With all of the talk about Escorts, Capitals, Carriers, whatever... size
classes, it has made me wonder about the mass cost for hulls.
The official rule is that mass equals cost, so a 85-mass ship costs a
base
of 85 points, a 20,000-mass ship costs 20,000 points.
It seems to me that the size vs. point cost issue could be solved by making
the cost more realistic. What I propose is that the mass cost be squared (if
not cubed), because bigger means bigger in proportion. For example, say
I have an object that is 6 feet long, 1/2 foot wide, and weighs 8 pounds
(in this case, the object is a sword with random dimensions). If I were to
make it 12 feet long, its other dimensions would be increased as well, to 1
foot wide, and 32 pounds. Well, my math might be off....
Anyway, if you have a mass-85 ship, and you square it, the cost would be
7225. A 20-mass ship would have a base value of 400 --- it would be
cheaper to use those little ships, and create a reason to have little ships as
opposed to big ships (i.e. available resources, which is the most realistic
reason of all). As for the high hull values vs. components.... the components
would need to be tweaked as well. Would multiplying their cost by, sayy, 100
suffice?
Opinions anyone? I have just come up with this idea, and have yet to playtest
it, but it seems to be more realistic.
> Jeremy Seeley wrote:
> With all of the talk about Escorts, Capitals, Carriers, whatever...
size
> classes, it has made me wonder about the mass cost for hulls.
I've tried similar ideas ever since FB1 was published. From the tests I've
done, it seems that for ships using the tech systems in FB1 (where all engines
cost 2xMass and all weapons cost 3xMass), the "real" value
of a ship was roughly proportional to its Mass^1.15. For human-tech
ships, this fits reasonably well with your suggested formula (basic hull cost
is the square of the ship's Mass and all internal components cost 100x their
FB1 values).
Unfortunately this relationship breaks down when you introduce FB2 tech. When
some engines cost 3xMass, some weapons cost 4x or even 5xMass, and certain
types of armour can cost 8xMass or more, you no longer have a reasonably fixed
relationship between the ship's Mass and its combat power. Phalon ships in
particular are smaller than an
equally-powerful human ship (but using the FB1/FB2 points values they
cost about as much), so with your system they need to use a different
formula for the hull cost than humans :-(
Regards,
Jeremy said
> It seems to me that the size vs. point cost issue could be solved by
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Volume is a function of radius cubed,
surface is only a function of radius squared. Therefore bigger ships will be
able to pack in more stuff per square meter of hull. That hurts escorts rather
than helping them.
I said
> >
> Laserlight said
Well, yes, that's right. It would mean that the amount of available space
would be bigger. That is realistic, and means that big means REALLY big, in
comparison. Still, the bigger means more cost for the hull and its internals.
I am not trying to 'help" escorts. I am merely trying to give them a realistic
necessity, which is that of resources. Why not use 23 SDNs? Because it costs a
ton, and it is not necessarily good to dump so
> I wrote:
> Overjan wrote
Well, the problem is that of tech level, in that the FB2 races have some
things that are super small in comparison to that of the Humans (such as the
Phalons, with smaller, tougher ships).
Going back to my original suggestion, I think that the hull should cost the
mass cubed, but provide an amount of space equal to hull cubed as well. This
would make big ships big (and EXPENSIVE). As for the internals... this makes
it so that a LOT can fit on those bigger vessels. Still, I believe that
keeping the x100 mass cost would be good enough. Those bigger vessels are
going to be pathetically expensive. I have not looked a whole lot at the FB2
tech, so it is difficult to say what to do with Alien tech at this point, but
the rules that I have suggested seem to provide a realistic means to portray
the economics of starship design, if not compatible with the aliens, at least
it works for those 'oomans.
> Laserlight wrote:
> It seems to me that the size vs. point cost issue could be solved by
Do the Alarishi measure hull volume in *square* meters? Ah well, I
always thought their warship designs were a bit two-dimensional ;-)
Later,
> Jeremy Seeley wrote:
> Going back to my original suggestion, I think that the hull should
Huh?
You seem to be confusing Mass with Length. Volume is roughly proportional to
the *Length* cubed, but (assuming a reasonably constant density of equipment)
it is *directly* proportional to Mass. What you're saying above is essentially
that the ship's Mass is the cube of the ship's Mass...
Regards,
There is one big problem with everyone's analysis. The larger ships
essentially discount initiative. Let me explain where I'm coming from.
One of my buddies ONLY plays giant ships.....he never has more then one ship
on the table, always for full points. I have a lot of experience fighting this
type of battle as I usually try to mimic more realistic fleets having a range
of ship sizes.
One issue I noticed. (Just giving and example)
We write movement orders...so far so good.
Everyone moves according to orders....so far so good.
Then we roll initiative to see who fires when.
Here's the problem. Even if I win initiative, I fire ONE of my ships, for
maybe 10% of my total firepower.....then it's his turn....he can fire 100% of
his total firepower in one volley.
It essentially turns out like modern artillary........massed fire is the only
way to make it effective (I spent 8 years in the USMC, heh heh heh)
It comes down to the fact that he almost always is able to get 100% of the
firepower out before even coming close to getting internals, meanwhile, my
ships are being eaten alive before they have ANY chance to fire.
Big ships are just plain more effecient.......unless you build in artificail
limits into the game. My friend is not so willing to accept artificial limits
because he says it's not fair to favor my style of of play over his.
> --- Jeremy Seeley <jbs@Aros.Net> wrote:
> Shawn M Mininger wrote:
> Big ships are just plain more effecient.......unless
Play a campaign where you have to protect more than one place at a time on a
limited budget.
If he insists on a single large ship there too, he'll take out one of your
bases in the same time as you take out all of his...
This is, of course, the main reason why real navies have large numbers
of smaller ships and a few big ones :-/
Suggest that you play a mini campaign.
Each player starts with 1000 pts of ships. These may be divided into any
number of fleets. All ships must have FTL or a Tug to carry it from square to
square. The player also gets 1 shipyard.
Get a chess board. This represents the enhabitible systems (64 total).
Fleets can only move forward, back, left, right (no diagonals) based on the
slowest MD in the fleet).
To hold a system, you must end the turn with a fleet in the square.
A turn lasts until all fleets have been given a chance to move. Fleets may
move or pass. If they pass they may not move this turn (except to escape).
When a 2nd fleet enters a square, both sides give the number of ships, number
of escorts, cruisers and capitals, and total point value of each fleet. The
fleet that occupied the square may choose to fight or flee. If it fights, do
so using normal FT rules. If it flees, it may move up to MD squares away to an
empty or friendly square. If the entering fleet is faster, the fleeing fleet
takes 5 points of damage (it may distribute this any way the player sees fit).
At the end of each turn, each player gets 100 construction (at the home
planet). The player also gets 10 construction points per system held (not
counting the home planet). These ponits may be saved to build a larger ship.
Construction is done at a shipyard. A shipyard may be constructed for 200
construction points in any occupied system. If there is more than 1 shipyard,
the player must designate at which shipyard the construction points are
located. A shipyard may use the construction points that are stored at it to
manufacture ships. It may spend upto 200 construction points per turn to build
ships. (Ships that cost more than 200, will take multiple turns to construct).
If a system with a shipyard is lost, the ships in progress are lost and the
opponent gains the shipyard and any stored construction points.
The game ends when 1 player has controled 32 systems for 5 turns.
> Shawn M Mininger wrote:
> Big ships are just plain more effecient.......unless
May I recomend taking a lot of MT missiles? Just swarm him. He'll stop using
one big ship. That or drop your ship sizes down to destroyers only, he can
only have so many firecons. Take a bunch of TPs.
Change your games to simultaneous firing; should solve the problem easily.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----
> Then we roll initiative to see who fires when.
He must put A LOT of firecons into his ship, since you can only target one
ship per firecon you have.
Next time just bring a lot of needle-beam equipped small ships. Yeah,
he'll blow up a few of your ships, then you target his firecons with your
needle-beams.
> Big ships are just plain more effecient.......unless
I agree, they are, but I don't think that that should change either. They're
supposed to be better, that's why they're the BIG ships.
> you build in artificail limits into the game. My
That's the problem, its not really an artificial limit to say that a
nation/empire just can't afford to have only BIG ships. History has
proven that time and again.
However, there have been lots of suggestions on this list on just how to
handle the BIG SHIP ONLY guys, maybe your friend will want to try some smaller
ships once he gets his clock cleaned by them. New tactics develope only when
the old ones cease to work. Use the members of this list to help you figure
out how to beat his strategy.
Of course on the other hand, maybe you could look for opponents that aren't
so one-dimensional as to avoid trying new things.
Another possibility, try developing scenerio's that have mixed fleets. That's
what I do here. There's no rule that says all games have to be
point-based battles. I find scenarios to be more interesting then just
plain xxx points vs xxx points fights.
George
Shawn said:
> There is one big problem with everyone's analysis.
> Here's the problem. Even if I win initiative, I fire
Yep, that's a problem. Escorts dish out damage slower and suck up less before
they die. Your buddy is still a cheesemeister, but
here's a suggestion. Bring a few (say, ten or twenty) needle-armed
strikeboats. Maneuver into his aft arc, or just build up your velocity and
come in at high speeds. Fire off your needles at his maneuver drive. Once
you've put two hits on it and knocked it out, put remaining needle hits on his
FTL and anything else you find useful
eg screen. With his drives gone, he can't maneuver, so you can mosey
around to his rear arc and chip away at him, and there's nothing he can do
about it. If you want to insult him, just send a frigate with
> On 28-Mar-01 at 18:59, stranger (stranger@cvn.net) wrote:
I'll take that one. I'll just put alot of fire controls on my big boy. 10
wouldn't be too many. How many needle beams required.
Personally I would design one ship with class 5's and the rest small needle
beams. Take out his drives. That's the old
munchkin-y-munchking.
> Change your games to simultaneous firing; should solve the problem
That's a good idea, but I still REALLY like the idea of putting all the ship
ID's on cards (or chits, or whatever), then each ship fires when its card is
drawn. That just seems like a really great way of doing it!
In a patch to the now old Master of Orion Game, they set it up that ships went
in order of speed, so in FT it would basically work out that ships with higher
thrust have initiative over ships with lower thrust ratings (not thrust used).
So one interesting way to do that would be to still roll initiative, but only
use the roll to resolve ties for ships of the same thrust rating.
One thing I'm hesitant about though, is putting too much to chance. I strongly
believe that part of the game lies in the order of selection for what ships
one fires when. I'd hate to see that totally left to chance, thus reducing
tactical options.
George
Heh heh actually, we are developing a FT campaign that will do just that. I am
also writing rules as to what kind of a shipyard it takes to build
ships........so it will take a very long time to be able to build massive
hulls.
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> On 28-Mar-01 at 19:26, Shawn M Mininger (smininger@yahoo.com) wrote:
One thing we did in our campaign was required all starting ships to be from
FB1. See, we were minor powers subsidized by the big guys so we had a few
ships. The biggest thing used was an FSE BDN and maintenance costs for that
beast was eating me alive.
> Laserlight wrote:
Therefore
> >bigger ships will be able to pack in more stuff per square meter of
Oerjan said:
> Do the Alarishi measure hull volume in *square* meters? Ah well, I
Nope, we measure hull *surface* is square meters. Hull surface is what we wrap
around the payload. If we can fit in more payload
> Jeremy Seeley wrote:
> With all of the talk about Escorts, Capitals, Carriers, whatever...
size
> classes, it has made me wonder about the mass cost for hulls.
In FT your are not doubling the dimensions when you double the mass, you are
doubling the mass.
> Opinions anyone? I have just come up with this idea, and have yet to
It has no basis in reality, you may be surprised to hear this, but a 60,000
tonne steel hull for a ship is about twice as expensive as a 30,000 tonne
steel hull for a ship. The reason that there were more tonnes of destroyers
than battleships was that it took less time to build a tonne of destroyer than
a tonne of battleship.
I wish I could remember the source, but I read that, per tonne, battleships
were the least expensive vessels. Battleship production was restricted by the
number
The other solution might be to switch to simultaneous fire. This would mean
that you would get all your small ships firing done despite what he does.
Or need I say- Needle Beams
> Corey Burger wrote:
That's actually a point against the idea in my mind. The thing I like about
initiative fire or "deck" fire is that some things just won't get to shoot.
It's more realistic. Everything won't work to 100% ever turn. It's a way to
add fog of battle to the game.
> Laserlight wrote:
> Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Volume is a function of
But the ship's Mass (TMF) isn't proportional to its hull *surface*, and
neither is the basic FBx hull cost. The hull cost is proportional to the
ship's *Mass* (equal to the TMF), and the Mass is roughly proportional to the
*volume*...
The effect of your proposal is that the average *density* of a TMF 100 ship is
0.0001 times the average *density* of a TMF 1 ship. That sounds rather
unlikely, don't you think?
Regards,
> Laserlight wrote:
Oerjan said
> But the ship's Mass (TMF) isn't proportional to its hull *surface*, and
Someone had suggested that escorts were unrealistically disadvantaged because
small ships ought to be more efficient than big ships. I'm pointing out that,
realistically, smaller is *not* more efficient. Hull surface and armor
contribute nothing to payload, so a lower surface:volume ratio is good and
bigger ships (of the same shape) have an advantage over smaller ships.
FT doesn't take this into account, and I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing
out that adding realism in this case doesn't help the escorts.
I wrote this, wondering why shawn lets himself get abused, friend or no friend
:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:51:58 -0800 (PST) Shawn M Mininger
> <smininger@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>
> Big ships are just plain more effecient.......unless
Shawn, that's crap. It's okay to let *his* style (if I may use that word) of
'play' be favored (i.e., he wins all the time and thinks he's a great FT
player) over yours??
What sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander.
<snip the tirade I wanted to avoid (held this overnight - sometimes I
act smart, not often.)>
But OI see Shawn finally put his foot down and said 'enough.' I can only
hope this guy sees the fun one can have winning/losing/playing without
the power game stuff.. Maybe some day he'll recognize this and privately thank
you for this.
If you are going to vary point cost based on mass them the bigger the ship is
the LESS you should pay per point of mass.
Smaller hulls are more expensive to build per tonne
than larger hulls - economies of scale. One large ship
is much cheaper to build and operate, especially operate, than any number of
smaller ships carring the same aggregate mass of cargo.
The battle line wins again!
> If you are going to vary point cost based on mass them
Though this tends to be true in real life, it defeats the purpose: we're
trying to make smaller ships MORE competitive, not less.
> Michael Robert Blair wrote:
> If you are going to vary point cost based on mass them
This completely misses what points values are for.
The point value represents the *combat power* of the unit. It is a tool
intended to help design reasonably even battles.
Big ships have more combat power per Mass than small ships do; therefore they
need to cost more points per Mass as well in order to
allow reasonably even equal-points battles against small ships.
The point value does NOT represent the procurement or construction cost of the
unit. FB1 creates background fluff by translating the points
costs into construction costs, but that's background fluff *only* - it
has no significance to the *game* whatsoever.
> --- Michael Robert Blair <pellinoire@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, the last time we played, we used the 'canned' ships right out of the
book, due to time limitations....heh heh heh. It was kind of funny actually. I
won all three battles. I was talking to another buddy of mine that was there
and he mentioned that maybe having to actually manuever and use tactics was a
new thing for him!!!
Persistance paid off in the end!!
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
> On 30-Mar-01 at 16:53, Bif Smith (bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk) wrote:
The
> other thing about large ships is they should cost more to build in the
The problem here is bigger ships cost less per ton than smaller ships.
Otherwise why would oil companies build super-tankers? In a one-off
game expect big ships unless something artificial is done to stop them. In our
campaign we limited big ships with upkeep costs of (Mass *.06)^1.6 in NPV.
This was pretty bogus also but we wanted to force smaller ships and the upkeep
on my BDN was painful.
[quoted original message omitted]
> Bif Smith wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
The
> other thing about large ships is they should cost more to build in the
The interest on the capital is not a real cost, but an opportunity cost, and
affects all warship costs equally; unless, the money to build the warships is
borrowed (but very few campaign rules allow for deficit spending). Looking at
how warships are built gives a skewed impression of how they could be built.
Warships tend to be built as slow as possible, so as to preserve a surge
capacity by maintaining the largest number of shipyards that the budget will
allow. An american supercarrier costs more per tonne than any other warship
because the americans have to ensure that the shipyard will still have a pool
of skilled labor for the next time that the USN needs a supercarrier. If the
USN could go to any manufacturer of large ships, the supercarrier would cost
less, and be ready sooner (except nobody builds large steamships anymore, and
carriers need the steam).
So lets look at wartime construction, according to Jane's Fighting Ships of
WWII, the Allen M. Sumner class of destroyers cost $8,000,000 each, without
armament, and displaced 2200 tonnes (~$3600/tonne). The USS Alaska has
its cost
officially estimated at $74,000,000 (~$3000/tonne). Both classes
started construction at the same time. The Alaska needed only 7 men per 100
tonnes, compared to the Sumner's 15. The HMS King George V was only slightly
more than six times the cost of a tribal class destroyer, laid down the
previous year, but was 19 times as massive. Wet navy ships get cheaper as they
get larger, due to economies of scale and the fact that large ships need less
power per tonne to travel as fast as smaller ships. Space navies do not enjoy
the same economies as it takes just as much power per tonne to accelerate a
spacecraft at a given rate, regardless of size, so the cost formulas in FB1&2
are a reasonable estimate of cost versus size.
To accurately represent real size distributions, you need a campaign system.
One schema I was studying was to divide the cost of ship construction into a
yard cost and a material cost. Shipyards had a yard cost that was proportional
to the maximum ship material it could assemble in a campaign turn. The cost of
a ship was its material cost plus (yard cost times turns of construction).
Shipyards had the additional parameter of slip size, which determined the
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:53:01 -0800 (PST) Shawn M Mininger
> <smininger@yahoo.com> writes:
Hallelujah and Amen!
Now, when this guy catches on and does his homework, be careful he doesn't
catch you unaware of his effort. Not everybody is as bad a
maneuver leader as moi - my best tactic is close and go bulldog (but
that only works with the right design and a lot of luck.)
If you look at the FB1 construction rules, somewhere in there it does say that
civilian vessels get 1 CF per 50 mass (which the civilian ships in the back
have as CF) as opposed to the 1 CF per 20 mass of warships.
Neath Southern Skies -http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[MKW2] Admiral Peter Rollins - Task Force Zulu-Beta
[Firestorm] Battletech PBeM GM
> -----Original Message-----