Re: Descriptive design system idea

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, James Butler wrote:

>	  That's what I've been thinking for some time now. Campaign
cost
> should reflect the amount of economic/industrial effort required by
the
> "purchasing" civilization/government to build the ship. As for
thoughts on
> how to adjust cost to mean this more than how well ships compare
tactically,
> I guess the difference would be in what you intuitively (or could PSBS
> justify) as being increased costs of construction...

I am "raised" (as an SF gamer, at least) in Starfire, and have worked
together with the Starfire Design Studio recently. This tends to colour
my 
ideas about campaigns somewhat, so take this for what it's worth...
I have some "real" input to the thread, too, but that's quite a way down

the post.

In Starfire campaigns, building cost in "campaign income" is the same as
the 
points value in one-off games. This means that if we introduce new tech 
items in Starfire, we have to make sure that its cost reflects its worth

not only in one-off equal points gmes, but in a campaign too. Yes, that 
takes some testing, I know...

But why? Well...

* Games (and, as a logical extension, campaigns) where only one ship 
  class or only one weapon is cost-effective very soon become very
boring.
  That's the problem we've had with A batteries in Full Thrust. This 
  means that if you use a points system at all, it has to give "fair"
values
  to the weapons and ships - ie, the points cost has to reflect the
combat
  value of the ship or weapon.

* Large campaigns - ie, large enough to build new ships or even colonize
new
  worlds - are ultimately about using your resources as efficiently as 
  possible. Part of this lies, of course, in the realm of strategy and 
  tactics, but a disturbingly great part is in ship construction - your 
  ship designs have to be cost-effective, or else you have to out-shine 
  your opponent as an admiral that much more brightly unless you want to

  be conquered.

In Starfire, the points cost is rationalised as "building cost" to
simplify campaign balance. A more powerful weapon always costs more to
build than a weaker one, period. (Well, that's the goal, at least...)
However, Starfire has tech levels, and tech progression - which means
that
a weapon which is good (and cost-effective) at one tech level is
completely outdated at a later, much as black-powder smoothbore cannon
aren't very popular (and extremely unefficient cost-wise) in our modern
armed forces today. However, many weapons hang on - or even get new uses
-
as the tech advances; the Laser (TL1), for example, is very weak
compared
to other types of beam weapons (appearing around TL4-6), but it is one
of
the longest-ranged anti-fighter weapons... (fighters are TL8). However, 
weapons/systems introduced _at_a_given_tech_level_ have to be (as) 
balanced (as possible) against each other.

Because of this tech progression, "ideal" weapon mixes vary through the 
campaign - if there is, indeed, an "ideal" weapon mix at any time. 
Furthermore, Starfire's "Warp Points" (...those who have read any Honor 
Harrington books know roughly what I mean) means that WP assaults (think

of them as dropping out of FTL in the middle of an enemy fleet) are
added 
as a "scenario"; ship designs for WP assaults tend to have more
powerful, 
but shorter-ranged weapons than designs for deep space battles. This, 
too, adds - some say "forces" - tech variety.

Full Thrust (at least the published games) don't have any traces of tech

levels. (Some house rules have them; eg the "early period B5" battles 
with the D batteries.) This means that, in order to have some tech 
variety in the game - even if it is only the basic A/B/C batteries - all

these weapons (not to mention ship sizes) have to be balanced against 
each other, not only in the tactical battles, but in the campaign as
well.

OTOH, Full Thrust adds FTL engines, which are completely absent in 
Starfire (where the WPs are the only means of interstellar travel). 
Furthermore, the much wider interstellar maneuvering possibilities FTL 
travel allows means that small, fast scouts will be necessary to a much 
larger extent than they are in Starfire - especially if there is no
other 
FTL communication than starships!

<rambling mode OFF>

What I'm trying to say, but in a very indirect way, is "Make sure the 
design system is balanced for tactical battles first. If it is, it isn't

very hard to adjust it for campaign use..."

> larger hulls might cost
> more proportionately than smaller hulls especially if shielded, 

This is true for tactical combat as well, so should be part of the 
"tactical" design rules.

> troop
> holding cargo spaces should probably cost more than 1 per mass as it
> probably is rather expensive to feed and maintain a large body of
fighting
> men and their equipment,

Or, better still, pay separately for the troops (and maintenance/food
for 
them!). A troop transport ship shouldn't be too hard/expensive to build 
(I think, at least); training and maintaining large number of troops 
certainly is.

> advanced electronic systems such as sensors and ECM
> and shields should probably cost a lot more than lower tech systems
like
> submunitions. 

Definitely.

> Then again, you'll probably have to cost submunitions and
> missiles in a campaign system for reloads so it balances out.

Definitely. If you have to pay for replacement munitions (and possibly 
transport them to the ships that need them), that alone increases the 
cost for them quite a bit.

>  As David has
> brought up, FTL and cargo bays are worth next to nothing tactically
but are
> worth more than their weight in gold-pressed latinum strategically.

One way to balance things like FTL drives is building time. If it takes 
(much) more time to build an FTL-capable ship than system defence ship
of 
the same average combat capabilities, then it suddenly becomes much 
harder to replace (and thus more valuable). Cargo spaces could be
handled 
like this too (...perhaps... but I don't think so, really - cargo
haulers 
should be the easiest starships to build. Look at "Moonbase Alpha" <g>)

Cargo bays - yes, they are valuable strategically, but don't you think 
the _contents_ of the said bays is even more so? If you pay for the 
maintenance resources, you'll have to protect them anyway. This is the 
same argument as for troop transports.

> I imagine a "strategic" point system would wind up being costed in a
very
> intuitive manner.

And tested, tested, tested...

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson

"Life is like a sewer.
 What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
 -Hen3ry