Re: construction times...

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Hal Carmer wrote:

> Based upon the construction times for real life "ships", it might be
> better to assume that time to construct ships takes months according
to
> this new formula:
> 
> Baseline construction time = sqrt(mass)*2.
> 
> Thus, mass 14 ships now take 7.4 months, 32 mass ships now take 11
months
> and so on.  I am going to point out a couple of thoughts, and then you
can
> all have fun telling me why the construction times should be shortened
> rather than lengthened as I have just done <grin>.
>

OK (grin), it all depends.  The biggest question is how long is this
campaign going to last.  If you expect it to go on for years (real time)
and span decades (game time) then fine.  If you are looking at a
campaign
that may only last for four months (real time) and a correspondingly
shorter amount of game time then maybe not.  Also, how often do you
play?
If only one game-strategic turn (call it one game month for now) is
played
each week you might want to adjust your ship construction rules to fit
that reality.  

As an example take the current campaign I am involved with.  I expect it
to last about 3-4 months of real time (about one quarter plus starting
over x-mas break).  We will probably get together each weekend to
resolve
each turn.  Now, until the players make contact several strategic turns
can be handled per week.  But when the races make contact and combat
starts the rate of turn-around will drop off (and has already, somewhat)
drastically.  The game mechanics that I put together (construction rate
and economics) are influenced by that far more than by any "reality"
model.

Now, actually I think the numbers you are using are just fine - and they
actually come close to matching what I am using at the capital end of
the
scale.	But I just think you are going about it from the wrong
direction.
I would suggest that you sit down and figure out how you want the
campaign
to run/flow and then create the game mechanics that give you that
result.
This aspect becomes VERY important (IMHO) when you start to look at
economics.



>   As for the concept of "random" construction times, I can live with
it.
> But the question I place before you now is this:
> 
> Assuming that we go along with World War Construction rates for
comparable
> sized/volume ships, then we should also explore the concept that
navies
> will be similarly large.

Again, decide what you want to see happen and then create the game
mechanics that give you that result.  You point out that given the WW
construction rates you should plan for equally large construction 
(especially if you go for an economic base tied to WW US level for the
planet) and point out below what a horrible thought it would be to roll
dice for all those ships - and you are very very correct.  BUT, did you
consider the consequences of fielding 200 hulls in a battle (and that is
just one side)?  It has happened in reality (your base for comparison);
and it will happen in your game if you follow this through (you just got
48 new figs, now you only need another 3 sets: grin).

>  In a crash course for survival of your "race"
> after a disasterous battle, you discover that you have to roll for
each
> and every of the 200 hulls you are building - weeelllll, that might
make
> you lose enthusiasm for the dice rolling rather quick. 

Again, how about fielding those 200 hulls: talk about dice rolling!!

>   Now, if I can only get a handle on what kind of rules I should be
> looking to build when it comes to "income" and construction capacity.
> Before 1800, you could not have built any Iowa class battleships, and
yet
> there was a sizable population on earth at that moment.  Come 1900,
> science coupled with industrialization, allowed for such beasties to
be
> built.  Maybe I should consider the idea that there are three "tech
> levels involved here.  Current - with everything in it. Early, with
most
> everything in it, but some things slightly different - ie heavy beams
take
> 3 mass.  During current times, it is an A battery.  During early
times, it
> was a "B" battery...	 And then finally, the "Pre" tech, where current
> tech wasn't even on the drawing boards.
> 

I must be totally missing the point with high-tech thought, because I
just
don't seem to agree with anything I have seen on the list yet.	My
thought
is that low tech systems should still be balanced (by points) against
high
tech systems.  What fun is it if a "high" tech race always wins against
a
"low" tech race?  Granted that may be realistic, but it doesn't sound
like
much fun for the guy stuck playing the low tech race.  My belief is that
if you increase the mass for systems on low tech races you should lower 
the cost of those systems.  So you end up with large low tech fleets
armed
with only a few weapons.  For high tech races you might lower the mass
of
systems, but increase the cost.  The idea is that you should have three
2000 point fleets, a large low tech - a medium current tech - a small
high
tech, and that each should be balanced.  That is one reason why I
dislike
the current thought of using only mass to build ships - high tech races
will simply be better all the way around.  As a further example a low
tech
race might have mass 5 screens costing 10 points each while a high tech
race might have mass 2 screens costing 50 points each.	Just a thought.

> Hal
> 
> 

Chad Taylor