RE: (FT) small vs large ships, was YAFS

Well that strayed well off the original topic - which was a point system
should allow people to create fleets of equal point values that should
perform equally well against each other.  The fact that the current
system has certain loop holes (fighters) indicates that the point system
is not perfect yet.

I used an example of 300 POINTS of small boats vs. two 150 POINT ships
as example of how even if FLEETS are of equivalent value, the actual
composition of the fleet (assuming 1 point of value is equal to 1 point
of value) can allow you temporary tactical advantages (the 300 points on
150 points example).  Glen translated that into MASS which is a slightly
different ballgame since it is already known that weapons of equal MASS
are not necessarily equivalent in effect (which is why there is now a
point system). 

Since the point system takes an "average" effect into consideration, the
fuzzy parts occur at the extreme tactics side.	And from what I'm
hearing, that's exactly the direction that people don't want to go. 
They prefer not to have a Rock-Paper-Scissors scenario where All
Fighters, beats All Capital ships which beats Mega-ship with All PDS
which beats ALL fighters etc. With everything in between losing to those
three extremes.

One solution is to expand the Fleet Books.  If people have a choice of
100 ship classes (including mods, refits etc.) then they are more likely
to find ships that suit them.  If people are allowed to generate their
own designs and generate the situations for the battles, there will
always be inequities unless great care is spent on balancing the
scenario. 

--Binhan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oerjan Ohlson [mailto:oerjan.ohlson@telia.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 3:22 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: RE: (FT) small vs large ships, was YAFS
> 
> 
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> 
> >Oops, you're right.	I miscalculated the torps as being mass 3.
> 
> Mass 2, more likely... unless you planned to make your 
> strikeboats thrust-4 :-/
> 
> >The numbers are just straight firepower - obviously tactics 
> can improve or 
> >negate weapon systems,
> 
> And in an analysis like this you have to take tactics into 
> account. How can 
> you say "strikeboats will always beat dreadnoughts" based on 
> a firepower 
> comparison for an idealized situation, if you have no idea 
> about how likely 
> it is for this situation to occur?
> 
> >for instance if the larger ships take nothing but Class 1 
> and 2 beams, the 
> >10 x 20 Mass torpedo boats will win, since they just stand 
> off at 30 MU 
> >and fire at their heart's content.
> 
> Provided that they manage to match speed and course at 30mu against a 
> non-cooperating opponent. Easier to do in Vector than in 
> Cinematic, but not 
> quite trivial in either system.
> 
> >But as I mentioned in a different thread, a single points 
> costs does not 
> >accurately reflect the combat value of the system, only the 
> POTENTIAL 
> >value if used to maximum effect.
> 
> Er, no. The points values of the various weapons take the 
> average effects 
> of weapon ranges, arcs etc. into account, based on years of 
> experience by 
> several different gaming groups. I suspect that that's why 
> the strikeboats 
> seem so overpowered to you - you're looking at their very 
> rarely attained 
> *maximum potential* value, whereas the points costs reflect 
> their much 
> lower *average* value.
> 
> >The question I think people really should be asking is how 
> to give a value 
> >to more intangible values, such as range, differntial 
> damage, and arc of 
> >the weapon (which are partially based on the thrust value 
> and turning 
> >ability of the ship) and perhaps a more complicated formula 
> based on the 
> >overall design as a whole should be used, rather than a 
> single plug and 
> >play modular format.
> 
> You're *way* behind, man. I and several others have been 
> asking these very 
> questions for years already (in my case about ten years), and 
> by now we 
> have a reasonably good grip on all of them. The "more 
> complicated formula" 
> you ask for already exists; the reason why it isn't used directly for 
> gaming purposes is that Jon wants it to be possible to design 
> FT ships by 
> pen and paper instead of by computer only, so instead it is 
> used (together 
> with playtesting) to check how close the design system comes.
> 
> FWIW much of the discussion of these questions has taken 
> place on this 
> mailing list; searching the list archive for "combat power" 
> should turn up 
> quite a few posts you might find interesting.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Oerjan
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
> 
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry
> 
>