Prev: Re: [GZG-ECC and GZGPedia] I Need Your Help! Next: [FT] FB1 Errata

Re: DS II: Capitulation (was point balancing)

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 23:50:14 +0200
Subject: Re: DS II: Capitulation (was point balancing)

Brian Bilderback wrote:

>Hellfire and damnation, I hate being wrong.  

You're not alone <g> 

If it's any consolation, I wrong in exactly the same way for several
years - until I first came across literature on mathematical modelling
of real military weapon systems. (I've been analysing game systems and
game points systems for at least fifteen years... ever since I got
revolted enough with the min-maxing of the local GW gamers to try and
figure out what the models *really* ought to cost. For the past four
years I've even been able to do this before some of the games in
question were published, rather than after :-) )

>But the more I look at it, the more it's bloody unavoidable that
Oerjan's >right about the whole issue of multiplicative values as
opposed to >additive. it's the only way to reflect the way all the
different aspects of a >vehicle complement each other.

'Fraid so, yes. It's also rather counter-intuitive and complicated, at
least with the way the current DSII design system is built :-(

There are some changes I want to make before any others: First, to make
armour, power packs and propulsive systems use up internal capacity
points; and second, to tie the movement factor of a vehicle to its
power/mass ratio rather than to its "mobility type". The first is
pretty much a must in order to balance armour in particular, while the
latter is merely a hot wish :-/

The current points system gives no logical reason *not* to put the
maximum armour level on any ground vehicle - eg, a Size-5 Grav tank
pays *13* points per armour level (out of a total cost in the 3-600
points range), which is completely out of proportion to how much its
survivability improves for each level. If the armour costs internal
capacity points it is easy to allow customized armour fits (strong top
armour to protect against artillery, assault-gun style vehicles with
really massive front armour plates but weak elsewhere, etc), and there
is a reason not to use heavy armour on APCs, staff vehicles etc - you
can fit more stuff (or grunts) inside if you don't!

If power packs and propulsive systems also use up internal capacity
points, I can drop the current, IMO rather artificial, restrictions on
which mobility types allow how heavy armour or which weapons require
what kind of power pack - these restrictions will hopefully be natural
instead, because the lower-tech power packs necessary to power such
systems should use up so much space that you can't fit anything else in
the vehicle! Similarly, a lightly-armoured vehicle will usually be
faster, and potentially much faster, than a heavily-armoured one - at
least unless they use FGPs.

The big problem with both of these changes - the latter in particular -
is that it will be biased towards what I think should be possible and
impossible respectively :-( I'll try to keep it close to, but more
flexible than, the current DSII system - that way Jon's and Mike's
prejudices also get involved :-/

The end result will be quite similar to (and inspired by) FASA's
vehicle design systems for Interceptor and Centurion, or for that
matter to the Fleet Book ship design system. The latter at least
shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone <g>

Enough day-dreaming (OK, night-dreaming - it's 22:54 pm). Back to
Brian's post:

>I do have a couple of suggestions/observations, however.
> 
>First, for the sake of added game flavor, consider some of the added
>aspects of firecon that have been suggested, such as increased >number
of shots, firing while moving, etc.
>
>Then calculate how this effects their combat effectiveness, and adjust
>your costing numbers accordingly.  In doing this, you'll add flavor to
the >game and still balance it.
 
I'll look at it. I'd prefer not to change the game mechanics too much,
though - such modifications have lower priority than going through what
effects the official mechanics have, and what the above-mentioned
changes I already want to introduce will have :-/

>Given the difference in performance between them, the costing >process
needs to take into account full turret vs. fixed arc vs. partial
>traverse turrets.

Yep. The process of semi-traverse and full turrets is rather minimal
IME - it matters for Opportunity Fire and for any future
fire-on-the-move rule, but only if you've positioned or maneuvered your
units badly. Fixed arcs however are a very different matter.

>Instead of mutiplying the rest of the vehicle times the FireCon
modifier, 
>try calculating the cost for each direct fire weapon using a system
>similar to the one I already suggested. Add to this number the value
for >all other non-firect fire systems (GMS, PDS, APFC, APSW, etc),
THEN >multiply that number times a modifier based on mobility.	That
way you >take into account the relationship between mobility and EVERY
weapon >and system on the tank, but don't cause the FireCon to weigh
against >systems it doesn't help.

The FCS is multiplicative with PDS and APFC, since these systems (along
with ECM, back-up systems etc) improve the number of shots the
FCS-controlled weapon will likely get to fire in a fashion similar to
Stealth. 

But you're right: the FCS *isn't* multiplicative with many other
systems, like artillery or GMSs (have their own guidance), APSWs (fired
manually), command posts, engineering packages etc, so shouldn't modify
their cost. It is only additive with them, while all of these are
multiplicative with the defensive systems and most of them are with
mobility.

So, the points value of a vehicle is something like 

[mobility]*[survivability]*[payload]

where 

"survivability" is basically the product of the values of Armour Level,
Stealth/Signature/Size, ECM, PDS, APFC, Back-Up Systems etc 

"payload" is the SUM of the weapons (each with its respective FCS, if
any), command posts, or other "working" systems on the vehicle.

Or, at least, the effects will be something like that. I hope to be
able to disguise many of the multiplications to make them look more
realistic, and thus more palatable to the players, though <g>

>Be careful how heavily you weigh cost for engine type as opposed to
>mobility type.

Yes indeed. Determining the value of high mobility is one of the
hardest things there are in any tactical game - especially since it is
very closely tied to the tactical skills of the players :-( It would be
a lot easier to balance a game if I could remove all players... <VBG>

>Remember that some of the high end mobility types require those
>engine types, as do certain high-end weapons systems. This puts the
>DFFG at an advantage over the HEL and MDC, in terms of points, >which
it should not enjoy, given it's damage capacity.

The DFFG itself is already quite expensive (costs 50% more than an MDC
of the same size), and although you *can* put it on a CFE-powered
vehicle that vehicle needs to be rather fast in order to close to
effective range when facing, eg, an MDC-armed vehicle. In effect this
often means that you need at least HMT power to have a high enough
mobility type to get into range before it is destroyed. But, well -
since I will most likely re-vamp the mobility types, I certainly will
have to be very careful with these issues.

>I'm looking forward to seeing the results. And please, please, keep it
as 
>generic a system as ever - that was one of it's biggest selling points
>with me.

I'll do my best <g> Indeed, the two main changes mentioned at the top
of this post are there in order to improve the genericity even further.

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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

PS: Tom: Yes, "Abelian groups" are those for which multiplication is
commutative. AFAIK matrixes are the simplest non-Abelian groups :-/

...and I hope you managed to get your brain back in place after it fell
out of your nostril? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Prev: Re: [GZG-ECC and GZGPedia] I Need Your Help! Next: [FT] FB1 Errata