The problem with most design systems is that there's rarely a countervailing trade-off. They use non-linear trade-offs which result in clearly optimum design points. (The fact that a 75 ton mech moving 4/6 had more spaces to devote to weapons than an 85 ton mech at the same speed, due to engine and gyro costs, for instance.)

For instance, in BattleTech, there was never a sufficient incentive to take less than maximum armor, in spite of the fact that most of the "historical" designs lacked such.

Another problem with BattleTech is that there was never a decent incentive to take ballistic weapons (we found one with a house rules mod that fixed other B-tech problems). Most FASA design systems blew chunks.

With Starfire, ship designs were easy: Speed 6, 1/4 of your remaining spaces into defenses, and as many Rcs as will fit. Since you generaly didn't have a ship last more than two turns of combat, lay your engines (aside from the last one) to pad the weapon hits.

The problem with SFB is that there's too much granularity in point costs.

Historically, there was a reason why Fast Cruisers never took off. In practical purposes, most CFs are at least as good (and usually better with EW) than their non-fast counterparts.

Historically, the Kzinti CL never got refitted up to speed 30 warp engines. Is there any way to induce this sort of cost-saving mechanic in a custom-ship building setup?

In DV, a turn is 8 impulses long. Batteries hold 2 power each, reactors generate 1/2 a point of power per impulse, stored in batteries. Reactors generate 1 point of heat per turn, stored in heat sinks. When your hit sinks are full, you withdraw from combat to extend radiators and let them cool down. (Extending radiators in combat is tatamount to dropping your shield and giving every weapon an auto-hit versus you in SFB)

Batteries are 1 space each, reactors are 5 spaces each and heat sinks are 1 space each...and there's a disincentive to try to run everything from reactors from the get-go.

And then there are all the other things you buy.

Aside from a nonlinear cost structure, there's nothing out there that will give you a design like the Kzinti CL, with less than maximum warp power. There will never be an incentive to take LF+L/RF+R weapons over FA.

Nobody will take the phaser-2 when they can have the phaser-1.

Everything will be optimized for THIS fight, not "What does my fleet need for the next 7 years for warships?"

By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:06 am: Edit

A good part of the fun of pickup BPV battles (IMHO) is the uncertainty of what you're facing. Coming into a BPV battle, and slowly discovering through TacIntel what you're facing makes the engagement much more interesting.

Is that a D6, D6K, D6M - who knows until you get get close enough to tell. You have to adapt your strategy as the game progresses.

If the system isn't perfect (or at least near to it), you're going to lose all this. You'll have to reveal your ship design to your opponent - so much for TacIntel. So much for the element of surprise. If the proposed 30 transporter, 10 ph-1 ship is legal in the rules, your opponent may be taking it - and you won't know until your sensors tell you. If that outcome isn't desired - then the rules need fixing.

Again - all IMHO. It's not about that one example ship, or about this rules set, it's about the general philosophy behind the product.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:20 am: Edit

Ken

"With Starfire, ship designs were easy: Speed 6, 1/4 of your remaining spaces into defenses,
and as many Rcs as will fit"

Precisely - you never had much call to do anything else.

While the battletech design system does have the flaws you mention, I disagree on some counts - LRMs were OK. All I'm saying is that I found the battletech design system worth toying with, more than I could say for many others.

As to choosing to have less than maximal warp power, I agree that you will never voluntarily do that - unless that is actually your design limit because you have naff technology. As an alternative, I am seriously looking into ships having discounts if they have less than maximal warp (e.g. less strain on the hull...). If you use a technology-based system that restricts your choices, you will have Phas-2s because you *don't* have those phas-1s.

Oh - and I have prototype ship refit rules that makes it quite expensive to add extra warp - enough so that you may not bother.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:40 am: Edit

Ken: You have a point, things would tend to be optimized that is true, and people would find the "best" way to make something, but at least there would be a system.
People would tend to make ships for "this fight", but some would just make units that they liked overall, or others may go to the trouble of making thier own fleets, with their own history, and their own faults, just for fun. With a system at least they could.
In my system RF/R, and LF/L arcs, fall under the non-overlapping heavy weapons rule and get a BPV deduction. Not a huge incentive to take those arcs, but one nonetheless.
The only incentive I put into my system was that phaser 2-s cost half as much as phaser ones. Again not a huge incentive.
The "deltaV" system you mentioned sounds interesting, and the web site is nice, I like the various tourney ships.
Tony: In your example I would not think you would use created units as you are using tac-intel to slowly figure out what classes are coming at you. I suppose you could use that system with created ships, but the surprises could be "really big", and that in and of itself, could be fun (I ran a Frax fleet and a Klink fleet this way once at a convention, and both sides had a good time, and the Frax were not known by anyone at the time), but if the shipcon manual does not work for your groups playing style why would you use it?

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:14 pm: Edit

RE battletech:

David,

Battletech is one of the worst-balanced design systems I've worked with. It's fun because I can munch my little heart out (A common factor in a lot of my early designs was the mech could expend its heat allowance twice. Once in long-range weapons and again using Medium lasers. Now really: should a design system allow that?)

Traveller's High Guard system seemed to make much more sense. Several categories of ship system were simply taken as a percentage of hull tonnage. The player is focused on core choices of jump/maneuver drive, weapons space, etc.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:25 pm: Edit

In regards to Battletech, my group used the mech design rules quite extensively for a long time. Eventually, we got tired of running the same type of mechs, which were ultimately optimized for combat (gobs of ER small lasers, jumps 7, coolant pods, and hatchets in each hand), so we started running traditional, printed mechs again because we wanted the limitations. Getting exactly what you want is fun for a while, but it eventually gets tiring as you find out exactly what you want and stick with it. The limitations inherent in the printed ships are funner to play around and try to overcome as opposed to building a shhip taht doesn't have any limitations.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:38 pm: Edit

Rob: That is your choice if you wish to run just printed mechs, but having another choice to build your own units should be available.
How did your units handle long range fire, especially on an open map (I mean no terrain, no trees, buildings, hills etc.)?
I do not see the problem with the designs you mentioned, the variable pods available to the omnimechs bascially did the same thing.
I never noticed battletech to have a huge proble in mech design or munchkining, except when different tech levels were pitted against each other, clan tech absolutely mangled inner sphere/advanced inner sphere tech.

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Battletech was so full of half thought out ideas, anybody could find contradictions and interatctiosnt ath were never addressed. Granted, the original designers are not involved with it anymore, unlike SFB, and the new designers are more interested in "what's cool" than how the systems interact with each other. It looks like they thought of something cool to do and then thought up something bad about them to try and counteract the coolnes of it, all in about ten minutes, unlike SFB.
I agree that those who do not want to construction/modification rules do not have to use them. I won't use them. What I don't like is that those rules gives an air of officiality to someone's cobbled together ships. They will tote around the ship as being a legal ship, when the Steve's have never seen it and probably wouldn't make it official. Gimick ships would flourish, as people come up with ideas for a winning tactic (the transporter and ph-1 ship, as example), which end up making teh game not fun for the otehr players as that person contines to try to use his one tactic. It's not fun, trust me.
Now, making HDW-type ships for other classes, I would not have a problem with. It allows some modifications, but to already established boxes, and only in predescribed uses.

By John de Michele (Johnd) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Ken:

You said:

>With Starfire, ship designs were easy: Speed 6, 1/4 of your remaining spaces into defenses, and as many Rcs as will fit. Since you generaly didn't have a ship last more than two turns of combat, lay your engines (aside from the last one) to pad the weapon hits.<

Yeah, but only if you were playing the tactical version. If you were playing Imperial Starfire, then you had a reason to design your ships better, like putting the engines last (like I did).

John.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 02:37 pm: Edit

John: Even in Imperial Starfire, ships tended to survive only by accident.

For those who like to munchkin ship design systems, I'll (eventually) be looking for munchkins to go through the DV ship design rules and crack them a few times.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 03:07 pm: Edit

What I don't like is that those rules gives an air of officiality to someone's cobbled together ships. They will tote around the ship as being a legal ship, when the Steve's have never seen it and probably wouldn't make it official. Gimick ships would flourish, as people come up with ideas for a winning tactic (the transporter and ph-1 ship, as example), which end up making teh game not fun for the otehr players as that person contines to try to use his one tactic. It's not fun, trust me.

If it was an optional rule it should not matter, no one would be required to use the shipcon manual if they did not want to, and both sides would have to agree on a given unit anyway, so I could not see the 30 tran/p-1 ship being allowed anway. As an optional rule constructed ships would never be official, but at least there would be a system available for people who wanted use it.

By John de Michele (Johnd) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Ken:

True. Tactics in Starfire is stacking ships and rolling dice. One improvement from 2nd ed to 3rd ed was the elimination of overbuilding (I think that's the term they used). That eliminated my full powered BC/carrier hybrids, but was a good choice, IMHO.

John.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Getting back on topic here:

Is a hellbore better than a photon?

Are 4 photons better than 4 hellbores?

How much of that equation is dependant on the power installed on the mounting ship?

Will there be anything to dissaude the TLMd, which replaces each fusion beam pair with a hellbore and a drone rack?

Unless you're dealing with a multivariable design process, with some aspects out of your control, any ship construction package is going to suffer from BattleTrike Syndrome.

If you go too far towards the multivariable design system, you get Old Style Car Wars, or GURPS: Vehicles, where you have more fun poking with the spreadsheets than you do playing the game.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Ken: If you have time look over my system and see what you think:

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/sdoty/

It has rules on the questions you asked above.

I was also thinking of adding a phaser shock rule, just like the shock rule for heavy weapons, but a separate one for phasers to limit "crazy phaser boats" at least somewhat.

You are correct in pointing out that it can get crazy and complicated if you go too "nuts", but if you want anything that produces reasonable BPV's you have to get somewhat complicated.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 01:07 am: Edit

Ken re: Hellbore vs. Photon. Here is my pun... Get ready. Hell yes! The Hellbore has variable damage per range but hits more often. You can down a shield and then it doesn't matter so much where you hit him from. It does have a good crunch value at short range and you get some in his rear for your P-Gs to exploit after the pass.(The poor guy can't charge or run) Or theres that direct fire mode or ESG interactions. O.K. this is not always the case(tactics, of corse, are varied) but photons are far less flexable. Hellbores on Fed ships, I suppose, would be less effective, but I'll bet they'd learn real fast. I still like Photons, please, don't get me wrong.

P.S. I agree compleatly with the rest of your post!

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Ken,

I try to use my munchkin powers for good, not evil. You need someone to look for mini-max your rules, I'll be happy to proofread.

Heck, I'll even make sugestions. I'm a wannabe designer.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 03:56 am: Edit

I'll admit that my design system is complex ("multivariable"), and involves quite a few tables (it's about half converted to a word file now...). However, I have had no problem choosing technologies for a new race and designing the first ship within 40-50min (carriers will take slightly longer - 60-70min, due to the necessity of designing the fighters). Sure, I'm familiar with my own system, and it may take an outsider 2-3hr the first time. But I don't think it matters how many tables or apparent complexity the system has. If you can do it in less than an 2hr or so, that's OK. Indeed, if it takes a while, that makes you that much more fond of your designs

By Stanley Kolakowski (Eurthyr) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 06:12 am: Edit

On the thoughts of a SCM...

A good ship design manual would be "internally consistent", in that just about any valid manual design at manual BPV would match up with any other manual design.
It does not have to necessarily match up to produced designs, on the contrary, it should be designed so that standard designs are "advantaged" against an "equal" manual ship. IE, a 180 BPV manual ship is more of a match to a standard CA, not a standard BCH. (Make it where your 180 BPV transporter boat - CA hull is facing my C7, for example...)

There should also be provisions to prevent things like tech-sloshing (penalties to do so), and or overloading one system at the expense of others (no phaser-only super transporter boats, for example...)

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 06:28 am: Edit

Ken

I guarantee that you will find it difficult to munchkinise my design system. The only system I havn't regulated in some manner is tractor beams, mainly because I havn't yet managed to imagine why anyone would want a ship with 20 tractor beams (to death-drag shuttles seems rather a minor reason). Carriers may require some balancing to get their economic cost correct relative to normal ships, but that should come with time.

And yes, I have put in good reasons why a player may want more than the minimum amount of hull on their ships... RE your point, I've made hellbores significantly more expensive than photons to install, with a slightly higher mass. However, they also make your APR slightly cheaper. Of course, that is my judgement call, and I'd appreciate some of your input on fine-tuning in that manner. Part of the hellbore problem is deciding whether players should have to have fusion and hellbore technology before being allowed to install hellbores (which is what the campaign designer's manuel suggests).

If you want to take up a challenge, I'll send you my system once it's on a word file.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 06:48 am: Edit

Stanley

I gave up on the idea of directly linking BPV to how much you pay for the ship in a design system, and am simply using an economic cost. There are several reasons for this.

1) If you pay BPV for your ships, you may be able to get 125BPV into your CA design while your opponent will only get 120BPV. The fact that your design was better, packing more BPV (a better ship) into a CA is a moot point as the BPV simply reflects that, and that's what you pay to build it.

I.e. having a better design gives you no advantage at all, because by definition, the BPV is supposed to balance out all designs.

2) You can always use a separate system for calaculating the BPV of your designs anyway.

3) Paying BPV of a ship does not address factors such that ships get cheaper over time, both because more of the same class are built (mass production), and because various components will become cheaper with improvements in technology.

4) Paying BPV cannot address special factors, such that fast ships were too expensive to be successful (the cost of their extra warp is not reflected in their BPV, which simply looks at combat ability).

5) As implied by (4) BPV cannot fully address any campaign factors. DNs were built not because they were economically cheap, but because a large ship with good command facilities was needed. A similar amount spent on frigates would trash a lone DN, yet that is not so if you use BPV. Indeed, unless you impose size class (or other) restrictions on a fleet, BPV-based design systems give you no reason not to build all DNs.

Basically, if you use BPV to build your ships in a design system, it's a dead horse (Sorry Scott - I only came to this conclusion over the weekend - you are welcome to argue the other way). You build the ship paying EP's, and THEN you work out the BPV if you want to. And then, if your ships have more BPV for the same EPV cost, you smile at your enemy, and have an advantage because your designs were *better* (at least, according to whatever system you worked out BPV with). Is that not the point?

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 01:13 pm: Edit

I enjoy designing stuff, and that's one reason I like SFB and other games like it. But I don't see how any working ship construction system for SFB can be made, and here's why:

1: Too many variables. It isn't as simple a game as others like B-tech or even Fasa's old Star Trek combat simulator. The rules to make a design would be hugely complicated, I'd think.

2: BPV is an integral part of the game. So, any design system has to include BPV as part of it. As I recall, even SVC says that BPV isn't something that can be neatly calculated...It includes too many intangibles (if I'm wrong about who said that, I'm sorry.)

3: If such a system were ever adopted, would that not necessitate re-calculating all the BPV's on every existing ship to avoid discrepancies? Say your BPV for a ship is calculated as 125. Then you look, and your ship sucks next to a Fed CA. See what I mean? You'd change the entire structure of the game.

I made a sort of "BPV Calculator" in Excell. I gave systems a certain value per box, and included modifiers for things like firing arcs, etc. It works out okay, but I've yet to match the BPV of an existing ship exactly.

I'd love to see an offical system for SFB ship generation, but I don't see how it could be done, and frankly, there are enough designs already out there to satisfy most players, I'd think. I usually design "what if" stuff or "never were" ships...my list of real, useful and legitamate designs is woefully short, because every time I think of something, it's either already been done or the rules forbid it.

As for the criticism leveled at B-tech's system, I think personally that they started out okay. The real problems showed up when they started adding in all that Clan technology, and advanced IS tech. The original system didn't adapt well to it, and you end up with people "power gaming" like mad. It's a natural tendency. Our way of getting over it was pretty simple...you had an economic limit. No design could be more than a given amount of money. Of course, then you have people number-crunching like mad trying to get every last credit...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit

There were some tweaky ways to break Battletech's point-value system, though, too. For instance, build a nice, well-armed assault mech with just enough heat-sinks to handle the heavy weaponry, but with several tons and positions left open....then fill those positions with vehicle-mounted flamers. Because the point-value system downgrades the value of a mech that has insufficient heat-sinks for all systems, you can nearly cut the cost of such a mech in half, as the thing will be capable of producing well in excess of double what the heat-sinks can handle...by using those high-heat flamers that you'll never use anyway.

And that's Battletech. Can you imagine the gaping holes that would exist in a formulae-based BPV system for SFB?

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 01:46 pm: Edit

I don't think you CAN match the BPV of a ship exactly.

I don't think the ADB's system does, though by now I could be wrong.

Stock ships are playtested and undoubtably their BPVs are adjusted when needed.

If you come w/in 5 points, you're doing as good as is reasonable possibe.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 02:03 pm: Edit

I think the best I got was within about 10 or 12 points...don't remember for sure. I just think that since BPV's aren't an exact science, an SFB ship construction manual is going to be a tough project to handle.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 02:25 pm: Edit

There was another way of fixing the B-tech problem, too...limited critical slots. Smaller mechs got less slots, so they couldn't mount as much. Not a complete fix, but not bad, either. If anyone is interested, there are some really great B-tech generator programs out there. One is called The Drawing Board, and its by far the best. Don't think you can still get it from the net, but I can email a copy to anyone that wants it. The last version they made included all the UK mechforce stuff, plus all the level 3 rules equipment...even the stuff no longer in publication.