Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Point Value of Ships
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Masat
Ensign


Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your reply Dal Downing. Are you saying that although the points were known to be inaccurate, that did not matter and the point values from SFB were used in FedCom with full knowledge that they were inaccurate because you are supposed to get the same results from SFB and FedCom. I do not agree with that logic however if that is the logic that was used it does explain the inaccurate numbers.

Are you also saying that a player who chooses a romulan who does not use a cloaking device is at a similar disadvantage as a player who chooses a hydran and stingers on an open map? Both cases are bad choices and the player has shown to have less knowledge and needs more points? If this is what you are saying then the Hydran and stingers do need a multiplayer for an open map.

Thank you for your reply Scoutdad. I agree that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Masat
Ensign


Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is why I suggested a multiplier number for fixed map and open map only. I believe the BPV is an average and I believe the fixed map BPV and open map BPV are two main numbers for the average. I would like to know those two numbers. Yes I understand there are more than only those two numbers in the average but I believe they are the most important of the numbers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Masat
Ensign


Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am sorry. The quote of Scoutdad saying "it would have taken a Cray supercomputer is needed to compile a 100% total accurate listing of point values for every ship againstevry other ship in every situation on every type of map" was between my two posts. It was not accepted and I do not know why.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1950
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Masat wrote:
I believe the BPV is an average and I believe the fixed map BPV and open map BPV are two main numbers for the average. I would like to know those two numbers. Yes I understand there are more than only those two numbers in the average but I believe they are the most important of the numbers.

Not quite sure where you got the 'two numbers' idea from. The point values in FC are calculated using a formula known only to the designer and his team. They are not an average of some mysterious pair of numbers!

I wonder if you are thinking that the 'two numbers' are similar to the Combat BPV and Economic BPV from SFB? Or perhaps that the FC point values are calculated from the average of the SFB combat BPV and Economic BPV?

If that's the case, then that answers your question - and you can test your hypothesis by looking at the SSD for a SFB ship, getting the two point values from that and averaging them, then seeing if that average matches the point value of the corresponding FC ship.

Let us know how you get on! Smile
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4463
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The quote of Scoutdad saying "it would have taken a Cray supercomputer is needed to compile a 100% total accurate listing of point values for every ship againstevry other ship in every situation on every type of map" was between my two posts. It was not accepted and I do not know why.

Cause we don't have a Cray supercomputer to run this forum on??? Wink
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4463
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

UK Tony wrote:
Not quite sure where you got the 'two numbers' idea from. The point values in FC are calculated using a formula known only to the designer and his team. They are not an average of some mysterious pair of numbers!

and [quote="US Tony"it would have taken a Cray supercomputer to compile a 100% total accurate listing of point values for every ship against every other ship in every situation on every type of map in every type of terrain [/quote]

I think the point Masat was trying to get at (and it is an intrigueing idea...) is that most [probably 99%] of all Fed Comm battles take place on either a fixed or an open map wiht little or no terrain. His supposition is that the point alue shown is an average of the actual point value of the unit in question if the type of map was taken into consideration.
What he proposes is afactor to be applied to said values to detemine the cost of said unit on a particular type of map.

Yes there are more than two factors that could be applied; i.e., one for Asteroids, one for Nebulae, one for Black Holes, etc. - and they could be applied in concert... fixed map in a nebulae, or floating map in an asteroid field, etc. But, the main two factors would be open map/fixed map.

I don't think it applies to the SFB economic BPV/Combat BPV at all.
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Bolo_MK_XL
Commander


Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 785
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't forget BPVs in SFB were initially compiled against the common enemy of each empire --
In FC, empires are not just fighting their common foes anymore ---
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scoutdad
Commodore


Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 4463
Location: Middle Tennessee

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bolo_MK_XL wrote:
Don't forget BPVs in SFB were initially compiled against the common enemy of each empire --
In FC, empires are not just fighting their common foes anymore ---

nor historically matched ships / weapons / systems.
_________________


Scoutdad's minis photos here!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Masat wrote:
Thank you for your reply Dal Downing. Are you saying that although the points were known to be inaccurate, that did not matter and the point values from SFB were used in FedCom with full knowledge that they were inaccurate because you are supposed to get the same results from SFB and FedCom. I do not agree with that logic however if that is the logic that was used it does explain the inaccurate numbers.

Are you also saying that a player who chooses a romulan who does not use a cloaking device is at a similar disadvantage as a player who chooses a hydran and stingers on an open map? Both cases are bad choices and the player has shown to have less knowledge and needs more points? If this is what you are saying then the Hydran and stingers do need a multiplayer for an open map.

Thank you for your reply Scoutdad. I agree that


I don't know why you keep harping on BPV being inaccurate. Of course they're going to be inaccurate for some combination of map/terrain/opponents.

Even if we go with your idea of 1 BPV for floating and 1 for fixed (although 2 point values are just as arbitrary as 1), it still won't fix multiple issues. Such as which opponent you're facing. As an example, a ship with ADDs should pay some additional points for the ADD system, but the points are completely wasted (except as additional drone padding) if facing a non-drone using opponent. Right there, you have a ship where the BPV is wrong no matter what the map type. Another example is plasma. By itself, plasma is grossly overpointed in FC. However if you reduce plasma point values, then they become highly overpowered if they're used in support of other ships such as ISC plasma ships supporting PPD ships or a Gorn/Rom supporting other direct fire ships from an ally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike wrote:
A tournament map is for a tournament...a competition. In such a competition there is no reason to try to simulate a rationale for ships being there. It is a tournament for players of the game.


Aye but Paul is going well beyond that and saying A closed map is far more "realistic" than a floating one. something I find quie incredulous. Why are my ships not considered disengaged at the start of the scenario when they are 40+ hexes away, but later with just a couple of hexes seperating everyone is a ship considered to have mysteriously disapppeared and disengaged as it tried to slip around an enemy ship just a single hex away?

The tourney scenario seems to be the 'default' scenario whether it is in an actual competition or not. Why is it more realistic?

If Paul was just saying that the closed map suits the tourney (becasue they don't like long range battles or whatever) I'd accept that. It causes all sorts of balance issues but if that is how people want to play then fair enough, but he seems to be saying that it is more reaslistic, how?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duxvolantis
Lieutenant SG


Joined: 16 Nov 2010
Posts: 185

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

storeylf wrote:

Aye but Paul is going well beyond that and saying A closed map is far more "realistic" than a floating one. something I find quie incredulous.

I agree 100%.

In our local group we always play on floating maps. Now the scenarios usually have objectives and often they dictate that if you travel too far from the objectives you will lose, but there are no artificial boundaries.
_________________
Dux Volantis
Romulan Star Empire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Rock
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 16 Jul 2008
Posts: 240

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lee,
We'll see if you change your mind after we play a floating map scenario this week.

What I mean by "realistic" is not that in reality there are barriers in space or even that it particularly makes sense that up until some arbitrary line in space things are one way (you are "engaged") but immediately beyond that point things change (you are "disengaged"). I actually though my point was clear, but apparently it was not.

Of course, a completely floating map is more "realistic" from the perspective of physics.

What I am saying is that, in a world where you have space faring empires there is no reason at all to worry about vast open space. You care about a defined area of that space. If two combatant empires met in some space that no one cared about, the larger fleet (or possibly just the fleet that cared a little more about that space) would drive the other off without any losses.

You need a reason to fight, even if you are at war. You also need a reason to sacrifice your ship, even if you have already started fighting.

There are a ton of ways to accomplish that with a floating map, but all of those ways, to be realistic, must involve a fixed point (or very slow moving) objective. If you have that, then your scenario is most realistic on a floating map.

If you don't have that, but want to simulate it/abstract it, then the way to do it is to fix the map. That is all a fixed mapped is. It is an abstraction of a limiting objective (fixed/slow point or time).

We are playing a game here and presumably one of the objectives (the primary one, frankly) should be having fun. I suspect you will find that the objective-less floating map encounter is one that won't be much fun if the two sides are also playing rationally. We'll see this week if you end up agreeing with me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1950
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about this idea, it ties together all the arguments about fixed/floating, ship capabilities (as roughly measured by PV), redundant systems, reasons to fight, realism and so on.

These comments could apply to the commodore of a squadron, but let's keep it simple and stick with a single ship.

As the captain of a starship, you have a system which is a balance between many different functions, one of which is to fight starships of other races for whatever reason.

You have what you are given. If your ship has an ADD system, and you're on the Romulan border, well that's just the way the chips have fallen.

If, one day, you are required to defend a tiny space pebble in otherwise empty space - again, for whatever reason - then that's what you do.

Or maybe one day you are called upon to look into a matter that requires some sort of investigation, and your ship has plenty of firepower but little in the way of sensors or research systems. Then you do your best with the resources to hand.

Look, the Lab boxes count towards a ship's PV, although they are not usually used in combat apart from as padding. But still they are part of the ship and you are 'charged' for their presence in terms of the PV you 'pay' to have them. The Transporters on a Seltorian ship may never get chance to be used for a massive boarding action (which Selts are good at) but they are there and they have an intrinsic threat value because of it.

A starship has what it has. The capability is measured not only in terms of combat effectiveness - although I appreciate that's what most players think of because we are usually more concerned with the fighting aspect than other capabilities - but in terms of its overall balance as a starship. And you will be called in to different situations to use your ship in different ways, for different reasons and for different objectives. A ship's PV reflects all of its capabilities.

I know some of you want a system by which you can balance your scenarios perfectly. Why do you need to 'fiddle' the PVs, though, either by altering their absolute values or by introducing 'correction factors'? Why not just look at a set of ships and decide what would be good fighting against what? That method would be just as valid imo, because at the end of the day they are all a compromise in one way or another.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
storeylf
Fleet Captain


Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1842

PostPosted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Rock wrote:

We are playing a game here and presumably one of the objectives (the primary one, frankly) should be having fun. I suspect you will find that the objective-less floating map encounter is one that won't be much fun if the two sides are also playing rationally. We'll see this week if you end up agreeing with me.


You are talking to someone who has already decided that playing on floating maps is better for these 'meeting engagement' type fights. What's more our group is a campaign style group, so we do play with that emphasis on not needlessly sacrificing ships.

I'm very unlikely to change my mind after playing yourself. It's small fixed maps I have already come to the conclusion are no great fun.

As I said before - each to their own. Fun is far to a subjective word to use as a basis for whether a map type is good or bad. We have fun on our flaoting maps, you have fun on your closed maps.

PS. PM me with which day you can make (tue, wed or fri this week).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Masat
Ensign


Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Kang. I do not believe there were in the beginning two numbers that were averaged. I believe the printed on the card BPV is probably in somewhere between the
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group