Re: [FT] Designing ships...was RE: Hi from a newcomer !

Ash wrote:

> >The Fleet Book 1 has made vast inroads in the balancing of designs,
> >but the "cheese" players still manage to find weaknesses.  Right now,
> >the design rules for the Sa'Vas'Ku of FB2 can be highly cheesed into
> >gross and abominable designs.

Namely by equipping them with massive power generators and very little 
else. It is at least as much a problem with the SV game rules as with
the 
design rules though - the current 
"not-quite-official-yet-but-sanctioned-by-Jon T." corrections are:

- SV Stinger range bands are 9" (not 12")
- Spicules draw power from the Defence pool (not Attack)
- Pod launchers draw power from the Repair pool (not Attack)

(Did I forget one? IIRC there were four...)

The reduced Stinger range in particular cuts down the long-range SV
snipers 
quite a lot.

>Thanks for the warning - it it useful to know that these rules can
create
>such things. on the whole we have grown out of power gaming (30'th
b'day
>soon...eeeek!)

Age doesn't mean anything at all in this respect. The oldest powergamer
I 
know (that I know the age of) is well into his fifties - and he's one of

the more extreme ones.

>but it can be fun to try and build what you consider to be optimum army

>lists (in this case ships) - knowing that doing so can result in
cheesey 
>designs is useful warning.

The main "cheese" risk with FB designs is if you go for big ships 
exclusively while your opponents don't. Unless completely out-maneuvered
or 
out-die-rolled, a single Mass 200 ship will beat two Mass 100 ships with

the same total cost. A fleet consisting exclusively of Mass 200+ ships,
or 
of a single Mass 1000+ ship, has a significant advantage over a fleet 
including both small and large ships.

The other balance problem is how many missiles/fighters you use. The FB 
designs are created for a universe where it takes time to replace
missiles 
and fighters that have been expended/lost, so none of the fleets max out

completely on either of these - and as a result, PDS levels aren't all
that 
high. In fleets created for one-off battles where there's no tomorrow 
anyway you don't have to replace expendable ordnance, so you can bring a

fleet armed with nothing but fighters or missiles if you like - and if
you 
do the opposition needs a lot more PDS and ADFC than the Fleetbook
designs 
provide (unless they fill out their fleet with ESU Beijing/BEs or NSL
Krprz 
Wilhelm/Es).

You should also be aware that a ship which is good in one of the two 
movement systems (Cinematic and Vector) isn't necessarily any good in
the 
other - indeed, a ship optimized for Vector is usually dog meat in 
Cinematic and vice versa! All Fleet Book designs are created for
Cinematic 
movement.

>Having had a chance to read the Fleet Book 1 I like the fact that the
>different fleets have design principles - it adds flavour to the game.
Have
>any design principles been suggested or hinted at by GZG for the new
fleets
>I wonder.....

AFAIK there has been no such hints for the general public published by
GZG, 
no. Laserlight's ideas about the IF is the closest I'm aware of, but
he's 
not part of GZG (which is essentially the same as saying "he isn't Jon 
Tuffley" <g>) and it remains to be seen if Jon takes up those ideas and 
designs.

Roger Burton-West wrote:

>Funny you should mention that, as I found a relevant page on the FTSR
>yesterday: http://www.ftsr.org/ft/multiverse/nationaldesign.html (note
>that Jon T's comments are pre-FB but still valid).

These comments are pre-FB1, cover only the FB1 fleets, and aren't
entirely 
accurate even for FB1 - the design doctrine notes given for each fleet
in 
FB1 are more up-to-date. Nothing official about the new fleets Ash is 
asking about there.

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

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