Scenario generation and game-balance stuff, a continually evolving thread that started with the Kra'Vak

In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.970427133942.25561A-100000@swob.dna.fi> Mikko
Kurki-Suonio writes:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, David Brewer wrote:
>
> > We have no coastlines, 
> > only significant points, like planetary systems, in a 3d space 
> > that is largely bypassed by FTL-travel outside of normal space. 
> 
> It need not be. Remember Thargoids! 

...Elite? I remember Thargoids, or, as we called them, "Alien 
artifacts". A complete scenario generator is, of course, always 
going to be PSB-dependent. Particularly for "Fleet Actions in Deep
Space", as the sub-title reads.

> Ok, maybe it's not possible in background X, but think about this: How
do 
> pirates operate? If FTL effectively teleports you from one safe zone
to 
> another, pirates are out of work. Likewise, interceptors and blockades

> are useless. If you want to stop someone getting someplace, your only 
> choice would be to get there first and meet him.

That's not so good, but still, we are taking about fleet actions,
such as you've already demonstated as a safe proposition. All the 
more PSB-depedent other actions can be tacked on later.

> But, if we assume that FTL is only there to justify interstellar wars
and 
> to remove the boredom of empty space, we could say that:
> 
> - FTL only works outside significant g-fields. Thus you'd get the
> system space as potential battle field with only M-drives usable

Bingo. See FT section on FTL use. I think this can be used as a
default assumption.

> - FTL jump range is limited. At certain intervals you must stop to
> maintain the engines, or preferably even scoop some fuel -- providing
you 
> with possible intercept points near desolate "fuel only" systems.

...Well, we can always fit the go-anywhere Lucas drive...

> > Can we say that the defender can pick the "terrain" such
> > as it is, choose to fight near a planet, or an asteroid belt, or
> > a minefield? 
> 
> If the attacker is there for the sole purpose of attacking the
defender, 
> sure. But he'd also have the choice to disengage before battle if the 
> defender is dug-in too hard. You have to balance the maximum "dug-in" 
> bonus, because premature disengagement makes no fun games.

How much dug-in bonus can the defender actually get? We might allow 
a planet to provide some sort of static offensive capability, but we 
have no rules for this as yet. [...Ortillery bombardment of missile 
launchers etc...] So a default assumption might be that we have an 
undefended and uniteresting colony world. I can't see too many 
bonuses accruing. This is a problem, perhaps, since it follows that 
if terrain placement has no tactical value then it fills no game-role 
except to provide a slight degree of variety at the defders whim.

> > Can we allow fleets to plan a mid-game FTL-arrival
> > or flank arrival, or otherwise spring surprise tactics on each
> > other? 
> 
> That gets harder, but I guess it could be doable. Depends on things
like 
> the existance of FTL radio.

Not if you can "micro-jump" easily within the system. We have rules 
for FTL entry in FT, so we could just chuck them in. Flank arrival 
in normal space seem more problematic, since it could lead to off-
table combat.

> > If a small ship can carry it, so could a large one, so I'm
> > not sure how you mean to have it help the small fry. Do you
> > mean a short-range missile, that a smaller ship could outrun/
> > outmaneover?
> 
> Let me give you an example: Assume you have a 1pt/1mass annihilator 
> torpedo that does infinite damage, hits always, but has a range of 1".

> Sure you can mount them on all ships, but are you really going to risk

> your big ships by getting close enough to use their systems? In fact,
are 
> you going to let *anything* come close enough to risk the torpedoes?

Hmmm... bit of an absurdist example. I understand the point tho'.

> Couple this with a bit of torp paranoia, and you have the smaller 
> screening ships clashing with each other while the heavies slug it out

> "over" them. Each ship class has a functional use within battle again.

I'm not sure about this analysis. The annihilator ships are more
likely to go straight for the heavies than fight amongst each 
other. Indeed, they'd resolve into annihilator missiles, a mass-2
Thrust-8 boat with the AT. The heavies would probably be more 
interested in shooting them than shooting "over" them.

> > My gut feelings are against it. There's some balancing that can
> > be done with the seperate A, B, C's. Larger gets you more range,
> > smaller more redundancy. 
> 
> Care to dwell on this further? 

Well, it's often said that an A should mass at 4, rather than 3, 
and has a basic value of 2 B's. You may not agree (I can't recall 
if you've passed any opinion). Your simpler system gets you 
something better than A (4-2-1) for 2 B-equivalents without any
fear that a poor threshold role with lose you your weapon.

> > How many needle attacks do you want? I suppose a Capital could
> > carry three Needle FC in place of the usual, with one attack
> > each. You can't do any better than three needle attacks in FT
> > (without adding on extra firecons). 
> 
> Multiple needle attacks against the SAME system only need one FC. I
can 
> see use for a dedicated needle ship with 3-6 needles. That gives you a
> 42% - 66% chance to knock out a single important system in one volley
-- 
> like a screen on a screen-3 ship (probably the best needle target, 
> instantly doubles the effectiveness of the rest of your fleet's beams
vs. 
> the target).

Hmmm... I may have mistated the needle firecon rule somewhere
down the line. I thought it was implicit that this too would be a 
trait of a needle firecon, that you could direct any number of 
beams at one system. I can't recall if Scott posted this idea on 
the list. You doubled the range to the target, threw the 
appropriate number of dice (thus a-B-and-a-C at 0-6 give you three 
dice) but using different die-size depending on the target screening. 
12-on-d12 for three screens, 10-on-a-d10 and down to 6-on-a-d6 for 
two down to no screens. The die-size thing is ugly (maybe change for 
rolling a 6-on-a-d6, then throw above screen number) and I'd drop A's 
from the rule, but it gives a new use for beams, with defence based 
on screens. You get a new tactical choice without having to design a 
specific fleet around it like an exercise in CCG deck-building.

> Or... merge C's and PDAFs into close defense batteries, merge needles
and 
> B's into needle batteries and keep A's as main batteries.

I'd give C's all three capabilities. A's would likely still be the
weapon of choice for proper ships-of-the-line (ignoring missiles), 
B's for smaller craft. Everyone would get C's. The danger (IMHO)
lies in huge fleets of large B-toting ships that burn your drives
out ASAP. 

> > So... what you're saying is that you don't want to game in a 
> > mini-cosmos where materialgeschlag is an option, right?
> 
> In a nutshell, yes. It produces very boring games.
> 
> E.g. have you ever seen a siege game without a time limit, either
direct 
> or indirect in the form of arriving reinforcements? I don't think so. 
> Without the time factor, sieges aren't much fun to game.

So you add the time factor. Didn't I metion that, somewhere along
the line? That the objective expires? I'm sure I did.

-- 
David Brewer