Hi Jon,
I have no problem with rotate/thrust/rotate. I think that shows good
ship handling (ie move plotting) on behalf of the officer concerned.
The problem in Human/alien fights is not the rotating thing, but how the
opposing drive systems handle rapid changes in direction. If the BEMs have
more advanced drives, how do we model this within the rules without giving
them inertialess drives? Or do we give them such drives and see how they get
on before someone gets a B4 on them at 6MU?
David (batting for the aliens)
> Further to original question posed, and prompted by Laserlight's
> David Billinghurst wrote:
> The problem in Human/alien fights is not the rotating thing, but how
But it isn't really a "human vs alien" problem. It is a problem with the
balance between weapon fire arcs and engine power; it only becomes a
"human/alien" problem if you use the "official" Fleet Book fleets
because the FB2 Kra'Vak are so heavily geared towards narrow fire arcs and
powerful engines while just about all of the other Fleet Book fleets use
weaker engines and wider fire arcs.
The rotating thing is what determines how easy it is to keep the enemy in your
preferred fire arc, and as such it is *hugely* important for the balance
between weapon arcs and engine power. If a single thrust point can only rotate
your ship a little bit (eg. in Cinematic as long as the ships keep moving, or
EFSB Vector), it is valuable to have powerful engines or
wide fire arcs because both of those options increase your ability to keep the
enemy in your fire arcs. If OTOH a single thrust point is sufficient to turn
the ship to any direction (Cinematic if the ship has speed zero,
FB1/FB2 Vector), then a single-arc weapon becomes very nearly as
effective
as the much more expensive all-arc version of the same weapon and
powerful engines are only marginally more useful than weak ones.
Note that this is true in both Cinematic and Vector. For example, the main
advantage of Advanced engines in Cinematic is not that they allow the ships to
change direction of *movement* easily, but that they allow the ships to easily
change the direction their *weapons* are pointing. It is also the
reason why the "sit-and-spin" manoeuver (where the ship comes to a full
stop so it can rotate to any facing for a single thrust point) is so common in
Cinematic gaming groups. Of course, in Cinematic the ship's facing happens to
be identical to its direction of movement which makes it harder
to tell these two different effects apart - but that doesn't change the
fact that we are looking at two different effects.
This - the weapon arc vs engine power balance in Vector - is the main
issue
the limited-rotation Vector proposal is intended to solve.
The ability to change speed and direction of movement is also somewhat
important since it determines the ship's ability to control/influence
the
range to its targets - but a low-thrust ship can carry enough
long-range
weapons that they don't need to worry very much about controlling the range
- if the enemy wants to fight, he'll pretty much have to get into the
low-thrust/long-range ship's weapon range anyway. As long as the
low-thrust
ship can keep its weapons pointing towards its faster opponent, it'll most
likely outgun him regardless of the range. (Yes, of course there are
exceptions to this - thrust-8 ships with B5s or larger beams, for
example -
but they aren't very common.)
Regards,
> On 1/5/06, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> But it isn't really a "human vs alien" problem. It is a problem with
I second this thought. OA and I had a discussion on the designs I
used to use (basically NAC-style design philosophy), and when I
revised them to eliminate most of the multi-arced weapon fits (to fit
in with FB vector rules), the cruisers and capital ships got noticably
nastier--going from 3-arc to 1-arc B3s is a big jump in firepower for
the same mass, especially if you had 4 or more B3s to begin with. I havn't
fought them against a live opponent using Kra'Vak, but I have a feeling that
their performance would be significantly improved.
Not significantly enough, for some of them, as too much mass is wasted on
shields that don't do much vs. Kra'Vak. Which is why I'm positing a change in
design philosophy towards tougher hulls, no shields, lighter armor, and more
guns for most Human fleets as the Kra'Vak war gets going. My "Hunter"
dreadnought designs are a case in point.
Compare:
Basileos Megas Konstandinos class Dreadnought (DN) Displacement: 16000 tonnes
(Mass factor 160) Hull Type: Average (Hull Integrity 48) Crew: 27 officers,
133 ratings (Crew Factor 8) Armament: 4xClass 2 Battery, 4xClass 3 batteries
(F), 2xPTorp Sensors: Standard sensors, 3xFire Control Defenses: 6xPDS, Armor
rating 15, Level 1 Shields Drive Systems: Main Drive rating 4, FTL Drive Point
cost: 532
That was designed to fight beam-heavy human fleets with some salvo
missles (supported by escort vessels, of course, to deal with fighters and
salvo missles).
Nafkratousa class Hunter-Killer Dreadnought (DNK)
Displacement: 16000 tonnes (Mass factor 160) Hull Type: Strong (Hull Integrity
57) Crew: 27 officers, 133 ratings (Crew Factor 8) Armament: 1xClass 2 Battery
(FH), 3xClass 3 batteries, (F), 8xPTorp Sensors: Standard sensors, 3xFire
Control Defenses: 6xPDS Drive Systems: Main Drive rating 4, FTL Drive Point
cost: 538
That's designed to give Kra'Vak players screaming fits, although I suspect
that if used against a human player it would feel almost like fighting a
Kra'Vak that was less agile and tougher. I've used it once, and my opponent's
eyebrows achieved low orbit when he caught
those torps at point-blank range. I think one missed. :)
It's big sister the Lemnos has a simillar weapons fit, but is considerably
more survivable with over 100 hull boxes.
I have a strong feeling a lot of new-builds in the second half of the
Xeno War would look more like this than the FB1 Bonaparte.:)
From: "John Atkinson"
> havn't fought them against a live opponent using Kra'Vak
I seem to recall running some KV against them, a few years ago. Briefly.
Painfully.
Taking a slightly different tack on the rotation/thrust question.
What are we actually asking - pretty much it boils down to how much
rotation can you impart in a ship in a certain amount of time.
Basically the question is how many degrees of rotation in a FT turn.
So how do you produce rotation?
In a physical sense it would be force applied to an axis not along the
direction of travel, the most obvious method being maneuver thrusters that
operate perpendicular to the axis of travel. Less efficient would
be re-directing thrust from the main engine to produce off-set thrust.
Other PSB would be large gyros, gravitic or warp generators etc.
So the next question becomes - where does thrust for rotation come from?
If the rotational thrust is generated by maneuver thrusters, then the rating
is simply the force generated by the thrusters vs. the mass they are moving.
If rotational thrust is generated by the main engines, the vector of force
that is deflected off the main axis by the main engines and would be dependent
on how much and how far off the main axis of thrust you can deflect. This has
the problem that to rotate, in most designs you will still have a degree of
forward thrust while trying to turn. (Exception would be designs where the
main engines are on the ends of "wings")
Once you know the relative rotational force to mass ratio, then you will know
which ships will turn faster than others.
The next question - how to model this for FT?
There are several questions to answer -
How is rotational thrust generated? How much mass needs to be moved? How much
does it cost?
One quirk with the current FT system is that rotation is discrete, meaning
that to turn two points, you start rotation, turn two points, then stop
rotation, when in reality, once you start rotation you can continue to rotate
without any additional cost, but to stop rotation you need to apply thrust in
the opposite direction. So effectively a two
point turn requires 4 points of rotational thrust - 2 to start and 2 to
stop.
Currently there is no separate ship system for rotational thrust. Either a
system needs to be added, or rotational thrust needs to be abstracted in such
a way that tactical differences can be generated.
Proposal 1 - Abstracting rotational Thrust
This is basically a continuation of the traditional FT model that simply
abstracts rotational thrust as a sub-set of main engine thrust, and that
some combination of side thrusters and deflection of main thrusters is used to
produce the rotation effect for the game. This has the advantage of
simplicity, and the disadvantage of lack of detail. It would be like lumping
all the weapons into a single category and basing
the anti-fighter rolls as a sub-set of your overall weapon strength. By
abstracting thrust to such a level, you really can't get much differentiation
in rotational effect and the proposals that were mentioned in previous posts
will be suitable solutions.
Proposal 2 - Split Rotational thrust and Main thrust
This basically breaks apart the two concepts and would add a new ship
system - Rotational Thrusters or Maneuver Thrusters. They would be
priced, massed and added as a separate system. (Perhaps using the current
Engine rules).
Proposal A - Continuous rotation
This basically is a variation of the vector movement idea in that momentum is
carried from turn to turn and once a ship starts rotating, it continues to
rotate at the same rate until thrust is applied. For example, if a ship
applies 2 points of rotational thrust (RT) to starboard on turn 1, it turns
two points at the end of turn 1. If it applies no additional RT, it turns two
points at the end of turn 2. If it wanted, on turn 3 it could apply 2 more
points of RT to starboard and
accelerate to 4 turning points/turn and would turn 4 points at the end
of turn 3. Ships could split their thrust so a ship with 4 points of RT could
apply 2 points starboard, turn two points and apply 2 points RT port to stop
rotating. This system would require an additional spot on the record sheet to
record rotational direction and speed.
Proposal 2 allows for a lot more differentiation of ship designs since you can
then vary rotational thrust from main thrust, and for different races or
technologies give them different costs and masses.
--Binhan
> Binhan wrote:
> Proposal 2 - Split Rotational thrust and Main thrust
Interesting idea; itd be fairly easy to say If playing vector, add this one
additional system. But if you have to pay points for it, and the maneuver THR
rating is a variable (ie not fixed or tied to the MD THR rating), then
youre getting back towards needing different ship designs for cinematic &
vector. (Bad idea, I agree.) Conversely if the maneuver thrusters are free and
a fixed value, or tied directly to MD THR then whats the point of having it
as a separate system?
> Proposal A - Continuous rotation
Personally, Id prefer not to add something else to keep track of.
> Peter Thoenen wrote:
> I do like the comment somebody made that if it takes 1 thrust to
Or say it costs 0.5 THR to rotate and 0.5 THR to stop, since you typically do
both in the same turn. So it just depends how much
you/we/Jon think rotation should cost.
Scott "These are not the `droids you're looking for" Field
> Binhan wrote:
This has been discussed on the Test List already, but Jon specifically
excluded that from consideration when he asked the initial question.
Hi Oerjan,
I think we're kind of debating the same problem, though talking past each
other.
OK. I understand FB1/FB2 ships were designed with Cinematic movement in
mind (as Vector is only offered as an Option in FB1 and was still considered
optional in FB2).
I also understand from the Designers Notes on Pg 2 of FB1 that the FB ships
are designed as average members of their classes, and from a design philosophy
of what a real navy would design for real missions, and haven't
been munchkined to win one-off games.
Now, I've been posting on this thread specifically about the Kra'vak as,
having bought some ships, I have a selfish interest in them.
So, when I said:
> David Billinghurst wrote:
I was talking about how Vector treats the A drives specifically. If the 'drive
systems of Kra'vak ships seem to be very effective for their size, and make
full use of the KRA'VAK MASTERY OF GRAV TECHNOLOGY (emphasis, not shouting) to
permit rates of manoeuvre FAR IN EXCESS (ditto) of those
possible to human ships' (FB2 Pg 8 - Kra'vak Warships) then we have a
problem when the game mechanics deliver a one thrust point difference between
Kra'vak and human drives (ie KV's not having to rotate to use Main Drive).
One could assume that as KV's can apply their Main Drive in any direction,
they can in effect zig-zag at low velocities, thus making themselves
harder
for 1 arc Hu'mie smart-hro'kols to hit. Except 30 degrees is still 30
degrees, and I would estimate that even an 8MU course change will still be
within 30 degrees by the time existing V is cancelled.
So if this, the great Kra'vak 'flavour' (every fleet has it's own flavour,
otherwise why buy it over any other?) of Mastery over Grav Technology,
doesn't work, and Kra'vak don't use ship armour because their own K-guns
shoot through it, and don't have Shields (which both the Phalon and Sa'Vasku
have - shields and armour, that is - and handled in quite a creative
way),
then why the Kra'vak? The one trick they do seem to have is that all their K
Guns have a 30MU range. This would seem to indicate that their optimum
engagement range is around 24 - 30 MU where they outrange all but Class
3 and 4 Beams and Pulse Torpedoes.
Oerjan replied:
> But it isn't really a "human vs alien" problem. It is a problem with
Last point first, drive ratings by class (CL, BB, CV etc) are pretty much
identical across both alien and FB1 ships. Yes, I know that those
speed-fiends, the NSL, have established that the Universe is in a
peak-thrust period and if we don't economise there will be thrust-less
days and thrust rationing, but otherwise, how are KV drives 'powerful engines'
when they deliver identical thrust to hu'man ships of similar size (eg KV
Ko'Vol Battleship - NAC Victoria Battleship)?
I don't really understand your comment about using "official" Fleet Book
fleets. We have established that Hu'man and Alien drives produce similar
amounts of Thrust (let's leave the Sa'vasku out for the moment as they make my
head hurt). Under Vector, both sets of ships may rotate for 1 Thrust. Alien
drives are not dependant on heading and can thrust in any direction. This
saves them the 1 Thrust Hu'man's expend to rotate after Thrusting to bring
guns to bear. The Alien drives are supposed to be able to 'manoeuvre far in
excess of those possible to human ships', but this is patently not the case.
The Phalons have analogs of armour and shields, and so are on a similar
footing to hu'man ships (I haven't had a look at their weaponry for a while)
but the poor old KVs have just their basic hull boxes.
> The rotating thing is what determines how easy it is to keep the enemy
Very true and I agree with you. As all the human ships move and manoeuvre in
essentially identical fashion under Vector (as one would expect, given that
they're all coming off the same technology base), I personally don't
see a problem with the wide arc/narrow arc debate. This sounds like a
philosophical debate between Dead-eye Dicks and folks less confident in
guessing the exact location of the enemy, but who would still like a crack at
'em. Or between maximising your points per ship (all 1 arc weapons) and trying
to cover yourself if you find yourself outnumbered.
<snip>
> This - the weapon arc vs engine power balance in Vector - is the main
Yes, I understand that. I had gathered from Jon's original questions that the
rotational thing had become an issue.
When it's resolved, can we have a look at the Kra'vak, please?
<snip>
> As long as the low-thrust
Good grief! And I'd hope not, too!:)
Regards
> David Billinghurst wrote:
> OK. I understand FB1/FB2 ships were designed with Cinematic movement
Understanding *that* they were designed for Cinematic is a good start. However
(and I hope I don't offend saying this), several of your comments below
suggest that you don't yet fully understand what that *means*, particularly in
terms of ship design concepts.
> I also understand from the Designers Notes on Pg 2 of FB1 that the FB
The "one-off game" issue refers is irrelevant for this discussion if you
consistently stick to one movement system. When your entire universe uses
FB-style Vector movement, then building ships for that kind of movement
can't be considered "munckining to win one-off games".
> >>The problem in Human/alien fights is not the rotating thing, but how
And what I was talking about was that how Vector treats the Advanced drives is
merely a consequence of the fundamental Vector weapon arc vs manoeuvrability
issues. You can't cure the symptoms (Advanced drives) unless you first cure
the illness that causes it (weapon arcs vs
manoeuvrability); yet focussing on the course-changing capabilities of
Advanced drives like you did *is* trying to cure (one of) the symptoms.
> If the 'drive systems of Kra'vak ships seem to be very effective for
Like all the Fleet Book background blurbs this one was written for Cinematic,
based on gaming experience with Kra'Vak under Cinematic movement
(the More Thrust KV used the same movement rules as the FB2 ones) - and
in Cinematic, it is accurate: an MD4A ship like the Ko'Vol is considerably
more manoeuvrable than an MD4 ship like the NAC Victoria, since the Ko'Vol
can make 4-pt course/facing changes while the Victoria can only make
2-pt
course/facing changes.
Unfortunately background blurbs like these are not very good indicators of
*game balance* problems like the one this thread is about - particularly
not when the blurbs make players say "it is SUPPOSED to be like X" when the
"X" in question obscures the real problem or even is part of it.
> >But it isn't really a "human vs alien" problem. It is a problem with
*Main Drive* ratings are similar by class; *manoeuvring thruster* ratings are
not. As I noted above, in Cinematic an MD4A drive is considerably more
powerful than an MD4 drive.
In current Vector it isn't, but that's beside the point *since all the Fleet
Book design concepts were created for Cinematic movement*. The Kra'Vak concept
is built around unusually powerful engines and lots of
single-arc weapons - and they're the only published Fleet Book fleet
which uses weapon arcs as a main distinguising component of their design
concept. That is why they stick out from the other Fleet Book fleets in
Vector: they're hit in a quite different way by the weapon arc vs
manoeuvrability issues than the other Fleet Book fleets are.
> I don't really understand your comment about using "official" Fleet
The "official" Fleet Book fleets only feature a limited sub-set of the
design styles you can create with the Fleet Book ship design system -
and NONE of the design styles featured in the Fleet Books is really suitable
for FB1/FB2 Vector combat. If you've only played with and against
published designs from the "official" Fleet Book fleets, then you have very
little
experience with the game balance issues this thread is about simply because
you haven't yet seen what those *other* design styles can do. John Atkinson
discussed this in a fair amount of detail in his post.
> As all the human ships move and manoeuvre
And all the human ships in FB1 also have very similar *fire arcs*, which
gives players who only use the "official" designs even fewer opportunities
to experience the full extent of the wide arc/narrow arc/manoeuvrability
issues.
> This sounds like a philosophical debate between Dead-eye Dicks and
It isn't philosophical at all. In my experience - not just myself, but
my
opponents as well - it takes less than a dozen games to learn to predict
the enemy's location accurately enough to target him with single-arc
weapons as long as the range is longer than about 12 mu. Closer than that,
the wider-arc weapons are better - but they must first *get* to close
range without getting hammered flat during the approach.
> Or between maximising your points per ship (all 1 arc weapons) and
The only time single-arc weapons make you unable to cover yourself
against superior numbers is when your entire fleet consists of one single
ship. If you have two or more ships, you can always face them in different
directions if the enemy splits up - assuming that you don't want to
hammer one part of the enemy fleet flat before turning your attention to the
other part(s), that is.
> When it's resolved, can we have a look at the Kra'vak, please?
When the main weapon arc vs manoeuvrability issued have been resolved, we
hopefully won't *need* to take any particular additional look at the
Kra'Vak :-/
Regards,