Re: variable hulls

Frits Kuijlman wrote:

> >The other hull types also have this kind of synergy effects, but on a
far
> >smaller scale.
>
>Right. I was looking at similar ships with just different numbers of
rows. 
>I'll have to see what the synergy effects of shields are. Didn't think 
>about that.

Don't feel bad. I didn't either at first :-7

>However, it seemed that the relative efficiency increase from 4 rows to
3 
>rows was bigger than from 3 rows to 2 rows. But maybe shields much this
up 
>as well.

They and the FCSs. You need to factor in both of these to get it right.

> >(BTW, your "hull efficiency" looks like the probability that one
specific
> >Core System - ie. the Bridge, since that's the only one which knocks
the
> >ship out cold - will remain intact. Is that a correct
interpretation?)
>
>Yup. Other factors, like damage control parties didn't seem
significant.

When you calculate the impact one extra FCS can have, damage control 
parties suddenly start looking very important indeed (and yes, it is a
pain 
to try and take them into account)... the bridge hits OTOH have a
smaller 
impact than expected because the weapons availability is so poor at the 
lower hull rows anyway.

> >Putting these extra factors will probably mess your numbers up a bit
:-/
>
>Yup, this will make it an almost unsolvable puzzle.

Which is why it took me over a year before I even mentioned the 
variable-row concept to the rest of the playtesters, longer still before
it 
went into Noam's Weapons&Defences Archive, and another couple years or 
three before Jon was confident enough about it to allow it into the 
official game... Calculations can cut down the amount of playtesting you

need to do by giving you a reasonable starting point, but that's all
they 
can do.

>All in all, this, together with the quadratic CPV stuff, seems to
>indicate that simple linear functions for costing don't seem to
>work. At least, when you go to extremes. Of course, using the rules
>with lots of non-linear functions would make them a bit unwieldy,
>unless you are using a computer. Which, for a miniatures games, might
>not be the right way to go. So, how do you go about avoiding design
>extremes without using complicated formulae or articicial limitations?

You can limit the non-linearities by thinking very carefully about your 
game mechanics, but the easiest way to handle the extremes is to 
deliberately make them overpriced - that way the powergamers will tend
to 
stay away from those areas :-/ Some FT examples are very high thrust 
ratings, large Beam Batteries, and of course the CPV system - it seems
to 
work OK for the Fleet Book size range and a bit beyond, but above TMF 
350-400 or so the ships get increasingly overpriced as they grow larger.

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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