I had been working on an alternative design system about a year ago. I was
trying to solve most of the problems that people seem to find with the system.
The approach that I started from is to introduce an energy capacity to the
system. So you decide how many capacity points you want. Then you decide on
the size and type of power plant that you want.
Each system that gets added to the vehicle requires space
and/or power. Each movement unit for a given mobility type
costs a certain amount of power per capacity used. Armour is handled as a
system that takes capacity per facing but requires no power. So the amount of
systems and armour on the vehicle directly affects the speed.
Anyway, I ran out of momentum when I became involved with FTJava, and then
that momentum slowed down when the twins were born...
I'll try to get what I have into a form that you can discuss amongst
yourselves. My current schedules are probably a bit slower that you may want,
so hopefully there is enough ideas above to
reinvent what I have done... ;-)
Cheers,
> --- wrote:
> I had been working on an alternative design system
*SNIP*
> The approach that I started from is to introduce an
*SNIP*
So the amount of systems and
> armour
Sounds a lot like Renegade Legion, where the two issues affecting design were
weight and power output. Then you have a system like Battletech, which tracked
weight, volume, and heat.
So you can design a system that tracks any one of a
number of factors: Excess heat, weight, size/volume,
power... it can get quite complicated.
One of the things I've become a firm believer in, as has OO, is the idea that
DS 3 should have a point cost system that is independent of any design system.
Design the vehicle, then determine its cost based on it's armor, mobility,
signature, and offensive & defensive systems. That way you can establish any
number of design systems to fit any background.
The reasoning is that the game is intended to be generic. Any design system is
going to be based on a
certain set of assumptions -- how big will a given
weapon system be, how heavy, how much power will it require, etc. Each set of
assumptions can and usually will produce a different set of design parameters.
An MDC 5 may take up an entirely different set of construction resources in
one game background than another, or even vary between different eras of the
same background. One system may take into account power output, another volume
AND mass. But any two vehicles with the exact same weapons, FireCon, Speed,
Mobility, armor, signature, and defensive systems, are going to have the same
effect on the same battlefield, regardless of what route was taken to
construct them. So the points cost will be the same, even if the design
systems weren't.
> On Saturday 31 July 2004 20:14, Brian B wrote:
Assuming that the point cost is only a measure of how effective something is
on the battlefield.
> Assuming that the point cost is only a measure of how
Sam, that's a whole other debate on point systems. What do they
represent - construction costs, effectiveness, etc.
Assuming that you use point systems the imperfect attempt to create balanced
point systems should not have glaringly unbalanced pieces. Systems for
campaigns that use 'credits' for buying fleets are no different then points
per system basing it on some perceived absolute value in effectiveness on a
battlefield. Of course in reality the terrain affects systems interaction.
Infantry on a wide open plain on the attack are less effective then when in
densely closed terrain on the defensive. But the trend seems to be towards
point systems of some kind.
Two systems might cost the same in 'construction points' but be wildly
differently effective in function (Oertillery specialist ships in Full Thrust
will be less capable then ships designed to fight other ships in a open space
encounter.) But two ships with similar systems in similar combat should have
(if you use a point system) similar costs in 'scenario points' [for lack of a
better term.]
Gracias,
thats the goal.
--- owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
samuel.penn@jabber.org
> On Sunday 01 August 2004 13:09, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
...
> Two systems might cost the same in 'construction points' but be wildly
Problems arise when you look at differing tech levels. In the near future,
lasers might become usable, but not as effective or reliable as KE weapons.
For a balancing point system, this would make lasers cheap weapons, which is
totally the opposite of what they should be from the background point of view.
I'm not saying balancing points for effectiveness is wrong (I think it's
probably the best way to do it), but it can sometimes give strange results
when you start trying to compare differing tech levels.
You could have an optional modifier depending on available tech, which could
be ignored for competition style games, but used for campaign style games
where background flavour is important.
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 17:44:25 +0100 Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk>
writes: <snip>
> Problems arise when you look at differing tech levels. In the
Actually I think there is no better/cheaper weapon for long range (36",
2
chits for all size HEL weapons) suppressing of Infantry then a HEL-1 for
the price (considering turret mounted weapons only) in the default
'setting' and no worse category of weapon for anti-armor actions (except
for picking off Class-1 scout vehicles at 60" perhaps) at long range in
the default 'setting'. I only use HELs (almost always a coax HEL-1) for
infantry/GMS/L suppression on AFVs when the ARTY is tied up with other
functions.
> I'm not saying balancing points for effectiveness is wrong
I agree that comparing cross-tech has some definite pit-falls.
Gracias,
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> Sam, that's a whole other debate on point systems.
In this case, it's pretty clear-cut as to what the
point system will be intended to represent -- the
effectiveness of the system on the game board. Any system that represents
fiacnical cost, etc., is dependent on the assumptions inherent in the
background used, and should be independent of the
points costing system for a one-off game.
> Assuming that you use point systems the imperfect
As it does now.
> Systems for campaigns that use 'credits' for buying
Actually, they can be quite different, since a campaign setting must take into
account factors that have nothing to do with battlefiend effectiveness, and
as such are irrelevent to an effectiveness-based
system. This includes scarcity of raw materials, tech level required to design
the weapon, etc. These are all things that can make a weapon much more
expensive than it's intrinsic combat value, or much cheaper.
They are also setting-specific. For both of these
reasons, any such campaign costing system should be independent from the
points costing system for the basic game.
Of course
> in reality the
And the more extreme the terrain, the greater the effect on the effectiveness
of certain systems. But on the whole, if the terrain is averaged out, the
effect on different systems will as well. Any disadvantage you suffer for
running the wrong type of system for a given terrain is more a reflection on
your skill as a commander, not on the point system.
> Two systems might cost the same in 'construction
But the same system will be murderously more effective
at the job it was intended for -- again, it's a matter
of choosing the right tool for the job.
But two ships with similar
> systems in similar
Exactly.
> --- Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Problems arise when you look at differing tech
or at least cheap*ER*
which is totally
> the opposite
Which background? Hammer's Slammers? Battletech?
RenLeg? WH40K? Macross/Robotech? Gundam? Prince of
Mercenaries? Each background will have a different set of assumptions about
just how expensive a system
is, just how big, heavy, power-sucking, and even
whether a given system actually exists. So each setting can have a different
set of rules for construction, including completely banning certain weapons or
systems. And if you're running a campaign in such a system, where your ability
to field a force is dependent on your economic resources and the cost of the
force, then you can set up such a system for your campaign. Have fun.
But let's say you want to field a force of Renegade
Legion-setting grav tanks against a force from B5
Gropos in a one-off match. How do you determine force
composition for each side? They may have entirely different parameters for
construction. But if the point costing system is independent of the
counstruction parameters, then you can each build your force, determine its
point value, and have a good
one-off game.
> I'm not saying balancing points for effectiveness is
Define a tech level. As long as the base costing system for the game is based
entirely on the range, accuracy, class, and validity of the weapon, tech level
is irrelevant.
> You could have an optional modifier depending on
Yes, you can, but that modifier should not be part of the generic game's base
point system, it should be
part of a setting-specific construction system, since
every setting makes different assumptions about what a "tech level" is.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <warbeads@juno.com> wrote:
> >I'm not saying balancing points for effectiveness
For instance?
> On Sunday 01 August 2004 22:23, Brian B wrote:
The one I described in the previous paragraph.
> But let's say you want to field a force of Renegade
As I said, for competition games, you're only interested in the effectiveness
in order to build balanced forces. What I'm talking about is only of interest
if you want flavour for a particular campaign background.
> > You could have an optional modifier depending on
Yes, but it wouldn't be that difficult to put in some structure for
availability modifiers for different types of tech. 'Barely available' might
give a x3 modifier to cost for instance for, say, grav tech.
All hands on this thread: please remember to snip your quotes. A five
paragraph quote followed by a single sentence response is A Bad Thing.
> Tony Christney wrote:
I can't make out exactly what the proposal is here.
If I understand correctly (correction welcomed) the vehicle has capacity
points, of which a certain number are consumed as a power plant to provide
power points. Systems require either or both or capacity and power points,
armour requires capacity points and movement requires power points. Is that
right?
If capacity points are directly exchangable for power points
during the buying-power-plant step, then power points can be
eliminated from the design system. Everything (systems, armour, movement) just
requires capacity points, whether in the form of capacity, or in the capacity
that's being traded in for power points.
This is succinctly the sort of triangular design trade off that is commonly
associated with AFVs, that is to say that an increase in one of (firepower,
protection, mobility) leads to a decrease in one or both of the others, unless
one introduces new and better technology. Higher technologies could be
included by increasing the number of capacity points per size factor.
The current design system stumbles by not penalising increased armour levels
except in points value.
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 02:29:52AM +0100, David Brewer wrote:
> If capacity points are directly exchangable for power points
That's pretty much what _Full Thrust_ does - "a beam battery" on the
design sheet is really "a beam battery, a slice of power plant big enough to
run it, crew to fire it, crew quarters, life support, etc."
--- brian.bilderback@ece.com
> <brian.bilderback@ece.com> wrote:
=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks you
are."
- Anonymous
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Samuel Penn wrote:
> > > Which background?
Yeah, I got that.
> > As I said, for competition games, you're only
Or for any one-off game.
> > What I'm talking about is only of interest if you
So institute it for that background.
> > Yes, but it wouldn't be that difficult to put in
And again, any such modifier should be part of the background, not part of the
basic rules.
Hi,
> On 1-Aug-04, at 6:29 PM, David Brewer wrote:
Probably because it hasn't quite made it to the formal level of
"proposal" ;-)
> If I understand correctly (correction welcomed) the vehicle has
Nearly. Movement would be affected positively by the power available and
negatively by the capacity used by systems.
> If capacity points are directly exchangable for power points
I like this idea, although it has to prevent the designer from creating large,
extremely fast vehicles by spending most design points on movement. Something
like FT where the movement costs a percentage of total mass may work.
So I think that having only a single "design point" is a good idea, but I
don't think that the way they are spent should be linear on each of the three
axes, or that each of the axes should necessarily be independent.
> The current design system stumbles by not penalising increased
Yes, but there are other "problems" too. The limited movement values,
the strict armour ratios, the "points-only" cost of stealth, etc.
> --
Cheers,
--- brian.bilderback@ece.com
> <brian.bilderback@ece.com> wrote:
=====
"In life, you must try and be the type of person that your dog thinks you
are."
- Anonymous
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail Tony Christney wrote:
> I like this idea, although it has to prevent the
Two thoughts: 1. the basic rules and "Point costing" system should not prevent
such a
vehicle from existing -- it should be damned expensive, sure, but
possible. That maintains the generic quality. 2. If you want to prevent such
vehicles in your own background, either ban them outright, or place
cosntruction limits that prevent them.
> > So I think that having only a single "design point"
No one said the "three axes" should be independent, just that the generic
system for determining the point value of a vehicle should be independent of
the background-specific rules for constructuing the vehicle.
Ideally, the point system will be some variant of the formula P=ODM, where P
is the total points, O is the point value of all offensive systems, D is the
modifier for all defensive systems, and M is the modifier for the speed and
mobility type of the vehicle.
> Tony Christney wrote:
Gotcha.
> > If capacity points are directly exchangable for power points
Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant, but I wasn't expressing myself so well.
> So I think that having only a single "design point" is a good idea,
Sure. Physical armour will need to be related to overall vehicle size... a
bigger vehicle means more surface area to cover.
> > The current design system stumbles by not penalising increased
I think the big problem with the design system is its linear nature. Class 2
is 100% bigger than class 1, class 3 only 50% bigger than 2, class 4 33%
bigger than 3 and so on. On this extremely limited scale class 3 armour
represents tank armour, while class 1 isn't even (per Stargrunt) proof against
small arms. If each class increase represented a consistant 41% or 100% larger
value then there could be more granularity at the lower end of the
scale while fitting in the gigantic Sci-Fi conceits at the upper
end without the range of numbers getting too unwieldy.
Could try a different scale, but there could be scaling issue with weapons.
Total Capacity = (Size^2)*5 Weapon Capacity = (Size^2) * [2 for fixed, 3 for
turretted]. Armour Capacity = Highest AV^2
This gives larger vehicles more capacity, but weapons/armor will take
more capacity. It also has some disadvantages for size 1 vehicles, but could
work out.
eg: A size 2 transport has 20 capacity.
Class-2 RFAC turret = 12 capacity
AV2 on front = 4 capacity One stands of Infantry = 4 capacity
Eg2: A size 3 MBT has 45 capacity.
Class-3 HVC = 27 capacity
AV4 on front = 16 capacity LAD = 2 capacity.
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT: Notice to be read with this E-mail
1. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the use of the intended recipient.
3. If you are not the intended recipient, please: contact the sender
by return e-mail, to notify the misdirection; do not copy, print,
re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail; and delete and
destroy all copies of this e-mail.
4. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government policy unless otherwise stated.
5. Any electronic address published in this message is not to be taken as a
conspicuous publication of that electronic address. The Department of
Veterans' Affairs does not consent to the receipt of "commercial electronic
messages" as that term is defined in the Spam Act 2003.
6. If you do not wish to receive further emails of this type from the
Department of Veterans' Affairs, please forward your reply to this message
> Brendan Robertson wrote:
> Could try a different scale, but there could be
To say the least. But I'll address that later.
> Total Capacity = (Size^2)*5
This is another plausible construction system, and one someone might want to
explore using. I can see a couple of benefits and drawbacks. One benefit is
that since the ratio of class to capacity is a curve instead of a line, it
allows for a greater range of vehicle "sizes".
One drawback of this is that this means that each class will have to cover
more of its individual section of that range (minor). Another drawback is that
it breaks the relationship between vehicle size and weapon size. With this
system, only in a vehicle sporting a weapon of the same class as itself will
that weapon take up the same percentage of the vehicle's capacity as it does
now. Anything else will
be skewed -- and the closer to the extremes you get
(Classes 1 & 5), the worse the skew(significant drawback depending on your
POV). That's inherent in a curve.
Either formula will work, depending on what you want
to simulate. But it's a trade-off. And there's one
other formula to consider:
IIRC, the original complaint about the linear formula was the issue of
"Diminishing Returns", so to speak, that is, the fact that while a class 2 is
twice the capacity of a class 1, and a class 3 three times a class 1, a class
3 has only 50% more capacity that a class 2, and the ratio goes down from
there. (if this was noty the complaint, I apologize). And while the formula
Capacity = (Size^2)*5 increases, capacity, it does NOT change this problem at
all. Let's take a look:
Original formula: Capacities: 5,10,15,20,25
Class 2 has 200% capacity of class 1 3 has 300% capacity of class 1, but only
150% capacity of class 2 4 has 400% capacity of class 1, but only 200%
capacity of class 2 and only 133.3% capacity of class 3 5 has 500% capacity of
class 1, but only 250% capacity of class 2, 166.7% capacity of class 3, and
only 125% capacity of class 4.
Your formula Capacity = (Size^2)*5 Capacities 5, 20, 45, 80, 125
Class 2 has 400% capacity of class 1 3 has 900% capacity of class 1, but only
125% capacity of class 2 4 has 1600% capacity of class 1, but only 400%
capacity of class 2 and only 177.8% capacity of class 3 5 has 2500% capacity
of class 1, but only 625% capacity of class 2, 277.8% capacity of class 3, and
only 156.3% capacity of class 4.
If all you want is a curve instead of a line, then you got it. But if you want
a formula where the capacity of the vehicle is directly proportional to the
class directly BELOW it, try this formula: Capacity =
5*2^(Class-1)
This gives Capacities of 5, 10, 20, 40, 80. Also a curve, but with an
interesting twist:
Class 2 has 200% capacity of class 1 3 has 400% capacity of class 1, and 200%
capacity of class 2 4 has 800% capacity of class 1, 400% capacity of class 2
and 200% capacity of class 3 5 has 1600% capacity of class 1,800% capacity of
class 2, 400% capacity of class 3, and 200% capacity of class 4.
Nifty, huh?
Now, if you REALLY want to screw with your head, use
different curves/lines for weapons than you do for
vehicles. Might be fun.
3B^2