrote:
> Just after I sent my orginal message I realised that my comparisons
And since the upgrading of the FCS improves the value of the entire *vehicle*
by some 30%, a 40% increase of the cost of the *weapon* is way too cheap for
game balance. The cost of the main gun and the FCS on
a DSII tank (in the current system) seems to be somewhere round 25-30%
of the total cost of the tank (unless the tank is *very* low-tech, in
which case it can be as high as 50%), making a 40% increase of the
*weapon* cost a mere 10-15% increase of the *vehicle* cost. At most
20%, which still doesn't reflect the actual value of the upgrade.
> In your way they would be;
Depends entirely on how nasty your tank was to begin with - you're
still trying to look at the weapon+FCS separate from the rest of the
vehicle, and that will lead you astray.
Using Brian's system, a very low-tech tank (Size-4, CFE power, Slow
Track, HVC/5, Basic FCS) costs 90 pts + various minor additional
systems like extra APSWs, APFCs etc but not ECM, PDS or Stealth. The
final cost for this tank is likely to be 100-130 points range. Assuming
that this points value is reasonably accurate (itself an iffy assumption, but
let's make it for the sake of the example), upgrading
to a Superior FCS should cost 30-40 points to balance (not just 20,
which the current DSII system makes it). The 80 points increase caused by
Brian's system is a too high *for this primitive tank*, because it doesn't
have the supporting systems (read: expected life span) necessary to make the
upgrade worthwhile.
However, assume instead that you equip the tank with Fast Tracked
mobility, two levels of stealth and Enhanced ECM (but keep the HVC/5
and Basic FCS). It is now 50% faster in all types of terrain as well as quite
a bit harder to kill, so it will probably get to fire quite a few shots more
than the primitive version above would. The current DSII system with Brian's
modification makes this new tank cost 287 points. Assuming that this value is
accurate, an upgrade to a Superior FCS would be worth about 287*0.3 = 86
points, which is pretty close to the 80 points Brian's system makes you pay
for it.
In one of today's replies to Brian I mention points values which
balance weapon/FCS comboes for specific mobility types only,
influencing the players to conform to the design styles the game
designer had in mind when he did the points-balancing. Although I don't
believe this was Brian's intention his suggestion has just this effect
- in the example it makes the Superior FCS quite overpriced for a HVC/5
on a slow, poorly defended (ie, low-tech) tank but correctly priced for
a better-protected, faster (ie, mid-tech) one. The HVC/5+Sup.FCS
combination would in this case be rather underpriced for a heavy grav tank,
but for that type of tank more advanced and more powerful types of gun (MDC,
DFFG, HEL...) would be in their "correct" price range, and
since they outgun the HVC/5 quite drastically they'd be preferrable.
This is one way of creating a points system, and it works - but only
for the specific combinations you designed it to work for. If someone steps
outside those particular combinations the result can be either
very over-powered designs (aka "cheesy" or "beardy") or very poor ones
(HVC/5 with Basic FCS on a 400+-point Grav tank, anyone? <g>), but
they're unlikely to perform close to how their points value suggests they
should. This will either cause players to complain about the faulty points
system, or force them to use the "correct" combinations.
Or both :-/
Regards,
I'm not a DSII player (yet), but it looks to me as if the logic and cost could
easily be handled by tying the cost of the FC to the cost of the weapon it
works with, no? Don't base it on the mass of the vehicle, base it on the total
cost of weapons on the vehicle. In reality this should work out about the same
as using the mass of the vehicle, but will make those who object that this
doesn't feel like reality happy.
Would this correct the problem?
> Roger Books wrote:
> I'm not a DSII player (yet), but it looks to me as if the logic and
This is exactly what Brian proposes (most DSII vehicles only have one weapon
controlled by an FCS). I outlined the effects such a system has on game
balance in my latest reply to Anthony Leibrick; I'll try not to repeat too
much of it here.
> Don't base it on the mass of the vehicle,
AFAIK no-one has suggested that :-/
I've talked about basing it on the total *cost* of the vehicle, which
is a rather different thing than "mass" (called Size) - the
more-or-less fixed ratio between TMF and NPV in the FB1 design system
(eg., virtually all human ships cost between 3.3 and 3.7 times their
TMF) simply doesn't exist in DSII. Eg., a size-4 tank "chassis" (with
everything except the main gun and its FCS) can cost anything from 50 points
to well above 450 points depending on which mobility type and what defensive
systems it has.
I fully agree that Brian's system looks more realistic and therefore more
palatable to the players, but it has some potentially unpleasant pitfalls
concerning the game balance.
Regards,
> wargamergmw@juno.com wrote:
> SO, besides wanting to see the numbers/spreadsheet, say in the >shared
No. It has tech systems which could be thought of as belonging to different
"tech generations", but that is all.
> or would this require another set of rules
Yes.
> HOW would you run such a campaign (short of number crunching on >your
With lots of paperwork. Ask any veteran Starfire campaign gamer - I
don't really qualify as a veteran, having only played that game for 15 years
or so...
> Also, are there 'standard' weapons system types?
All DSII weapon types are considered "standard".
> And if so, do they get the "mass production costs' benefit that new
No.
Regards,