In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970415151143.58B-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
Nah, they need the railguns to beat up defenceless aliens. Otherwise they'd
have to go home when they spent all their scatterguns.
> Let's compare:
[...]
> Hmmm... the scattergun seems only 2-3 times as effective as
More, say I. The all-arc capability alone seems to justify that.
Asking around on the list people seemed to agree with a value of
n+n/arc (in mass and points) for beam weapons. Applying that to a
4-arc SMP gets you mass 2.5, cost 7.5. Using your nifty
mass<->points formula gets mass 1, cost 15... *if* it was just a
4-arc SMP. That seems like a fair cost for an SMP that covers both
your front and your arse.
Let's look at this from a different POV as well. Is a scattergun
an SMP with a secondary anti-fighter capability... or an expendable
PDAF with a secondary anti-ship capability?
Both. Awesome isn't it?
Round, balanced, human ships carry PDAF and the big ones devote mass to
screens (which is a defence against ships and fighters).
The Kra'Vak get to use this space for scatterguns as anti-fighter
systems in addition to all the anti-ship gubbins they carry.
Is a scattergun better than a PDAF?
A scattergun is expendable, but, hell, there ain't so very many fighters in
the Full Thrust sky. A ship isn't so likely to be hit for more than the three
turns of endurance that a fighter has. Three turns of PDAF fire on average net
you 2 fighters, meaning you
get hit for around 14-16 fighter-turns of damage. Blow off a
scattergun and you net a (more variable) average of 3.5. You get
hit for 0-15 fighter-turns, averaging 7-8.
So you could say a scattergun was twice as good as a PDAF (more if you play
fighter morale rules)... but then you have the ability to use the unused guns
as SMP's. Unused PDAF are worth nothing. This efficiency, being usuable
against everything bar mines, is outrageously valuable. Having a scattergun is
like having two PDAF plus an SMP that you don't use, or two SMP and a PDAF
that you don't use.
> I think upping the cost to 10 pts. might suffice. That would also be a
> fairer trade-off with fighter squadrons. Or maybe 15 pts.
Well, lets be conservative and call it one 4-arc SMP from above
(15 pts) and two PDAF. That's three mass and 21 points. Bring it down to 1
mass as per your formula... call it 30 points.
This rather suggests it needs a little toning down.
For a start, I say ditch the 4-arc capability. This would promote
some groovy tactical play where fighters try to keep on the right side of a
Kra'Vak ship to avoid it's remaining scatterguns.
Secondly, drop the damage it does to half-a-die. I could live with
it then as a 5 point weapon.
Observation: There is no reduction in scattergun damage for the thick armour
carried by Kra'Vak cruiser and capitals... but there is for heavy fighters.
They must be *really* heavy.
> Next: The Price of Weight
Wouldn't it be so much easier if, say, a damage point was a 1-mass
"system"?
...or does that have too much flavour?
> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> More, say I. The all-arc capability alone seems to justify that.
I don't agree it's such a big point for one-shot offensive weapons.
> That seems like a fair cost for an SMP that covers both
This IS a big point. It's the only anti-ship weapon capable of 360 fire!
> Let's look at this from a different POV as well. Is a scattergun
Let's look at it this way: A scattergun, on the average, blows away half a
squadron of fighters. A squadron of fighters costs 20 points, so an even trade
should cost 10pts. Whether the PDAF is better or worse is immaterial (or
rather, it relates only to whether PDAF is priced right wrt fighters).
Yes, my earlier assessment was too low.
> Well, lets be conservative and call it one 4-arc SMP from above
I'm more in favor of 20-25pts, but I guess we're circling around the
correct neighborhood.
> This rather suggests it needs a little toning down.
Nah... the KayVees are the ultimate combat monsters of the galaxy. So what if
a fair fight pits their destroyer against a human battleship?
> For a start, I say ditch the 4-arc capability. This would promote
Hmmm... That's still better than SMP. Even without AF capability.
> Observation: There is no reduction in scattergun damage for the
The protection system is indeed in dire need of overhaul...
> Wouldn't it be so much easier if, say, a damage point was a 1-mass
Otherwise nice, but I can just see those Mass 18, 1 Damage Point, decked
out with missiles, disposable launcher ships. As I've pointed out earlier, no
one ever gets a shot at them, so the 1DP is no problem. This just makes it
even cheaper to flood the table with missiles.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970417220844.5158B-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
...just to split hairs, an average of 3.5, slightly more than
half...
> A squadron of fighters costs 20 points,
Ah, but a fighter group costs both 20 points and 6 mass. A 1 mass scattergun
priced at half the cost of a fighter group, by your
mass<->points juju would go for 20 points itself... add on the AS
capability and I'm saying at least 30 points.
I don't, however, think that a PDAF should be priced w.r.t fighter groups in
this manner. When you outfit a fleet, it's unlikely that more than one ship
will be engaged by fighters, and that one ship
will cop the lot. Most PDAF's are wasted points/mass. This isn't so
for scatterguns, because of the dual function.
> > Well, lets be conservative and call it one 4-arc SMP from above
It seems odd that such high-tech ships come with so few DP's w.r.t
the outrageous offensive capabilities that they carry. I'm not saying that
this isn't justifiable, but I'll still call it odd. The minimum human ship to
take a PTT carries enough DP to take the
average PTT hit. The minimum Kra'Vak ship to carry an RG-2 cannot
take the least-damaging RG-2 hit. Civil wars must be pretty darn
swift out there in Kra'Vakia. If they play with simultaneous combat resolution
out there, they must often find that they simply annihilate each other.
> > For a start, I say ditch the 4-arc capability. This would promote
Is it? More than the 2 point difference? Average damage would be 2 (if we
round the die up). SMP's get the same at 6" range and get a longer range if
you want it. The AF capability isn't so valuable
without the all-arc capability. Reducing the AF capability to half-
a-die as well would make it pretty weak.
Would you swap out a PDAF for a one-shot one-arc weapon that got you
three dice against fighters?
> > Observation: There is no reduction in scattergun damage for the
Only w.r.t. the Kra'Vak technology. That's where an overhaul is needed.
> > Wouldn't it be so much easier if, say, a damage point was a 1-mass
I think it goes without saying that we need to castrate missiles anyway.
That's a whole other discussion. I would also suppose that a minimum number of
DP's would have to be taken.
> On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Ah, but a fighter group costs both 20 points and 6 mass. A 1 mass
Yes, I was ignoring mass for a while. It wouldn't be exactly fair to limit AF
weapons to completely equal trades. Fighters can do other things, you have to
stick protection on all ships etc. etc.
If your AF weapon has AS capability, that should be priced separately.
> I don't, however, think that a PDAF should be priced w.r.t fighter
And most likely, it will be your biggest ship. If you want to gamble, put all
the PDAFs on that one.
> Most PDAF's are wasted points/mass.
And if no one shoots at you, your shields are just wasted points/mass.
It's the nature of all defensive systems.
> This isn't so
So they'll pay extra for that function. Frankly, I don't see the big point
here. Assuming there was a AS Scatter and a AF Scatter, should the
regular Scatter, in your opinion, cost/mass more or less than those two
combined? IMHO, less.
> It seems odd that such high-tech ships come with so few DP's w.r.t
How so? Seems very "modern" to me. Extreme range, lethal firepower, but the
aluminum tin cans just can't take a hit. The KV's have just hit this
bend in the eternal offense-defense cycle.
> I'm not
Well, the average DD can't eat a torpedo hit.
> If they play with simultaneous
I do... It would promote the use of smaller vessels in quantity.
> Is it? More than the 2 point difference?
Debatable.
> Average damage would be 2 (if we round the die up).
Is there any other way to roll 1d3?
> Would you swap out a PDAF for a one-shot one-arc weapon that got you
Probably not.
> Only w.r.t. the Kra'Vak technology. That's where an overhaul is
Exactly my point. The original system is clean and simple, but the more things
you tack on it, the more oddities, discrepancies, conflicting rules sections
and simple oversights you have.
You need to overhaul it before you have special rules for each ship type, like
the "Evil Overlord of Miniatures Gaming" games.
> I would also suppose that
It only changes the math. As long as there are weapon systems that let you
fight out of everyone else's range, you don't really lose anything
taking the minimum possible DP for the stand-off ships. To a lesser
extent, it applies to one-shot strike ships too.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970420105907.10688A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
There is a gamble, as you mention, in allocating points to defensive systems
such as PDAF and screens. The cost should not only be related to their
defensive abilities, but to the amount of offensive weaponry displaced.
There is no gamble in purchasing scatterguns because they are both defensive
and offensive. No offensive weaponry is displaced.
> > It seems odd that such high-tech ships come with so few DP's w.r.t
While I reserve a certain scepticism towards the exact capabilities, large
modern warships seem to expect to be able to
actively defend themselves against cruise missiles with point-
and area-defence systems. There are also a range of deception
strategies.
> > I'm not
I'm still not saying this isn't justifyable. I still call it odd. I don't want
to make too big a deal of this.
> > The
Nor can a BB or CV... if it's a nuke.
Not much of a game.
> > Only w.r.t. the Kra'Vak technology. That's where an overhaul is
I think "overhaul" is too strong a word. In some cases clarification is
needed. One can make endless arguments about how things should be changed to
"make sense" or "balance". I would not play with the Kra'Vak as they stand
because I think the rules are poor (and for *that* reason in need of
overhaul), but the rules are there for those who wish to play them and they
are not overly complex IMHO.
> > I would also suppose that
> you fight out of everyone else's range, you don't really lose anything
> taking the minimum possible DP for the stand-off ships.
...weren't you justifying the use of aluminium cans above?...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> There is a gamble, as you mention, in allocating points to
IMHO, the cost should relative to effectiveness against attacks modified
by the likelihood of such attacks. E.g. in human-human games screens
have
near perfect likelihood score, but in KV-human games it's ZERO, since
everything the KV's have ignores screens anyway.
> There is no gamble in purchasing scatterguns because they are
Hmmm... Do you think C-batts should be more expensive if they're allowed
AF fire? They fit this bill perfectly. 1-arc C costs equal to PDAF.
It exchanges slight reduction in AF power with AS power.
Btw: Does the "C's as PDAF" rule ever mention firing arcs?
> I'm still not saying this isn't justifyable. I still call it odd.
Ok, let's stop beating this particular example of deceased animal.
> I think "overhaul" is too strong a word. In some cases
Pretty much the same thing, IMHO. Take the current system, get rid of the
oddities and print it clearly in one place, with such a wording that it
doesn't have to be amended the minute someone thinks of a new weapon system.
> One can make endless arguments about how
But sometimes the clear lack of internal logic suggests oversight instead
of design choice. Like the hvy ftrs/scatters issue.
> ...weren't you justifying the use of aluminium cans above?...
What I find historically justifiable is not necessarily the same thing I
find the subject or flavor of a desirable game. Please understand this
difference.
While Harpoon is a very good game, I don't play it because I don't like the
setting.
You could justify turning FT into a game of stand-off missile ships
launching salvoes at extreme range and then running home to reload in numerous
ways, but it's not the kind of game I'd want to play.
In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970421090537.12529C-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:
Well, this all goes to illustrate the difficulties in ascribing points values.
No wonder JMT doesn't bother any more. My personal idyll would be to drop mass
from the design process, which was another, long dead, thread. It would both
simplify things and free the process up a little.
Presumably one could write a scheme for re-evaluating points values
for human ships fighting the Kra'Vak. Screens... -15 points? Waste
of mass?
> > There is no gamble in purchasing scatterguns because they are
Well, the points difference between with-AF and without-AF will not
nearly be as large as the numbers that we've been talking regarding
scatterguns; 20... 25... 30... what's an extra point here and there?
C-batteries, like, totally suck, dood. Without the AF capability who
would use them at all (mature non-maximising scenario gamers
excepted, natch).
> Btw: Does the "C's as PDAF" rule ever mention firing arcs?
No, but I, personally, imply them. I suppose that they remain beam batteries
and bear only through the arcs designated.
> But sometimes the clear lack of internal logic suggests oversight
Fair point.
> > ...weren't you justifying the use of aluminium cans above?...
> difference.
I do. I was making a joke. Sorry, I'll try to write more clearly in future.
> While Harpoon is a very good game, I don't play it because I don't
Well, if we're on the topic, I though it was a dreadful game that split hairs
in some places while making collosal generalisations in others. I haven't
evaluated the new edition, though. Does it still inherit rules from Fred Jane
regarding proportional loss in ship capability to hit points of damage
inflicted?
> You could justify turning FT into a game of stand-off missile ships
Me neither... although one could make a decent game of it by borrowing from,
particularly, Captain's Edition Harpoon (which I do
like). One would need to play up the EW and the anti-missile
defences and make sure the game included some definate objective, rather than
just beating on an enemy fleet for the sake of it. Launch missiles... run...
lose planet... (lose supply of missiles...) lose game.
> On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
> Well, this all goes to illustrate the difficulties in ascribing
It's a pity. Lack of a points system renders otherwise good games practically
unplayable, IMHO.
Yeah, scenarios, umpires and all that... but in practice most of our gaming
sessions are rather impromptu "let's play X". Without points
system the only real choice is two identical forces -- and that gets old
real quick.
> Presumably one could write a scheme for re-evaluating points values
It's easier to factor their screen-defeating abilities in the costs
of the KV equipment. After that is done, *they* become the losers because they
lack tactical variety and end up wasting points for an ability that
will be useless since a clever opponent won't bother mounting screens.
> Well, the points difference between with-AF and without-AF will not
No, ofcourse not. It's the principle again.
> No, but I, personally, imply them. I suppose that they remain beam
...which in turn means all fighters with the choice will engage the rear
arc, which makes the AF ability for C's pretty worthless.
> Well, if we're on the topic, I though it was a dreadful game that
As I said, I'm not really into the genre. But despite its flaws, it's the best
widely available gam... manual simulation on the subject.
> defences and make sure the game included some definate objective,
What if you're the *attacker*? I can short circuit every vanilla "destroy the
space station" scenario by taking all missile ships, launching at extreme
range and turning tail. Guaranteed draw at worst, and there's very little my
opponent can do about it.
In campaigns it's even better -- FTL missile strike squadron in, launch
for damage at extreme range, FTL out to reload while foe goes for
repairs/new ships/new bases. FTL in for a new strike. It's great! You
can win an entire war without ever taking a single point of damage. Your worst
problem is someone doing the same to you...
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
I have to argue this. You only have to accept identical forces if you really
care about being `perfectly fair' and not having a good game. As it says in
STARGRUNT, if you have a superior force in numbers or technology, set up the
scenario so that you're at a disadvantage. Change their motivation. Decrease
their morale for one reason or another.
Myself, I find using systems without point systems actually /increases/
my enjoyment, because I've actually had some input into what's going on.
There are reasons for the battles, aim, /context/. That makes all the
difference, win /or/ lose.
That's why you always make the jump point a MINIMUM of x4 missile range (or
whatever is the maximum weapon range) from the space station.
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
As
> it says in STARGRUNT, if you have a superior force in numbers or
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth there. By your second sentence,
a good game isn't "perfectly fair", yet in your 3rd, you talk about ways to
make a game fair with uneven armies, so obviously you like some degree of
fairness in your games too...
While I agree that a point system isn't the be-all and end-all of
fairness, a good point system at least gives you a rule of thumb to judge
stuff by when designing a scenario. For a scenario I'm designing now for
Planetstorm (Legions of Steel and Planetstorm have by far the fairest point
system I've ever seen, even if it isn't totally perfectly perfect) I've
designed the shock troop attacking a static position. Based on my experience,
I know that the ability to remain stationary and in cover can very nearly
double the point value of a figure, so I tell my friend to design an 800 point
force to defend in the scenario. I have no doubt I will need to tweak the
scenario in playtesting, but at least we have a way
to communicate the sort-of relative power of our forces. That way any
tweaking can be done in playtesting rather then before hand AND in
playtesting...
> Myself, I find using systems without point systems actually
context, aim, reasons, stories, input are all totally seperate from a point
system. In the year plus I've been gaming with my current group (with a point
system in all our games) I've not played one single
non-scenario game. At times we make the scenario up as we go along, but
the point system doesn't remove that aspect of the game at all... what it does
is give a yardstick (as loose a yardstick as it may be) to judge relative
strengths...