Re: Bigger--not always better

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> So? It's not hard to make new FT designs, you know. If the new designs

> mean more variation in the game - since you suddenly see more than one

> type of beam weapons, for example - I'm all for it.

Still, it's work. And with all changes of this kind, you're going to run

into someone who designed his fleet with a different set of house rules.
Someone in a hurry is likely to whip the "vanilla" designs out of the 
rulebook anyway.
 
> No matter how FT is changed to give a better balance between weapons, 
> ship classes etc old designs will have to be re-done.

But if you only change point costs, you can just re-calculate old 
designs. If you change mass, you must re-do them completely.
 
> > - It uses fractional units 
> Not a big problem IMO.

I don't mind it, but some people do.

> Not "screws up". It _improves_ the balance wrt other weapons. It makes
the
> Pulse Torp a bit better (the original mass 3 A battery is almost as
good
> (measured in damage/weapon mass) as the Pulse Torp against level-3
> screens, and better against all other targets). 

I didn't analyse other weapons, but I was assuming they were somewhat 
balanced. It wouldn't hurt to do a dmg/mass analysis of all weapons, 
though. 

> As for the other weapon - well, railguns are the worst balance problem
in
> the game anyway, 

The Kra'Vak as a whole make the point system a joke. What serious point 
system gives free bonuses without compensating handicaps? Fight with the

Kra'Vak? I'd never bother with Screens in the first place.

> and the efficiency of one-shot or area weapons like Wave
> Guns or Submunition packs is pretty hard to compare in this way 

Well, for one-shots you have to assume an "average" combat length. E.g. 
most of our battles are over by turn 10. A "unlimited ammo" weapon might
get 
5-8 good, meaningful shots. So I might compare the damage from a
one-shot 
to 3-5 times the damage from a "normal" weapon, since small ships 
mounting them typically get shot up fast anyway.

Area weapons can be compared to other area weapons with best detail, but

you *can* make comparisons to weed out gross imbalances like if an area 
weapon is more effective even vs. a single target than a regular weapon.

> I don't think "longer games" = "Worse game balance", though...

I didn't say it's worse balance -- it's a different balance than
originally intended (thus "screwed up"). Since you now have less
weapons,
it's easier to close range without being blown to bits. Which also makes
C's (and the kravvies) better... 

> If you do, I'll be very happy blasting you to pieces with long range A

> battery fire. It'll take me a while, of course. 

I admit, it's one of those "it works once" designs. Or do you habitually

check other people's designs before playing? We always play with limited

intelligence.

--
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	  | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice  | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 8A8 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?	  |	     - Porco
Rosso
Http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/     | hateme.html |