Large mass adjustments, was Re: [FT] F***ters

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: [FT] F***ters [was: Operational game]

> The formula Laserlight gave a link to gives reasonable results up to
around
> TMF 250-300; larger than that that the ships get more and more
overpriced.
> I'd prefer that to the current situation where ships get more and more
> *under*priced as the TMF increases, though :-/

I think the whole idea is just whack-a-ding-hoy, frankly.  As you
observed
in a spot that I snipped, carriers don't at all get an advantage for
larger
ships to speak of, and the proposed solutions here have the effect of
actually making smaller carriers _better_ because they can carry more
fighters for the same point totals proposed.  By my calculations, the
classic "soap bubble" design would be able to stack up 21% more fighters
just by virtue of it being mass 12 under this system.

What I would much prefer would be some form of system where any given
hit
you put on a ship has a certain chance to take down a system as
"collateral"
damage, and find a way to make the probability about the same across any
size of ship.  The trick would be to find the exact probability of a
system
loss that would allow a larger ship with more systems to lose those
systems
at the same proportion as a smaller ship with fewer systems, without
unduly
complicating either the ship design process or the damage assessment
phases
of the game.

If that could be done, though, that would be a far superior solution to
any
sort of exponential coefficient on hull mass values.

E
(aka Stilt Man)