As it seems that there's sufficient interest in this, I thought I'd create a topic to hash out the various outlooks on introducing production times into the game.

The focus of this proposal is to assist in getting what is, by majority opinion, a problem with regards to numbers of ships in the mid war (and possibly the late war), but more specifically the numbers of non-war variant capital ships.

In the basic rule book, there are numerous statements to the effect that many game mechanics have been abstracted, including production. Production times were specifically not included as it was thought doing so would put too onerous a workload on the players.

What this proposal should attempt to do is to 1) come up with a workable system that does not add too much in the way of record-keeping or complexity, (realism vs playability) 2) is, if not neutral, then at least does not give too great an advantage to either side, and 3) will not require additional player aids, in order to keep the cost down.

It seems to me that several things have to be decided before a working proposal can be made, unless we just want to toss out several proposals and debate the cons and merits of each. We have to decide 1) if production will be pay-as-you-go (X amount of EP/turn/ship) or all or nothing (the current system), 2) if production will be governed by a system similar to the current production schedules (though modified in terms of numbers of hulls) or if each race will get a certain number of slipways for each hull size with production choices limited only by availability date, and 3) should construction of replacement shipyards be handled using the current system, or an alternate system, possibly a modified form of the Old Colonies shipyard rules.

Fighter and PF production, auxiliaries, FRDs, MBs, PDUs, etc, would not be affected, the assumption being production of those units/elements is handled by civilian contractors and/or non-shipyard production facilities.

Special consideration will have to be given to battleship production and whether the introduction of variable production times will eleminate the option of rational battleship construction and, if not, what affect such production would have on the normal production schedule.

Can anyone think of other factors I may have missed?

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Actually, my thoughts weren't about reducing ship counts or increasing them. It was just the odd fact of paying for a DN and having it instantly pop into existance. The moreso since, since many parts of SFB descriptions emphasize that these ships took a long time to build.

Now, I think the only way to do this without requiring any sort of player aid is to keep restrictive productions schedules and keep paying all at once. This allows you to put ships down on the turn track and pick them up again when the turn counter catches up without having to do anything in between.

If you remove the hard class limits (and go for size limits) you'll need to be able to count how many cruisers (for instance) are currently in production. This could still be kept fairly minimal. A Production sheet could probably hold *everyone's* info easily (or maybe one each for Coalition and Alliance). There's not a lot needed. How long till it's done, how many of each type are producing. And that'll just be CLs, CAs, BCHs, and DNs. CWs and DDs are on the sheet, but go away the next turn and immediately open their slots again; what you need to keep track of is the slots *still occupied*.

Doing an xEP per turn schedule means keeping track of more specialized info on every ship. (Since it would become theoretically possible to pay for half of a DD, even if you could pay for it all this turn.

Extra consideration: YIS
If a DN takes two years to build, is the only way to get one at the current YIS a conversion during construction, or can a subsitution (but not conversion) be done two years early?

(Edit)
Extra consideration: Special Class limits
If 'mix your own' schedules are allowed, there'll need to be limits on a few extra things. Notably, no more than one CC under construction at a time (until the Y180 era).

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Or you could go with PWC and have some ships in the slots to start with...

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:29 pm: Edit

To give an idea of what the less restricted builds would look like:

(702.PT) United Federation:
4xDN/BC, 16xC?, 6xD?, 12xFF

That assumes that the Feds could build 16 cruisers at once, but normally started 2 CA, completed 2, and built 12 NCL per turn. Also, the Feds normally let their DD prod stand idle until DWs came along. (Bit of a problem there.) Also, they'll need extra limits on slots as they gear up from Peace to War. (Also note, I only have F&E2K, and these numbers are based off of that production schedule with the DW proviso put in.)

More likely they had upgraded all their DD slipways to cruiser size when the NCL was designed, and then built all new ones for the DW. (No D? slots at all till... Y175. Something like 4C?, 9DD before Y169. Three new slipways for NCLs.)

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 10:55 pm: Edit

I, to, am leaning towards a somewhat restrictive production schedule, since it involves the least amount of headaches and also takes away the need to worry about when certain slipways were converted to others.

For the record, I also do not think there's a problem with ship counts; being able to build a DN in the same time as a CA in the same time as a FF was motivating me more than anything.

Another thing in favour of using the current production scheds as a base is that those schedules either represent how many of a certain type of ship could be produced in a single turn and/or come off the slipways in a single turn. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with both production tmes and max number in production for the capital ships (CAs and larger) based on the current sched. Perversely, it's she smaller ships, the CWs and smaller, that will be more difficult to arrive at production numbers for, since the current system seems to be compensating, in part, for the reduced production time of those ships by increasing the numbers of ships produced in a single turn.

Finally, another benefit of not using simple numbers of size-based slipways would be not having to worry about when and how slipways come online or go offline as the war progresses.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Year in Service:

Hmm, that's a bit of a fly in the ointment, isn't it? IIRC, YIS is the date at which a given class of ship came into general service, as opposed to being in service as prototypes.

One way to get around this is to allow a certain nuber of each class simply "appear" at the YIS. This would be outside the production schedule.

Another approach would be to dial back the YIS to reflect the true date when the class was available. YIS would not necessarily equate to YIC (Year in Construction).

PWC could be handled as it is now, simply by adding PWC to existing OOBs, with the PWC date representing when the ship(s) came off the slipway.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Oops, sorry, shouldn't have said YIS, that's the SFB term. I actually meant the F&E Date Available. The first point you get to have any.

Forget YIS, it ties things in too many knots, and the Date Avail is just as official.

And it's fine until you look at conversion vs. substitution.

I think I'm generally fine with allowing no subs until the currently given date. Maybe a limited exception for DNs.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

I really think this would make the game way too complex to deal with.

It would make it an entirely different game actually.

Think of the construction created this turn as stuff that was indeed laid down prior and you are just paying the end cost from the military budget...the civilian budget covered it to that point.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 02:59 am: Edit

Well, the current discussions are trying to avoid the first point.

I agree with the second point. It's one of the reasons I never brought it up myself. We're discussing a major rewrite of one of the major systems of the game. Carrying it through to a logical conclusion will lead to something that will be hard to call 'F&E', but it can teach a lot about game design.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 03:48 am: Edit

BCH's get built in CA production lines, CW's get built on DD production lines, DW's get built on FF production lines so the fed limits should be more like
4 DN
4 CA
12 DD
6 FF (each can produce 2xFF/turn)

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 03:57 am: Edit

while it is an interesting thought to relax some of the restictions on varients and let the costs and time delays limit them that can't take place without some other significant changes (eliminating free and replacement fighters for carriers, making tugs FAR more expensive, etc) so there will still need to be some limits besides the number of slipways and the cash available

forcing the alliance player to guess if he will be able to keep his capitol for 4 more turns and loosing a DN if he is wrong (if he guesses that he won't he doesn't start the DN and looses it, if he guesses that he will he looses not only the DN but the full cost of it as well) is just to drastic a punishment for something that's so out of their control.

think about a coalition that can capture the hydran capitol with 2 turns if it wants to. the hydrans can either stop DN/CA production, in which case the coalition doesn't attack (after all the defenses aren't getting that much tougher) or the hydrans continue the production and loose a tone of money as well as the hulls when the capitol falls.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 04:17 am: Edit

if we decide we want to go with phased payments instead of lump-sum payments here are the issues I see

1. you don't want to have tables to lookup of formulas to follow to find out how much money needs to be payed when

2. you need to keep track of how much has been payed

3. we need to decide if conversion slots (and other production limits) are taken up at the time the ships keel is laied or if the conversion slot can be used at any time until the ship is completed.

this item opens up some interesting possibilities, if every hull starts off as a base class or a valid substatution and conversions change it while in the dock then you ease the planning problem of figuring out what varients you want in a few turns (and complicate your opponents planning that's based on what varients you have in progress), but there should be some cost to changing your mind, especially late in the production process as well

4. when are fighters paid for? (turn it's completed, turn it's keel is laid, other?)

5. how are BB's handled in the new system

my suggestion to have a series of boxes that refer to the # of EP left to spend and allowing a fixed numbr of EP to be spent per turn is an attempt to deal with #1 and #2. if you are willing to count the number of ships in progress to make sure you don't have to many of them then you don't even need seperate tracks for multiple slipways, just one per class (i.e. the fed DN slipway chart can have up to 4 counters on it at once, the B-10 slipway chart can have any number of them on it, but limits on how frequently you can start a new one)

it's probably easist to tie conversions to when the keel is laid then to allow them later in the process, but this may require a special rule to speed a converted ship along slightly or it will take longer to produce then the standard ship

for fighters I think the ideal system would be no free fighters or free replacement fighters, but that's a significant change in the game (to say the least). other then thatI would say pay for the fighters on the turn the ship is completed, if you can have a carrier that was out of supply and had no fighters for several turns reach supply and instantly go to full strength then it can't be that hard to form a new squadron

I think BB construction will fall quite naturally into this system, just instead of EP spending directly translating into BB production it buys a die roll that moves you on the chart

these choices will result in more planning ahead needed and more knowledge of your opponent's thights, but may still be playable.

By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 05:35 am: Edit

I'm with Chris, even the most basic suggestions would make the production phase a nightmare for the FtF game.

However I would be very keen to see something along these lines for the F&E online. Computers are very good at the administration required to make the rule work and I like the realism the proposed rule would bring.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 07:36 am: Edit

My suggeston would be to change the time scale to one turn per month, and to have production as a pay-as-you-build at one EP per month. Ergo, it would take three months to build an FF and a year and a half to build a CVA. The limiting factor is how many slipways you have for each size-class of ship.

Repairs would also be at one EP per turn (perhaps two per turn??).

Also, get rid of the my-turn / your-turn system and let everyone move ships every turn. Ships would only move one hex, not six, of course, to keep the speed scale the same. Strat-movement would be six hexes per turn.

Obviously, these ideas would be far to cumbersome for FtF play, but more ideal for computer / E-mail play.


Garth L. Getgen

By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 08:10 am: Edit

A fairly easy way to track things would be:
cost pay 1/2 when keel is layed down, pay the other 1/2 on delivery. If can't pay the second 1/2 when scheduled to be completed the slip is still full and completion is delayed until the turn that the 2nd 1/2 of cost is paid. Easy to track, some penalty for losing the shipyard but don't lose everything.

Build times:
Size class 2: 4 turns
size class 3: 2 turns
size class 4: 1 turns
war crusisers take 1 less turn
variants on the base hull take 1 more turn.
The turn construction is started is turn 1, so 1 turn ships are paid for all at once and available immediately.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit

I am not even going to consider any proposal that relaxes or changes the various restrictions like how many scouts or PFTs or one-offs you can build. That is dead on arrival. Frankly, I rankle at the idea of this topic/idea/concept being used to back-door changes to the production limits and schedules. Consider yourselves warned.

If you want to come up with an idea that says a size-2 ship takes four turns and you order it four turns in advance and pay 1/4 of the cost each turn, and if you skip paying a turn then all future ships of that class are delayed one turn, I guess you can, but I don't see what it gains except getting over the "instant popping into being" problem, which is purely psychological. There is no benefit to the game to doing it this way but it is a whole lot more paperwork. This is a HUGE game and if we make some harmless simplifications so you can accomplish exactly the same thing in less time and get on with enjoying and playing the game, I think we made the right decision.

I guess if you want to add some forms to the game and six pages of rules and increase the time to play each production phase by 25% you could do it, but again WHY WOULD YOU? Unless this concept really is just a way to back-door some changes to the production restrictions, in which case, this way lies a big whopping DEAD HORSE.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit

SVC,

It's important to realize that the discussion thus far has been more about sorting out what path any proposal is likely to take. In general, folks seem to be falling into two camps; the people that merely want to see the bigger ships take longer to produce but essentially uses the same production sched with the same restrictions on certain types/conversions, etc, and those who would like to see more freedom in the production sched, but at the cost of delaying the appearance of new ships.

Please don't hit the panic button just yet.

CFant and James (and SVC),

How would the production phase become a nightmare if all that was done was to require that ships of certain sizes take longer than 1 turn to build? Nowhere was I proposing extra forms or vast amounts of rules additions. The existing turn record track can be used to track production (i.e. Imperium).

We haven't actually produced a proposal yet, remember.

Finally, and this is to everyone, since SVC has indicated that any proposal requiring extra forms, which would increase the cost of the game and add too much to the complexity, which violates at least one, if not two, of the suggested guidlines in the initial post, is a non-starter, it seems to me, at least, that any proposal on introducing variable production times would have to:

1) not change the current pay everything up front;
2) not change the way fighters are currently handled;
3) not change the restrictions placed on certain classes of ships (i.e. drone ships, etc); and,
4) not require any major tinkering with the production sched.

It will come as no surprise to many that I actually agree with these statements/sentiments. For the record, I have no problem with production as it currently stands. I do think that introducing variable production times will add a certain strategic depth to game play, but my main reason for advocating it was to silence those who were/are complaining that there are too many ships in the game.

There is no difference between this discussion and the discussion on auto-kill rules, reduced production schedules, or reduced OOBs.

What I was trying to do was to meet the too-many-shippers half-way, and attempt to come up with a system that would allow for fleets to reach a size both adherents could live with and yet would require a change in only one part of the rules. This game suffers from far too many if-then-else statements, and I believe that, depending on how the devil in this particular set of details is handled, that multiple issues have the potential to be addressed without adding yet another layer of decision loops.

I have no problem if this proposal doesn't go anywhere; in fact, I believe most proposals should be shot down, as it's very hard to create a rule(s) that work and that do so without being overly clumsy. All I ask is that folks hold off with the onagers filled with Greek fire missiles until there's something to shoot at ;) Who knows, maybe the final proposal will have some merit? I'm relatively certain the final rule set of F&E didn't spring from the computer screen fully-formed.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Again, why I hadn't wanted to propose this before. I had started coming to the same general conclusion.

I think this gets a lot of people thinking because it adds a lot of 'color' to the production process, and at first glance doesn't add that much effort.

Re: Scouts, PFTs... NO. That's not the idea at all. At least to me. You might even note the fact that I realized that CCs would need some similar-style limiting. The 'relaxation' would be in the mix of different types of (nearly) same-size base hulls. I think it could be neat to play around with CA vs. CW ratios, but I should go through the motions a couple times before I say too much more on it. It seems neat, but I start wondering if squeezing out those four extra hulls a year overpowers the need for density 8 units.

Edit: beaten to the punch.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit

James, the primary problem with this thing (in my mind) is two fold.....

1. I really do not want yet another thing to keep track of. We would need forms to figure out what had been paid for what ships and when, as well as a place to keep track of then they are finished.

2. Using this system would mean that the races that start out with the most ships have a huge advantage for a longer period because now both side's ships take longer, but they have more to use in the meantime.

So, Now, the Klingons would build 9 ships on turn 1, would get 18 on turn 2, 24 on turn 3 (or there abouts)

The Kzin would build like 2 on turn 1, get 4 on turn 2, 6 on turn 3, and so on.

The races with fewer ships will get crushed while waiting for their ships to finish building.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit

More freedom: dead on arrival.

More forms for a cosmetic irrelavant change: what's the point?

I guess if you guys want to amuse yourselfs, go ahead, but I've already indicated that nothing I've seen is of any interest for publication.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit

CFant,

1) Why would forms be needed to keep track of anything? You pay for the ship, it either comes out immediately, or gets put on the turn record track. Each turn, during the production phase, you simply take the ships on the track and place them on the map.

2) That all depends on what construction times are. If CWs and smaller came out the turn they were produced, I don't see how any one side gains a huge advantage. CWs, IIRC, were touted as being "almost as good" as CAs. Less powerful, but with far less production time.

SVC,

There hasn't even been a proposal yet, but, no worries. I do have to ask, though, why this proposal is unworthy and some of the things in AO were?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit

John: Because the AO things were worthy and this isn't. The "turn track where ships wait" is itself an obstacle, another thing on the table, another thing to bump into, another problem for no worthy gain which I have seen so far. This whole dance of the vampies is being done because "it just feels wierd to get a DN the turn you pay for it". I don't find that a valid problem needing a solution.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Actually, this is being done to find a way around the supposed problem of ship counts. I'm quite happy with the current production sched, even when I'm pulling my hair out in frustration trying to decide how to make a CA split 5 different ways ;)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 04:13 pm: Edit

"Actually, this is being done to find a way around the supposed problem of ship counts."

Ah, good, then I can ignore this topic as it is entirely a dead horse. Do continue to chat if you are amused but I'm not going on this trip.

By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit

John, you really want a stack 30 ships high on the turn track?

with all the limitations that are on this it's a huge amount of extra effort, loss of flexibility, and increased loss to the alliance when they loose a capitol, and what's the upside?

you say that this is to limit shipcounts, I haven't seen anything here that would end up with fewer ships being produced so I don't understand this statement