Not many people buy AUXs in the games we play here, for any reason. My group tends to find the AUXs overpriced, so they see little use. Hence, removing the limits wouldn't change our games one whit.

Then again, between PO, and the changes proposed for Strat Ops, there's been a lot of money added to the game, so that may change.


Of course, LAVs are no longer really worth the expense, because they're an auto-kill from a drone raid, but I can see the auxiliary scouts getting some use in the alliance's attempt to balance the EW war in the opening game.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 09:35 am: Edit

Actually, LAVs are NOT an autokill from a drone raid as you just assign escorts on the previous turn and they're safe.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit

In the last game I played as the Alliance, the Hydran AuxCVs saved 1st Fleet's SB. Untill that game, I'd pretty much not worried if I lost all my auxilliaries or not, nor did I build any more. That game changed my thinking somewhat, and it would be nice to be able to build more than the current limits, especially for the figher races.

By Brad Preston (Bradpreston) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit

I think the real question is why have limits on the number of Auxilliaries. If people are silly enough to buy them, then let them have at it.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit

That's my general feeling on a great deal of the unique/limited production ships; bump up the cost for the unique ships and some of the limited production ones and let folks uild as much as they want, procided they have the EP to spare.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Bad choices should be available for players to make.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit

SVC:

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit

JKD: Indeed, but there's no need to increase the cost of auxiliaries to "balance" removing their in-service caps. They're already overpriced.

Perhaps some of the other currently-limited ships that SVC doesn't mind seeing more of might consider it for balance.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit

I wasn't talking about hiking auxilliary costs, Mark, merely the insignificant ships like the F-CAD, F-CLD, G-DNT, etc ;)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Here's my current idea.


Auxiliaries: build all you like.

Tug pods: build above limit but first one costs double, second one double that (4x), third one double that (8x), etc.

I'm not sure what others there are so I cannot comment.

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:08 am: Edit

I never expected things like the CAD, et al to be changed; we allow unlimited production in our current FTF game as an experiment (the other option we considered being eliminating the CAD, CLD, DNT and others altogether), and we tweak the rules all the time if/when we come across something that seems out of place, so official changes affect our group less than most

On the pods, SVC, were those costs per pod type?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:13 am: Edit

Per pod within each type.

Fed battle pods cost 8 points. So, you buy the legal limit (3) ones for this cost (or you have at start ones, whatever). If you want a fourth one, it costs 16, a fifth one costs 32, a sixth one 64. Replacements of any of the first three or any of the over-limit pods cost 8 since you only pay the penalty once.

Heck, on that deal, I'd even allow the CAD to be built in huge quantities. The legal one costs 11. The second one 22, the third one 44, the fifth one 88, the sixth one 176. If you convert them, the second one costs 6 (not 3), the third one 12, the fourth on 24, the fifth one 48, the sixth one 96. Replacements cost 11 (3 to convert from CA) since you already paid the penalty once.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit

(4LP.0) Limitless production

Lots of things in the game have a "maximum limit in service". This rule allows you to escape that.

(4LP.1) THESE THINGS no longer have a limit and you can buy all you want: Auxiliaries of all types.

(4LP.2) ANYTHING NOT LISTED IN (4LP.1) which has a "limit in service" uses this rule.
(4LP.21) You can exceed the limit in service (but not the production rate limits) but the first one over the limit costs double, the second one 4x, the third one 8x, the fourth one 16x, and so on.
(4LP.22) The cost limits apply in sequence to both substitution and conversion. If the first one over the limit is converted, pay 2x the standard conversion cost. If the second one over the limit is produced by substitution, pay 4x the production cost.
(4LP.23) Keep a running total of production (including at start units) on the special form provided. (I'll do it later.)
(4LP.24) If you lose a unit that is in this category, you can replace it for the basic cost since you already paid the penalty for having that many excess copies. For example, The Feds are allowed three battle pods but pay the surcharge to build two more (one for 16 points and the other for 32). They lose one BP+ in combat. It doesn't matter which one they lost, they can replace it for 8 since they arleady paid the surcharge to increase the in service limit.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

That's cool. So you might see one extra CAD but no one would pay so much for any more and for the Fed a second CAD is probably going to the opposite front anyway.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit

I assume that a minor conversion paying 2x/4x/8x cost is still a minor conversion, not major. Perhaps a note to that effect can be added to (4LP.22). --T. Kinias, 2 Oct 2004.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

Should probably have a clarifying note as to whether those races that use "pod sets" (Klingon, Kzinti, some Lyran) pay the surcharge per pod or per set. (I.e., the Lyrans are normally limited to one "pod set" (two pods) of KBP, but they wish to build another set above the limit; does it cost them 8 (2*2 + 2*2; surcharge per set) or 12 (2*2 + 2*4; surcharge per pod)?)
Also, someone should check AO for the wording of some of the special warships rules; I recall many of them having "the conversion is free if done during repair" lines, and I'll gladly pay two or four points for repair, plus 16x the conversion cost (of zero) for some of those ships.
Need order of operations note for interaction with CDR. Is it subtract one (CDR) then multiply (LP), or multiply then subtract one? (Probably the former; note that 2-step-conversions would, as printed, subtract then multiply.)

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 02:21 pm: Edit

All (or almost all) of the limited production ships and/or the unique conversion ships from AO have specific conversion costs listed, though some, like the F-CAD, lump total cost of repair and conversion into one price. Many of the ships already have existing rules for building/converting more, and those that don't have a conversion cost with a limit in service clause, so there's very very little chance of getting a 16 x 0 conversion cost, for example.

Some of the conversions are quite low, ex the K-AD6, but even then, the increasing costs as proposed would limit the numbers of the low cost ships.

By Thanasis Kinias (Tkinias) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 02:26 pm: Edit

On CDR: I would expect it to be multiply (LP), then subtract one (CDR). I'm not sure why CDR would save you 2 or 4 off of a doubled or quadrupled conversion, since it only takes one off of even the most expensive conversions otherwise...

On two-step conversions: I would expect only the limited part to be multiplied. For example, if there were a limited-production NCA variant which cost 3EP to convert, and CW->NCA cost 3EP, the two-step would be 5EP. If it were the second `beyond the limit' conversion, the cost should be 3 (CW->NCA) + 3*4 (NCA->whatever) - 1 (2step) = 14EP.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit

If you look at the CAD price, you will note that there is actually no cost savings in the rule. Costs 5 either way. The CLD conversion provides a 0.5 EP discount. Is better to use the CDR rule. That will get a -1 EP discount for both ships.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit

8x2 is still minor.
Multiply then subtract 1.
Leanna's coming so I gotta run.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit

LOL

By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 03:28 am: Edit

It would be a lot less record keeping if one simply said: "Double the price for anything past the (number in service) limit, maximum three over the limit." It would have about the same effect, too: People who had money to burn and really wanted more could have a couple more, but it keeps them from getting crazy.

I'm just not sure how much the exponential cost curve begets us over a simpler method. Not that I'm afraid of a little math, but there's enough to keep track of already. What's the point of adding in something complicated for this?

By David Lang (Dlang) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 03:52 am: Edit

Mark, the exponential curve stops the debate from comeing back up in a year or so with people wanting some way to go past the +3 limit

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit

Not only that, but some players will be perfectly willing to pay double to produce certain ship classes ad infinitum, which ties in with David's comment about the debate recurring as people realize that they can fit in a CAD/yr or something and want the limit dropped.

Ships are basically unique or they aren't. If unique, once gone, they should be gone for good. If not unique, regardless of the historical production run, if I want to pay to build more than one F-CAD (or any of the other limited production/conversion ships) I should be able to (it wouldn't be the first time a fluke of circumstances produced a workable design that was produced in quantity in wartime).

The best way to go about fixing this is to substantially increase the cost of additional ships (as per the F-NVH, for ex). Personally, I would prefer that method (though not so high as to become silly), with a cost that reflects the power of the unit within the game and that would also serve to prevent silly runaway production.

However, given the choice between no additions or some additions, I'd rather be able to officially build more, even if it means exponential increases.