This originated, as many grand things do, from Oerjan Ohlson, and has been
posted to the list before:
CPV is "Combat Point Value": an attempt to resolve the combat power imbalance
of large vs. small ships.
Revised Costing: To calculate CPV instead of NPV, Replace "Basic Hull
Cost = TMF" equation with "Basic Hull Cost = (TMF^2)/100"
For CPV of ships with noncombat systems (fighter bays (not the fighters
themselves), cargo, etc) Use this:
Mass of noncombat systems = NCS "Basic Hull Cost =
((TMF-NCS)^2)/100" I have a slightly different (read older) version
of it up on the WDA, but this is what I use for calculating CPV on my
spreadsheets.
The pages on the WDA have all the FB fleets converted. Phalon and KV ships
should follow the same scaling. I've added them to my own spreadsheet, but
have not yet updated the lists on the web.
IME, this goes a long way to solving the Large/Small ship imbalance,
allowing a few more ships in a small-unit-only force going up against a
contingent of BCs.
> IME, this goes a long way to solving the Large/Small ship imbalance,
Unlike the massed fighter issue, is this large/small ship
imbalance something that needs to be solved?
If a well-handled dreadnaught always beats the same points
value of well-handled cruisers or destroyers, isn't that
what ought to happen? To me it is only a genuine imbalance
if well-handled lighter ships can't beat a badly handled
bigger one.
In history from at least the time of Nelson on a battleship beats up the
cruisers and frigates and big battleships beat up smaller ones. And this
'concentration of force' rule, or just expectation, is carried over into in
science fiction as well: Honor Harrington, Star Trek, Babylon 5, CoDominion,
Star Wars.
Putting it another way, what's the point in being an evil overlord if you
can't build monster warships to annihilate your puny foes while laughing at
their futile efforts?
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 02:20:03 +1100, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> In history from at least the time of Nelson on a battleship
That makes sense, but the purpose of a point system is to say that X of these
ships equals Y of those ships if the points are the same. The point adjustment
idea is to give you a proper total of the number of small ships you'd need in
order to defeat a bigger ship.
The way the current point system works, 1500 points of big ships will always
defeat 1500 points of smaller ships. Okay, you don't have a problem with this.
However... how do you know how _many_ small ships equal a big ship? The
whole purpose of a point system is to give a point balance so that two fleets
of about the same number of points will be equal in ability to win the game.
Otherwise, why have a point system at all?
A big ship will defeat a number of smaller ships. A single 1000 point
superdreadnought should be able to take on ten 100 point frigates with a
fairly equal chance that either player will win. This is not the case with the
FT point system. Instead, the 1000 point superdreadnought has a distinct
advantage. The reason for adjusting the point system is to tell you just how
many of those 100 point frigates it will take to equal a 1000 point
superdreadnought.
> Putting it another way, what's the point in being an evil
Well, you can! But you need to know the point at where there are enough puny
foes to destroy your monster warship!
Personally, I prefer games with a larger number of smaller ships than games
with monster ships. I like lots of maneuvering and seeing ships go
"pop"!
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 09:40:46AM -0600, Allan Goodall wrote:
The "realist" argument here is to say "but equal-value battles very
rarely happen in reality. A commander won't normally engage unless he has
force superiority or can't evade; the classic 'two fleets shoot it out in the
middle of nowhere' is simply unrealistic. Therefore don't even try to balance
battles."
I have some sympathy with that view. However, points systems still have
a use: if you have a system that _does_ accurately reflect force
strengths, you can use it to evaluate the performance of each side after
the battle. If my three tin-plated DDs actually scored significant
damage on your carrier battle group, that suggests I was pretty good; if I had
the carrier group and wiped out your DDs, I may have won the game but that
doesn't imply that I was particularly clever. A points system can help to
evaluate this.
> Unlike the massed fighter issue, is this large/small ship
...
Are you certain you don't have an ancestor named Jackie? ;->=
The whole issue of points is difficult at best anyway; it certainly ignores a
number of other issues that pop up constantly from speeds to fix tables to
'race' balance vs 'open' that change point values.
However, they're nice to get ball-park balanced games. I just don't take
them as 'biblical', no matter how many numbers Oerjan crunches.
The_Beast
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:51:13 +0000, Roger Burton West
<roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> The "realist" argument here is to say "but equal-value battles very
This is the reason most of us playing SG2 have no problems with it not having
a point system...
I find a point system doesn't survive contact with a scenario that isn't a
typical meeting engagement. The moment you start throwing in other victory
conditions (destroy such-and-such a ship, get to such-and-such a point,
bombard Planet X, scout out Planet X and escape with Y ships, etc.) the point
totals don't mean much. For a scenario to be balanced, the forces (and thus
the points in a properly balanced point system) may have to be
_unbalanced_.
> A points system
Very good point, I hadn't thought of that.
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
> >IME, this goes a long way to solving the Large/Small ship imbalance,
Yes.
> If a well-handled dreadnaught always beats the same points
The points values are intended to be a tool for generating forces of
roughly equal strength in one-off tactical battles.
This means that if you choose two forces with the same points value and pit
them against one another, each of them should therefore win roughly half of
the battles.
If one of these forces always beats the other (barring extreme differences
in luck and/or player skill), then the two forces obviously do not win
roughly half of the battles each and the points values equally obviously do
not do what they're intended to do; and that in turn means that they need to
be fixed.
> In history
In historical battles, no-one used points values to try to ensure that
both sides of a battle had an equal chance of winning.
This means that trying to argue how a points value system should or should not
work based on historical examples is, pardon the pun, completely pointless...
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> The points values are intended to be a tool for
*SNIP*
> In historical battles, no-one used points values to
Pardon it? I loved it! LOL
But you bring up a good.... point..... regarding point systems. I am a big fan
of them, when they work properly. I know in past discussions of point systems,
people have tried to make the historical argument against them. However, I
think OO really states the case for them quite succinctly, while at the same
time POINTING out exactly when they are useful and when they are not.
Therefore, I'd like to make this proposal regarding all future discussions of
point systems: If you prefer playing campaign games
or historical/scenario-style games where the forces
are dictated by other dynamics and not guaranteed to be equal, then just
ignore the point system. But that preference does not invalidate the need for
a point system to be as balanced as possible when used by
those players who prefer one-off games between equal forces.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Hugh Fisher wrote:
I beg to differ. The above can only apply to balanced fleets. If players
are using fairly specialist fleets, there is no way in which a point system
can compensate for this (e.g. a fleet with NO fighter defence against an 'all'
fighter fleet). It is the players responsibility to create a USEFUL
combination within the points system determined frame.
Cheers,
There seem to be two different views of the points system at work here.
Overstating and oversimplifying, Allan and Oerjan would like it to be more
precise:
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> Oerjan wrote:
while on the other hand there are people who don't think it matters as much
and who express themselves better than I:
> The_Beast wrote:
> Geoffery Rogers wrote:
> Derk wrote:
OK. So, I'll rephrase my question:
If there is an imbalance in the points system, is it necessary to bring in a
new calculation formula and value for every ship in every fleet because of
this?
Full Thrust is remarkably simple and playable. If it isn't badly broken (as
yes I now see the fighter stacks are) why try to fix it?
And I've just noticed that the ships in Fleet Book 1 have a
monetary cost/value which is a multiple of the NPV. Maybe this
imbalance is meant to be there?
> Oerjan wrote:
> In history
I never claimed that points systems were intended to achieve an equal chance
of winning. I'm arguing that if you rated historical warships by a points
system similar to Full Thrust then their combat effectiveness, in particular
that of big ships vs small ships, would work out roughly the way it does in
Full Thrust. Since we have no practical experience with space warships, just
about every science fiction book, movie, or TV show tends to be based
(consciously or unconsciously) on historical models. The Tuffleyverse
obviously uses naval terminology and the rules have a naval 'feel' rather than
say modern air combat.
So if the points system produces historical results, I'd say it doesn't hurt
and may even be beneficial.
Hugh Fisher schrieb:
> There seem to be two different views of the points
I think you answered your question below by admitting that fighter stacks are
broken and need a rules change.
> Full Thrust is remarkably simple and playable. If it
"Badly broken" is, to a degree, a subjective qualifier. To me, if the point
system allows combat power optimization along one specific route to the marked
detriment of other, perhaps more "realistic" fleet compositions, it is broken.
Most people agree that a fleet of large ships does have an advantage over an
equal points value fleet composed of small ships. AFAIK, this
applies even within the points value range of fleet book designs -
without even looking at mega-ships outside that range.
> And I've just noticed that the ships in Fleet Book 1
I would not think so. Certainly Oerjan was one of the persons behind the
original points system.
If the new formula is simple enough, people can recalculate the fleet book
vessels themselves. But I would expect a new rule book would include a table
of revised values for the ships published in the Fleet Books.
Of course, the alternative to point value changes would be rules changes that
restore the balance to fit the point value. Such ideas have been discussed
here, too.
Greetings Karl Heinz
From: Hugh Fisher laranzu@ozemail.com.au
> I never claimed that points systems were intended to achieve
Well, yes, but that's just saying that "the point system measures things the
same way that the point system measures them."
If we have a points system at all, its purpose ought to be that players can
judge the relative strength of Fleet A and Fleet B. It need not be exact (no
one is going to claim that a 2501pt squadron is significantly stronger than a
2498 squadron) but it should be as accurate as we can make
it--while still being easy to work with.
Those who are finicky can then use it, while those who don't care about points
systems can ignore it, or round to the nearest 100, or whatever.
Obviously there will be occasions when one 2500pt fleet will crush another (eg
the "soapbubble" fleet vs a fleet with low PDS). However, in the "historical"
situation you're arguing from, both sides will have some idea of what the
other side's ships are like.
Well, as always, the idea of a space game either being historical or real
is delusional at best, but we've covered that before. ;->=
***
while on the other hand there are people who don't think it matters as much
and who express themselves better than I:
> The_Beast wrote:
***
Which isn't to say I don't admire, and prize, his endeavors. A good point
system IS useful, and I support everyone's trying to make it more so.
Perhaps what's important here is not their focus on the point system, but
yours. The ships won't work differently if the points are set otherwise.
You'll still get the same number of small ships as expanding gas for the
same number of large ones. The point system will say a balance-adjusted
battle should have MORE small ships, but there's no law saying you have to
follow the point system in any battle you set up.
My point was there tends to be certain assumptions in the point system no
matter what. Firstly, I think it ignores any special set up other than
straight meeting engagement with enemy destruction as the only goal, no
terrain, etc.
This makes sense, as these are 99% of the game I've played. These games are
also the reason I can't keep some folks interested over the long haul, but
they are the games you learn on, and are the easiest to set up.
And quick and easy are what we LOVE about this game.
The_Beast
P.S. I was going to suggest a way of making it more 'historical' might be to
check for crit hits with every weapon hit that does multiple damage reduced by
threshold, i.e. a class 3 at 12" might cause 3 without rerolls, adjusted by
size or shields, but it's getting a little complicated.
;->=
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:01:41 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> It _is_ true that tackling a really big ship of that sort is something
You weren't playing vector, were you? Try it in vector, with that huge ship
able to spin in place and I think you'd find the results different.
You do make a very good point, though. A point system is never going to work
100% in a game where you can design your own ships. It's always going to be
possible to create a ship or ships that just are not worth the points. For
instance, you could make a ship holding nothing but PDS. It's not going to be
much use against anything but fighters, so in most cases it won't be worth the
points.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:09:24 +1100, Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
> If there is an imbalance in the points system, is it necessary
You make a really, really good point. If you play with a regular group of
players who are mature enough, you don't need to fix it. In fact, such a
mature group would probably enjoy playing scenarios where the sides have an
equal chance of winning but do not have balanced fleets.
However, there are a number of people who play "you design X points of ships,
I'll design X points of ships, and we'll meet on Saturday for a game". There
are also convention games. Dean G. has run the FT tournament at GenCon for
years, and I was involved in helping him out (as well as organizing the GenCon
GZG events for a couple of years). We had to put artificial limits on the
fleets used in the tournament: the number of cruisers must equal or exceed the
number of capital ships, the number of escorts must equal or exceed the number
of cruisers, the fleets had up to 1500 points, and the ships had to be from
the fleet books.
With a proper point system, we could just say, "1500 corrected-points
worth of ships from the fleet books" and leave it at that.
We also had pre-made fleets. If we had a corrected point system that
worked well, we could have had all cruiser fleets against a fleet of a couple
of capital ships but no cruisers, that sort of thing.
Is a corrected point system needed for FT to be fun and exciting? No. Is a
corrected point system useful for a lot of people? Yes.
> And I've just noticed that the ships in Fleet Book 1 have a
Uh, no, there is no campaign system in the game. If there was, we could maybe
explain away the point imbalances. Since there is no campaign game, or even a
TO&E for the various fleets, we are stuck having to fix the point values. It
seems Jon made the monetary values as multiples of the NPV simply as
"flavourtext".
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
> > This means that if you choose two forces with the
I believe OO acknowledged that with his comments regarding luck and player
quality, which you seem to have conveniently cut. It's easy to dispute half an
argument.....
> --- Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> OK. So, I'll rephrase my question:
While I tend to fall into the Goodall/Ohlson camp on
this issue, I will say no -- not every fleet. Only
those fleets being commanded by players
> Full Thrust is remarkably simple and playable. If
The point OO and Allan are making is (and, like you, I'll let others more
qualified make that point better) that WRT the points, it IS badly broken.
> --- Hugh Fisher <laranzu@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> I never claimed that points systems were intended
No, But Oerjan did. That's the whole point of his argument.
I'm arguing that if you
> rated
Would it? By what criteria would you rate them? By tonnage? Weapons? armor?
speed? Points systems need
to rate overall effectiveness of the ship - this means
both the ability to do what it's designed to do, and the ability to stay alive
long enough to do it. So in a historical context, IF you could do it, the
points system you use should be such that if you take, say, 1 BB nd stack it
up against X number of DD, then in a series of games played under different
conditions (something FT doesn't need to worry about as much) such as weather,
tide, ocean depth, etc., on the average, if X number of destroyers (no matter
how many or few) defeat the battleship about half the time, and lose about
half, then you should be able to take the point value of said BB, divide it by
the number of destroyers, and get a result that's roughly equal to the point
value of one destroyer.
Before using historical arguments to show how this never happened or never
would, see OO's original post as well as my comments below.
Since we have no practical
> experience with
All of which is true but irrelevant.
> So if the points system produces historical
The problem is that points alone CAN'T result in historical results, because,
as OO said, no real life commander in his right mind would voluntarily engage
a force he believed roughly equal to his own. He would wait until he had
amassed a superior force, or had the element of surprise, or weather and sea
conditions favored his ships. Or a commander will fight if cornered and
without any other option. Two equal forces would probably only engage each
other if they blundered on each other.
The only way to recreate these dynamics in the game is through campaign or
operational games, or by imposing artificial limits pr cpnditions on the given
scenario (whether voluntarily or by scenario fiat). However, if you do so, one
side or the other will be playing with either situational disadvantages, fewer
points, or both. THAT is the way to recreate historical
settings - by HOW you use the point system. If you
give even points to both sides, see OO's post for what the outcome should be.
3B^2
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> You weren't playing vector, were you? Try it in
You also bring up a good point, Allan. Will the same point system work equally
well in Vector as in Cinematic?
> You weren't playing vector, were you? Try it in vector, with that huge
I left this out of my list of unstated assumptions, but that list should
included vector vs. 'cinematic', table size and fixed-or-not, etc.
Please note that I STILL say cinematic is fairly good for Newtonian
movement within a limited relative-to-mu area, and requires a metagame
if ships are moving fast enough to go off the edge of the board. I'd have to
make the board semi-fixed, though. It's relative speed, but ALL speed is
relative. ;->=
The_Beast
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:32:04 -0800 (PST), Brian Bilderback
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> >You also bring up a good point, Allan. Will the
Thanks.
> The short answer is "no".
I suspected as much.
One arc weapons are
> underpriced in vector. Faster
And those were also the two shortcomings I suspected.
I have some thoughts regarding movement, but I need to go over the FT rules
for construction, specifically WRT engine mass. My books are in storage, can
anyone forward me the rules for calculating engine mass?
I feel like the point system is great, and there are a lot of good reasons for
its use and existence, but I do feel like it is often abused. I think that
soapbubbles are abuses of the intended design rules, like break point
exploits. I love being able to design my own ships, but I think a great
solution to this would be to stick with the stock ships if either party is not
happy with the designs.. My philosophy for this is that I cannot think of a
single time in history when the battlegroup commander (the player) got to
design and build his own fleet. The State designed the vessels (based on its
current and forseeable situation), and in this case John is pretty much the
State, seeing as how he came up with the background for each faction in FT.
"If it aint broke don't fix it." I don't think the point system is broken, I
think those who are building soapbubbles are. Joe
> [quoted text omitted]
Well, as always, the idea of a space game either being historical or real
is delusional at best, but we've covered that before. ;->=
***
while on the other hand there are people who don't think it matters as much
and who express themselves better than I:
> The_Beast wrote:
***
Which isn't to say I don't admire, and prize, his endeavors. A good point
system IS useful, and I support everyone's trying to make it more so.
Perhaps what's important here is not their focus on the point system, but
yours. The ships won't work differently if the points are set otherwise.
You'll still get the same number of small ships as expanding gas for the
same number of large ones. The point system will say a balance-adjusted
battle should have MORE small ships, but there's no law saying you have to
follow the point system in any battle you set up.
My point was there tends to be certain assumptions in the point system no
matter what. Firstly, I think it ignores any special set up other than
straight meeting engagement with enemy destruction as the only goal, no
terrain, etc.
This makes sense, as these are 99% of the game I've played. These games are
also the reason I can't keep some folks interested over the long haul, but
they are the games you learn on, and are the easiest to set up.
And quick and easy are what we LOVE about this game.
The_Beast
P.S. I was going to suggest a way of making it more 'historical' might be to
check for crit hits with every weapon hit that does multiple damage reduced by
threshold, i.e. a class 3 at 12" might cause 3 without rerolls, adjusted by
size or shields, but it's getting a little complicated.
;->=
> --- Joe Ross <ft4breedn@hotmail.com> wrote:
Two points:
1. Jon
2. That assumes you're playing in the Tuffleyverse. Within that context, I
agree. But if you're not, you have a couple of options: A. Play in another
fictional background, and try to design your ships to mimic the descriptions
of the ships in said background.
B. Play in at least a semi-campaign setting, where
each player has to come up with a flavor background of their own, write up a
strategic naval philosophy for
their home-brewed power, and design a set number of
ships of different classes for that power (sort of a Fleet Book X), from which
they are bound to select for any future games (allowing them, of course, to
produce a certain limited number of new designs each decade or whatever in
game time).
[quoted original message omitted]
I play in the Tuffleyverse but in a back-back-back water set of stars
where local designs are the realm of several groups and a flag ship should
really be a Very Small BC or a Heavy Heavy cruiser type. The only time a
capital ship shows up is when somebody outside the systems tries muscling in
(and the sponsors of the other side respond.
And I definitely have some less than optimal designs built 'locally' and the
lurking on the edges aliens (unique to my void brackish ass end of space) are
definitely not Canon!
A mongrel spot of space for a mongrel GM...
Gracias, Glenn
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:45:09 -0800 (PST) Brian Bilderback
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
I completely agree with having a small number of modified designs, being
from the aviation side of the U.S. Navy (in the process of converting from
brownshoe to blackshoe), and I really like the idea of having new designs
introduced every so often. THAT seems like an accurate supposition of future
vessel evolution (mostly because it models modern vessel design, and it just
seems like common sense). I think that if you are going to allow completely
new designs, they should not be allowed to be too mission or system specific
WITHOUT campaign justification. So, sure custom jobs are cool, but they should
perform just like the campaign background describes them as performing. If a
Carrier is allowed to have 30 squadrons (f.e.) of fighters on it, how does the
campaign handle that?
And sorry Jon.. I got carried away...
Joe
> [quoted text omitted]
I play in the Tuffleyverse but in a back-back-back water set of stars
where local designs are the realm of several groups and a flag ship should
really be a Very Small BC or a Heavy Heavy cruiser type. The only time a
capital ship shows up is when somebody outside the systems tries muscling in
(and the sponsors of the other side respond.
And I definitely have some less than optimal designs built 'locally' and the
lurking on the edges aliens (unique to my void brackish ass end of space) are
definitely not Canon!
A mongrel spot of space for a mongrel GM...
Gracias, Glenn
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:45:09 -0800 (PST) Brian Bilderback
> <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:00:09 -0800, "Eric Foley" <stiltman@teleport.com>
wrote:
> Call me selfish, but I'd rather not see the point system and the
Nobody said they were. The anti-fighter rules pop up in vector and
cinematic. The point system is still primarily cinematic based, as vector is
an "optional" system. As such, any solution must first work in cinematic. It
should also work in vector, as a system that works in cinematic but completely
breaks down in vector is of zero use to those who prefer vector games.
But no fear, the playtest list has players who play in both modes, and all
rules proposals are tested in both modes.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Well, here's where I'm at in my own experience and what worries me
Nothing enigmatic about it. Some people (who are mostly also on this list)
have been invited by Jon to give feedback and suggestions on possible upcoming
revisions, modifications etc.
> It simply
Er? I'm not a physicist, but why does it stand to reason? Main Drive is a
percentage of the ship, remember.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> > It simply
I'm not a physicist either, but you're right when it comes to thrust: F=ma is
a linear equation.
But that only states that the amount of power needed to accelerate an object
increases linearly as it's mass increases.
However, when it comes to ship construction, points are related specifically
to game effects, not just physics. Thus while the amount of Force needed to
produce 1 point of thrust increases linearly with the mass of the ship, the
combat effectiveness of a ship with X thrust may (or may not, depending on who
you
talk to) increase non-linearly as the ship's mass
increases.
If so, there are two ways to mitigate this: you can either state that the
engine mass required to produce X amount of Force (ie thrust) increases more
than linearly as the amount of Force increases, meaning that the bigger the
ship, the greater the percentage of it's mass is required for engines (IIRC
that's calle diminishing returns),
OR, if you don't want to mess with current design parameters, you make the
make the formula for the
COST of the engine non-linear, and tied directly to
ship mass. Maybe, and this is Ex Gluteus, so don't think I'm advocating it,
the point value for the engines should be based on the mass of the engines
times some fraction of the overall mass of the
ship.....
A late reply to some of the posts in this thread:
To Stiltman: Yes, if your ships are more manoeuvrable than the enemy ships you
can use this to gain an advantage; similarly a good weapon mix usually gives
you an edge over opponents with a worse weapon mix. In both of the
examples you described, as well as in the KV-vs-DPR battle I fought and
reported, the smaller ships were individually far more manoeuvrable than
the large ship and in at least two of the battles also had weapon mixes well
suited to defeat it.
Unfortunately this doesn't show that the ship size has no impact on the game
balance. All it shows is that being more manoeuvrable or having a well
thought-out armament can be provide even larger advantages to a good
player
- but unlike the inherent large-ship advantages, the manoeuvrability and
armament advantages are not tied to one specific size range. Nothing prevents
the large ship from being as manoeuvrable or having as effective an armament
as the small ones... or, for that matter, from being *more* manoeuvrable and
having a *better* weapon mix than the small ones.
In order to see the game balance effects of the large-ship advantage
alone (ie., without getting them mixed up with manoeuvrability or armaments
advantages), you need to pit the large ship against small ships which are
about as manoeuvrable and which use roughly the same weapon mix as itself.
This was very much NOT the case in the above-mentioned examples :-/
(FWIW I'm another member of this list who has played FT for several years
(since 1993); and while I have used FB designs the vast majority of my
games have used custom designs only :-/)
***
To Hugh Fisher:
> I never claimed that points systems were intended to achieve
No, *I* made that claim.
(Well, not so much a claim as a *statement* - I helped writing the FB1
points system, so I know reasonably well what it was intended to do... and I
also know that it doesn't do it. It is certainly an improvement over the
original FT2 system, but it is still flawed.)
> I'm arguing that if you rated historical warships by a points system
And I am arguing that such a rating would be quite useless, because it won't
give you any real information about how the various ships would perform in
combat.
The combat effectiveness should not be a *function* of some abstract rating
the way you suggest; instead it should be what *determines* the rating
(ie., the rating should be a function - a *linear* function - of the
combat effectiveness). If that is not possible, the formula for calculating
the
rating should at least approximate the combat effectiveness as closely as
possible. Neither of these is the case in the current FB ship design rules.
The monetary costs given for the FB1 are pure background fluff, with no
relevance for the game. All they mean is that Jon was too too short on time
to come up with different numbers for the background fluff :-/ If, which
I hope, the CPVs are introduced either in FT3 or in FB3 (whichever comes
first), then these "fluff" costs will remain at their old values - ie.,
disconnected from the points values.
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
Stilt said:
> figure that the technology to move larger ships gets more expensive
I'd think that with economies of scale, it would be *cheaper* for big ships?
What would be interesting would be a targeting advantage when firing at larger
ships, since they have more area to hit
> While we're at it, the fact that FT2 restricted fighter carrying to
Doesn't really matter--design your soapbubbles to fit whatever the
minimum mass is to be a capital. You still get about the same number of
fighters. The bubbles are a bit more vulnerable, but if the fighters get you
first, it doesn't matter.
> Stiltman wrote:
[snip my post on manoeuvrability and armament being able to outweigh
large-ship advantages given good tactical skill]
> Yes, I agree on basically all of this. Which is one major reason why
Er... "directly proportional to the size" means that you pay a fixed
percentage of the size (same percentage for all sizes) to get a given
manoeuvrability rating. This is exactly what the FB (aka FT2.5) design
system does :-/
The original FT2 system had a *progressive* manoeuvrability cost, so larger
ships had to pay a larger percentage of their size to get a given
manoeuvrability than ships in a smaller size class. (Within each of the three
size classes the FT2 manoeuvrabilty cost was still directly proportional to
the ship's size, though.)
While a progressive manoeuvrability cost is one way to balance large ships
(though it'd have to be a sliding scale, since FT2-style breakpoints
only result in optimized custom designs clustering at the better side of each
breakpoint), it effectively forces small ships to be fast and large ships to
be slow in order to use their points well. For a game system which wants to be
generic, that's not a good thing.
(PSB is quite background-specific, so going down that road to justify a
progressive manoeuvrability cost also hurts the generic nature of the game;
what's worse, PSB which makes large engines cost more than small ones is
quite counter-factual compared to today's technology - large rocket
engines
generally give more force per pound than small ones, large wet-navy
ships cost proportionally less to move at high speeds than smaller ones (with
the same general hull shape, that is), and so on...)
Because of this, while mass-progressive manoeuvrability costs have been
considered as a solution to the large-ship advantages I very much prefer
to
charge the large ships for the root cause of their large-ship advantages
-
ie. their larger size itself :-/ The end result is essentially the same
as
the progressive manoeuvrability costs - large ships cost more than the
same total Mass of smaller ships with similar thrust ratings and weapon mixes
-
but it doesn't hurt the generic nature of the game nearly as much.
> While we're at it, the fact that FT2 restricted fighter carrying to
If you introduce a restriction on how small a ship must be in order to carry
fighters, the only real effect you get is to increase the size of the
soap bubble carriers. A TMF 108, thrust-1 carrier with 9 fighter bays
costs
405 pts - ie. 45 pts per bay, the same as the TMF 12 thrust-2
minimum-sized
bubble and only marginally more than the TMF 23 thrust-1
"super-optimized"
2-bay model
(at 43.5 pts/bay).
The main reason why soap bubbles were harder to build in FT2 was that all
military ships were restricted to what the FB system would call "Average
hulls", with roughly the same amount of Mass spent on weapons and damage
boxes. Soap bubble carriers almost by definition require Fragile hulls -
otherwise they wouldn't be soap bubbles, like <g>
Regards,