Re: Start For Sa'Vasku "Fix"

In message <010801c127a0$b888aca0$019056d1@oemcomputer>
	  kaime@mindspring.com wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Aimee
> 

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.

Charles