> From: "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com>
Based on current rules, the two 150 point ships won't have more than one or
two firecontrols and will only be able to kill 2 or 4 smaller ships per turn.
> You would have to remove the fire control limitation to further
I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'd bet on the 2 x 150 mass ships. They
have more than 2 fire controls each (don't have FB books
here, but don't they average about 3-4 at this mass; and my designs
tend to have 4-5). With 4 FCs each there are going to be 8 of the 10m
ships dead before they fired their weapon (like a beam-2). That
leaves 22 and they will probably get a threshold on a m150 ship (say,
average hull + armor/shield); and that's if they all fire on the same
target.
Small ships do need to have some punch. The Kra'vak MKP weapon is
pretty potent, but being a one-shot weapon it has really limited
usefulness. Now why don't fighters have these? Hmm, could that be a Kar'vak
torpedo fighter? hmmm, never thought of that... anyway...
Glen
It's probably best being abstracted into the Torpedo fighter rules; Noam's
shipyard has a few variations (can't remember the site address).
You have to carefully balance the mass of the weapon system loaded onto the
fighter with the normal ship mass+firecon.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----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.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.
First off, it's POINTS, not MASS, which makes a slight difference - as
many high powered weapons systems (torpedoes, needle beams, scatterguns) are
relatively low mass, but are point priced higher to reflect their greater
firepower. So most 150 point ships are Cruiser sized hulls with
1-2 fire controls.
A 150 MASS ship would be facing a set of MASS 10 ships each armed with
two torpedoes or twin needle beams - 5 hits (60 needle beams, hitting on
6's = on average 10 hits then divided by 2 targets) with a needle beam will
knock out FTL, Engines, and some of the FC's. Once a ship has no engines, it's
a simple matter to stay out of arc and snipe with needle beams until all the
FC's are destroyed, then all the weapons.
The other scenario is 60 torpedoes at short range (hitting on 1-5, or
83% with an average of 3.5 points per hit for an average of 2.7 points per
torpedo times 60 torpedoes = 162 points of damage the first turn. Assuming
medium hulls with 75 points of hull per ship both ships are completely
destroyed with 12 points left over.
The original thought was that a perfect point system will generate
perfectly balanced fleets if the exact same point totals are used - 2000
point fleets should win against other 2000 point fleets half the time,
regardless of weapon choice, hull size etc.
The corallary is that a group or ship that is worth more points than another
should win more often.
The problem is that the point system has no bearing on how the weapon is used
in combat. 100 Class 1 beams are completely ineffective if the opponent keeps
further than 12 MU away, but a similar ship equipped with 50 Class 2's could
destroy the same opponent if they were within 24 MU. The problem with single
factor points costs, is that if weapons have different effectiveness, then
there will be break points where some weapons are useless and others where
they are extremely powerful and trying to combine all those statistics into a
single number is very difficult.
In future editions, points costs might be broken down into range bands,
then an overall "average" effectiveness. So close in "knife-fighting"
designs would have a high rating for slow, close range battles, while
"horse-archer" types would be better rated for long-distanec, fast
moving games. Although both types might have the same "average rating.
--Binhan
> I'm not sure what you're saying, but I'd bet on the 2 x 150 mass
Binhan, I've never seen you make this many trivial maths errors this quickly
before. What's up?
> You wrote:
> A 150 MASS ship would be facing a set of MASS 10 ships each armed with
1) 2 torpedoes = 8 Mass. 1 hull box is compulsory. That leaves 1 hull box for
both FCS and engines... so either these Mass 10 ships of yours have no FCS, or
they have no engines. If I were you I'd try arming them with a
single torpedo instead :-)
> or twin needle beams
That's more like it. A standard Ash-Shaulah (N), this is.
> - 5 hits (60 needle beams, hitting on 6's = on average 10 hits then
2) Since the targets will get to fire before most of your strikeboats can do
so, you're very unlikely to get 60 Needle shots. In my experience you're
doing well if two-thirds of your boats get to fire in the first attack
run.
3) Since these Needle boats only have a single FCS each they have to fire both
Needles at the same target system, so you'll only kill on average 4.6 systems
per target ship, not 6... IF all of your boats get to fire, which as noted
above isn't very likely at all.
> The other scenario is 60 torpedoes at short range
4) The other scenario is *30* torpedoes, not 60. (If you really do mean 60
torpedoes, your strikeboats either won't be able to fire due to a severe
lack of FCSs, or they won't be able to get to range 6 or less due to a severe
lack of main drives.)
5) Again, good luck getting to range 6 without losing any of your strikeboats
to enemy fire. At that close range even the targets' PDS systems are likely to
kill one or two strikeboats.
> (hitting on 1-5, or 83% with an average of 3.5 points per hit for an
6) 83% * 3.5 pts per hit = 2.9, not 2.7; but since you've only got 30 of
them to begin with and most likely have lost a bunch of boats before you
get to fire you won't get anywhere near 162 pts of damage on your first turn
of fire. If you're really good (or really lucky) you might inflict score 60
points, but even that is unlikely.
> Assuming medium hulls with 75 points of hull per ship both ships are
7) Average hulls on a 150-Mass ship means 150*0.3 = 45 hull boxes, not
75; but that doesn't count any armour the target ship has.
Now re-run your analysis, but this time take into account that the
dreadnoughts aren't going to cooperate - instead they'll attempt to stay
out of the strikeboats' (F) arcs, and they'll shoot at them as well.
Remember the initiative order - even when the boats win initiative, only
two of them get to fire before the 2nd dreadnought fires.
Yes, 30 Mass-10 strikeboats *can* defeat a pair of Mass-150 dreadnoughts
-
but they're by no means *guaranteed* to succeed.
Regards,
> I wrote:
> A 150 MASS ship would be facing a set of MASS 10 ships each armed with
> two torpedoes
This last sentence should of course read "That leaves 1 MASS for both FCS
and engines...", not "1 hull box" :-)
Later,
Oops, you're right. I miscalculated the torps as being mass 3. (the problem of
not having FB1 at work.:)
The calculations were off the cuff, usually I take the time to find a
calculator and run the numbers properly, but the point of the exercise was to
show that the side that can concentrate greater firepower in a local spot (or
single ship in this case) will have the overall benefit. With one or two
ships, it's difficult to concentrate firepower without serious overkill.
The numbers are just straight firepower - obviously tactics can improve
or negate weapon systems, for instance if the larger ships take nothing but
Class 1 and 2 beams, the 10 x 20 Mass torpedo boats will win, since they just
stand off at 30 MU and fire at their heart's content. Conversely, a depraved
indiviudal might create 2 mass 150 ships with Thrust 8 and a couple of class 4
beams with 3 firing arcs. These cases just highlight why there is a point
system and not just straight mass is used to balance fleets.
But as I mentioned in a different thread, a single points costs does not
accurately reflect the combat value of the system, only the POTENTIAL value if
used to maximum effect. The question I think people really should be asking is
how to give a value to more intangible values, such as range, differntial
damage, and arc of the weapon (which are partially based on the thrust value
and turning ability of the ship) and perhaps a more complicated formula based
on the overall design as a whole should be used, rather than a single plug and
play modular format.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> Oops, you're right. I miscalculated the torps as being mass 3.
Mass 2, more likely... unless you planned to make your strikeboats
thrust-4 :-/
> The numbers are just straight firepower - obviously tactics can improve
And in an analysis like this you have to take tactics into account. How can
you say "strikeboats will always beat dreadnoughts" based on a firepower
comparison for an idealized situation, if you have no idea about how likely it
is for this situation to occur?
> for instance if the larger ships take nothing but Class 1 and 2 beams,
> and fire at their heart's content.
Provided that they manage to match speed and course at 30mu against a
non-cooperating opponent. Easier to do in Vector than in Cinematic, but
not quite trivial in either system.
> But as I mentioned in a different thread, a single points costs does
Er, no. The points values of the various weapons take the average effects of
weapon ranges, arcs etc. into account, based on years of experience by several
different gaming groups. I suspect that that's why the strikeboats
seem so overpowered to you - you're looking at their very rarely
attained *maximum potential* value, whereas the points costs reflect their
much lower *average* value.
> The question I think people really should be asking is how to give a
> play modular format.
You're *way* behind, man. I and several others have been asking these very
questions for years already (in my case about ten years), and by now we have a
reasonably good grip on all of them. The "more complicated formula" you ask
for already exists; the reason why it isn't used directly for gaming purposes
is that Jon wants it to be possible to design FT ships by pen and paper
instead of by computer only, so instead it is used (together with playtesting)
to check how close the design system comes.
FWIW much of the discussion of these questions has taken place on this mailing
list; searching the list archive for "combat power" should turn up quite a few
posts you might find interesting.
Regards,
> B Lin wrote:
Conversely, a depraved indiviudal might create 2 mass 150 ships with Thrust 8
and a couple of class 4 beams with 3 firing arcs.
Alarishi Empire Alacrity BC 101m 348pt Thrust 8 Enhanced Sensor FTL Yes
[no armor]
[ooo*o]
[oo*oo]
[*oo*o]
[o*oo*]
2 FC
2 Beam 4 (F/FP/AP)
4 PDS Notes: ship names Alacrity, Celerity Designed: 1999
Well that strayed well off the original topic - which was a point system
should allow people to create fleets of equal point values that should perform
equally well against each other. The fact that the current system has certain
loop holes (fighters) indicates that the point system is not perfect yet.
I used an example of 300 POINTS of small boats vs. two 150 POINT ships as
example of how even if FLEETS are of equivalent value, the actual composition
of the fleet (assuming 1 point of value is equal to 1 point of value) can
allow you temporary tactical advantages (the 300 points on 150 points
example). Glen translated that into MASS which is a slightly different
ballgame since it is already known that weapons of equal MASS are not
necessarily equivalent in effect (which is why there is now a point system).
Since the point system takes an "average" effect into consideration, the fuzzy
parts occur at the extreme tactics side. And from what I'm hearing, that's
exactly the direction that people don't want to go.
They prefer not to have a Rock-Paper-Scissors scenario where All
Fighters, beats All Capital ships which beats Mega-ship with All PDS
which beats ALL fighters etc. With everything in between losing to those three
extremes.
One solution is to expand the Fleet Books. If people have a choice of 100 ship
classes (including mods, refits etc.) then they are more likely to find ships
that suit them. If people are allowed to generate their own designs and
generate the situations for the battles, there will always be inequities
unless great care is spent on balancing the scenario.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> Well that strayed well off the original topic - which was a point
should
> perform equally well against each other. The fact that the current
Correct. The two remaining major problem areas are fighters and
large-vs-small ships (and of course the FB2 Sa'Vasku rules, but their
problems don't have very much to do with the rest of the game); we're working
on solutions for these.
The issues you suggested that we work on *instead* however (weapon ranges,
damage and fire arcs) aren't causing any serious balance problems in
Cinematic, and in Vector only the fire arcs cause problems because the entire
Vector movement system was added in as an afterthought when the ship
design rules had already been done :-/ (FWIW we're working on that too.)
> I used an example of 300 POINTS of small boats vs. two 150 POINT ships
Unfortunately your example completely ignored that BOTH sides can use tactics
to get a temporary tactical advantage. Indeed, the entire point of the game is
to try and gain a temporary advantage over your opponent through the use of
superior tactics; if tactics were irrelevant you could just as easily flip a
coin or something like that to see who wins! However, with a balanced system
it is the side with the better *tactics* who wins
the game - not the side with the better *ship designs*.
Instead of recognizing that both sides can gain a tactical advantage to win
the battle, your example assumed that one *specific* side (the strikeboats)
would ALWAYS (or almost always) gain the MAXIMUM possible advantage and that
the other side (the cruisers) would not even lift a finger to try to prevent
it (eg. by manoeuvring to stay outside the boats' (F) arcs or by
shooting at the boats). Since this assumption is extremely unlikely to
actually be met on the gaming table, your prediction (ie. that the strikeboats
would nearly always win this fight) simply doesn't hold true in practise: it
could just as easily be the *cruisers* which gain a temporary advantage over
the strikeboats, and then the cruisers win instead.
With an *un*balanced system OTOH, the side with the better ship designs has
a *permanent* advantage over the other - one which might be possible to
counter with vastly superior tactics, but which nonetheless makes it much
harder for the weaker side to win. This is what currently happens if one
side's average ship size is significantly larger than the other's (the
cruisers in your example aren't big enough to gain that much from this
though), or when one side guesses wrong in the PD-vs-fighters gamble.
> Since the point system takes an "average" effect into consideration,
Not entirely correct. Tactics is all about getting on the side of these
averages that is most favourable to you; they are what makes the game
interesting. In the unbalanced areas of the design system however tactics
become less important than design, and *that* is a direction most people
don't want to go. Which is of course why we're working on balancing those
currently unbalanced areas.
> One solution is to expand the Fleet Books.
Excuse me, but how do you think the ships in the Fleet Books are designed? By
magic, or something?
As I wrote in another post yesterday, the term "custom ships" *includes*
*all* *future* *Fleet* *Book* *designs* - so in order to get any
potential future Fleet Book fleets reasonably balanced against the existing
ones, we first need to get the overall game balance right.
If we just expand the Fleet Books without first getting the overall balance
right, all we do is make the unbalanced extremes "officially approved". Is
that what you want? I doubt it.
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Have I missed something? Is this a house rule? I don't remember ever seeing
anything about PDS firing against ships. (but I like the idea)
J
FB1, under "PDS".
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
> > systems are likely to kill one or two strikeboats.
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.
Finally, please do not remove this notice, so that any other readers are aware
of these restrictions.
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 05:26:50PM -0800, Jared Hilal wrote:
> Have I missed something? Is this a house rule? I don't remember ever
FB1, on the page which explains the symbols used in the ship diagrams.