Why big ships are too good...

I just noticed something, shields are 25 pts/level regardless of the
size
of the ship. this is obviously incorrect from a game-balance sense,
since if you have more "hit points" for your ship, the shields become much
more influential in the game...

now I just need to think up a way to make it "fair"er...

> On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, lojeck wrote:

> I just noticed something, shields are 25 pts/level regardless of the

I've noticed that the increased cost of Thrust usually balances things out.
After all, it is a point and mass system (for the moment) that provides
balance rather than just a mass system.

> Brian Lojeck

Some things in life just aint fair <grin>. Just as escorts have an easier time
getting up to speed 8 than do capital ships, capital ships have an easier time
setting up defensive systems. If you were a single fighter, which would you
rather face, the defense system of a single destroyer, or the defense system
of of a Battleship? Question: someone mentioned something about being able to
place 3 shields on an escort. How can this be? It takes a minimum of 9 mass
units to get 3 shields. This would mean that the ship had to have a minimum of
18 mass units. Isn't this larger than an escort class ship? (again, I wish I
hadn't lent out my copy of the rules!!!)

> On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, lojeck wrote:

> I just noticed something, shields are 25 pts/level regardless of the

> Some things in life just aint fair <grin>.

'Sright!
:-)

> Just as escorts have an easier

18 is the biggest mass for an escort, so to have 3 shields, it either has
nothing else (!) or it lacks FTL, and masses at least 12 (no FTL = 75% mass
available for systems). How about a Mass 16 system defence vessel with an
A-Battery and 3 shields?

Cheers

In message
<Pine.BSI.3.95.961205184551.23568E-100000@buffnet7.buffnet.net> you
wrote:

> Question: someone mentioned something about being able to place 3

Escorts are up to mass 18, cruisers mass 19 up to 36. So
Escorts _can_ have three levels of shields. It's slighlty
more useful if they don't have an FTL drive, but not much more
so (I never said 3 shields was practical - just possible!!).

> >Some things in life just aint fair <grin>.

as much as I agree with you, I think this is the wrong attitude to take when
designing a game. Life isn't fair, but the idea behind a game is to spend some
time having fun, trying new things,etc... that gets ruined if the game
mechanic isn't balanced (to some degree).

Mind you, this isn't a bash on scenario gaming (which i do almost exclusively
nowadays), I'm just saying that I think a game where 1000 points of 100 ton
ships is more or less equal to 1000 pts of 4 ton ships is a "better" game then
one where they are vastly unequal.

of course, I've got very limited gaming experience with Full Thrust, so these
are just based on my observations so far...

y

> On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, lojeck wrote:

> > >Some things in life just aint fair <grin>.

I just don't know, I'm not all that sure that the
1000-point-100-ton-fleet
is going to stomp on the 1000-point-cruiser-fleet.  They may win, but I
don't think it will be one sided. Taken without screens and a thrust of two a
100 mass ship costs 5 points per mass while a 36 mass cruiser costs 4 points
per mass. Now granted you are only buying screens one time for a 100 mass ship
while you are buying them (sort of) three times with an equal amount of
cruiser mass. I guess part of the problem I am having blindly accepting the
big ships are too good argument is that in the campaign we are running one of
the players (Mike) chose to build two 200 mass ships in his starting fleet.
They haven't seen combat yet (he is holding them back as a surprise, his
racial "bonus" was that he could build super ships while others could not),
but just looking at the points that were spent I don't think they were that
good of a deal. I would have rather had cruisers. I just don't see it being
that simple: large ships are too good.

that may well be true after all, I am pretty limited in my experience with
this game...

> On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Chad Taylor wrote:

> y

-------------------- Begin Quote --------------------
"I just don't know, I'm not all that sure that the
1000-point-100-ton-fleet
is going to stomp on the 1000-point-cruiser-fleet.  They may win, but I
don't think it will be one sided. Taken without screens and a thrust of two a
100 mass ship costs 5 points per mass while a 36 mass cruiser costs 4 points
per mass. Now granted you are only buying screens one time for a 100 mass ship
while you are buying them (sort of) three times with an equal amount of
cruiser mass. I guess part of the problem I am having blindly accepting the
big ships are too good argument is that in the campaign we are running one of
the players (Mike) chose to build two 200 mass ships in his starting fleet.
They haven't seen combat yet (he is holding them back as a surprise, his
racial "bonus" was that he could build super ships while others could not),
but just looking at the points that were spent I don't think they were that
good of a deal. I would have rather had cruisers. I just don't see it being
that simple: large ships are too good."
-------------------- End Quote --------------------
Yes, but would you take a 1000 points of Escorts agianst a 1000 points of
Capitals? Or 1000 tons of Escorts agianst 1000 tons of Capitals? As you point
out, the problem is not, so much, with the offensive system construction
costs. Escorts are at a range disadvantage against Capitals, but this is
(somewhat) offset by Escorts' better maneuverablility. The problem occurs
because screens on Capitals save them so much more damage than a similiary
protected Escort. (Is it that simple? Not quite, but close). If screens had a
cost equal to
1/2 the
ship mass per level or a mass of 1/20 the ship's tons per level, it
might be more even. In addition, Escorts reach the threshold points much too
quickly in proportion to Capitals. Threshold rows should be filled in straight
across and
max out at 5 per row (Each ship would have tons/10 rows). This would
give smaller ships a more even chance.

> On 7 Dec 1996, Brian Bell wrote:

> Yes, but would you take a 1000 points of Escorts agianst a 1000 points

I would accept that 1000 tons of escorts are probably going to have more than
a passing problem dealing with 1000 tons of capitals, but then that is why we
build ships by points:)

> As you point

Actually, it is the threshold problem that bothers me - as a weakness of
large ships. Granted that smaller ships check thresholds earlier, but then
what is the risk? They have fewer systems to be checked (and thus are less
likely to lose systems) and are destroyed before threshold checks become a
problem. But take a Super ship of mass 200. The super ship will
check for its first, second, and third (6+, 5+, 4+) threshold checks
long before it is destroyed (about half way actually) and would probably be
reduced to a floating hulk. This would leave the other half effectively
destroyed.  With escorts/cruisers the "other half" would be fully
operational (the other half being made up of actual other ships). With so many
systems on large ships I just think they are a little more vulnerable
to threshold checks: three screens means a 50/50 chance of losing one on
the first check, firecons are about the same, etc.

How many people out there have used Superships? What were the results?

In a message dated 96-12-08 02:48:50 EST, ct454792@oak.cats.ohiou.edu
(Chad
> Taylor) writes:

<< Actually, it is the threshold problem that bothers me - as a weakness
of large ships. Granted that smaller ships check thresholds earlier, but then
what is the risk? They have fewer systems to be checked (and thus are less
likely to lose systems) and are destroyed before threshold checks become a
problem. But take a Super ship of mass 200. The super ship will
 check for its first, second, and third (6+, 5+, 4+) threshold checks
long before it is destroyed (about half way actually) and would probably be
reduced to a floating hulk. This would leave the other half effectively
 destroyed.  With escorts/cruisers the "other half" would be fully
operational (the other half being made up of actual other ships). With so many
systems on large ships I just think they are a little more vulnerable
 to threshold checks: three screens means a 50/50 chance of losing one
on the first check, firecons are about the same, etc.

How many people out there have used Superships? What were the results?
> [quoted text omitted]
We had a really big game where I ran a 200 mass super ship (the Asteroid
Fortress BVS Kraken). It took two?Nova Cannon? blasts on two subsequent turns,
and lost two full rows. She lost about half of her 17 A batteries, and three
of her five shield generators (I had built redundant systems for just this
eventuality.) Since she was left alone foe the next three or four turns, I was
able to bring all but one A battery back on line with my damage control
parties.

If we had not allowed backup shield generators, the Kraken would have been
tumbling space debris in two or three more turns. I also lost about half of my
damage control parties, which is why I was glad I bought the maximum
allowable. I think redundant systems are very useful for the big ships, and
maybe it would be a little better to have more boxes per line, or two rolls at
six, then two at five, etc. I couldn't imagine a massive Death Star being
worth the point cost when half it's weapons go offline so early.

Regards, Steve Gibson

Date sent:  9-DEC-1996 09:20:23

> Threshold rows should be filled in straight across and

> Brian Bell

Now THAT is a good idea. Workable, simple and fair. Mind if I pinch it?

> Chad Taylor wrote:
:
> operational (the other half being made up of actual other ships). With

The structure of larger ships would tend to be more protective for internal
systems than those for smaller ships. I like the way the threshold system
works right now since it should be easier to damage a smaller ship.

In message <Pine.OSF.3.93.961208014109.25503A-100000@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
> you wrote:

> On 7 Dec 1996, Brian Bell wrote:

Why a range disadvantage? Escorts can field A-bats just as easily
as Capital ships.

> > The problem occurs because screens

3 levels of screens on an escort quarters damage taken. 3 levels of screens on
a capital ship quarters damage taken. Where's the difference?

> > more even. In addition, Escorts reach the threshold points much too

Disagree. I'd actualy argue the other way and say all ships should have the
same number of rows, so larger ships aren't crippled so much by lots of
threshold checks.

And then there are EMP missiles, which can _really_ cripple big ships
(and exactly how is an EMP missile supposed to work in the vacuum of space???
EMP is caused by an atmospheric effect after all).

> How many people out there have used Superships? What were the

Depends. Often, the enemy says "Look! A supership! Destroy it!" and it's one
of the first things to die. I've got a mass 150 super dreadnaught,
which tends to be used in a carrier/massive firepower role. When it
doesn't get picked on, it can cause a *lot* of damage.

> On Sun, 8 Dec 1996 SGibson260@aol.com wrote:

> We had a really big game where I ran a 200 mass super ship (the
Have you tried making superships modular? I.e. a 200 mass supership is
borken down into 4, 50 mass units with 1-2 sections having engines, 1-2
sections having the FTL (Original costs are based on the total 200 mass
though) This allows level 3 shields on 4 sections for a total of 12 shield
units, up to 4 hits on engines and 2 hits on FTL. It also gives 12
firecontrols. It's almost equivalent to buying 4 Mass 50 ships flying in very
close formation. Other sized ships are also possible, i.e. a 150 mass is 3
sections, a 180 is 3 sections of mass 60 etc. each module should be mass 50 or
greater and they should all be equal.

--Binhan

> The structure of larger ships would tend to be more protective for

gotta agree here. I think that the extra cargo room for a larger hull should
be free. after all, if you don't fill up a ship with systems, then the extra
space has no effect on game play, so should cost nothing. if you DO fill it
up, you will pay points for whatever it is you filled it up with.

the only thing left to pay for with the increasing cost of a hull is the
ability to take damage and have different threshold check rates...

> Have you tried making superships modular? I.e. a 200 mass supership

in the 180 mass 3 ship configuration, what happens if you destroy the center
ship? or should the ship be designed to not have a center?

just wondering, its a good idea!

> On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, lojeck wrote:

It blows up in a very spectacular fashion. I once played with the modular
space station that's provided as an example in the books (FT or MT, I can't
remember), and my opponent hit it from long range with a bunch of missiles.

The missile hits were randomized between the sections, but they managed to
take down one of the modular sections (which did 5d6 damage to its neighbors)
and started a chain reaction that destroyed the whole thing.

> On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Mike Miserendino wrote:

> Chad Taylor wrote:
With so
> >many systems on large ships I just think they are a little more

Oh, don't get me wrong! I like the threshold system as it is. I think it is a
great balance against the advantages of larger ships. I'm
not arguing for a change in the system - I'm only arguing that large
ships aren't the end all [and maybe just to argue:)]. Actually, I think that
each class of ship has its place in a fleet/campaign.  I suspect that a
well balanced/planned fleet of mixed ships would do well against a fleet
made up of extremes (escorts or large).

> On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, lojeck wrote:

> in the 180 mass 3 ship configuration, what happens if you destroy the

The assumption we were running on is that total hull points is not
representative of the entire hull, merely the amount of damage required to
damage its usefulness in terms of vital systems and such and actually

there are structural elements left behind even if all damage points are gone.
A second method would be to design superships in a starbase type arrangement,
with each module connected to all the others... So a three module ships would
look like a triangle (with limiting arcs for each module)

--Binhan

Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> said...
[heavy editing]
> And then there are EMP missiles, which can _really_ cripple big ships

Umm. EMP = Electro Magnetic Pulse. Nothing in there has anything to do with an
atmosphere. This is just radiation: Light, Gamma waves, radio waves, etc.
Travels just fine in a vacuum. In fact, it does better there than in the
atmosphere, no pesky molecules to scatter and absorbe it.

On an educational note:

Electromagnetic Pulse is /not/ a purely atmospheric phenomenon.  It
arises due to EM propogation under certain curcumstances and typically expands
in a roughly globular format from its point of origin.

Date sent:  10-DEC-1996 09:46:54

> And then there are EMP missiles, which can _really_ cripple big ships

EMP. Electro Magnetic Pulse. It requires no medium for transmit, and is VERY
deadly to sensitive electronic systems. Our high tech ships are packed from
stem to stern with sensitive electronics. It is no surprise that EMP weapons
are deadly. In fact EMP is one of the deadliest threats at the moment, and
many governments are concerned about the effects EMP from lightening strikes
will have on nuclear weapons. Perhaps this is the atmospheric effect you refer
to? Nukes send an even larger EMP when they detonate.

As an aside, I once saw one of those programs that claim the US government
have a UFO in their possession. As part of the 'evidence' they claimed that a
US company with close ties to the military was working on an
anti-gravity
drive. They phoned this company up and asked what they were researching. The
company's receptionist would not give any details, but stated that they were
doing extensive research into EMP. The program then went on
to state that EMP stood for Electro-Magnetic Propulsion, and used it as
one
of their 'Facts' to prove the existence of Extra-Terestrials on Earth.

Doh!

Date sent:  10-DEC-1996 10:00:39

> The assumption we were running on is that total hull points is not

> to damage its usefulness in terms of vital systems and such and

> gone. A second method would be to design superships in a starbase type

> arrangement, with each module connected to all the others... So a three

> module ships would look like a triangle (with limiting arcs for each

> --Binhan

I once designed a SSD like this. It had three sections. A core that contained
the Hanger Deck and some point defence, and two 'banks' that contained
weapons. I never got round to using it though.

> Brian Lojeck wrote:

Brian,

Were you thinking of using unused system space as cargo space? If so, I think
this a simple and effective use of extra space. Good idea. The only
significant extra cost involved that I can think of might be for external
access doors for loading\unloading cargo.

> Chad Taylor wrote:
I'm
> not arguing for a change in the system - I'm only arguing that large

Agreed.

> Sam wrote:

Actually, EMP would be present and deadly. I think you have this confused with
the shockwave from the air blast(the only difference from a detonation in a
vacuum vs. one in an atmosphere). Ah well, I best not delve any further. We've
been here before.

> Samuel Penn <sam@bifrost.demon.co.uk> said...

And to this, various people replied: "You're talking bollocks!":)

Okay, I don't claim to be an expert at this, I was just repeating the
conclusion of a discussion in rec.arts.sf.science about the effects of nuclear
weapons in space that happened a long time ago. Anyway, since you've all
challenged my statement, I though I'd check the Nuclear Weapons FAQ for more
details,

(The FAQ is at http://astro.uchicago.edu/home/web/jeffb/abomb/nfaq0.html
for those interested - it is _very_ long though. Section 3.5 is the
bit which deals with Electromagnetic Effects).

My understanding of EMP is that it is caused by the absorption of gamma rays
in a particular way due to the different layers of the atmosphere. Checking
the FAQ seems to support this belief. Text indented with "=" is taken from the
FAQ (but edited for brevity):

= According to the FAQ, EMP is generated by the asymmetric absorption
= of instantaneous gamma rays produced by the explosion. Mid-altitude
= bursts don't produce much EMP, because the gamma rays are absorbed = fairly
uniformly. Low altitude and high altitude bursts do.

I would think space would absorb gamma rays pretty damn uniformly. Anyway, the
FAQ goes on to say:

=...these gamma rays collide with electrons in air molecules, and eject = the
electrons at high energies through a process called Compton = scattering,
generating a cascade effect.

I think when Matthew said "no pesky molecules to scatter and absorbe it" he
summed it up pretty well, though not in quite the way intended:)

= In low altitude bursts, the Earth acts a conductor...producing = a strong
magnetic field. High altitude explosions produce much = more EMP, it being
formed when the downwardly directed gamma rays = ecounter denser layers of air
below. The Earth's magnetic field = causes the electrons to spiral as they
travel producing a powerful = downward directed magnetic pulse. A strong
vertical electrical field = is also generated between the Earth's surface and
the ionised layer.

Anyway, the result of all this is that I still believe I'm right.
No mention is made of whether you do _need_ an atmosphere, but the
description of how EMP is created would seem to be invalidated if you didn't
have (a) an atmosphere and (b) ground.

Now, before anyone mentions it, space ships do have an atmosphere inside them,
so maybe a small EMP effect could be produced inside them (though the
atmosphere here would be pretty uniform), but it's probably unlikely.

Having now put forward the case for the defence, I'll leave it to someone else
to show me where I've gone wrong. If I have gone wrong, please tell me.

> Brian Lojeck wrote:
if you
> >DO fill it up, you will pay points for whatever it is you filled it

not at all... actually, I was trying to put logic to large ships having such
better ability to take damage.

perhaps if I explain it better...

ships have two things they must do, defend and attack. a ships weapons are
what attack, its body is what defends.

if I take a 100 ton ship and give it one c battery, it has the same
offensive punch as an 8 ton ship with a C-batt. so their offensive
ability should cost the same amount in points regardless of the fact that the
larger ship has the potential to mount greater weaponry...

where the larger ship IS better (to account for costing more) is in the
ability to take damage...

better explaination?

> Brian Lojeck wrote:

Understood. Still, you got me thinking of what to do with extra space unused
by systems.

> Samuel Penn wrote:

Space does; the body of the ship is an entirely different matter. I wouldn't
want to be a crewmember on a ship hit by an EMP missile. Not
only would the Compton effect from the high-speed gamma cascading
through the metallic walls of the ship fry the electronics in a /much/
shorter distance than in an airburst, but my body wouldn't feel too
cheery after taking a cascade-group of alpha.  Ouch.

> I think when Matthew said "no pesky molecules to scatter and

Except, of course, for the rest of the bulk of the ship.

> Space does; the body of the ship is an entirely different matter. I
Okay, so dusting off my particularly bad memories of astronomy and physics....
Folks, radiation from solar flares is going to cause a similarly significant
amount of radiation to imping on a ship... wouldn't this be protected from as
a function of advanced environmental protection?

> Samuel Penn wrote:
Gamma absorbed ?.   Gamma particles can travel through 30 feet of
concrete, the reason why gamma has little effect on us is we just aren't dense
(though some would argue I am:)) enough to stop many gammas, radiation only
affects the body when it hits something, such as DNA, bone etc.

Alpha patticles would not pass through a ship's hull (alpha is stopped by a
sheet of paper), only high energy beta and gamma would pass through the
hull (where you would then see Bremstrahlung effect - just as nasty but
slightly different thing.)

-------------------------------------
Name: Eric Weatherby
E-mail: ericjw@cyberhighway.net

You said:

---------------Included Message---------------

Anyway, the result of all this is that I still believe I'm right.
No mention is made of whether you do _need_ an atmosphere, but the
description of how EMP is created would seem to be invalidated if you didn't
have (a) an atmosphere and (b) ground.

Now, before anyone mentions it, space ships do have an atmosphere inside them,
so maybe a small EMP effect could be produced inside them (though the
atmosphere here would be pretty uniform), but it's probably unlikely.

Having now put forward the case for the defence, I'll leave it to someone else
to show me where I've gone wrong. If I have gone wrong, please tell me.

---------------------------------------------

Judging from the source materials you quoted, the EMP from a nuclear bomb in
space would not be as spectacular as it would be in an atmosphere.

However, no one ever said that a nuke was the only way to produce an EMP. You
could, for instance, channel the energy from a nuclear explosion and send
it through some kind of superconducting coil, producing a short-lived
and very intense electromagnetic field. Or, you could dump the charge from a
really big capacitor into the coil. I don't know if either of these ideas
would really produce an intense enough pulse, but there is another
alternative. Just as a neutron bomb is modified to produce more neutrons than
normal, you could develop a nuclear weapon specifically designed to

generate an EMP with no atmosphere or ground.

I'm sure that enough PSB applied to the problem will produce some kind of
workable solution.

Eric

> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 ericjw@cyberhighway.net wrote:

> Judging from the source materials you quoted, the EMP from a nuclear

It must work, we do have EMP missiles after all:)

On a more serious note. Now, please be kind. I am in no way a "scientist" and
so I hope I don't sound too stupid. But, the other night I was watching a show
that detailed NASA plans for a Mars mission. During the program the mentioned
the danger of solar flares injuring the crew (who seemed to be easily
protected) and even more likely damaging ship equipment. The show mentioned
that craft such as the space shuttle didn't need to worry about this as they
are close enough to the Earth to be protected. Perhaps an EMP missile
generates this same effect. Notice also that the EMP missile will only do 1d6
damage and the Standard (Nuclear detonation) does 2d6 (with no EMP). Makes me
think that there is something going on besides a simple nuclear blast. Just a
thought is all.

Sam wrote,

> I'd actualy argue the other way and say all ships should have

We tried this, giving all ships 3 rows of damage boxes. The effect was to make
escorts week to the point of useless, and capitals strong to the point of
dominance. We ditched the rule quickly.

Scott