Re: [DS] Capacity, Points - Trying to put it all together. Long post.

Hi all,

Ok let's try this again.  I spent a while typing out a nice long
message,
and my email software crashed and I lost it all, when I was maybe 1/2
way
through.  Hate it when that happens...	The upside is it made me think
about it all again.

This is rather a long post.  I hope you have fun though, and don't get
bored :)

I've been thinking about the DS2 "points system" discussion.  

The two main "schools of thought" can be summarized, roughly, as
follows:

1) Capacity/size is irrelevant.  What matters when comparing vehicles is
how well they act on the battlefield.  This is their "Tactical Value"
and
when comparing two forces, it is the only thing that matters.  How the
Tactical Value is achieved is irrelevant.  So, a large tank with a big
low
tech gun but with stealthing (and reduced size class) having the SAME
COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS as a small vehicle with a higher-tech and more
effective gun doing the same damage, should both cost the same number of
points when building a force.

My observation: This makes some sense, but *only* if using the "type A"
points I talked about last week.  That is, the points system accounts
for
how effective the vehicle is in ONE battle, right here right now.  It
does
not account for "economic costs" and "strategic costs" which are both
different.  

2) Capacity/size is relevant.  First, we want to be able to know that
there
is some degree of WYSIWYG on the battlefield.  Second, we want to be
able
to know how many of X vehicle we can fit in a dropship, whether the
bridge
will hold the vehicle, whether it can fit down that street, etc.  Also,
there should be some *sensible* limits on what people can achieve in
terms
of tech ie the unicycle-with-noisy-cricket is just silly.

My observation:  Sure.	There is always the "this is silly" test - that
is,
if your opponent is doing something dumb, you leave.  But beyond that,
there is something to be said for reasonable limits.  However, I agree
with
the idea that individual battle balancing in a points system should
account
for TACTICAL  value, primarily.  Stuff like miniaturization, stealthing
effectiveness, etc., is a function of the tech level of the setting, and
unless everyone is working to the same set of assumptions, there will be
problems.  No points system is going to account for every possible tech
assumption - it just isn't possible.

SO, what to do?  I would like to see a points system that does two
things.
It would model the combat effectiveness of a given combination of
systems,
such that I can use points to compare my force to your force and use
that
as a rough basis for game balance.  Yes, beyond that there are lots of
other factors, such as mission conditions, terrain setup, etc., but at
least this would be a good starting point.  I would also like to see a
construction system that provides some reasonable limits on what you can
stick in a single hull, and allows for some variation in technology -
i.e.
miniaturization and stealthing, for example.  It would be really nice to
see some kind of system that was better at enabling campaign play, too
(and
this means modeling relative economic values, which is a much tougher
and
difficult issue).

How about this:

Vehicles are created in the following way:

Each has a Size Class.	The size classes provide a basic Signature level
(SIG), and a Capacity (TOTAL CAP) rating - how much stuff you can stick
in
and onto it (and this includes not just internal volume, but also, to
some
degree, mass/weight/etc...).  The signature level would be able to be
modified by stealthing later - i.e., you can pay more to have a lower
signature.

Armour:  Armour classes have a TACTICAL points value (TAC) - a
reflection
of how effective the armour is at protecting the vehicle in combat - and
a
CAPACITY (CAP), which is how much space/weight the armour takes up.  The
TAC value and CAP values change, depending on what type of armour is
used
on what size class vehicle.  Hypothetically:  Assuming size 1, 2 and 3
vehicles that have, respectively, 6, 12 and 18 capacity spaces.  Size 1
vehicle with armour 1 spends 0 CAP, with armour 2 would spend 1 CAP, and
with armour 3 spends 2 CAP.  Size 3 vehicle with armour 1 spends 0 CAP,
with armour 2 spends 3 CAP, and armour 3 spends 6 CAP. The idea here is
that armour 1 takes no capacity, armour 2 takes 1/4 capacity, and armour
3
takes 1/3 capacity (I've just arbitrarily decided on these values - the
relative values don't really matter, just the idea that more armour
takes
more space/weight, and the relative space/weight increases as the
vehicle
size increases - so armour class 1 is not a fixed weight for all vehicle
sizes, but a proportion of the vehicle size).  Why would armour have CAP
at
all?  CAP is not just a rating of internal space, but also a rating of
total carrying ability.  If you have a jeep and you load it down with
armour, it doesn't matter how much internal volume you have, you're
still
going to only be able to carry a limited amount of stuff 'cause it won't
move otherwise.

Weapons:  Each weapon has a TAC rating (how effective in battle it is,
this
of course based on your game combat mechanics) and a CAP value.

Stealthing/Signature:  Signature/Stealth is a modifier to TAC value.
Stealthing reduces the signature, but increases the TAC value - so a
vehicle with stealth and thereby a lower signature than is standard for
its
size would have a higher Signature/Stealth TAC modifier than an
unstealthed
vehicle of the same size.

Each size class would have a base signature and a base
signature/stealthing
TAC modifier value.  Smaller size (and thereby lower signature) vehicles
would have a HIGHER base stealth/signature TAC modifier value (so, a
size 1
vehicle would have the highest stealth/signature TAC modifier - being
small
IS a benefit in combat, because you're harder to see and harder to hit).
So, a size 1 vehicle would have a larger TAC modifier for
signature/stealth
than a size 5 vehicle would.  Adding stealth systems to a vehicle (and
thereby lowering the signature) would add tactical value to the vehicle,
and the changes to TAC would be modified on a scale similar to mobility
and
armour (i.e. it costs less to add 1 level of stealth to a size 2 vehicle
than it would to add 1 level of stealth to a size 5 vehicle).  A size 3
vehicle with stealthing such that it has the same signature as a size 2
vehicle would have a higher total TAC modifier for signature/stealth
than
an unmodified size 2 vehicle would.

Mobility:  Each mobility type has a TAC value.	They also have CAP
values.
The CAP values scale in a similar way to Armour.  Hypothetically: 
Assuming
one motive type (wheeled) and two speed classes (fast and slow) - a size
1
slow vehicle spends CAP 1 on movement.	A fast size 1 vehicle spends CAP
2
on movement.  A slow size 4 vehicle would spend CAP 4 on movement, and a
fast size 4 vehicle would spend CAP 8 on movement.  It takes more space
to
make an engine powerful enough to move a big vehicle fast.  This of
course
would be variable depending on additional motive types and engine tech
types.

Misc:  Troop carrying capability would cost CAP, for example.

So far, we have a system that:

a) Takes into account reasonable limits on things like weapons and
armour
for different vehicle sizes - for example, eventually the armour CAP
costs
would increase beyond the CAP capacity of a given vehicle size, and thus
the system is self limiting.
b) Provides a measure of both COMBAT VALUE (TAC) and size/weight (CAP).

BUT, what happens when we introduce MINIATURIZAION.  AND, what happens
if I
want to take into account things like ECONOMIC costs, so I can plan
campaigns.

This is where things get a bit more complicated.  

I'm proposing that we add a THIRD measure to the system.  That is a ECO
rating.  This is a rating of the ECONOMIC costs of the various systems.

Each item would have an ECO rating, usually based on how effective it is
and how BIG it is. (BUT this is also relative to the tech assumptions of
the universe. We provide a baseline in the basic rules, and this changes
for different tech assumptions).  Thus, the ECO rating for armour would
scale depending on the size of the vehicle, the same way mobility and
armour CAP values scale.  So, putting Armour 3 on a size 1 vehicle would
cost less absolute ECO than putting Armour 3 on a size 3 vehicle -
obviously, if type 3 armour costs X ECO for 1 square meter, then a size
3
vehicle will use more square meters than a size 1 vehicle.

Miniaturization would work into this NOT as a factor modifying TAC cost,
but would modify the CAP and ECO costs.  And miniaturization would be
able
to be applied to ANY system, including armour, engines, etc.

EXAMPLE:

"RULES" FOR BASELINE TECH

*****Please don't take me to task over the actual numerical values and
the
relative balances - I'm not trying to create an actual working model,
just
demonstrating the overall ideas.  Leave it to someone who actually can
do
the math to work out "real" values for all this sort of stuff*****

SIZE CLASSES:

size 1 hull = 6 TOTAL CAP, 4 ECO
size 2 hull = 12 TOTAL CAP, 8 ECO
size 3 hull = 18 TOTAL CAP, 12 ECO

(assuming that the cost to produce larger hulls is linear)

WEAPONS:

laser class 1 = TAC 1, 2 ECO, 1 CAP
laser class 2 = TAC 2, 4 ECO, 2 CAP

(assuming laser 2 is twice as effective as laser 1, so has double the
TAC
value and double the ECO cost - again, the ECO cost is part of the
baseline
universe tech assumptions)

ARMOUR (ARM) CLASSES:

Size 1 Hull:	ARM 1 = 1 TAC, 0 CAP, 2 ECO 
		ARM 2 = 2 TAC, 1 CAP, 4 ECO
		ARM 3 = 4 TAC, 2 CAP, 8 ECO

(assuming that armour 2 is twice as effective as armour 1, and costs
double
the ECO)

So, a size 1 vehicle with armour 1 and a class 1 laser costs 6 ECO
points
and has a TAC value of 2.  It has 4 CAP left for other systems, dismount
infantry, etc.

A size 1 vehicle with armour 3 and a class 2 laser costs 16 ECO points
and
has a TAC value of 6.  It has 2 CAP left over for other systems.

When calculating the OVERALL TAC-value of a given vehicle, we would use
the
same sort of formula that Oerjan has mentioned several times.  I forget
exactly what it is, but it would provide the final TAC value of a given
vehicle by including certain factors as multipliers (I think it went
something like	(armour+weapons)*(mobility)*(signature) or something
like
that).

Then we add in MINIATURIZATION.  Miniaturization would be a function of
the
tech assumptions of the universe setting.

Example:

BASELINE MINIATURIZATION, LEVEL 1:

WEAPONS - CAP * 0.5, ECO * 2

ARMOUR - CAP * 0.75, ECO * 3

In this example, they have perfected the ability to make weapons
smaller,
but have a harder time making lighter armour.  So, reducing armour CAP
costs more than reducing weapon CAP.

Limits:  CAP cannot be reduced below 1 for any system.	The same sorts
of
effects would apply to stealthing systems, mobility, etc.  The baseline
miniaturization factor would reduce them by a certain amount similar to
the
effect on armour and weapons.

SO, for my Jeep above - Size 1 jeep with miniaturized class 2 laser and
miniaturized class 3 armour would have 3.25 CAP left over (and the .25
might be relevant later for adding in other miniaturized systems) but
have
an ECO cost of	36.

HOWEVER, the TAC value would not have changed.	In game terms, the Jeep
(ARM 3, LAS 2) from the first example, and the Jeep (ARM 3, LAS 2 -
miniaturized) from the second example would have the same TAC values, as
the overall combat effectiveness has not changed.  The ECO value has
changed dramatically, though.

What's the point?  Well, in my example, the relative ECO cost
differences
for miniaturization are surely greater than the benefits, and that is
something that would need to be thought about carefully.  BUT, when you
look at the total range of possible sizes for weapons, mobility
(engines),
armour, etc., it means that you can get a weapon or combination of
weapons
into a small hull that you would not be able to otherwise, for example. 
Or
you could create, if you wanted, a large vehicle with a hugely
disproportionate amount of weapons, armour, etc.  Or combination of
weapons, troop capacity, etc etc etc.

Now, this is working with the, as I pointed out, "Baseline
Miniaturization".  There could be a couple of levels of miniaturization
in
the baseline.

*All* of the ECO costs, CAP values, and the effects of miniaturization
are
a product of the technological assumptions that go into the setting -
the
assumptions that make up the baseline.

These can be changed.  SO, for different settings with different
technological or economic assumptions, we could change the values.

The Basic System would have a set of CAP and TAC values.  This makes up
the
Basic Rules, and works from a set of assumptions about technology that
could be mentioned in the introduction.  There would then be ECO values.
There could be a set of these in the basic system, as "suggested values"
working within the same tech assumptions.

Then we could provide alternatives.  These would be different sets of a)
ECO values b) effects of miniaturization on CAP and ECO c) other basic
limits/assumptions of the system.

We could provide several examples of alternative settings.  One for
WWII,
one for the Mecha genre, with perhaps different CAP values for stuff and
different max sizes so you can get bigger vehicles mounting more/bigger
weapons, etc.

One might ask at this point "why bother separating TAC from CAP at all -
just construct vehicles based on CAP points, and have higher tactical
value
systems cost more CAP.	Then you only have ONE set of values to account
for."  There are several reasons for this (hopefully obvious from my
discussion):

a)It allows more flexibility in the system - gives the designers more
"wriggle room" to model variability between systems.

b)It provides the ability to compare units based on tactical value, but
not
directly based on size and capacity.  Thus, when you have different
vehicles with the same OVERALL COMBAT CAPABILITY, they get the same (or
at
least closely to the same) "points value."

c) Finally, it enables different technology assumptions to be modeled
independently re capacity vs. tactical value vs. economic value.  For
example, a standard Class-3 laser might cost x ECO, y CAP and have z TAC
value.	If you allow lasers to be miniaturized in your setting, then it
might have x*2 ECO, y/2 CAP, but still maintains the z TAC value.  If
your
points system only used capacity points to compare tactical value, then
it
would inaccurately model miniaturization - a miniaturized Class-3 laser
would have a lower capacity rating and thereby a lower points cost,
which
clearly doesn't make sense.

CONCLUSIONS:

This sort of system, if the actual numbers for the Baseline were well
thought through, would (hopefully) enable the following:

1.  Ignoring ECO values all together, we can have pure tactical value to
tactical value comparisons of fighting forces.

2.  There are basic reasonable limits on vehicle construction (built
into
the TOTAL CAP of different sizes and CAP values of various systems), but
capacity is not linked *directly* to tactical value.  Larger vehicles
mounting more armour and greater weapons will have a higher TAC value,
but
because of the combined effect of the weapons and armour and NOT the
size
itself.  However, there is an inherent limit to how much you can cram
into
a given hull. 

The "simple form" of creating a force is not *that* much more
complicated
than the existing DS system.  You choose a hull, add systems, and
calculate
the TAC values.  Each side gets a force of X TAC points.  You play.  If
you
want to play in a campaign, you add ECO values to your calculations, and
each player builds their forces including to an ECO value rather than a
TAC
value.	Then you still play TAC value based battles.  Not that much more
complex.

3.  Alternative tech assumptions can be made about the universe setting,
and these can then be accounted for in the system.  For example, you
could
include the introduction of some degree of miniaturization (a simple
version of which would be an optional rule in the Basic rules).

4.  An economic model, such that campaign games can be planned with
players
building their overall armies based on ECO value rather than TAC values.
Then, when actual battles are fought, the players would pick their
forces
based on TAC value.  If someone wants to purchase a very high tech
force,
then they'll get less stuff overall than the guy who purchases the low
tech
force.	But, when you talk about a 500 point battle, that refers to the
tactical value (TOTAL TAC) of each unit and NOT the economic investment
in
the battle, directly (though one could, of course, fight battles based
on
economic investment rather than direct TAC comparisons… this could be
quite
interesting).  The economic model provided would, of course, be entirely
dependant on its baseline tech assumptions, but these could be clearly
stated.  If one was adventurous, alternative economic models could be
provided showing the different ECO values for stuff using different
assumptions - for example in a MECHA setting, in the GZGverse, etc.

If one were *really* adventurous, the alternative sets of tech
assumptions
could include not just different ECO values, but different effects of
miniaturization, different CAP vs. TAC values, etc.  This would be for
someone with lots of time, BUT if the rules set were to provide, for
example, THREE sets of these (one as the BASELINE - based in the
GZGverse
which is a pretty good near-future Sci-Fi setting, one for LOWER tech,
and
one for HIGHER tech - i.e. a mecha/anime setting) and some general
comments
on how one would go about changing the ECO values to accommodate
different
tech assumptions, then that would give the reader PLENTY to work from.
And, of course, lots of advice to NOT mess about with this stuff until
the
players are experienced or be aware that balance will get thrown out the
window.

If one was going to be REALLY insane, you could add in a STRATEGIC value
(STRAT) for stuff, so that you could model the effect of stuff like
wheeled
mobility vs. grav mobility in a strategic situation...	Then you could
model your campaign on ECO and STRAT values, though that would be a bit
nuts :)

What do these ideas NOT address?

1.  The actual relative balance between the various vehicle systems
(mobility, weapons, armour, etc), in terms of all these values (ECO,
TAC,
CAP).  I'm just proposing the overall structure, not the *actual* values
per se.  That would need to be figured out by someone who can do the
math
(Oerjan... :) .  The important thing for the basic rules would be the
CAP
vs. TAC balance. 

2.  This system does NOT account for HUGE variations in tech assumptions
played in a single battle.  Allowing many levels of miniaturization and
a
wide variety of tech types (ie WWII vs. MECHA) will still be hugely
difficult, if not impossible, to account for in any points based system.
That kind of situation should be scenario specific, controlled by a GM
who
knows what he/she is doing, and in that case, points don't matter.

As such, the assumptions going into the BASIC rules should be clearly
stated:  "We assume THIS level of general technology.  Some
miniaturization
is available, but only in limited amounts and at great cost.  In game
terms, it is an optional rule."  Then if alternative versions of the
assumptions are provided, they will be mostly for relative ECO effects
of
stuff like miniaturization (unless, as I suggested above, one were
really
adventurous and provided, say, 3 sets of values with the rules and you
included different TAC vs. CAP values also).  Making available too great
a
variety (particularly in the effects of miniaturization) in the basic
rules
will cause the relative balance of TAC vs. CAP to change, and the
greater
the variety, the greater the chage and thereby the greater the
opportunity
for the balance to be buggered up, so alternative sets of values would
need
to be thought out very well.  It would be MUCH easier to just provide
alternative ECO values - and when it comes down to it, that would be
simple
to customize to any given setting.  It would be much more difficult to
provide alternative TAC vs. CAP balancing, other than the relatively
small
range provided by the basic miniaturization rules in the "Baseline"
setting. 

3.  This does NOT address the "but I can't make this WWII vehicle
legally
in the system because the system doesn't let me have more than 1 main
weapon, etc etc" problem.  That is one of those "there is perfection in
the
details" items that I wasn't trying to look at.  Personally, I would
want
to work things something like this (in general):  A fire control unit
costs
1 CAP, irrespective of how big the vehicle is.	Each FC can operate one
gun
in a fire action.  If you have four main guns, and you buy four FC, then
they should all be able to fire in the same turn.  If you have 2 FC and
four different weapon systems, then you can fire two of them.  Each FC
represents either an AI, or a crewman and targeting system.  FC's could
be
rated in terms of levels of effectiveness, and this would change their
ECO
and TAC values, but they would always have a CAP of 1.	Again, though,
this
is "fiddly detail" stuff that I wasn't really intending to deal with in
this <frighteningly long monologue...>

Anyway, I've run out of steam.

Hope those of you who read this to the end found some value in it!! :)

-Adrian

********************************************

Adrian Johnson