Federation Commander

[phul]

[storeylf]

[terryoc]

Minor nitpick - the D5L is a leader and you can't have that and the D7C

I think the D7C & D7 will have less ability to take damage than the D5Ws.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West

[mojo jojo]

[mojo jojo]

[storeylf]

[mojo jojo]

[terryoc]

I'd like to point out again that point value isn't just about how much damage you can dish out, it's about how much damage you can take. A Fed NCL or Klink D5 may have nearly as much firepower as a heavy cruiser of the same empire, but once the shields are penetrated will lose weapons and power much faster. It also takes less damage to cripple or destroy it, and score the points.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West

[Kang]

I myself think that the error margin from the way in which the point values are calculated (and iirc it's a secret formula known only by certain ADB staff) makes a 3% difference kind of irrelevant.

There's always loads of discussions about whether point values are 'wrong', about whether point values were transposed directly from SFB (they weren't, but are still related to the SFB point values), and other equally valid points. Theree is also the point that some ships perform better as part of a team, others work better going solo. Simply adding up the points for the various boxes on the ship card do not always give an accurate assessment of the ship's performance in combat, because it is the interaction of the various boxes, turn modes, the scenario, the opponent's rig etc. that make the ship what it is in a scrap, and what it is against different opponents.

Because of this, I prefer to think of point values simply as a guide. Some ships regularly out-perform others of similar or even greater point values; a case in point would be the Orion LR which in many people's opinions should have a higher value.

So, storeylf's assertion that 'it's a comparison, nothing more' (taken slightly out of context, I appreciate!) is pretty close to my point of view as expressed here. Although point values are the yardstick by which tournament ship squadrons are built - and rightly so because you have to have some way of doing it - they should not be thought of as the be-all and end-all.
_________________

[storeylf]

Your journey into fantasy ships is meaningless. I don't get a choice to make up my own ship. I have to play with available ships.

If I was choosing a klingon fleet I can see no reason why I would choose your 446 point fleet over the 426 point version (D7 > D5) or the 425 point fleet (D5W,D5W, D5D fleet). All are near enough the same in capability, the cheaper fleets give up nothing relevant in the context of a tourney game but do benefit from a significant point advantage when it comes to scoring.

The same applies with other empires/fleets.

The point remains that a range of 425-250 is narrow enough that 2 fleets in a blind matchup are likley to be fairly evenly matched, but the fleet that happened to cost less has a noticebale edge in the scoring. Looking at some very specific squadron and ship swap doesn't alter that. Many 1 vs 1 duels will have a wider percentage margin than that, yet still be seen as a good balanced match, indeed the classic D7 vs Fed CA has the D7 fighting a ship over 6% more expensive.

[edit] and no I don't think I would choose the all ph1 D7, 12 pts for 6 ph1s instead of 6 ph2s, mm not worth that much, and especially not worth giving up the scoring advantage for. Remember those points have to be enough to turn a close game into a pretty clear win in order to win on points.

[mojo jojo]

Yes, points are a guideline and in some cases are outright wrong (see ISC CS vs CL or Rom CNH vs K9R), but they're what we have. And generally speaking, a ship that is 10-20 pts more expensive is significantly more capable than the cheaper ship. Plus, this is a tournament setup where both sides are min-maxing like crazy to get the best fleets. So most likely it's going to be a matchup between 2 relatively efficient 450 and 425 pt fleets.

I'd take my chances with a D7P1 fleet over the D7 fleet any day in a tournament setup. Or anything similar such as the Lyran CW into a CWP1 at 8 pts more expensive. And even if the extra points don't go into weapons, they'll generally go into shields/stuffing as terryoc pointed out which makes it harder to score points on on them.

[mojo jojo]

A modification of my original post suggestion:

1) Take the difference in point values and multiply by 3. This is the number of shield boxes that the larger fleet takes before combat starts. However in case it wasn't clear before, this is a substitution for the free vp you normally would get, not an add-on.

So a 425 pt fleet vs a 450 pt fleet does NOT get the free 25 vp at start. VP starts the game at 0 for both sides. Instead, the 450 pt fleet has 75 shield boxes of damage before the game actually starts that he can distribute however he wants among his ships.

2) Multiply all pt values of the larger fleet by the ratio of the 2 fleets.

EX: The 425 pt fleet destroys a 150 pt ship in the 450 pt fleet. It scores (150)*(425/450) = 141.7 pts. It may seem unfair to reduce the pts earned by the smaller fleet, it does compensate for the fact that the larger fleet already took 75 shield boxes damage before the fight started.

This way, if both fleets inflict the exact same level of damage, they score the exact same points. Both sides start on a level playing field (the larger force is more capable, but has some damage to start).

[phul]

I'm not opposed to the way you modify points, but your balancing methodology is extreme, and hampers the larger fleet more than merely applying damage. It also limits their options in battle (specifically manuever options, unless you evenly divide damage on all shields). And... if I knew this was the way balance was being applied... I'd use a hellbore hydran 425 fleet every chance I got (we'll ignore the fact that I prefer hellbore anyway). 75 points spread over 3 ships will make for a juicy initial hellbore volley. That's just an immediate thought.

Something else is nagging at my mind re: this, but I have to think it over some more so I sound coherant.

[ericphillips]

This is an interesting debate. Perhaps comparing to real life tournaments and sports would be appropriate.

Basically, giving the lower BPV fleet points to start is a form or handicap, like those used in golf. However, except in informal tournaments, handicaps are not allowed.

The same is true in other sports. When the Boston Red Sox, with their $5.6-million average player salaries play the New York Yankees, with the Yanks $8.2-million average player salaries, Boston does not get free runs to start the game. It also does not mean that Boston will not win the game anyways.

Perhaps it would be better in a tournament with set limits such as Origins to forego the point handicap and just make each type of score a set value, no matter the BPV of the ship. This would make it more about taking the best ship combo regardless of points (although within the range of the tournament), and if you take a ship that is easier to score on, you will have to protect it more.
_________________
"I could have been an adventurer like you, but I took an arrow to the knee."

[mojo jojo]