Point Value of Ships

Masat · Post by **Masat** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:18 am

I am glad we agree wedge_hammersteel that the points are not accurate on the very small map. I have given you fleets where the point values are equal but one opponent has the advantage. Would you like more fleets? I am not sure the reason for the request for fleets from your answer.

You are funny mojo jojo to suggest to have a separate BPV for every combination of map size/terrain/opponent. I would wish for a separate BPV for fixed map and a separate BPV for floating map. That would solve problems such as "Crunch weapons benefit from small maps there as well as in FC and good long range weapons benefit from open maps there as well" and "Some races will be hindered by a small fixed map". These are also my feelings. Only separate BPV for fixed map and for floating map. That would solve many problems. But to wish for something in the past is not useful.

BPV are basically the same as in SFB and FC rules and interactions are different from SFB is an unfortunate flaw in Federation Commander. Again to wish for something in the past!

The_Rock · Post by **The_Rock** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:28 am

I am 100% with Masat on this one, though he has described it in a more amusing manner than I have in the past.

"The points on the cards are more for decoration."

Perfect. It's funny because its true!

mojo jojo · Post by **mojo jojo** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:55 am

Masat wrote:Only separate BPV for fixed map and for floating map.

Why? A Hydran fusion and stinger fleet is vastly superior on a 18X24 map than a 42X30 map which is vastly superior than on a 84X60 fixed map.

A Tholian WC fleet is vastly superior on an asteroid closed map compared to no terrain map.

Even if you separate ships into 2 point costs, BPV will still be inaccurate on many map/terrain combos.

Or you can do what SFB and FC did and have an 'average' approximate value. You're going to have to approximate no matter what.

Bottom line is if a Hydran fusion ship is worth X points on a 42X30 map, it's worth more than X on a 18X24 map and less than X on a 84X60 map.

The_Rock · Post by **The_Rock** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:10 am

Actually what you can, and should, do is have a reasonably accurate number for one scenario. I think that scenario should be the tournament scenario, but it does not have to be. The idea of an "average" number is not realistic, because what you would have to do to actually find that "average" is do a lot of testing in different scenarios and then, well, average the results.

You don't have enough people playing to make that workable. So the best thing to do is to start down the path of making it workable by testing the ships under one condition.

You are also almost certainly better off with a far less granular system. The idea that to the "ones," in a system where a typical cruiser is 150, the system could ever hope to be accurate is ridiculous.

A good starting point would be to make all police ships 50, all frigates 70, all DDs 90, all CLs 120, all CAs 150, etc. Then, through testing adjust from there. When you do adjust, make sure you adjust in intervals of 10 points. you could, of course, just divide everything by 10 and then use 1 point intervals, but then the points don't have the same "feel" as the corresponding SFB ships.

This would solve several problems:
1. just the balance as things are now being so far off for certain ships because the class of ship is better or worse than in SFB but they have SFB numbers.

2. Fix the problem with the points being generated from an entirely different game system.

3. Would allow you to announce, generally - "Ignore all points, they are wrong" Then the points for every ship can go on a list, rather than a card. Print new cards without points, just have the points on the list. The list can change as need. It is hard to change points that are one the cards.

Masat · Post by **Masat** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:26 am

Yes mojo jojo you are correct. If a Hydran fusion ship is worth X points on a 42X30 map, it's worth more than X on a 18X24 map and less than X on a 84X60 map. This is the same as have a separate BPV for every combination of map size/terrain/opponent in it is too much and not possible in reality.

To be simple and helpful do the most common. I believe the most common is floating and fixed 42X30 map. I believe these are much more common than a 18X24 map and a 84X60 map and asteroids and other terrain. If this is not correct then please correct me. If these are the two most common and BPV is very different for these then do two BPVs for fixed 42X30 map and floating. I believe this would make choosing BPV for fleets much more reasonable.

Masat · Post by **Masat** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:59 pm

I also think it is funny to have point values to the ones when it is not very accurate.

My idea is now to have a multiplier to multiply by a race for fixed 42X30 map or floating map. The point values are an average of these two maps I hope. To be simple I will use this.

Create a chart

Race, Multiplier for fixed 42X30map, Multiplier for floating map.

Example. Hydrans are more powerful on a fixed map. Multiply point value of ships by 1.2. Hydrans are less powerful on a floating map. Multiply point values of ships by 0.8.

Hydran, 1.2, 0.8
Gorn, 1.1, 0.7
Kzinti, 1.1, 0.8
Klingon, 0.9, 1.2
Andromedan, 0.8, 1.3
Federation, 1.1, 0.9

These multipliers I use are less than guesses. May I ask members of the forum with more experience to contribute to the chart with more accurate multipliers?

I would be happy to have this chart for my games to pick fleets based on BPV.

Capt Jack · Post by **Capt Jack** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:04 am

Good idea, but surely your Kizinti figs the wrong way round!?

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:42 am

I think they should have just got rid of points altogether.

There has been no great effort put into being accurate, so why bother in the first place.

They can't really be accurate for different scenarios (map size, terrain, matchup etc).

They are rather false, what is the difference between 2 ships that are say 2 points apart when they are around 150pts. Is ship A really 1.3% better than ship B.

I wish they had just gone for a very rough rating, with no attempt at differentiating between a D7, CA, Dragoon etc. They are all heavy cruisers and should be very roughly equal. Make them all rating 6 for example (plucking some figure from no where), CLs coud be 5, DDs 4 etc etc.

Kang · Post by **Kang** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am

One of my favourites is where the ISC BB has a lower points value than the Andromedan Dominator DN. How did that happen?

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:26 pm

Kang, it's based on the SFB values and under SFB rules the Dominator really is that bada**. (Mostly because it's easier for the andros to dump power).

Dan Ibekwe · Post by **Dan Ibekwe** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:33 pm

Different maps suit different empire's weapons and tactics.

Why not factor that into the game? Say you define three standard maps - 18 x 24 fixed, 30 x 42 location and 30 x 42 floating.

At the start of the game, toss a coin - the winner chooses the map, the loser gets 25% extra BPV.

Masat · Post by **Masat** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:42 pm

I may be incorrect Capt Jack. I did say I require help.

Would you like to contribute to the chart?

I have now read many people with the opinion the point values are incorrect with no help with my chart.

Are all people with the opinion it is impossible to fix? Or just my chart will not fix?

Also why were SFB values used when they are known to be inaccurate with different rules in SFB and Federation Commander?

Dal Downing · Post by **Dal Downing** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:28 pm

Masat wrote:Also why were SFB values used when they are known to be inaccurate with different rules in SFB and Federation Commander?

Because the original intention was regardless which system you used, SFB or FC. The results of the battle are suppose to be the same. In the process of making a more streamlined game over the years a few things have been skipped in the name of simplicity that are now effecting the point values.

The point values are what they are and lets be honest they are not really that far off. Do things like a Board Size and Terrain affect game play. Yes. But so do things like Romulans who never use cloak. You pay a penalty in points if you do not use that system. Can some things be tweaked to bring point values back in line? Yes, but then some people will start screaming rules creep.

Is there a way to fix things to make everyone happy? No, and that is just a sad fact of life.

Capt Jack · Post by **Capt Jack** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:14 pm

I certainly think its a good idea. Might be a bit biased as having just lost a campaign. Me Klingon vs Fed (how many fixed maps! at a guess 27 and 3 floating! GRR!)

Any How this is how I put these races

Klingon 0.8 Fix 1.1 Floating
Kzinti 0.8 1.1
Andros 1 1 (I dont see any advantage maybe +0.2 in astoroid field!)
Feds 1.1 0,8
Orions 0.9 1

Well. thats my thoughts! Haven't really played or against the other races.

Dal Downing · Post by **Dal Downing** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:37 am

Ok just making sure I am followin what Capt Jack and Masat are saying.

If I was to fight a 500 Point Fleet battle on a Fix map between a Federation and the Klingons I am suppose to take 500*0.8=400 Points for my Klingons and for the Fed I take 500*1.1= 550 Points.

So instead of a 500 Point Fleet Battle I am playing a 400 Point Battle and Spotting the Feds a extra Heavy Cruiser? It may be just me but I think that may be a little over kill there.