Mike,

I'm familiar with the limited-CS rules for Btech.

I'd like a copy.

My profile e-mnail address should be correct.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Okay, John. I'll send it to you this evening. It's on my home PC.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Mike: Me to. I sent you an email so you can just reply with it. Thanks

By Robert Snook (Verdick) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Yes, you can still file The Drawing Board on the net. here's a link to it, as well as several editors: http://www.lordsofthebattlefield.com/files.htm

By scott doty (Kurst) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 07:47 pm: Edit

I believe that for any system to work it NEEDS to use BPV, otherwise how do you compare you made-up units to published ones?

David:
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.

The above is the reason BPV was created in the first place, to gauge the relative abilities of the units in the game.

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

Why would you not use BPV in the first place? Why create a whole new system that does not tell you anything important, BPV is what determines which unit can fight another in the game. Economic BPV's would be useful for campaigns, but would be of no help in determining a fair fight.

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.

The above all has to deal with campaigns, not in direct battles, where combat effectiveness is the ONLY criteria.

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).

The extra warp should increase combat value, and the BPV's reflect this (to an extent, they also reduce the total number of heavies as well). The "extra cost" would be fine for a campaign situation, but not for a duel, where BPV is the ONLY applicable value.

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.

Again, you would need to ADD an economic BPV cost to all ships built, probably X % per hull size more as the ships increased in size, resulting in a 1000 BPV of frigates would indeed have more combat value than the same BPV of DN's (depending on the percentages chosen), but the combat value of the DN fleet would be less. This may be useful in campaigns, but in pick-up games it would be unfair, or everyone would take lots of little ships.

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).

Actually I completely disagree, if you DO NOT USE BPV then you system is pointless as you have no idea what the combat value of you units are, and therefore can not determine what your forces are worth. This is the heart of SFB.

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?

Why bother with EP's as you would need to determine BPV in the end anyway, or you would have an unfair game to begin with, again the whole point of BPV.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 08:00 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.

It would be complicated, and I doubt it could be perfect (my is within 10% or so of most published units) [here is a link]
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/sdoty/
but it is not ridiculously complex and therefore doable.

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.)

Again a system that gets you close gives you a ballpark figure, no system allows you to do nothing. TRUE (i.e. most published SSDS) BPV's are a result of playtesting, which brings the total up or down to reflect the ACTUAL value of the unit, nothing will replace that.

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.

Again, the constructed units would be close, not perfect, which would have to be understood before using them. That is why I advocate for a construction manual, but would make it optional.

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.

My system manages to get some ships exactly, some are off 1 or 2 points and many are off right around 5-10%, not perfect by any means, and some things (massive transporters, phaser boats, gat boats etc.) still need to be looked into, but most "reasonable units" built with it are not far off at all.


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.

There will NEVER be enough designs (for me at least)!!!!!! What about units (other than Orions/Wyn) that use Hellb and Drn or Hellb and Plasma, they don't exist, or how about Hellb and ESG's (not smart but it might be fun) or whatever. Add the Omega, Magellentics, Triangulum etc. and the new options are almost infinate.

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...

I fully agree with the above, if you stayed with the "base tech" mechs were darn well balanced, clan and improved inner sphere tech threw the whole thing into a spin, although I never noticed problems with Clan vs. Clan or Inner Sphere vs. inner sphere fights. Clan vs. either one was painful. As long as the tech levels were equal the units seemed equal.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 08:06 pm: Edit

Jessica:
I think a doable system is not too horrid for SFB, it would take some effort, but it is not impractical and would be very useful. Again you can get close BPV's, but not perfect ones without playtesting, but a system would at least give you a starting point. My system is close, and it needs fixes, but it is not too bad if you are attempting reasonable units that stay within the shock rules.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 10:20 pm: Edit

I don't like the ship construction idea myself. but if one ever comes to be I would hope the natural BPV system would be close but tend to be on the high side. Beter to over estimate a little then come down for playtesting. If your trying out your ship for the first, its not that big a deal to lose or draw. You'll learn more about it that way anyway.

Now, I like ship mods on a small scale. A few BPV is hard to trak, and with some ships, can pack quite a surprise. Get small mods in the game and you got more than double the ships!

By scott doty (Kurst) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Add a construction manual and you have virtually and infinate amount of ships!

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 11:22 pm: Edit

I know. I guess I don't get to play enough to get board with the historical ships. I still love playing the C7. Or the KE. Ooooh the Orion Battle Raider and two LRs! Oh ya, the Fed CVS....Ooooh F-15ssss. Gruglllawwwgh (Homer Simpson drool in progress).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 08, 2002 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Sorry to bother. I guess I can't be much help here. Good luck folks. See ya over thataway.~~~~

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 04:27 am: Edit

Scott.

Me) 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.

Your reply) The above is the reason BPV was created in the first place, to gauge the relative abilities of the units in the game.

I think I need to flesh things out here, because alot depends on what you are trying to achieve with the design system.

Suppose you have 120BPV, and want to design the best ship as you can with it. Two players design 120BPV ships. By definition, if they have the same SFB tactical ability, each of them should win close 50% of the time, or the BPV system isn't working properly.
So, one of them goes back to the design system, and looks for flaws or improvements he can make, and tries to build a better 120BPV ship than the other. He probably succeeds, and starts beating the other player's 120BPV ship.
The other player complains, saying that 120BPV ships should be equal in combat power. The system is changed so the "glitches" the first player used can no longer be capitalised on.

This procedure goes on until your design system is basically a perfect BPV generator for a ship. It doesn't matter what design you have for 120BPV, it can NEVER be any better than the other player's 120BPV ship. The only thing you gained from the design system was an increase in the variety of ships you could get for 120BPV. All your efforts to get an advantage on the enemy due to your cool designs come to precisely nothing, and can only ever come to precisely nothing. Why bother then? You may as well spend 5 seconds throwing together the first thing in your head that comes to 120BPV, as the design system will make it just as good as the other player's ship.

The whole point of good design, IMHO, is to get more out of the same resources. SFB has enough variety -if you are going to have a design system, you must reward players with a good design.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 06:07 am: Edit

David:
The whole point of good design, IMHO, is to get more out of the same resources. SFB has enough variety -if you are going to have a design system, you must reward players with a good design.

You concept of a desgin systme is certainly a good one, but it is different than mine. I want a system that does exactly what you stated, produces ships that have BPV's that represent combat value, in other words 2 120 BPV ships should, assuming equal players, win 50% of the time respectively. There should be no way for a player to "manipulate" the system to get BPV for nothing, it would be unfair. This would produce the exact effect you mentioned, and would not give anyone a reward (in not calculated BPV) for making a "better" design, just the ability to take their design and be on equal footing with someone elses design of the same BPV. If you build a ship for 125 BPV with X shipcon manual it should be a roughly equal fight with an unmodified Fed CA, at least in my opinion. I believe what you are proposing is an economic system that would allow you to spend "money" in different ways (resources) to allow a person to build "cheaper" units that are just as effective as more expensive ones, in effect getting more out of the same resources. I think this would be a great addition to a shipcon manual, but you would need the manual, and the BPV's it generates to allow the "economic BPV's" to be of any use in the first place.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 07:34 am: Edit

I think the basic problem is that unlike B-tech or other "design your own ship/tank/vehicle" games, SFB was NEVER meant to have a workable design system...so trying to fit one to it now is going to be hard. Sounds like you have it pretty close, Scott. But there are certain items or ships that no system will ever generate right. If I remember right, isn't an E3 SWAC shuttle worth about 70 points? No way any design system will generate that for a shuttle. That's the kind of problems I forsee...that BPV is such an intangible measure, truly predicting it mechanically is akin to trying to predict a months worth of weather. Your system sounds pretty good, but I just don't think the game lends itself to having one. The Steves may disagree and choose to make such a thing, and I'd likely buy it, but I can't see it happening. That's just my opinion, and I suspect others share it. Good luck with yours though, Scott...sounds like you've put alot of work into it!

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 08:14 am: Edit

Scott.

OK then. We have different philosophies here. Maybe we can make them work to our advantage. I'll plug away at my economy-based system with the view that your system can then be used to work out BPV. You can plug away at your BPV system with the view that my system can work out the economic (and technology) cost. The two systems should be kept entirely separate otherwise one will not work properly (although they could have common elements).

I note that your design system is effectively "frozen in time" at a certain technology level. I may be able to quote the technology requirements on my system that would be needed to be able to generate any ship on your design system (i.e. your design system's "assumed technology"). From what I see, your system is basically set just short of X-technology (Y179/Y180?).

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 08:24 am: Edit

Oh, one other thing.

Your design system currently cannot design a klingon D6, which only has 11 hull. I'm having problems with this one as well....

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 01:46 pm: Edit

If we are going to use BPV, any ship design system MUST make sure that the ships it produces are rated HIGHER than a "stock" design equivalent.

That means is you build an exact replica of a Fed CA using the construction manual, it MUST cost significantly more than 125 BPV.

Reason: A player is an idiot is he isn't building a ship that is a more efficient tool for victory. The whole point of a construction system is to build a ship that better suits my tactical preferences. By definition, such a ship is superior in my hands than its BPV indicates.

Striving for pinpoint accuracy in BPV calculations reveals the ADB BPV formula (and SVC doesn't want to do that) and allows me to, as Scott and David point out, to build a better tool for the same cost. As David points out: stock ship vs. custom ship, a well made custom ship wins more than it loses despite being "the same cost" according to a BPV figure.

By that last point, any such system would denigrate or eliminate the "stock" ships of SFB and cost the ADB significant income.

To put it mildly, that ain't happening. It's also why SVC left active participation in this discussion telling us the same thing.

So any design system MUST cook the books against custom ships just to balance them against "stock" designs.

Or you don't compare them to standard ships at all. Unlike Scott, I am not convinced this is necessary. In fact, for the protection of R-Module sales (and thus gain some hope of actually publishing a design system), I tend to think the opposite is true.

If we use a point system like the CDS system (A CA tends to run in the 500+ range, IIRC), then comparing to stock ships is impossible, putting custom ships in their own little world. A munchkin can't show up to a game with a custom ship and claim its within the BPV he was alotted if it doesn't use the BPV formula.

Besides, how often do we expect (or even want) stock and custom ships in the same game? (I don't think it would be all that common) We certainly DON'T want the case of the munchkin whose paws can't be pried off the custom design rules, a case that is guranteed if we try to nail a custom ship's BPV with perfect accuracy.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 02:19 pm: Edit

David: Sounds good on the design systems, they seem to compliment each other.

Oh, one other thing.

Your design system currently cannot design a klingon D6, which only has 11 hull. I'm having problems with this one as well....

Remove the 5 base hull and take a -2.5 BPV deduction (each hull is worth .5 BPV), I am thinking about making the deductions only half or so of the listed BPV value, but it seems to work O.K. as is.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 02:33 pm: Edit

If we are going to use BPV, any ship design system MUST make sure that the ships it produces are rated HIGHER than a "stock" design
equivalent.

The above seems somewhat pointless as how could you get an accurate comparison?

That means is you build an exact replica of a Fed CA using the construction manual, it MUST cost significantly more than 125 BPV.

See above, and why would you want this?

Reason: A player is an idiot is he isn't building a ship that is a more efficient tool for victory. The whole point of a construction system is to build a ship that better suits my tactical preferences. By definition, such a ship is superior in my hands than its BPV indicates.

If done correctly the system should not allow the above to happen, but NO system would be perfect.

Striving for pinpoint accuracy in BPV calculations reveals the ADB BPV formula (and SVC doesn't want to do that) and allows me to, as Scott and David point out, to build a better tool for the same cost. As David points out: stock ship vs. custom ship, a well made custom ship wins more than it loses despite being "the same cost" according to a BPV figure.

Actually a really good system will allow you to get "in the ballpark" BPV's, playtesting further "tweaks" said ballpark BPV into an accurate reading of the ships potential. Sometimes the BPV's will be perfect, but most of the time playtesting would be required to get them "perfect" (such as that is).

By that last point, any such system would denigrate or eliminate the "stock" ships of SFB and cost the ADB significant income.

Again, see above. The reasons a shipcon would not do that are: 1) the ships would not have playtested BPV's. 2) the ships would not be official and/or historical 3) ADB published items would be official, making them desirable in any case. 4) a shipcon manual (in my opinion) would be an optional rule, while published ships would not.

To put it mildly, that ain't happening. It's also why SVC left active participation in this discussion telling us the same thing.

Could be true.

So any design system MUST cook the books against custom ships just to balance them against "stock" designs.

The above makes no sense.

Or you don't compare them to standard ships at all. Unlike Scott, I am not convinced this is necessary. In fact, for the protection of R-Module sales (and thus gain some hope of actually publishing a design system), I tend to think the opposite is true.

Without using the existing BPV system a shipcon manual makes no sense as you could not use existing units vs. made-up ones, which most people would want to do. See above for R module sales.

If we use a point system like the CDS system (A CA tends to run in the 500+ range, IIRC), then comparing to stock ships is impossible, putting custom ships in their own little world. A munchkin can't show up to a game with a custom ship and claim its within the BPV he was alotted if it doesn't use the BPV formula.

Again, make it an optional rule and the above would not matter.

Besides, how often do we expect (or even want) stock and custom ships in the same game? (I don't think it would be all that common) We certainly DON'T want the case of the munchkin whose paws can't be pried off the custom design rules, a case that is guranteed if we try to nail a custom ship's BPV with perfect accuracy.

I would want as many choices as possible to improve the fun for all, as it is a game we are talking about.
Munchkinism can be mitigated, to an extent, with a good system, but nothing beats common sense and that is why an optional shipcon manual using BPV would provide the greatest flexibility while retaining the optional rule ability of denying a unit if it is ridiculous or a loophole is found.
The end point is to make the game more fun, and judging by the THOUSANDS of ships on the net, and I am sure FAR more "unpublished" designs, MANY people want to make their own units. People make their own units now, with no central system, a central system would at least provide some basis for comparison between such units.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Scott: The major reason to make computed BPV more than actual BPV is situational awareness. How much are extra labs worth? Does that value change if playing a monster scenario? How much are shields worth if you remove some? How about if you know the battle will be fought in a nebula?

There are probably many other cases where the synthetic all purpose BPV does not work perfectly. But a starship construction lets the player tailor the exact ship needed for the exact conditions of the scenario. Normally, the improved BPV for some systems will be counterbalanced by losses with other systems. The designer though can sacrifice the systems that would lose value in terrain to beef up systems that can improved value in the specific condition.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Tuesday, April 09, 2002 - 04:41 pm: Edit

Richard:
The major reason to make computed BPV more than actual BPV is situational awareness. How much are extra labs worth? Does that value change if playing a monster scenario? How much are shields worth if you remove some? How about if you know the battle will be fought in a nebula?

You could always just pick an existing unit that optimizes your situation, making one would be nominally better (if better at all) than doing the above.

There are probably many other cases where the synthetic all purpose BPV does not work perfectly. But a starship construction lets the player tailor the exact ship needed for the exact conditions of the scenario. Normally, the improved BPV for some systems will be counterbalanced by losses with other systems. The designer though can sacrifice the systems that would lose value in terrain to beef up systems that can improved value in the specific condition.

You could do the above, but in pick up scenerios (the standard no terrain, open map [or closed] depending on your group) you should be able to make an X BPV ship and tell your opponent to pick a ship of his choice for the same amount and have an even fight. This of course assumes you do not get hosed and make up a unit that simply does not fight well against your opponent (a drone using ship vs. a Hydran for example), or vice versa. I will give you it could be unfair if your opponent tells you he is taking X ship and you make a ship specifically to fight that one, but you could do the same thing by picking the proper race, unit etc. that is already made.

Again the main point of a shipcon manual would be to have fun, for both sides. I doubt your opponent would like to fight the special ship you "optimized" against his ship, but maybe it would be a challenge.

Another rule to add to the shipcon manual (any I would think:

SVC pointed out on the ship modification thread that any created variant that is the same as a published variant would end up using the published BPV. I propose the same for constructed units, any made up unit that is identical to a published one would end up using the published BPV, which should be better due to playtesting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 07:15 am: Edit

Richard.

There will always be sitations where some ships will be worth more. At information gathering, a GSC is as good a 2 DNs. In an asteriod field, a web caster is the ultimate horror for the opposition. BPV is only designed to be properly reflected in straight combat in open space.

As a general point (this is not particularly aimed at you, Richard) , I am getting a little tired of somewhat negative comments, basically on the lines of "it can't be done". Quite plainly, it can be done - SFB has well-defined, if complex rules, and a BPV system. A system for proper BPV labelling of a custom ship is out there for someone to invent. A balanced system for ship design is out there for someone to invent. I'd like a few more constructive comments to help me & Scott, particularly once I have my design system on a word file - up and runing (about half done now).

Scott

Sorry - didn't look closely enough - assumed that boxes could not be removed from your basic "packages". The fact that they can makes your system more open to abuse. E.g. Each hull you remove can be replaced with an APR, which would probably improve the ship more than the BPV difference of the 2 systems. Unless you put a restriction I didn't spot in there, this allows ships to have no hull, which is ohviously not on.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 08:13 am: Edit

I'm comeing into this late so forgive me if I'm repeating things you are already covering.

also part of the design stuff needs to cover non-tactical considerations.

things like crew size (yes you can fight a ship with fewer, but you cannot maintain it over time as well)

for the amount of hull, one thing I did on a campaign system I'm trying to put togeather is to tie range into crew size and hull/cargo capacity (the hull boxes also carry your supplies). It works out fairly well, the 'war' classes have slightly shorter range then normal ships, shis that are upgraded (maxing out hull capabilities) tend to have shorter range then their vanilla versions, and FFs/Police ships tend to have better range then anything else in the fleet (which helps explain why they kept being built for so long, they excel at patrols)

you may want to let your design system skirt the edges of the limits (or even cross them, after all real designers do make range/capability tradeoffs) but you need to do something to reflect the lower availability (either a random roll to see if the ship is there or is back getting supplies or significantly increased EPV to reflect the extra cost of running supplies out to the ship)

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 08:46 am: Edit

David

I have considered crew size. Basically, I make the base crew size equal to the number of hull SSD boxes on the ship. Hull boxes in excess of a mandatory amount (per size class) generate "hull points". Hull points can be used to increase the crew size, improve the turn mode, and improve the breakdown rating. I havn't yet put in a "supplies system", and am simply making all (war)ships equal in supplies/range.

If I were to introduce a system where different warships have different supply capabilities, I would reduce the "mandatory hull box" requirement for each size class, and hull points could then be used to purchase "range" (effectively) - more hull points per unit range being required of larger ships.

Basically, I decided that doing that was one complexity too many. Playing a campaign where each player's ships can have variable ranges would be a logistical nightmare.

I am considering allowing players to sacrifice hull boxes on thier SSDs to generate extra hull points. This would nicely fit in with why Klingon ships with less hull (boxes) have better turn modes.

Comments?

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 - 08:57 am: Edit

if the fear is the degradtion of value in SFB, the maybe put a different light on the subject. a construction manual geared toward the role playing game of prime directive. ships are still the fruit of any sci fi campaign game.

a person could have a need for such a book for purposes of gaming, the johnny one ships, the stray alien to the galaxy, and so on. the role playing game adds to the flavor in any taste to SFB. playing a game of patrol along the baddies next door, as the crew live their lives and have the occasional misadventure along comes something on sensors. well role play combat sucks right? we can whip out the SFB stuff for our encounter and with enough info we can deal with all kinds of things. the GM has to be able to dream up something new as players will most likely have some if not a bunch of SFB material.

nothing stirs up a frenzy when the players get a drift of that boogie on sensors not matching any known ship designs. have a little what can the other players on the same ship do in the game and you can have a great time.