Scenario generation and game-balance stuff, a continually evolving thread that started with the Kra'Vak

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970427133942.25561A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
> Kurki-Suonio writes:

...Elite? I remember Thargoids, or, as we called them, "Alien artifacts". A
complete scenario generator is, of course, always
going to be PSB-dependent. Particularly for "Fleet Actions in Deep
Space", as the sub-title reads.

> Ok, maybe it's not possible in background X, but think about this: How

> are useless. If you want to stop someone getting someplace, your only

That's not so good, but still, we are taking about fleet actions, such as
you've already demonstated as a safe proposition. All the
more PSB-depedent other actions can be tacked on later.

> But, if we assume that FTL is only there to justify interstellar wars

Bingo. See FT section on FTL use. I think this can be used as a default
assumption.

> - FTL jump range is limited. At certain intervals you must stop to

...Well, we can always fit the go-anywhere Lucas drive...

> > Can we say that the defender can pick the "terrain" such

How much dug-in bonus can the defender actually get? We might allow
a planet to provide some sort of static offensive capability, but we have no
rules for this as yet. [...Ortillery bombardment of missile launchers etc...]
So a default assumption might be that we have an undefended and uniteresting
colony world. I can't see too many bonuses accruing. This is a problem,
perhaps, since it follows that
if terrain placement has no tactical value then it fills no game-role
except to provide a slight degree of variety at the defders whim.

> > Can we allow fleets to plan a mid-game FTL-arrival

Not if you can "micro-jump" easily within the system. We have rules
for FTL entry in FT, so we could just chuck them in. Flank arrival
in normal space seem more problematic, since it could lead to off-
table combat.

> > If a small ship can carry it, so could a large one, so I'm

> Sure you can mount them on all ships, but are you really going to risk

> your big ships by getting close enough to use their systems? In fact,

Hmmm... bit of an absurdist example. I understand the point tho'.

> Couple this with a bit of torp paranoia, and you have the smaller

> "over" them. Each ship class has a functional use within battle again.

I'm not sure about this analysis. The annihilator ships are more likely to go
straight for the heavies than fight amongst each
other. Indeed, they'd resolve into annihilator missiles, a mass-2
Thrust-8 boat with the AT. The heavies would probably be more
interested in shooting them than shooting "over" them.

> > My gut feelings are against it. There's some balancing that can

Well, it's often said that an A should mass at 4, rather than 3, and has a
basic value of 2 B's. You may not agree (I can't recall if you've passed any
opinion). Your simpler system gets you
something better than A (4-2-1) for 2 B-equivalents without any
fear that a poor threshold role with lose you your weapon.

> > How many needle attacks do you want? I suppose a Capital could

Hmmm... I may have mistated the needle firecon rule somewhere down the line. I
thought it was implicit that this too would be a trait of a needle firecon,
that you could direct any number of beams at one system. I can't recall if
Scott posted this idea on the list. You doubled the range to the target, threw
the
appropriate number of dice (thus a-B-and-a-C at 0-6 give you three
dice) but using different die-size depending on the target screening.
12-on-d12 for three screens, 10-on-a-d10 and down to 6-on-a-d6 for
two down to no screens. The die-size thing is ugly (maybe change for
rolling a 6-on-a-d6, then throw above screen number) and I'd drop A's
from the rule, but it gives a new use for beams, with defence based on
screens. You get a new tactical choice without having to design a
specific fleet around it like an exercise in CCG deck-building.

> Or... merge C's and PDAFs into close defense batteries, merge needles

I'd give C's all three capabilities. A's would likely still be the
weapon of choice for proper ships-of-the-line (ignoring missiles),
B's for smaller craft. Everyone would get C's. The danger (IMHO)
lies in huge fleets of large B-toting ships that burn your drives
out ASAP.

> > So... what you're saying is that you don't want to game in a

So you add the time factor. Didn't I metion that, somewhere along the line?
That the objective expires? I'm sure I did.

> David Brewer writes:
@:)
@:) > > How many needle attacks do you want? I suppose a Capital could @:) > >
carry three Needle FC in place of the usual....
@:) >
@:) > Multiple needle attacks against the SAME system only need one
@:) > FC.
@:)
@:) Hmmm... I may have mistated the needle firecon rule somewhere @:) down the
line. I thought it was implicit that this too would be a @:) trait of a needle
firecon, that you could direct any number of @:) beams at one system.

I think there is some kind of misconception about the needle beam rules
happening in here somewhere. There's no such thing as a "needle
fire control".  Needle beams use regular fire controls - it's just
that if you're using your fire control to direct needle beams at a target this
turn, you cannot use the same fire control to direct other weapons.

Unless you're using a modified rule set or I have completely lost it, in which
case I'd like someone to tell me. This stuff all comes from FT page 18,
"Needle Beams".

> On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:

> ...Elite? I remember Thargoids, or, as we called them, "Alien

Yup. They also had this neat ability to stop you in mid-jump.

> Bingo. See FT section on FTL use. I think this can be used as a

The section implies this, but it's never very specific.

> How much dug-in bonus can the defender actually get?

How about an infinitely dense minefield? Technically speaking, it doesn't have
a point cost (only actual minelayers do).

But true, there's not much else.

> Not if you can "micro-jump" easily within the system.

That, OTOH, goes against "FTL only outside system" principle. If this is
allowed, what would stop you from micro-jumping all the way to the
target (in a series of jumps if necessary)?

> We have rules

I personally think the game would benefit from a possibility to hold
reserves for chasing those elusive "launch-n-go" ships. But it gets hard

to justify.

> Hmmm... bit of an absurdist example. I understand the point tho'.

Meant to be. A real "torp" system would be more like an anti-ship
only scattergun with one arc mounting and max 6" range, IMHO.

> I'm not sure about this analysis. The annihilator ships are more

True. The problem is that movement speeds often equal or exceed weapon ranges,
which tends to make the combat resemble airwar more than naval actions.

This carries far-reaching implications: Your screening ships are
relatively useless. Even on an unlimited floating map, the enemy can
theoretically build up enough speed to blow past your screen in one turn,
maybe less, and then attack the vulnerable TRs (or whatever) in the middle of
the task force.

> Well, it's often said that an A should mass at 4, rather than 3,

The *numbers* can be tweaked. I'd like to know if the *idea* is worth
exploring. You could take a square root of the factors at each range or
whatever.

> Hmmm... I may have mistated the needle firecon rule somewhere

Ok, that changes the equation.

> I'd give C's all three capabilities. A's would likely still be the

I'd still prefer disposable launcher ships for missile carriers.

> B's for smaller craft. Everyone would get C's. The danger (IMHO)

True... which could be cured by the "one FC, ONE needle attack" approach.

> So you add the time factor. Didn't I metion that, somewhere along

Must have missed it if you did. That does change things, but still I think it
should be balanced so that even with the time limit, just sticking to
materialgeschlag should net you a minimal (max. 10%) chance to win. Simply
because even though realistic in some conditions, it produces mighty boring
games.

Pre-assault bombardment is nice to have, but it doesn't take and hold
trenches.