Ok, the WDA and all has got me thinking:
How about a 'weapon design system' that takes the tried and tested basic
weapon systems (Beams, K-Guns, etc.) and allows them to be customised
using a system of advantages and limitations (basic idea inspired by Hero
system).
For instance:
Range: Increase or Decrease range bands, however large ranges (>48mu) should
be discouraged (probably very small ranges as well).
Reduce number of fire arcs (for weapons which naturally have more than 1, i.e.
SMs, PBLs)
Add (or remove) PDS capability (either limited, like Class-1 beams, or
full, like Pulsars)
Reduce MASS but increase COST (Miniaturisation - a form of this is
already in the WDA)
Increase MASS and reduce COST (Maximalisation, also in the WDA)
Burnout - every time the system is used, it must make a threshold check
or be damaged, or even destroyed (variations include either fixed thresholds
or based on current damage level)
Backlash - use of weapon has chance of damaging ship
Ignore screens - for weapons that usually don't
Doesn't ignore screens -for weapons that usually do
Penetrating - half vs. armour for weapons that usually don't
Extremely Penetrating - like K-guns, for weapons that usually don't
Non-Penetrating - for weapons that normally penetrate
One-use/Single shot - the system can only be used once
Limited Used - the system can only be used a limited number of times
(probably has a magazine - like SML)
Slow rate of fire - the system needs a turn to 'recharge' after being
fired (like PBLs)
Unpowered - other systems cannot be used on the same turn that this
system is used (tricky to work out - getting into B5wars territory)
Exclusive - most other systems cannot be used on same turn that system
is used (like vapour shroud)
Hardened/Fragile - system is less/more susceptible to threshold checks
(I'm putting this one in for discussion purposes - personally I'm
worried that both options are heavily abusable - for instance - putting
fragile systems onto small escorts that probably won't survive the first hit)
Other limitations - like 'needs FTL drive charged', anything else I've
missed.
Well, if anyone else feels a need for such a system (which, if done right,
should ensure that initial designs at least have their MASS in
roughly the right value - playtesting will still be needed for anything
likely to see serious use) - we need to work out some figures - I've got
some that I'm working on that I'll probably post in just over a week (going
away next week).
Well - anyone else think there is a use for this (once developed)?
G'day again,
> Well - anyone else think there is a use for this (once developed)?
Be handy for us in the tech tress associated with campaigns that we all get
excited about every now again.
Cheers
Beth
I think this is a novel and interesting idea, but requires a significant
reworking of point/mass costs to deal with the fractional additions and
subtractions. It may give greater flexibility at the cost of greater
complexity. Could work, though.
> At 10:39 PM -0400 5/31/01, Izenberg, Noam wrote:
Well, FT isn't Champions - for one thing I'll suggest playing FT. I
did some fiddling with this sort of concept when I did my B5W conversions.
The important thing, from a Full Thrust perspective, is to keep FT from
getting munchkinized. However, as a guideline for creating new races or adding
tech trees to a campaign this will be very useful.
I'll look over my B5W conversions again (and put them back on the web) to see
if I can derive anything useful for this concept.
[quoted original message omitted]
On 1-Jun-01 at 08:50, Alan and Carmel Brain
(aebrain@austarmetro.com.au) wrote: >
> ----- Original Message -----
Just remember the Hero System is broken. You have to have a good GM to say
"No, that is unbalancing" otherwise things quickly become absurd.
I would second the ideas of such a system. The FT system is simple enough as a
whole that it could flex a bit in this area and not break. I used to be a huge
fan of the Mekton Zeta system which allowed you to build just about anythign
mechanical. Great system, took into account issues of space and weight
efficiency vs point costing.
Eli
> From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@jhuapl.edu>
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> How about a 'weapon design system' that takes the tried and tested
I have a number of empirical guidelines like this. So far they've stood me in
good stead for first estimates, but any result they give must *always* be
followed up by playtesting.
The term "total cost", which I use rather extensively below, is the cost of
the system itself [Mass * (Cost/Mass)], the system's fraction of the
ship's
engines (start with thrust-4 Human engines and FTL), and the hull to
hold both the system and the engine bitz.
Here goes:
> Range: Increase or Decrease range bands, however large ranges (>48mu)
Range bands increased by 50% = double the total cost
> Reduce number of fire arcs (for weapons which naturally have more than
> Add (or remove) PDS capability (either limited, like Class-1 beams, or
4 pts total cost for full, all-arc PDS capability
> Reduce MASS but increase COST (Miniaturisation - a form of this is
and
> Increase MASS and reduce COST (Maximalisation, also in the WDA)
The total cost of the system should be kept as close to constant as possible.
> Burnout - every time the system is used, it must make a threshold check
Depends entirely on how big the risk is
> Ignore screens - for weapons that usually don't
Increase total cost to 6/5 of the normal value
> Doesn't ignore screens -for weapons that usually do
Decrease total cost to 5/6 of the normal value
> Penetrating - half vs. armour for weapons that usually don't
No significant game effect unless the enemy ships have significantly more
armour than first-row hull boxes.
> Extremely Penetrating - like K-guns, for weapons that usually don't
Tricky, since it goes from "virtually no penetration" (K1s) to "90+% of
the damage bypasses armour" (K6s).
> Non-Penetrating - for weapons that normally penetrate
Same as Penetrating
> One-use/Single shot - the system can only be used once
Cut the total cost to half. Multi-shot weapons usually get to fire more
than twice during a battle, but damage now is better than the same amount of
damage later on.
> Limited Used - the system can only be used a limited number of times
3 shots ~ "unlimited", at least for tactical battles. (Not in campaigns
though!)
> Slow rate of fire - the system needs a turn to 'recharge' after being
Reduce total cost by 1/3 (if re-charge time is 1 turn)
> Unpowered - other systems cannot be used on the same turn that this
Essentially unbalancable :-/
> Hardened/Fragile - system is less/more susceptible to threshold checks
Depends on which system it is (a hardened FCS is more worth than a hardened
weapon, for example).
> Other limitations - like 'needs FTL drive charged', anything else I've
Depends entirely on the exact limitation.
Later,
In message <5.1.0.14.1.20010601175618.009f72d0@m1.853.telia.com>
> Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> Charles Taylor wrote:
I agree.
> The term "total cost", which I use rather extensively below, is the
I'm considering an additional factor: if the maximum range is increased by
12mu or more, then the total cost should be not less than double that of the
original system (double for each increase of 12mu).
For example: A 1-arc Class-3 Beam has its range increased by 50% to
18/36/54mu - 'total cost' of standard B-3 is 12 (B-3) + 20% x 4 x 2
(added cost of thrust 4 engine) + 10% x 4 x 2 (added cost of FTL) + 4 x
130% (added cost of hull) = 19.6 (did I get that right?)
'Total cost' of long-range B-3 is therefore 39.2, maximum range is
increased by +18mu, more than +12mu, but less than +24mu - so this is
ok, but I'm tempted to add a further surcharge for taking the range over
48mu :-)
However, a long-range B-4 would add +24mu to its maximum range, so its
'total cost' should be at least _4_ times that of a normal B-4.
What should the total cost reduction be if the range is halved? my
calculations indicate something like x0.3 - which looks a little low
IMHO.
> >Reduce number of fire arcs (for weapons which naturally have more
Thinking about it, I'd say that its possible that the relative value of
a fire arc varies from weapon to weapon - from my experience, arcs on
placed ordnance weapons are worth quite a lot.
> >Add (or remove) PDS capability (either limited, like Class-1 beams,
Err...could you re-phrase that - I'm not sure I understood.
> >Burnout - every time the system is used, it must make a threshold
Of cause this will vary depending on whether the threshold check occurs before
or after the systems effects are resolved, if after, the 'total
cost' of a burnout system should be _more_ than that of the equivalent
'one-shot' system (q.v.).
> >
Usually based on damage capability of the weapon - guess it needs
resolving on a case by case basis.
> [quoted text omitted]
[snip]
> >One-use/Single shot - the system can only be used once
Hmm... so lets 'build' a Submunitions pack :-)
Take 1-arc Class-3 beam, halve the range (I'll treat this as half total
cost, rather than the value I quoted above - on the principle of 'round
not in favour of the user' :-), make it ignore screens, and make it
one-shot.
Total cost is 19.6 (calculated above) x0.5 (half range), x6/5 (no
screens), x0.5 (one-shot) = 5.88
Total cost of SMP based on FB1) =4.9 ok, so I was wrong (see other
thread) :-|.
> >Limited Used - the system can only be used a limited number of times
I just use the Sa'Vas'Ku rules for this one :-)
> >
I knew this one would be a problem - pity that some existing systems
already have this limitation (Nova Cannon, Wave Gun, Vapour Shroud). I'm
tempted to give up on these and just work it out on a case by case bases.
> >Hardened/Fragile - system is less/more susceptible to threshold
I was actually thinking of disallowing this one for FireCons, ATM I'm
considering that a roll of '6' for a threshold always fails, regardless of
hardening.
> >Other limitations - like 'needs FTL drive charged', anything else
Ok, using my example - needs FTL charged up (and uses up the charge when
used) - for a start, this includes 'use only once every 2 turns' (1 turn
to charge FTL, as per FT2, 1 turn to use system) - also the penalties
for charging the FTL drive _may_ apply, as the user isn't planning on
actually _using_ the FTL drive, also, the system is more vulnerable to
thresholds, as it won't work if the FTL drive is damaged (in fact, this
circumstance could trigger a truly impressive backlash :-).
So its at least a 1/3 reduction :-).
> Later,
Thanks,
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> > The term "total cost", which I use rather extensively below, is the
> ship's
> 'Total cost' of long-range B-3 is therefore 39.2, maximum range is
IME the 18mu-band B3 is quite
> However, a long-range B-4 would add +24mu to its maximum range, so its
> What should the total cost reduction be if the range is halved? my
If the range is reduced to 2/3, the total cost should be halved
> >
In proportion to its average number of fighter kills. B1s shoot down half as
many standard fighters per shot as PDS do (on average); K1s shoot down
on average one-third as many.
> > >Reduce MASS but increase COST (Miniaturisation - a form of this is
Each system has a Mass, a Cost/Mass ratio, and a total cost which
depends
both on the Mass and the Cost/Mass ratio (as defined in the previous
post). If you don't change the system's capabilities, the total cost should
remain unchanged. Therefore, if you change the Mass, you should also change
the
Cost/Mass ratio in such a way that the total cost does not change when
you change the Mass.
In practise it is very rarely possible to get exactly the same total cost
when you change the Mass and Cost/Mass ratio, but you can usually get
close.
> > >One-use/Single shot - the system can only be used once
Using my rule-of-thumb instead, you get
> >
I'm
> tempted to give up on these and just work it out on a case by case
This is something that I have been tinkering with (off and on) for about 10
years now... (mostly off)
Weapon Point System
-- Allows the creation of weapons from the ground up. Not mods.
Pros:
-- Makes designing balanced weapons easy (or easier).
-- Uber weapons become huge/expensive.
-- Adding a tech level system becomes easy.
-- Makes compairing weapons easier.
Cons:
-- Figuring out all of the modifiers.
-- Desiding how to deal with the decimals.
-- Doesn't seem to handle missle type weapons well. (see below)
My basic formula:
-- Points = Weapon Range x Weapon Damage x Modifiers.
-- Size = Points / (divided by) Research level.
-- Cost = Size x 2 (I never got around to fixing this part. Should be
different for different weapon types. Lasers one value, machine cannon
another,
ect.)
-- For damage tables, just average the damage done per table entry.
-- I tend to use the same Research Level for every weapon that a nation
has.
Various mods I have thought of:
-- Very fast weapons (fires two or more shots per turn.)
-- Very slow weapons (Fires every second or third, ect. turns.)
-- Single shot weapons. (one use and cross it off.)
-- Spherical effects. (Effects everything in a specified radius.)
Missles: These systems don't seem to handle missle type weapons very well. (Or
any
multi-system weapon.)It doesn't reflect advances in engine tech, ect.
It just costs up the entire weapon. Everyone knows missles have several
components. I tend
to just use a "micro-scale" ship construction system to build missles.
You know, decimals!
Campain Ideas:
-- Give each player the same weapon points budget. Let them design
their entire weapon range...
Donald Hosford
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> Ok, the WDA and all has got me thinking:
(snipped many interesting ideas)
> Well - anyone else think there is a use for this (once developed)?
Sorry 'bout that; troubles with the new mail program... This got sent rather
prematurely.
I don't have time to re-type it right now, unfortunately - will try to
get it done tomorrow.
> Charles Taylor wrote:
> cost of
Later,
In message <5.1.0.14.1.20010604203546.009e8710@m1.853.telia.com>
> Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >What should the total cost reduction be if the range is halved? my
Ok, looks like what I calculated as well.
[snip]
> > > >Reduce MASS but increase COST (Miniaturisation - a form of this
I think that is what I though you meant - makes sense.
[snip]
> > >
Well, I wasn't even going to go near the SV for now :-)
[snip]