> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:33:38PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> So, you have to ask yourself: why do you plan to use a battle-balancing
> points system for a campaign game, instead of designing a
Here's one reason: so that you have a diversity of fleets, which keeps things
interesting.
Assume for the sake of argument that we have a points system that's perfectly
balanced for tactical combat (TPV), and a points system that reflects some
sort of "real" economic production cost (EPV); and that these systems are not
identical. Why would anyone build any sort of
ship other than that with the highest TPV/EPV ratio? Even if they need
multiple ships for different jobs, there's still going to be a "best" light
scout, "best" heavy cruiser, etc., and whoever finds them is (ceteris paribus)
going to win.
If you cost out ship construction in TPV, then there's incentive to have more
sorts of ship in existence, even if it is unrealistic in terms of economics.
R
> RBW wrote:
> >So, you have to ask yourself: why do you plan to use a
But that's just the problem: unless your campaign rules are either very
carefully crafted or so simplified that they don't include either logistics
or recon, a battle-balancing points system WON'T give you a diversity of
fleets in your campaign.
The reason for this is that the value of a ship in a campaign is NOT
identical to the value of the same ship in a one-off tactical battle.
Campaign considerations like strategic (eg. FTL) speed, supply requirements
(particularly for missile units and fighter carriers), construction times etc.
are at least as important for the ship's value in the campaign as its tactical
combat power is: it doesn't matter how powerful a ship is tactically if you
can't bring it to the battle, a carrier or missile platform is useless if its
fighter bays or magazines are empty, a destroyer flotilla available for
deployment out on the frontier is far more use than
a half-built superdreadnought in a spaceyard, and so on.
In one-off battles these campaign considerations are not a factor - the
ships participating in the one-off battle are by definition present,
they
are usually completed, usually have full magazines/fighter bays, etc. -
so
the battle-balancing points system doesn't take these campaign
considerations into account. In fact it *can't* take them into account,
because if it did take into account factors which are irrelevant in
one-off
battles it wouldn't be able to balance one-off battles at all... which
means that if those factors become *relevant* (which campaign considerations
tend to do when you play campaigns <g>), the
battle-balancing points system won't give you balanced outcomes on the
campaign level. As a result it gives you *reduced* diversity, not increased.
Some examples are ship size in the CPV system (in campaigns small ships are
inherently more useful than they are in tactical battles simply because two
small ships can cover twice as many places as a single large one), or the cost
of fighters and missiles (which in a campaign are likely to cause significant
extra costs in logistics, either economic or strategic, that
beams etc. don't have to pay).
> Assume for the sake of argument that we have a points system that's
Because in a campaign, it is the ship's *strategic* value (let's call this
SPV) which is important - and as I've discussed above, TPV =|= SPV. IOW,
no matter which of the TPV and EPV systems you use in the campaign, the
players will very quickly figure out which ship designs give them the
highest *S*PV for the TPV or EPV points :-/
Later,
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:35:26PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> But that's just the problem: unless your campaign rules are either very
> carefully crafted or so simplified that they don't include either
Thank you. I'd hoped there would be a sensible answer that I was missing, and
you have provided it.
> Because in a campaign, it is the ship's *strategic* value (let's call
IOW, no
> matter which of the TPV and EPV systems you use in the campaign, the
So EPV ought, for maximum balance/diversity, to be defined as equal to
SPV? (Which is itself probably some function of TPV - lowered for
expendable weapons, raised some fixed amount per-ship, and otherwise
furkled about with.)
R
Probably the best method is to un-abstract point costs and make
different portions of the ship utilize different resources. For instance, FTL
and normal engines require Unobtanium. Nation A is lucky and has a source of
Unobtanium, Nation B has to import it's Unobtanium.
Therefore, Nation A could build a particular FTL/high maneuver design
more cheaply than Nation B.
If Beam weapons require Quadlithium crystals as focusing elements and Nation A
has no indigenous supplies, while Nation B does, then Nation B can build beam
weapons cheaper.
On average, the Point costs for the same ship design built by the two nations
will be roughly the same (Nation A pays more for weapons, Nation B pays more
for FTL) but in practice, you will find that the economic factors force
substantial design changes that may not be "optimal" in a strategic sense, but
are the optimal choice for your
resources/capabilites. For instance, Nation A may favor faster ships
armed with fewer beam weapons, but more missiles, while Nation B may opt for
slower vessels armed to the teeth with Beams.
Real world examples - Iraq spent large sums of money to acquire nuclear
materials, but did not end up with any nuclear weapons. Iran has indigenous
uranium deposits but does not have the technology to fully process it into
nuclear weapon grade material. The United States has the uranium, the
technology and facilities and the money to produce nuclear weapons. If we
simply abstracted that nuclear warheads cost 1 billion dollars each, then
every petty government in the world with a billion dollars would own a nuclear
warhead. This is obviously not the case, so I would use this example to
encourage a purchasing system that is less abstracted and has some level of
detail to provoke differing design philosophies.
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
> RBW wrote:
> >Because in a campaign, it is the ship's *strategic* value (let's call
IOW, no
> >matter which of the TPV and EPV systems you use in the campaign, the
Ideally yes. The problem is to determine the SPV before the campaign
starts :-/
> (Which is itself probably some function of TPV - lowered for expendable
> weapons, raised some fixed amount per-ship, and otherwise furkled about
Pretty much. The SPV is a function of both TPV and various non-tactical
factors like FTL speed, construction time, maintenance costs etc... exactly
which non-tactical factors affect the SPV depends entirely on what
campaign rules you're using, of course.
Later,
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> Probably the best method is to un-abstract point costs and make
> can build beam weapons cheaper.
...until A concquers B's Quadlithium mines and thus becomes able to build both
FTL drives *and* beam weapons cheaply, while the B survivors have to pay extra
for *both* resources (or vice versa). When this happens, you get
a Monopoly-style campaign: much gets more.
Regards,
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> So EPV ought, for maximum balance/diversity, to be defined as equal
I don't think this would work out, because some items that increase strategic
value actually reduce tactical use. e.g. If there is an option to have
differing FTL speeds based on size of FTL installation, this will reduce TPV,
as the larger FTL drive takes up mass otherwise used for tactical systems,
while the ability to move farther on the campaign map increases the SPV.
Neither of these is involved with the ability to produce the systems. The same
could be said of long range sensing systems for scouts as well as other
systems. I would say that they should be three seperate ratings, and the EPV
would be
setting-specific. Part of the game play enjoyment for me of a campaign
game is to balance the abilities of a unit between its use at the tactical
level, strategic level, and cost.
J
> Jared Hilal wrote:
> > So EPV ought, for maximum balance/diversity, to be defined as equal
As Roger noted, the SPV is a function of - among several other things -
the TPV (ie., the tactical combat power is one of several factors which
determine the unit's strategic value), so it does work out... *if* you manage
to determine the SPV before the campaign starts.
Since this probably won't happen, in reality each player has to figure out
what designs give him/her the highest SPV per buck. Quite often several
(or
even all) of the players come up with very similar solutions :-/
Later,