I've seen some people simulate older FT designs (Dean G?) using waste space.
This is fine if all you are simulating is dated tech across the board. It sort
of is a good generic way of handling older designs, though it would have been
nice to see some% quantification on how much more space you should use per
year or whatever to give an across the board fair use.
OTOH, what if you're trying to simulate different tech progressions? You have
(as I see it) two areas you can approach this from: Limiting system types by
"tech level" and affecting the costs and or masses by the same degree.
As I recall in Stars!, the tech for shrinking things was miniaturization and
became very important in a tech tight universe.
I'm sure someone out there has an URL to some tech tree ideas along either of
these lines.
My main concern is I'd like to get something that lets different nations
progress at a very slightly different rate in different tech areas, but not
enough so as to throw the whole shebang so far off balance that one nation is
UberStrong. I find this a common flaw in tech
trees - once you figure out the advantageous
progress route or if you luckily get two or three potentiating or synergistic
advances (J.U.M.P. into the Unknown comes to mind here), it actually means
you've got a huge advantage.
So, anyone want to offer up some URLs for thought?:)
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 04:50:35AM -0500, Thomas Barclay wrote:
Yes.
> using waste space. This is
Agreed; not that we have precise years for most of the older designs
anyway. (Also see below on "Changing costs/masses".)
> OTOH, what if you're trying to simulate different
Limiting system types: this is fairly easy. I've seen campaign rules which say
"to develop system X, you must first have system Y"; in fact, I'm planning to
work on some of my own fairly soon.
Changing costs/masses: this gets harder. Not because it's a bad idea,
but because the mass/cost system is very granular; an FCS taking 2 mass
rather than 1 is a huge penalty, and there's nothing in between. Similarly,
one can't reduce the mass of an FCS without making it zero.
> As I recall in Stars!, the tech for shrinking things
(mutter mutter VGAPlanets ripoff mutter mutter :-)
> My main concern is I'd like to get something
Things I also want such a system to do, in no especial order:
(1) Don't allow mixed-tech ships (e.g. Stingers on a human ship),
because I find them ugly and the rules would need to be seriously rewritten to
balance them.
(2) Let resource allocation be the main factor in progress - do I
research beam-3s or build another battledreadnought?
(3) Be easy to program into my ship design software.
(4) Have multiple prerequisites for at least some items.
Any thoughts from elsewhere?
Roger Burton West schrieb:
> >using waste space. This is
> >OTOH, what if you're trying to simulate different
For many of the systems, you could make this fairly fine grained:
Not just Beams / no Beams, but count each beam strength as a separate
tech level, so you start wit Beam 1, progress to Beam 2 etc.
You could calls multi-arc weapons as separate levels. Start with
single-arc weapons, progress to 2 and 3-arc ones
Limit the number of specific systems a ship can carry, e.g.at low tech,
only a single beam-3 or a single Fire-control system.
> Changing costs/masses: this gets harder. Not because it's
It's messy, but as a house rule you could use fractional mass/points
cost, say an FCS for 1/2 or 1.5 mass.
Greetings
> Tomb wrote:
> I've seen some people simulate older FT
In order to provide an exact percentage, I'd like you to specify:
1) Which specific power you're talking about (not all powers had access to the
same equipment at all times)
2) Which specific tech systems you're talking about (not all systems have been
reduced in size by the same amount over time).
3) Depending on how good metallurgists the builders were, the ship's hull
integrity is likely to go down as well as the ship ages - ie., the ship
loses hull boxes "permanently" as it gets older :-/
Of course, then you need to take into account that many of the older designs
have been upgraded with more modern equipment over the years, so
you need to know both when and where the ship itself was built and when and
where the updated tech systems were designed, etc.
Having said that, Dean's obsolecent/obsolete designs typically "waste"
around 2-3% of the TMF (or 1 MASS, whichever is more :-/ ) to represent
their age. Most of these old ships are supposedly from the 2nd Solar War
period.
> OTOH, what if you're trying to simulate different
Limiting systems is easy. Changing the masses and costs pretty much requires
you to use fractional masses, or else you'll get very big jumps in
effectiveness for the smaller systems.
> Roger Burton-West wrote:
> (1) Don't allow mixed-tech ships (e.g. Stingers on a human ship),
Is this experience talking, or untested gut feeling?
> and the rules would need to be seriously rewritten to balance them.
I agree wrt the Sa'Vasku; they're too different from everything else to be
mixed easily.
I strongly disagree wrt Phalon and Kra'Vak tech. It is designed to mix easily
with human tech, and priced accordingly.
Regards,
> Thomas Barclay kaladorn@magma.ca
For weapons, you can also adjust the range--eg Obsolete Beams have 4"
range bands, 2nd Line have 5", Bleeding Edge have 8", etc.
You might also apply a diffusion factor and espionage factors to even
things out--it's a lot cheaper and easier to be second than first in a
particular field.
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 02:13:24PM -0500, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> For weapons, you can also adjust the range--eg Obsolete Beams have 4"
range bands, 2nd Line have 5", Bleeding Edge have 8", etc.
My thought is to avoid going beyond the "current" tech - it's too likely
to lead to balance problems.
> You might also apply a diffusion factor and espionage factors to even
Agreed. Espionage, capture and reverse-engineering, time...
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:43:22PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Experience of MT Kra'Vak/Human hybrids outfighting MT Kra'Vak, mainly.
But "ugly" was more of an aesthetic comment than a game-balance one.
> and the rules would need to be seriously rewritten to balance them.
That's fair enough; S'V seem to be the first thing to come up in
most mixed-tech discussions. I think, though - and this _is_ untested
gut feeling - that part of the cost of systems is predicated on the
other systems one can use with it. Kra'Vak don't get attack or torpedo
fighters, for example; if they did, this would create a new tactical
situation unlike that which one meets when facing attack fighters _or_
Kra'Vak.
Or to put it another way: a Phalon fleet has a distinctive flavour which a
human fleet with PBLs and Pulsers would not.
> Roger Burton-West wrote:
> >>(1) Don't allow mixed-tech ships (e.g. Stingers on a human ship),
Which unfortunately has no bearing at all on mixed *FB* tech, since the entire
design system and most of the tech systems have been redone more or
less completely :-/
> But "ugly" was more of an aesthetic comment than a game-balance one.
Those aesthetics only apply in the Tuffleyverse <shrug>
Other backgrounds have other aesthetics - eg., in order to emulate
Renegade
Legion-universe capital ship combat with Full Thrust you pretty much
*have* to mix technologies:
* Crowbars (spinal mount kinetic guns) = big K-guns
* Armour of different thicknesses giving different amounts of protection
against said crowbars = Phalon multi-layered shells
* Long-range beam batteries capable of engaging both starships and
fighters = Phalon Pulsers
* Specialized multi-shot anti-fighter/anti-missile systems = Human PDS
* Missiles which damage all ships within the volume of effect = very similar
to Phalon PBLs * Shields which allow you to fire while they're active = Human
screens
...and virtually all ships combine all of these features :-/ Yet other
backgrounds have other tech combinations.
> >>and the rules would need to be seriously rewritten to balance them.
> I think, though - and this _is_ untested gut feeling - that part of the
> cost of systems is predicated on the other systems one can use with it.
The Phalon and Kra'Vak *tech systems* were priced to be balanced in
mixed-tech designs. The Phalon and Kra'Vak *fleet concepts*, OTOH, were
chosen in such a way that the different tech systems they use support each
other. Examples:
* The Phalons get away with using those Fragile/Weak hulls because their
multi-layer armour isn't as vulnerable to penetrating damage as
single-row
armour is. Ships with stronger hulls don't benefit as much from having
multi-layer armour, since they're less sensitive to penetrating damage
to begin with.
* The Kra'Vaks' heavy use of (F)-arc weapons is only viable in Cinematic
because their Advanced Drives give them high enough maneuverability to
actually point most of those weapons towards the enemy. If you don't have
high maneuverability you need wider-arced secondary weapons to back up
your
(F)-arc "initial strike" weapons, similar to how the FB1 NAC use
P-torps.
> Kra'Vak don't get attack or torpedo fighters, for example; if they did,
> this would create a new tactical situation unlike that which one meets
The Kra'Vak and Sa'Vasku lack specialized fighters mainly due to lack of
playtest time before FB2 was published - the KV Ro'Kah rules mean that
attack and torpedo/MKP fighters would be worth more for the KV than for
humans using the standard morale rules and we didn't have time to determine
how much more, and each different SV drone type would need its own power
cost which we also didn't have time to work out. (...not that we managed to
get very much of the other SV rules right either... :-( )
Phalons don't have any explicit restriction on which specialized fighter
types they can use - FB2 only mentions the standard (Peg), heavy (Pud)
and interceptor (Pam) variants as being "the most common" out of "several
different types", which means that there are other types as well. I personally
don't think that torpedo fighters fit with the general "all weapons stopped by
screens" flavour of the other Phalon weaponry, but again that's an aesthetics
thing rather than game balance. (A (very expensive)
fighter attacking ships as Attack fighters but with Standard
anti-fighter
capability would be quite appropriate, OTOH - it'd obviously be armed
with
a miniature Pulser-C, allowing both devastating anti-ship fire and
decent
anti-fighter fire <g>)
> Or to put it another way: a Phalon fleet has a distinctive flavour
A fleet with PBLs and Pulsers mixed together with FB1 human tech, eg. my
FB/RL conversion, most certainly has a distinct flavour - it just isn't
the *same* distinct flavour as the "pure" FB2 Phalons or the "pure" FB1 humans
have. FWIW the published "pure" FB1 humans manage to get *four* different
fleets, each with its own distinct flavour, out of the same shared set of
tech toys - and they're by no means the only flavours you can get from
the FB1 tech.
Later,
On Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:51 PM, Thomas Barclay
> [SMTP:kaladorn@magma.ca] wrote:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/ftcamp1.htm
I've recently done some upgrades and changes to the rules to take into account
"Striking the Colours" and crew morale.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> My main concern is I'd like to get something
One of my favorite computer games is Civilization. Unfortunately, it's easy to
have the game wired, because if you know which techs and wonders to build,
your set.
2B^2
One thought to tech trees. YOu can use tech levels say 1 to 15. Each increase
in tech level allows you to improve one area of the device. For instance in
weapons there would be factors of range, damage, weight and power consumption.
Each tech level gives a 10% reduction from the
previous amount fractions rounded - i.e. a Mass 10 weapon becomes Mass
9, range 24 becomes range 26, or production costs drop from 100 Mcr per unit
to 90 Mcr, etc.
Then you describe the stats of ship as being equipped with Tech 5 shields,
tech 6 beams, tech 3 engines tech 4 hull etc. but you won't know the specifics
until they are used. i.e. if they have tech 6 beams is that a beam with 21%
more range, 21% more damage and 21% less mass than a standard beam or is it
33% more damage and 33% less mass?
The interesting thing is that your tech 7 beam will probably be different than
someone elses tech 7 beam depending on which areas you concentrate your
benefit to. Someone could develop a killer beam with
only standard range - A tech 7 damage beam that does 114% over standard
while someone else could develop a long range beam - 114% greater range
but standard damage. Alternatively they could invest in mass savings and have
a beam weapon 53% smaller, able to mount twice as many. Or
something in-between with slightly increased range, damage, and slightly
less mass per unit.
This limits the possibility of a single uber-weapon or technology but
allows a technologically advanced race to have an edge over less adept races.
To simulate more advanced races, you can allow some to purchase tech
levels at a cheaper rate in certain categories - i.e. war-like ones
would be more progressed in beam or missile technology, colonizing ones would
tend to want more efficient engines etc.
The down side to this is that it makes the tech trees linear - you will
not get an instant uber-weapon, you have to develop it for a long time
and your opponents will be able to peg your technology rather easily (i.e.
well last engagement he only shot at range 24, so the best he could have
improved would be range 26) unless you intentionally mislead them to the
actual abilities of your systems (for instance only firing at 24 inches when
you could fire at 30).
The other problem is tracking all the tech. For a given race you would
lock in each equipment tech level - i.e. if they've spent 5 tech levels
on Damage, the level 6 weapon will have 5 levels of damage and one new one,
not 6 tech levels of new attributes. So you would have to keep track of each
races tech tree separately.
From: ~ On Behalf Of Thomas Barclay
Sent: 05 February 2002 09:51
Subject: [FT] Tech Trees
Tb>...what if you're trying to simulate different Tb> tech progressions? You
have (as I see it) two Tb> areas you can approach this from: Limiting system
Tb> types by "tech level" and affecting the costs and Tb> or masses by the
same degree.
Tb> I'd like to get something that lets different Tb> nations progress at a
very slightly different Tb> rate in different tech areas, but not enough so
Tb> as to throw the whole shebang so far off balance Tb> that one nation is
UberStrong.
If you get the NPV right, a very low tech force can
take on a very high-tech force and still have a
balanced game. Easy to say...
From: ~ On Behalf Of Oerjan Ohlson
Sent: 05 February 2002 18:43
Subject: Re: [FT] Tech Trees
Tb> I've seen some people simulate older FT Tb> designs (Dean G?) using waste
space. This is Tb> fine if all you are simulating is dated tech Tb> across the
board.
Tb>... it would have been nice to see some% Tb> quantification on how much
more space you should Tb> use per year or whatever..
Or> In order to provide an exact percentage, I'd Or> like you to specify: Or>
Or> 1) Which specific power you're talking about Or> Or> 2) Which specific
tech systems you're talking
Or> about
Flipping through FB1 there doesn't seem to be much of a pattern. The NAC were
putting PTs and SMs on their heavies in the early '60s. A lot of NSL designs
are from the early '70s but we see a PT as early as '68, with the SM appearing
in the early '70s. Most FSE designs are from after this date so we can't prove
their use of SMs before 2169. The ESU were using armour, B3s and SMRs in the
mid '50s, but this isn't because they are more advanced; on the contrary we
know this simply because they don't update their designs as frequently as
other powers do.
In short, there ain't enough canonical information to say who gets what when,
so you need a generic tree in keeping with the generic construction system of
FB1.
Or> 3) Depending on how good metallurgists the
Or> builders were, the ship's hull integrity is
Or> likely to go down as well as the ship ages.
Will that apply equally to vessels that never enter an atmosphere?
From: ~ On Behalf Of laserlight@quixnet.net
Sent: 05 February 2002 19:13
Subject: RE: [FT] Tech Trees
Ll> For weapons, you can also adjust the range- e.g.
Ll> obsolete beams have 4" range bands, 2nd line Ll> have 5", bleeding edge
have 8", etc.
Another game attribute to play with would be the number of threshold checks a
system needs to take. The points reckoning on this though, would be.. tricky.
From: ~ On Behalf Of Robertson, Brendan
Sent: 05 February 2002 23:10
Subject: RE: [FT] Tech Trees
Tb> So, anyone want to offer up some URLs...
Rb> home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/ft/ftcamp1.htm
For those who haven't checked this out, it includes research for a campaign
game by taking the limits approach. Simple and elegant (but what happens to
the player who only buys four dice of weapons research then rolls quadruple
one?)
Because it is designed for a campaign, it won't let
you set up a one-off scenario involving disparate
technologies. I suspect that the general problem with the limits approach is
that the NPV system will break down given a big difference in technology. That
in turn could be down to simple granularity, or it could mean that the FB1
construction system still isn't quite perfect.
From: ~ On Behalf Of B Lin
Sent: 06 February 2002 00:17
Subject: RE: [FT] Tech Trees
Bl> You can use tech levels say 1 to 15. Each Bl> increase in tech level
allows you to improve one Bl> area of the device. For instance in weapons
there Bl> would be factors of range, damage, weight and Bl> power consumption.
Each tech level gives a 10% Bl> reduction from the previous amount fractions
Bl> rounded
I like the idea of altering these (though I would have thought that most
players don't bother with Mcr cost), see my reply to laserlight above.
However, it's important to remember that FT is a very simple system that
wouldn't work half as well if we all added on extra verbiage (and Jon would
have to drop down the alphabet and become GWG instead.)
To keep the combat working as quickly as possible, forget my earlier
suggestion and concentrate on differences that can be built in during the ship
construction step. This means altering mass requirements so that all nations
can use the same standard systems, but for some nations there is a mass
multiplier for a particular system that makes it attractively light or
punitively heavy.
Yes, this means scrapping granularity in favour of fractional masses, as Karl
and Oerjan expected. I'm trying to envision how the NPVs should change on a
lighter / heavier system. Should a system twice normal
weight cost half the NPV, or is it more subtle?
From: ~ On Behalf Of Roger Burton West
Sent: 05 February 2002 20:29
Subject: Re: [FT] Tech Trees
Rbw> A Phalon fleet has a distinctive flavour which a Rbw> human fleet with
PBLs and Pulsers would not.
Surely hu'man tastes the same no matter what it was armed with. Do the
exploding PBLs overcook it?
On Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:51 AM, MSN Renegade
> [SMTP:msnrenegade@cs.com] wrote:
They still have PDS & possibly subpacs. :-)
It would prove an interesting game, as capturing enemy vessels with higher
tech gives a bonus +1d6 in any areas of higher tech when you study it
back at base. Of course, it's rather hard to capture them with only PDS to
attack with.