Chuck, I think we are talking past each other. I claim that the conversion costs for some hulls probably are off. In trying to provide supporting evidence, I came across issues (in my mind) that suggested the build costs for those classes were off.

I think it is better to fix (or tell me I am mistaken) the scout, PFT, and SCS hull build costs first. Once that is dealt with, then reviewing the conversion costs makes sense. While we certainly can do it in the other order, I think the build costs are less complex to get right and thus allow a secondary cross check of the conversion costs (in theory, a direct build should be cheaper or the same cost as a conversion...).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Howard:

Are you suggesting we standardize auxiliary build and conversion costs? Maybe something like this:

NOTIONAL AUXILIARY BUILD COSTS:

Base Cost = 2 EP per aux pod (yielding either a SAA, LAA, JAA, or HAA)

Surcharges:
1 EP for each fighter squadron carried
1 EP for combatant variant (LAC, JAC, HAC); 0.5 EP for SAC
1 EP per set of “G” factors (2xG); limit is 4xG
1 EP per EW factor; limit 3EW (2EW on SAS)
3 EP to carry PFs. Must also pay for added EW; limit 2EW (1EW on SAP)
1 EP per “R” factor; limit two
1 EP per “M” factor; limit two

NOTIONAL AUXILIARY CONVERSION COSTS:

Same as Above; plus:
1 EP to upgrade to combatant variant (LAC, JAC, HAC)
0 EP to “Changeover” to carrier HFs; see (530.222). Must still pay to upgrade to the HFs.
1 EP to convert existing fighter bay to carry a squadron of F-111s

============

So, a notional Large Aux space control ship would cost:
4 EP Base Hull
1 EP for the fighter squadron surcharge
3 EP for the PFT surcharge
2 EP for the EW added
------------
10 EP
Plus 6 EP for the added fighters
Plus any added PFs

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Chuck, yes that would cover it (the WIP status on the R factors applies).

For those playing along, these would be the build costs of the 4 types I looked at

Hull	formula cost	current cost
SAS	2+2 (4)	4
LAS	4+3 (7)	6
JAS	6+3 (9)	11
HAS	8+3 (11)	12
SAP	2+1+3 (6)	4
LAP	4+2+3 (9)	9
JAP	6+2+3 (11)	11
HAP	8+2+3 (13)	11
S-SCS(F111)	NA	NA
L-SCS(F111)	4+2+2 (8)	8
J-SCS(F111)	6+2+2 (10)	10
H-SCS(F111)	8+2+2 (12)	12
S-SCS(PF)	NA	NA
L-SCS(PF)	4+1+2+3 (10)	7
J-SCS(PF)	6+1+2+3 (12)	12
H-SCS(PF)	8+1+2+3 (14)	14

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 05:01 pm: Edit

SVV: Designation should be corrected to SVH. Rationale: It is a HF carrier with Fed A-20s. It follow the same pattern as the LVH, JVH, and HVH; all carry the A-20 HFs.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Is this what we want to do?

Notional Base Costs - Small Auxes

Surcharges:

UNIT

Type

Factors

Total Cost

+ Ftrs

Base Cost

Combatant

Each Ftr SQ

Grnd Troops

EW Factors

PFT

Repair: Each 'R'

Med: Each "M"

SAA

Armed Aux

2/0-1

2

2

SAC

Combatant

3-2/1

2.5

2

0.5

SAV

Carrier

0-2(6)/0-1(3)

3

+6

2

1

SAS

Scout

0-2*/0-1

4

2

2

FTS (SAG)

Troop Ship

0-2GG/0-1G

3

2

1

SAR

Repair Ship

0-2R/0-1

3

2

1

SVH

A20 Carrier

0-2(10V)/0-1(5V)

3

+10

2

1

SAH

F111 Carrier

0-2(9H)*/0-1(4.5H)

4

+0+18

2

1

1

SYH (SAH to everyone else)

F101 Carrier

0-2(8Y)/0-1(4Y)

3

+8

2

1

SAP

PFT

0-2P*/0-1P

6

+¶

2

1

3

FHS (SAG)

Hospital

0-2M/0-1

3

2

1

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 05:36 pm: Edit

On standard warships, G factors don't seem to cause an increase in the cost of the base hull, for instance a D6G costs 8 points, an HNG is 2.5, and so on, unless my memory is wrong.

FEDS: Noted. But these auxes are not expensive warships with expensive weapon systems traded-in for the G-factors either; they are getting two or four G factors added to a freighter hull; in my opinion 1 EP for each double G rating is reasonable. Unless ADB says otherwise, let's go with that for auxiliaries.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Chuck, for the Aux Repair Ship costs there may be a note referring to ARS.4 in construction cost. I'm not sure these values are balanced. Bill Steele and I are using the ARS rules in our Empires of the Dead game. Hopefully that will give us some better information as the game goes along.

---

Quote:

(ARS.4) Additional Repair Ships
Players are permitted to buy additional Auxiliary Repair Ships above the originally assigned number. However, the cost of these repair ships is high. For the first additional Auxiliary Repair Ship (of either type) pay double the replacement cost; for the second, pay five times the cost. For the third and all
subsequent Auxiliary Repair Ships, pay ten times the listed replacement cost. Replacing a lost repair ship always costs the basic replacement cost.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Notional Base Costs - Large Auxes

					Surcharges:
UNIT	Typy	Factors	Total Cost	+ Ftrs	Base Cost	Combatant	Each Ftr SQ	Grnd Troops	EW Factors	PFT	Repair: Each 'R'	Med: Each "M"
LAA	Armed Aux	3-4/1-2	4		4
LAC	Combatant	5-4/2	5		4	1
LAV	Carrier	1-4(12)/0-2(6)	6	+12	4		2
LAS	Scout	0-4*/0-2	7		4				3
FTL (LAG)	Troop Ship	1-4GGGG/0-2GG	6		4			2
LAR	Repair Ship	1-4RR/0-2	6		4						2
LVH	A20 Carrier	1-4(10V6)/0-2(5V3)	6	+16	4		2
LAH (FED)	F111 Carrier	1-4*(9H)/0-2(4.5H)	8	+0+18	4		2		2
LYH (LAH)	F101 Carrier (E)	1-4(8Y6)/0-2(4Y3)	6	+14	4		2
ASC (LSC)(FED)	Space Control	1-4*(9H6)/0-2(4.5H3)	8	+6+18	4		2		2
ASCA §	SCS-with PFs	1-4P(6)*/0-2P(3)	10	+6+¶	4		1		2	3
LAP §	PFT	1-4P*/0-2P	9	+¶	4				2	3
FHL (LAM)	Hospital Ship	0-4M/0-2	6		4							2

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 10:12 pm: Edit

That's basically where I was headed with the chart I posted up-topic (now deleted, I see): standardizing the costs to increase from small to large to jumbo to huge, and trying to make a logical progressing in the stats as they go up in size.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 12:10 am: Edit

Costs for repair ships include the logistics chain and are far more than the cost of aux pods.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 08:00 am: Edit

In the above chart, why do F, HF, A20 cost one per factor, but F111 cost two per factor?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 09:02 am: Edit

I imagine because F111s are treated as PF substitutes in some ways and aux's don't get a discount on PFs like they do for fighters.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 09:25 am: Edit

Because the rule on F111's on aux carriers say they pay the full cost not the discounted aux cost. (527.131)

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 10:21 am: Edit

I think this revised system works. It is internally consistent and scales cost with capability.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Notional Base Costs - Jumbo Auxes

Executive Summary

UNIT	Factors	Total Cost
JAA	3-6/1-3	6
JAC	8-6/4-3	7
JAV	4-6(12)/2-3(6)	8+12
JCV	6(6)/3(3)	8+6
JAS	4-6*/2-3	9
FTJ (JAG)	3-6GGGG/1-3GG	8
JCG	6GG/3G	8
JAR	4-6RR/2-3	8
JVH	4-6(10V6)/2-3(5V3)	8+16
JAH (Fed only)	4-6(9H6)/2-3(4.5H3)	8+6+18
JYH (JAH Others)	4-6(8Y6)/2-3(4Y3)	8+14
JSC (Fed Only)	4-6*(9H6)/2-3(4.5H3)	10+6+18
JSCA	4-6P*(6)/2-3P(3)	12+6+¶
JAP	4-6P*/2-3P	11+¶
FHJ (JAM)	0-6M/0-3	8

Detailed Summary

					Surcharges:
UNIT	Typy	Factors	Total Cost	+ Ftrs	Base Cost	Combatant	Each Ftr SQ	Grnd Troops	EW Factors	PFT	Repair: Each 'R'	Med: Each "M"
JAA	Armed Aux	3-6/1-3	6		6
JAC	Combatant	8-6/4-3	7		6	1
JAV	Carrier	4-6(12)/2-3(6)	8	+12	6		2
JCV	Assault Carrier	6(6)/3(3)	8	+6	6	1	1
JAS	Scout	4-6*/2-3	9		6				3
FTJ (JAG)	Troop Ship	3-6GGGG/1-3GG	8		6			2
JCG	Assault Commando	6GG/3G	8		6	1		1
JAR	Repair Ship	4-6RR/2-3	8		6						2
JVH	A20 Carrier	4-6(10V6)/2-3(5V3)	8	+16	6		2
JAH (Fed only)	F111 Carrier	4-6(9H6)/2-3(4.5H3)	8	+0+18	6		2
JYH (JAH Others)	F101 Carrier	4-6(8Y6)/2-3(4Y3)	8	+14	6		2
JSC (Fed Only)	Space Control	4-6*(9H6)/2-3(4.5H3)	10	+6+18	6		2		2
JSCA	SCS-PF §	4-6P*(6)/2-3P(3)	12	+6+¶	6		1		2	3
JAP	PFT §	4-6P*/2-3P	11	+¶	6				2	3
FHJ (JAM)	Hospital Ship	0-6M/0-3	8		6							2

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Notional Base Costs - Heavy Auxes

Executive Summary

UNIT	Factors	Total Cost
HAA	3-8/1-4	8
HAC	9-8/5-4	9
HAV	6-8(12)/3-4(6)	10+12
HAS	6-8*/3-4	11
FTH (HAG)	5-8GGGG/3-4GG	10
HAR	6-8RR/3-4	10
HVH	6-8(10V6)/3-4(5V3)	10+16
HAH	6-8(9H6)/3-4(4.5H3)	10+6+18
HYH (HAH Others)	6-8(8Y6)/3-4(4Y3)	10+14
HSC (Fed Only)	6-8*(9H6)/3-4(4.5H3)	12+6+18
HSCA §	6-8P*(6)/3-4P(3)	14+6+¶
HAP §	6-8P*/3-4P	13+¶
FHH (HAM)	0-8M/0-4	10

Detailed Summary

					Surcharges:
			Total Cost		Base Cost	Combatant	Each Ftr SQ	Grnd Troops	EW Factors	PFT	Repair: Each 'R'	Med: Each "M"
HAA	Armed Aux	3-8/1-4	8		8
HAC	Combatant	9-8/5-4	9		8	1
HAV	Carrier	6-8(12)/3-4(6)	10	+12	8		2
HAS	Scout	6-8*/3-4	11		8				3
FTH (HAG)	Troop Ship	5-8GGGG/3-4GG	10		8			2
HAR	Repair Ship	6-8RR/3-4	10		8						2
HVH	A20 Carrier	6-8(10V6)/3-4(5V3)	10	+16	8		2
HAH	F111 Carrier	6-8(9H6)/3-4(4.5H3)	10	+6+18	8		2
HYH	F101 Carrier	6-8(8Y6)/3-4(4Y3)	10	+14	8		2
HSC	Space Control	6-8*(9H6)/3-4(4.5H3)	12	+6+18	8		2		2
HSCA	SCS-PF §	6-8P*(6)/3-4P(3)	14	+6+¶	8		1		2	3
HAP	PFT §	6-8P*/3-4P	13	+¶	8				2	3
FHH (HAM)	Hospital Ship	0-8M/0-4	10		8							2

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Ok, I am going with this except for the repair ships which so far fail to account for the logistics chain surcharge.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 01:40 pm: Edit

HAC needs to cost 10, massive AF increase far exceeds nominal "combattant one" surcharge.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Steve:

May I suggest that if ADB should choose to do the Aux Repair Ships in the future, that we simply use the model we used for Survey Ships where by if the players wished to increase their existing survey capacity, then they paid a premium for the increase; see (542.26).

In this way, ADB could impose some sort of limit and costs via rule for the INCREASED repair logistics chain/infrastructure. That way the cost of the Aux Repair Ships can remain constant whether a player is replacing a destroyed unit or adding a unit to use the new (paid for) repair infrastructure.

Further rules could also be established where players could not repair beyond than their logistical repair limits.

V/R,
Chuck

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 03:05 pm: Edit

As you say, this is not the place to design the repair ship rules, but that's why I listed them as 10+LogChain and so forth.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Wearing my "make the numbers internally consistent" hat- changing the combatant surcharge from 1 (total) to 1 per 2 pods or fraction thereof (similar to the G factors costs) would yield the 10EP that GOD wishes for the HAC, bump the JAC up too (not that there was a call for it) and otherwise (hopefully) avoid "what is going on here?" questions in the future (stashing the table of charges in a designers notes document wouldn't be a bad idea, BTW). Or we just preempt the questions with a "confirmed unusual cost" in the notes.

Or, as a third suggestion, the combatant surcharge is 0.5 per pod, which keeps the SAC and LAC charges the same, bumps the JAC up by 0.5, and makes the HAC cost the targeted value of 10.

Choice #3 may actually be the cleanest.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 05:43 pm: Edit

FEDS can support the 0.5EP per combat pod surcharge.

Please remember that the JCV And JCG have either a carrier pod or troop pod in place of a standard combatant pod so their surcharges would only be 1.0 EP.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Hmmm, the JAC factor (8-6) seem off when compared to the others (SAC=3-2/LAC=5-4/HAC=9-8), with scaling it looks like the JAC should be 7-6...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Do not try to track individual pods. Stick with F&E factors.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, June 01, 2017 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Removed due to SVC saying not to track pods.