Guys,
One thing I've noticed when seeing custom Sa'Vasku and where the biggest
problem seems to be, custom or not, with Sa'Vasku are with the larger Sa'Vasku
ships. I have a huge Sa'Vasku fleet, and have p;ayed it with FB 2 stats. I and
others have not noticed a problem too much. But the custom Sa'Vasku other have
played often cause claims of being unbalenced.
I have the start of an idea for a possible fix. The bigger Sa'Vasku ship
models have two, one might say three sections for carriers. As a balance for
the effectiveness of the larger Sa;Vasku ships, it could be that the space
critters must pay a base cost for the each extra segment grown. The extra
segment is the result of it's growth into a bigger organism. If using the
'Sa'Vasku are creatures that are growing into bigger ships idea,' the strike
ships don't just get bigger, they change. And at a specific point they start
this new section or perhaps and go through a metamorphosis like insects.
Enough with the fluff I suppose. An extra segment, representing a threshold
for size classes, based on game balance, tells us the Sa;Vasku ships should
cost more. This is a one time threshold cost. So to metamorphic into a two
segment, or larger ship, a threshold cost of X should be paid. To go to a
carrier, with it's three sections has an additional second threshold cost, so
one must pay for X and then pay X again. Carriers may need to cost more, and
they will cost C. How much is X or C, that's still up in the air, could be
just a set number or numbers or a cost based on the cost of the ship.
Just a thought, but I hate to see the Sa'Vasku not being played. And they
aren't in this area much due to the stigma of bing unbalenced. And the main
reason I see people having problems with the Sa'Vasku is when the massive
ships and especially the custom ones are played.
I don't play the SV myself* but there are a couple of fixes that have been
proposed and appear to have gotten consensus. One was "reduce stinger range
bands to 9mu instead of 12mu"; the other involved
shifting which systems drew on which power pools--no doubt Beth or
someone will post the solution shortly.
* I know exactly what I'd want them to look like and there's not the faintest
chance I'd ever get the paint to come out that way, so I avoid the problem,
and don't anyone even *think* of suggesting I get
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <010801c127a0$b888aca0$019056d1@oemcomputer>
> kaime@mindspring.com wrote:
> Guys,
The
> extra segment is the result of it's growth into a bigger organism. If
the
> strike ships don't just get bigger, they change. And at a specific
Reminds me of an idea I had when someone started a thread about huge Sa'Vas'Ku
'Cheese' ships (basically put the whole point allocation for
a fleet into 1 ship - a cheesy idea for anyone in FT - and fill most of
the resultant blob with power generation - my quick and dirty attempts
to reverse engineer such a monster typically had about 9 range bands of range
and could generate up to thrust 24 or more).
The idea was - Sa'Vas'Ku Modular Superships!
Modular Superships have been proposed before (based on the modular space
station rules in More Thrust) as a way of designing 'balanced' huge
spaceships. The additions I thought of for the Sa'Vas'Ku were that each
'module' was self-contained with regards to power - i.e. - the systems
in a module could only draw power from power generators in the module. A later
extension was the possibility of 'power transfer nodes' that
_could_ transfer power between modules - but took up additional MASS,
and may have had efficiency problems - these were proposed for designs
with a very large number of modules - so you could get enough power to
the FTL node for the thing to actually be able to jump.
As our group are yet to seriously try out Sa'Vas'Ku - I never developed
this idea beyond this point :-(
As to the proposed Sa'Vas'Ku 'fixes':
Range-Band Fix - depends on results of extensive play-testing by widely
disparate groups - in other words - let us all go and play games with
both 'normal' (12mu) bands, and various smaller bands!
Power Pool Fix - I support the transfer of at least some of the power
requirements of Pod Launchers to the Repair pool on PSB grounds. I am unhappy
about putting PDS Spicules in the Defence pool on similar grounds, but OTOH,
there are IMHO, insufficient systems drawing from the Defence Pool anyway
(Screen Nodes only IIRC).
Custom Sa'Vas'Ku 'Power Monsters' - the FB2 designs use no more than
27.5% of a ships MASS for power (and there is only one example of this), the
majority of designs use about 20% of MASS per power. Although there is no
explicitly limitation on the ratio of Power to MASS in FB2, we should perhaps,
consider the designs therein as an implied limitation? So deigns with more
than, say, 30% of MASS as power generators should be either prohibited, or (my
preference), less efficient. Unfortunately, this only slightly alleviates the
problem with huge superships, where even 30% of a lot is... a lot, however, as
it has been stated many times before, huge superships are a balance in Full
Thrust anyway if you 'simply' use the design system.
In fact, your idea of charging a 'surcharge' for designs above a certain
size, in some ways harks back to pre-FB1 Full Thrust. The only problem
is the rules mechanics will tend to build deigns at the top of the size bands,
to avoid the surcharge of a larger band. Another suggestion that
has been proposed on the list is a general, non-linear, increase in hull
cost with size.
> bands, to avoid the surcharge of a larger band. Another suggestion
Which is:
Current cost - TMF + (TMF^2/100)
An Islamic Fed Shaulah stingboat (normally mass 8 NPV 30) would be
30-8+(8^2/100)=23 (22.64 for the finicky, and this doesn't include the
+ 10% upcharge for non-FTL ships).
An Arabiya SDN (which is probably going to be something like 204TMF,
700NPV) would be adjusted to 700-204+(204^2/100)= 700-204+416 = 912NPV
(plus fighters).
I'm generating a few cents of input based on some PBeM experience in Brian's
Sentient Strife game.
So far:
The Pool shuffling (Pods from R, Spicuels from D) seems to work. 9" range
bands overcompensate any erstwhile SV advantage in vector. I'm beginning to
think they're bad all around, but reserve judgement for
Cinematic. (One solution I like is 13" - 1" per range band (0-12, 12-23,
23-33, 33-42, 42-50)
Unless there FB3 gets a "Torp Pod" that works like a pulse torp (including
range bands) Pods are almost exclusively useful as defense only.
As for custom designs, I think that requiring Screen nodes and Pod Launchers
to be grown when a construct reaches a certain size
(biological rules - One node/lancher per X mass) would help prevent
abuse. Further, not letting Power generator mass exceed 30% of total SV mass
would also help (No FB2 SV Violates this rule, if I recall).
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> I agree that the 9" range bands
We found it a bit unsettling at the start, but we've learned to cope so to
speak;) Does make it harder to get out of harms way and still have a fighting
chance of kicking back once you crumple. On the flip side I THINK (can't
rememeber for sure) that one of the reasons Oerjan suggested sliding the range
bands back to 9" was to reduce the impact of the "run away maneuver" whereby
the SV just thrusted aft all the time keeping just ahead of the reach of any
chasing human fleets. Oerjan correct me if I've stuffed that one!
> Again playing the Sa'Vasku
Does get tricky for sure and I've found I spend a lot more time concentrating
on getting my orders as good as possible with these guys to maximise the
chance of being within my 9" too and not falling into spots that are 10" etc;)
Cheers
In talking with Noam, I proposed the following. One of our goals was to keep
all current Sa'Vasku designs legal.
1) Ships of 100+ mass must have a shield node.
Ships of 200+ mass must have 2 shield nodes. Etc.
2) Range band be based on 9mu, but give the first 3mu free.
Range Power per die
0-12 1
12.x-21 2
21.x-30 4
30.x-39 8
39.x-48 16
48.x-57 32
This puts a better average in the mid range compaired
with beam-heavy fleets like NAC or ESU. The SV would
still be disadvantaged, but not as much as a straight 9mu range band. Plus
easier to figure on the fly than
Noam's 13mu -1/range band.
3) Power Pool Change: Pods draw from Repair, Spicules draw from Defense. 4)
Limit% of total mass devoted to power generation: Ship Mass% of total to power
generation <51 30
50-150 25
> 151 20
---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---
[quoted original message omitted]
[quoted original message omitted]
> Brian Bell wrote:
> In talking with Noam, I proposed the following. One of
Is this necessary if 4) below is adopted? (It also means that all SV heavy
freighters have massive screens... somehow I don't find this particularly
likely, but maybe that's just me :-/ )
> 2) Range band be based on 9mu, but give the first 3mu free.
[table snipped]
> This puts a better average in the mid range compaired
EasiER to figure on the fly and doesn't set a hard maximum range to 78mu
(which Noam's suggestion does), but still not all *that* easy :-/
> 3) Power Pool Change: Pods draw from Repair, Spicules draw from
Yes.
> 4) Limit % of total mass devoted to power generation:
Only problem I can see with this restriction are the FT2-style
breakpoints. A TMF 150 ship could have 38 pp while a TMF 151 ship is
restricted to 30; a TMF 50 ship could have 15pp while a TMF 51 could only have
13 (in both cases assuming that fractions round up). (I also assume that the
"50" and "51" figures have swapped places in the table <g>)
However, as Kaime points out - the big problem is the "all your points
in
one ship"-style customised monsters. None of the proposed SV changes
will
solve that - since the problem isn't restricted to the Sa'Vasku but
applies to all FT races.
Later,
> kaime@mindspring.com wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
I'm
> >beginning to think they're bad all around, but reserve judgement for
Last year, after purchasing and reading FB2, I noticed that the Sa'Vasku
construction rules were open to certain abuses (although I will not claim to
be the first that noticed). It is possible that the people that designed the
Sa'Vasku construction rules had never played StarFleet Battles (where power is
more important than speed). As a tongue in cheek way of drawing it to people's
attention, I submitted the "Starstreak" SDN design (40% power generators, 96
in total) to the registry, for which I was awarded the title "Sa'Vasku
poseur".
I suppose the real problem is that we need a fix that does not enforce
arbitrary restrictions on design, nor emasculate the ships in the book. The
one problem with limiting power generators is that from a tactical and
strategic perspective, you want your ships to be able to flee if they can no
longer contribute to the fight. The Sa'Vasku automatically lose 25% of their
power generators with every threshold check (but mercifully cannot lose any
more). Jumping out requires energy points equal to 10% of the ship's mass. So,
if you intend to flee after the third check, without sticking around to repair
power generaters, the ship must start with 40% of its mass as power
generators, or be prepared to divert a significant fraction of its reduced
pool to repair damaged generators.
Sa'Vasku ships also seem to be disproportionately vulnerable to needle beam
fire
I miscommunicated. I did not think that all of the below were needed in
combination. #3 Should be included in the solution. And then a combination of
1 and 2 or 2 & 4. Sorry for the miscommnication.
Still. I think that another solution needs to be found. At 9mu range bands the
Sa'Vasku are out gunned at medium or short ranges by a significant amount.
Compare a Furious CE to a Var'Kiir'Sha (both 64m). Each number
represents the number of beam/stinger dice in a 3mu range band.
Var'Kiir'Sha is displayed using 9mu range bands. +T indicates
use of P-Torp/Pod Launcher; +S indicates use of Screen; +P
indicates use of PDS.
Var 5/8/0/3 Move 4
F 666644441111 +T +S +P
V 888444222111 +T
At the same thrust, the Var has better damage potential out
to 9.0mu, ties at 9.x-18.0mu and is worse at longer ranges.
Plush the Lance Pod is 1 range band shorter than a P-Torp.
Var 5/11/0/0 Move 4
F 666644441111 +T +S +P
V BBB555111 B=11
If the Var forgoes the P-Topr, it is better upto 9mu, worse
at 9.x-12.0, better at 12.x-18.0 worse at 18.x-24.0, ties
at 24.x-27, and beat at 27.x-36. But this does not include
the Pulse Torpedo.
Var 3/12/0/1 Move 2
F 666644441111 +T +S +P
V CCC888666555 +T C=12
Var 0/16/0/0 Move 0
F 666644441111 +T +S +P
V HHH888444222111 H=16
This is the only case where the Var can out range the Furious. And it has to
spend all its power to do so for a 1 die hit out of the furious' range.
Var 8/8/0/0 Move 6
F -
V 888444222111
Var 8/4/0/4 Move 6
F -
V 444222111 +T
Var 10/4/0/2 Move 8
F -
V 444222111
Var 15/1/0/0 Move 10
F -
V 111
Yes, the Sa'Vasku should pay something for flexibility, but the above is
pretty drastic. Note that the Furious had the use of
Screens, P-Torp, PDS, and repair in each example. The
Var'Kiir'Sha would have to sacrifice offensive power for the
ability of damage control -or- PDS -or- Pod Launch. Also, the
Var does not have the ability for screens. To gain screen ability, it would
have to sacrifice the pod launcher and 4 power points. Thus you would get
Var 5/4/3/0 Move 4
F 666644441111 +T +S +P
V 444222111 +S
Oerjan's point about freighters is, somewhat, valid, assuming that the SV use
freighters. Still, I think that it would be an easy fix that does not break
the existing designs.
I also understand the comment about a breakpoint. FB1 still has breakpoints.
They are just more numerous and have less effect. Breakpoints are unavoidable
in any system that rounds.
Still you point is well taken. The problem with a non-breakpoint
system is that to make it nonlenear, you put a cap on the largest ship that
can be made. And for it to be effective, it
would have to be non-lenear.
Oerjan's comment about spending all your points on one ship is exactly
correct. The point system needs to be adjusted with a multiplier to the ship
cost based on ship mass. But that is another discussion.
-----
Brian Bell
-----
[quoted original message omitted]
From Kaime:
> I think the power pool change is fine, but the range band shift will
This much is certainly true in Vector, IMO, where the alien main drive
advantage is reduced.
Oerjan pointed out that mass break points for Power generators fall into
difficulty. I'd much rather put a blanket restriction (if we are considering
real restrictions) of 30% across all the SV. If the slight added complexity
could be swallowed, I'd make it 25% for masses 16 and up and 30% for 15 and
below simply to keep all the FB2 ships legal (with
rounding, there are no weird breakpoints, and PSB is easy - scouts
can/need to have overpowered engines).
I see Oerjan's point about a screen node requirement looking strange on
non-military ships, but 1) it would be relativly easy to PSB and
certainly adds alien-ness (in that the practicality is not immediately
understood by other races) to the SV.
I also have no problem with a longest absolute range for SV stingers (as
is the case of 13-1"/band range bands). I kind of like the idea, in
fact.
To deal with the "all the points in one ship" problem, I think all that may be
needed are a few words in black and white in FB3 or FT3 saying that while this
is possible to make custom uberships, it is not recommended without the
agreement of all players as it has proven to be
unbalancing (for all technologies, but in the extreme for as-written
SV). (In Other words - "Don't be a munchkin unless you're all willing to
be/play with one")
While Richard Bell has a legitimate concern about FTL flight for crippled SV,
40% mass in PG is not the answer. If that is regarded as a critical need,
consider potential tweak:
In FB2, the Power generators are divided into four even-as-possible
groups (with the remainders added to the later groups. Allow one power point
to be moved one level "deeper" in the ship for a cost of 3 points.
No PG could go from 1 to zero, and no "shallower" PG can be larger than
a deeper one: For example, a Var'Arr'Sha (3/3/3/3), NPV 169, could
redistribute to 2/2/4/4 at a cost of 12 points ( it could never go
0/4/4/4, or 3/2/2/5). In order to prevent extremes, don't allow any PG
to mass _more_ than 10% of a ship (rounding ship mass up to the nearest
10 to keep that darned scout legal.
That's pretty complex, but it addresses that one problem without allowing
uberships.
One fix I haven't seen mentioned yet is limiting the amount of power each
Stinger Node can handle to say 8 points, but allow multiple stingers to
combine power for the very long range shots (ie if you want to use 32 power
for a single die from 60"-72", you need to have 4 Stinger nodes in arc
and they have to be dedicated to this shot and can't be used for anything else
that turn).
This fix stops custom ships from having a single stinger and lots and lots of
Power Generators but shouldn't effect the FB2 designs much if any.
On Tuesday, August 21, 2001 2:44 AM, Dean Gundberg
> [SMTP:Dean.Gundberg@noridian.com] wrote:
One option I thought might work but haven't mentioned before, is to treat the
stinger power as the weapon mass equivalent using the usual 12" bands. ie: the
SV uses 8 power into one stinger gives the equivalent of a class 4 beam (4d,
3d, 2d, 1d). This let's the SV keep their range advantage, but reduces the
problem with
the point blank i-put-everything-into-the-one-stinger problem.
Or maybe adjust the stinger bands to 10" and see how that works out in testing
instead of 9".
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[sstrike] Raider Fleet of War Leader Kel'em'all
On Sunday, August 19, 2001 3:59 AM, Noam Izenberg
> [SMTP:noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu] wrote:
I think the SV Pod launchers do need to be changed to the current "advanced
pulsetorp" to hit, as they can't hit anything at the moment.
The problem with SV stingers is the advantage they have at point blank and the
advantage at extreme ranges with enough power allocation. Possibly putting an
upper limit on how much power can be channelled through a single stinger will
shift some of the mass to extra stinger nodes.
'Neath Southern Skies - http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernskies/
[sstrike] Raider Fleet of War Leader Kel'em'all
G'day Dean,
> One fix I haven't seen mentioned yet
Unfortunately the "uberships" I remember people referring too are so large
that paying the points for a few extra stingers isn't going to be a killer
blow.
Cheers
Beth
That would work on the close range, but still leaves the problem of the
retreat and ping attacks.
Take a Vas'Sa'Rosh (220m) SDN and remove the Pod Launchers, Drone Womb, 4
stingers, a Spicule, and a screen node and replace them with an extra 27 power
generation capacity (total of 68). It would have a maximum speed of 15.
Even with a power spread of 27/24/16/1 (Move 6,
Screen & PDS powered), it would have the reach/power
of a Class-5 Beam and a class-4 beam; 3x Class-4
Beams; or 2x Class-4 and 2x Class-3 Beams. It could
easily keep an opponent 25-60mu away and still out
gun an opponent (using 12mu range bands). If it
only has to move 4, upgrade the Class-4 to another
Class-5.
Lets look at smaller SV construct (CE). F=Furious, V=Var'Kiir'Sha, O=Var with
original stinger power rating.
Var 5/8/0/3 Move 4
F 666644441111 +T +S +P
V 7777444422221111 +T
O 8888444422221111 +T
Var 5/11/0/0 Move 4
F 666644441111 +T +S +P
V 7777555522221111 O BBBB555522221111 B=11
Seems OK (Remember that the SV has no PDS or screens).
But I would still propose a manditory screen node for ever FULL 100 mass.
-----
Brian Bell
G'day,
> The problem with SV stingers is the
Which is why humans should try and maneuver to keep them at medium range
;)
I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here and I do admit that the
published SV need tweaking (whether that involves 9" range bands or some
other fix), but some of the "imbalance" I've had people rant at me about
has come from the fact they haven't tried to adapt. One player in particular
down here thought the SV were so ridiculously over the top he'd never play
against them because all they had to do was get in close or stay far away and
the humans were stuffed. I said fine lets swap, I'd play human and he could
play SV. I stayed at medium range the whole game (easier said than done
admittedly) and after that the same guy was declaring he'd never play SV as
they're far too weak and cripple too quickly and are totally stuffed. Just
can't please some people I guess;)
Cheers
Beth
> Richard Bell wrote:
> As a tongue in cheek way of drawing it to people's
The Starstreak is very nasty as long as it has enough pod
launcher-equipped
ships escorting it. If it operates on its own it is extremely vulnerable to
fighters, however..
> Sa'Vasku ships also seem to be disproportionately vulnerable to needle
It's not all *that* easy to bring your needle beams to bear on SV ships
though...
> Brian Bell wrote:
> I miscommunicated.
Ah, OK.
> Still. I think that another solution needs to be found.
The fact that they have the same MASS isn't particularly relevant. They do
however have nearly the same COST as well - 219 vs 208 pts - which says
a fair bit more about their relative capabilities.
> Each number
Problem here: Your analysis is only valid for Vector, since you're looking
at the (F) arc exclusively. In Cinematic those single-arc weapons are
much less likely to get a target, so you need to look at *all* the arcs
(except possibly the (A) one).
In the four broadside arcs it looks like this:
Var 5/8/0/3 Move 4
F 333311110000 +S +P
V 888444222111 (+P, if the V'K'S didn't expect to get a target for its
pod launcher this turn).
> Var 3/12/0/1 Move 2
Should be "V CCC666333111 C=13", no? The pod launcher requires 3 PP, but you
only put 1 PP in the R pool.
> I also understand the comment about a breakpoint. FB1 still
Yes... but the FB1 breakpoints are only 1 Mass up or down per system, and
usually no more than 3 systems that are affected. Here we're talking about 8
Mass in one fell swoop... that's big enough to be very obvious.
> Noam wrote:
> Oerjan pointed out that mass break points for Power generators fall
0.5 rounds up everywhere else in FB, so you have to make it "25% for mass 12
and up and 30% for 11 and below"; that still keeps the FB2 ships legal.
> In FB2, the Power generators are divided into four even-as-possible
Hm. For 24 points the V'A'S goes from 3/3/3/3 to 1/1/5/5, which makes
the first two threshold checks almost negligible... haven't had time to look
very closely at it, but it feels as if this could cause more problems than it
solves.
> Dean wrote:
> One fix I haven't seen mentioned yet is limiting the amount of power
What is this a fix *for*, though? The main effect of such a fix is to make
the SV weaker up close, but it doesn't restrict their extreme-range
firepower much.
Later,
Me:
> Allow one power point to
Oerjan:
> Hm. For 24 points the V'A'S goes from 3/3/3/3 to 1/1/5/5, which makes
You're probably right. But perhaps it can be balanced with cost. At a cost of
5 per power point shift, the 'bottom heavy' V'A'S costs 209, or 1 more than a
normal V'K'S. Which would you choose? You could up the cost until you were
comfortable taking either into a fight.
BTW your comaprison of off-arc stats comes close to convincing me that
9" bands might be OK in Cinematic. I'll have to play it to really convince
myself.