Author Topic: Determining Points Value Beta Test  (Read 22272 times)

Tonbo Karasu

  • Petty Officer
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Dragonfly Clan Ambassador
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2013, 03:26:57 AM »
See, I was agreeing with you right up to your last sentence.  Designing units before there is a set of construction rules is a poor plan, and it shouldn't be done, otherwise you end up having to fit your design system to some potentially odd bits and pieces (cf Dropships and Jumpships).

However, there is really no reason for the game balance mechanism to be part of the construction system.  Yes, it would be possible to integrate them and sometimes that has advantages.  But, think of it like the car industry.  Engineers are capable of designing a new car without needing to work out how much it costs to pay its road tax and MOT.  Sure, they can take such things into account, but it isn't necessarily as integrated as you imply.
Karasu



wundergoat

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #61 on: February 10, 2013, 06:36:52 PM »
I've finally had a chance to work on converting weapon modifiers into multipliers (e.g. converting the +1 modifier for bracketing to a +%, etc.)  My methodology was to take the last iteration of point values, then change the mod out for a multiplier.  I tweaked the multipliers to keep the lower point value ships the same, since I felt like firepower was only out of whack with Charger and Type 3s and 4s.  I then tried to get the multipliers to equate across to +X.  I  concluded that a +1 mod was equivalent to a 1.25 multiplier, and a +2 mod equivalent to a 1.5 multiplier.

Current multipliers are 1 for a bow/stern fixed mount, 1.25 for a side mount, 1.25 for a side turret (note: the weapon is also subject to the side multiplier), 1.5 for a bow/stern turret, 1.25 for bracket capability, and 1.5 for saturation.

Below are the results.  During this process I also found that I was only counting half of Lave's torpedoes.  This is now corrected and the points make a lot more sense.

Code: [Select]
Ship Original Revised Difference Mobility Durability Firepower
Anfield 85 87 2 16.4 37.9 32.8
Trafford 82 80 -2 11.8 40.5 27.8
Raven 75 80 5 18.7 40.5 20.8
Beagle 91 96 5 21 39.9 35.4
Crow 73 85 12 15.4 44.7 24.8
Essex 97 103 6 10.8 48.4 44
Hertfordshire 102 111 9 9.2 48.4 53.2
New Zealand 108 117 9 13.6 44.5 59.1
Courser 122 126 4 13.8 37.3 75.4
Charger 135 149 14 17 39.2 92.6
Evesham 152 175 23 8.7 51.9 114
Leviathan 192 222 30 2 70.3 149.7
Medusa 209 230 21 2 70.3 157.4

French
La Gloire 80 87 7 26.6 35.5 25.3
Montcalm 80 83 3 17.7 35.5 29.9
Pelletier 80 93 13 25.6 39 28.5
Montpellier 85 93 8 14.4 38.2 40.9
Grenedier 77 76 -1 15.4 36.4 24.6
Lave 98 96 -2 17.8 43 34.8
Pontbriand 123 127 4 22.4 40.8 63.3
Dupuy de Lome 106 102 -4 13.6 41.3 47.3
Ardent 113 121 8 13.6 48 59.4
Aigle 100 108 8 16.8 45.7 45.8
Philip II 131 147 16 11.8 55.7 79.8
Jean Bart 185 207 22 5 70.3 131.7
Paris 213 234 21 2 70.3 161.6

Weisbaden - 122 9.2 38.7 74.3
Cassiopea 80 95 15 30.2 32.3 32.4

DDs remained mostly the same, give or take 1 or 2 points.  The notable exception here is Montpellier, which jumped up in firepower.  I think the reason for this is its large, well crewed guns saw bigger increases from being calculated as a % than other DDs.  Cassiopea also saw large jump in points, again due to large amounts of its firepower in side turrets.

CLs generally increased by about 5-10 points, dependent on the number and quality of bracketable guns.  Lave saw less here (not counting the error fix), due to having less guns.  Courser went up 14 points, to just a hair under Pontbriand's value.  Charger went up 18, pushing it up to a whopping 149 points.  It is now valued over Philip II Augustus.  Having run the two ships against one another, this seems about right.  I do however fear that Charger will run into the same problem that Btech's Clan mechs ran into - high point value due to spectacular speed, firepower, and range coupled with mediocre durability will demand skilled use to make Charger worth its points.

CAs saw big changes here.  Philip II Augustus gets +13 due to the multiplication factors now on it's high quality guns.  This however is minor compared to Evesham's +27.  Changing the bow/stern calcs from +2 for saturation/+2 for bow/stern turret to a net 2.25 multiplier vastly increased the value of those wicked and skilled 9.2" batteries.  Again, I think this is reasonable.  Evesham's big guns are for all intents and purposes the same as on Paris, except that the crews are better on the bow guns and the stern turret has a blue crew instead of none.  You can also look at them as equal to a 12" green crewed turret.  What this all boils down to is Evesham has Type 4 firepower with Type 2 speed and durability and is pointed as such.  This begs another question: Is Evesham a battlecruiser?

BBs also saw a huge jump in points, again because their high value guns are now being calced with a multiplier instead of a modifier.  Point increase was relatively uniform 26-32 points.  French tended a little higher due to the side turrets.  Overall this leaves the BBs valued at about twice a CL or two and a half DDs.  In the previous point iteration, BBs were trending slightly downward.  Now they are approximately 10-15% higher than in the original beta.

Edward

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2013, 10:47:04 PM »
Wow!  I thought that I had insightful analysis until I saw the detail that some of you folks have gone into.  Amazing work, Wundergoat especially.

That said, do I have a few things to add.

One, I wholeheartedly agree that speed and maneuverability are critically undervalued.

Two, I believe I see why DD and BB broadside weapons are valued lower, because they are split between two hexes and therefore can have different lines of sight, most commonly (in my very limited experience!) with a Beagle which is one hex short of being able to fully cross an opponent's T but elects to get halfway there anyways.  I do not believe that this rare disadvantage is worth as much as, say, a turret, especially on DDs which only pack broadside guns in slots 1-3.  Which is almost all DDs.

This leads to a rules question which I should no doubt post elsewhere, but here goes:  since my forward-broadside (of 3 slots on a DD or 1 location on a BB) can be in a different arc of my target from my aft-broadside, how does this situation interact with Bracketing Fire?  Are these weapons still able to bracket together (and if so which location do they hit in?), or do they lose the ability to bracket with each other against said target this turn?  It seems like it should only be possible to bracket against a single target arc, and that's how I would play it (and have played it).  But an explicit, printed rules clarification would be so nice.  Or did I just not see it?

Thanks!

The Hawk

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2013, 06:39:21 AM »
This leads to a rules question which I should no doubt post elsewhere, but here goes:  since my forward-broadside (of 3 slots on a DD or 1 location on a BB) can be in a different arc of my target from my aft-broadside, how does this situation interact with Bracketing Fire?  Are these weapons still able to bracket together (and if so which location do they hit in?), or do they lose the ability to bracket with each other against said target this turn?  It seems like it should only be possible to bracket against a single target arc, and that's how I would play it (and have played it).  But an explicit, printed rules clarification would be so nice.  Or did I just not see it?

I had to dig to find it, but I knew I'd read it somewhere (because it's come up for me, too):

You can only claim bracketing fire if all such weapons can hit that arc. If they can't, then only those that can, can get the benefits of bracketing. The other guns can fire independantly (as could they all, if you wished).

Surprisingly, in my experience it's not an issue that seems to come up as frequently as you'd expect, maybe because big ships are blasting one another with their broadside arcs while little ships are somewhere else, trying to avoid getting blasted. ;)

wundergoat

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #64 on: July 28, 2013, 05:40:50 PM »
Two, I believe I see why DD and BB broadside weapons are valued lower, because they are split between two hexes and therefore can have different lines of sight, most commonly (in my very limited experience!) with a Beagle which is one hex short of being able to fully cross an opponent's T but elects to get halfway there anyways.  I do not believe that this rare disadvantage is worth as much as, say, a turret, especially on DDs which only pack broadside guns in slots 1-3.  Which is almost all DDs.

Point of clarification, DD and BB side weapons have the same fire arcs, regardless of actual hex location of the weapon.  Weapon hex location is used to determine range and LOS.  If a target is in Beagle's side arc and both of Beagle's hexes are in the same arc of the target, then all of Beagle's side weapons fire at the same location.  This assumes that all weapons are in range and there is no LOS blocker (e.g. target is partially screened).

Quote
This leads to a rules question which I should no doubt post elsewhere, but here goes:  since my forward-broadside (of 3 slots on a DD or 1 location on a BB) can be in a different arc of my target from my aft-broadside, how does this situation interact with Bracketing Fire?  Are these weapons still able to bracket together (and if so which location do they hit in?), or do they lose the ability to bracket with each other against said target this turn?  It seems like it should only be possible to bracket against a single target arc, and that's how I would play it (and have played it).  But an explicit, printed rules clarification would be so nice.  Or did I just not see it?

In the case of weapons in different locations bracketing together, as long as all weapons are hitting the same damage arc of the enemy, they can bracket together.  As an added bonus, they use the best damage die available (i.e. if guns in hex A and B are bracketing together and the guns in A are at short range and the guns in B are at long range, you use the short range die for the guns in B).  Additionally, you roll the crew die for A and B and take the best one.  The secondary guns in a battleship broadside can potentially be very accurate.  Likewise, the 6" guns of the County-class CLs are surprisingly accurate when bracketed.

Edward

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #65 on: August 01, 2013, 10:47:07 PM »
Point of clarification, DD and BB side weapons have the same fire arcs, regardless of actual hex location of the weapon.  Weapon hex location is used to determine range and LOS.  If a target is in Beagle's side arc and both of Beagle's hexes are in the same arc of the target, then all of Beagle's side weapons fire at the same location.  This assumes that all weapons are in range and there is no LOS blocker (e.g. target is partially screened).

Right, thank you.  I wasn't confused about the firing arc, only seeking clarification on the interaction of different target arcs with bracketing, which Hawk cleared up.

By the way, could you direct me to the post that shows how you are calculating the mobility values in your variation of the point system?  It seems to me that we could still double HML Leviathan's speed with minuscule effect on her PV?

wundergoat

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #66 on: August 02, 2013, 09:48:25 PM »
Point of clarification, DD and BB side weapons have the same fire arcs, regardless of actual hex location of the weapon.  Weapon hex location is used to determine range and LOS.  If a target is in Beagle's side arc and both of Beagle's hexes are in the same arc of the target, then all of Beagle's side weapons fire at the same location.  This assumes that all weapons are in range and there is no LOS blocker (e.g. target is partially screened).

Right, thank you.  I wasn't confused about the firing arc, only seeking clarification on the interaction of different target arcs with bracketing, which Hawk cleared up.

By the way, could you direct me to the post that shows how you are calculating the mobility values in your variation of the point system?  It seems to me that we could still double HML Leviathan's speed with minuscule effect on her PV?

The original post was #48 of this thread, though I may have changed the equation a bit since then.  The current equation that I have for mobility, reduced to final points, is (MP*[type factor])+(# of steering gear pairs)-(2*Hexes before turn).  Type factor=20 for a Type 4, 21 for a Type 3, 22 for a Type 2, and 23 for a Type 1.  Basically, 1MP = 2-2.3pts in my system, steering gear 1pt, and turning -2pts.

Therefore, for all Type 4s excepting Jean Bart, the points are (4*2)+(0)-(3*2)=2.  Jean Bart is (5*2)+(1)-(3*2)=5.  A doubling of Leviathan's speed would put it at (8*2)+(0)-(3*2)=10, or up 8 points from current.  From an overall percentage, this value is tiny, a little over 3%.  Looking at just the mobility factor, it is a 300% increase.

The issue here is how the point system is set up.  Essentially, the point values are derived from the sum of a number of independent components.  This makes it easy to calculate and isolate the effects of individual components, but does not take into the account the sum being greater than the parts, so to speak.  The other method, having the components all influence each other, is substantially more complicated and is very difficult to calibrate correctly.  Battletech's BV is such a system, and is hideously complicated and hard to use, while still having major issues in correctly balancing units.

Edward

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #67 on: August 05, 2013, 10:39:57 PM »
The issue here is how the point system is set up.  Essentially, the point values are derived from the sum of a number of independent components.  This makes it easy to calculate and isolate the effects of individual components, but does not take into the account the sum being greater than the parts, so to speak.  The other method, having the components all influence each other, is substantially more complicated and is very difficult to calibrate correctly.  Battletech's BV is such a system, and is hideously complicated and hard to use, while still having major issues in correctly balancing units.

Yeah, I can see how it would be a challenge to accurately value synergies while maintaining simplicity.  I looked at BattleTech's BV system (and the previous, much weaker, CV system) from the point of view of how to break it, not how to make it more robust and accurate.

Your comment about BV being hideously complicated gives me a helpful reminder that not everyone loves math the way I do...I found the system rather handy and straightforward, not even any algebra, just arithmetic.

But speaking of B-Tech, why couldn't maneuverability represent a multiplier on firepower?  This could be in addition to or in place of the base, flat values.  Of course, maneuverability also interacts with durability...and durability with firepower...is a weapon in a 14-slot and armor in a 17-slot worth more than the reverse?  Less?  Should the entire location be checked for synergies?  Should bracketing fire be valued higher with more eligible co-bracketers?  Or with a nice even number over an odd one?  Does this descent into minutiae have a bottom?

So, just brainstorming here:

It seems like a robust system should have a single guiding principle.  A design philosophy.  I assume some of you are familiar with the principle of "one tactic, multiple strategies."  This principle states that the most effective people have just, only, exactly one thing that they are trying to do, and multiple strategies to accomplish this.
  The one tactic of Leviathans! is to put maximum hurt on the other guy.  So the one tactic of its points system should be:  represent a ship's ability to hurt other ships...and each part of the points system should be measured based on how well it represents this.
  In gameplay, one strategy is superior firepower.  This one is fairly straightforward:  bigger and better guns, and more of them, are worth more.
  Another strategy is maneuver.  Lower-type-number ships are more able to move to the weaker arcs (either fore and aft or damaged) of higher-type-number ships, and to present their undamaged or less-damaged broadsides, which means that they are more able to make their firepower count.  Faster, more agile small ships are better able to accomplish this; and faster, more agile heavy ships better able to prevent it (anyone tried to dance a Brit DD against Pontbriand lately?  Or more to the point, three DDs against two Pontbriands?). Within a type, maneuver advantage goes to those who can better exploit won initiative and minimize effects of lost initiative.  Other than player skill, the only things which affect this are speed and turn mode.
  A third strategy is concentration of fire.  If you nuke one of the other guy's ships several turns before he pops one of yours, you have a window of advantage.  During this time you almost certainly have more firepower, which you can hopefully make count (again, skill is beyond the scope of a ship-measuring system).  It might seem like a points system can't hack this one, but I think it would be best represented by looking at a ship's ability to resist damage and destruction.  The tougher the ship, the less effective the other guy's concentration of fire strat will be.

  There may be other major strats that I am missing besides these three; if there are, someone please tell me.  However, as it is this leaves us with the same three main factors Wundergoat mentioned above (offense/mobility/defense).
  Looking at it this way, though, I feel (and maybe you agree) that mobility and defense really only matter so far as they impact the ability to deliver and maintain offense.  If that is so, then a system which does not acknowledge synergy is doomed to fail.  And by fail I mean utterly-helpless-in-face-of-gamer (like B-Tech's old Combat Value), not moderately-vulnerable-against-minmaxing-munchkin (like BV).

  So:  my suggestions.
  Each ship should have a mobility factor.  This should be a composite of ship type, speed, base EHBT (Enter Hexes Before Turn), number of steering gear pairs, and modified EHBT.  The first and second steering gear pairs should be worth a bit more than the rest, since they add extra capabilities; the third (or later) steering gear only adds damage resistance for the first two and (maybe) affects modified EHBT, which should be handled separately.  Likewise, dropping to zero modified EHBT adds two abilities, so should be worth more than other EHBT decreases.  Modified EHBT should play a larger role in mobility factor than base EHBT, since a ship will tend to spend so much more of its playing time at that turn mode.  There are any number (no pun intended) of ways to achieve this mathematically.  This mobility factor should be a multiplier on the ship's firepower.
  Each ship should also have a durability factor.  While mobility represents both the ability to hit where your opponent is weakest and be hit where you're strongest, durability is being able to simply take hits, and keep shooting.  The durability factor would include BtK number, breach numbers, repair crew, armor, and miss slots, as well as exotic stuff such as screening crew (since it allows a ship to more easily lend durability to a squadron-mate) and chaff.  It seems to me that the breach numbers for guns should be worth somewhat more than the breach numbers for other slots (double?  1.5x?).  I know I always rejoice when an armor slot takes the hit...an argument could be made for tesla coils having the same increase since a hit on one affects the whole ship's effectiveness, but teslas are one thing that is consistently present across all designs so the argument for simplicity with them is pretty strong.  Structural Integrity should be worth more, point-for-point, as it approaches and exceeds 22 (the minimum for a one-breach kill).  This durability factor would also be a multiplier on firepower.  Ideally, these two factors could be added together first to set up one nice painless multiplication.
  Lastly (well, second to lastly), each ship should have a base firepower.  This would be what all of the guns and whatnot are worth before the above multiplier(s).  This would include guns and torpedoes, and since crew is already going to be a multiplier:  surprise!  Crew can potentially be left out of base firepower.  No guarantees, but possibilities look bright.  I like Wundergoat's work with the weapons, pretty insightful.  I don't have enough play experience to speak authoritatively, but in my opinion weapons should be valued somewhat proportionally to where they can shoot (both raw arc of fire and synergy with overlapping arcs), so fore/aft turret highest, then broadside turret, broadside non-turret, and fore/aft non-turret last; and that bracketing fire should be worth slightly more with more eligible partners (to account for battle damage, triples and 3-2s, etc.).  But this degree of granularity (on bracketing) might amount to sandpapering the players....
  Multiply the sum of your durability factor and mobility factor by your base firepower, and poof!  Your final firepower total, or Point Value if you prefer, should represent how much your ship can dish out, how deftly, and for how long.

It seems to me like half of the work for a tough, flexible points system has already bee done by the Catalyst team and people like Wundergoat.  But IMHO, a philosophy shift is in order.

Randall, Worktroll, any of you Catalyst guys if you're reading this, please:  don't make a points system divorced from how the game is played. 
Or any number of people will break that poor defenseless system to pieces, while others simply ignore the points system.

wundergoat

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #68 on: August 25, 2013, 01:19:59 PM »
*stuff*

The major issue with such a system is the complexity.  Variable values for equipment like steering gear or higher value breach numbers for certain slots vastly increase time to calculate and probability for error.  You would need charts to reference for these, especially if they are non-linear.  Then you would need charts (or complicated equations) to take the mobility and durability inputs and convert them to multipliers on firepower.

Once you are done with making the point system, with all the charts and conversions, you have to tune the thing.  With a lot of different factors multiplying together, this becomes a major hurdle.  Ultimately, you are taking the different ship points and comparing the value to actual performance and tuning off of that.  Because this is a complicated wargame, manual assignment of point values is likely to be the most accurate.

A complicated system can theoretically be more accurate.  The question is, is the added complexity worth the improvement in accuracy?

I'd be willing to try to build a factor-based point system, but I want to see the Germans and Italians first in order to get more data points to tune off of.  My main concerns at this point are ships like Wolve and Weisbaden that appear to have substantial interaction with other ships in their fleet.  The Italian torpedo munitions will also require quite a bit of playtesting and theorycrafting.

wundergoat

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #69 on: January 25, 2014, 05:01:43 PM »
Using my revisions, I come up with 88 points for Dupetit-Thoars which puts it slightly above Anfield and La Gloire.  Mobility/Durabilty/Firepower is 18.7/37.8/29.5.  My gut feeling here is that the extra brackets on guns is inflating its firepower.  This might require some changes to the system.

Shoeless

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #70 on: April 15, 2014, 05:41:50 PM »
So after breaking out my boxed set with some friends and playing some games and looking at the beta point system, several things have stood out to me that I felt I should bring up here.

Now first of all, I realize that this is a point assignment system, not a construction system, so I understand that while this system does allow you to give a point value for a Speed 10 Type 4 with nothing but 12 In guns, that may well not be at all something the creation rules will/would allow for (I really, really do hope that you guys at CGL will include full on creation rules at some point, in addition to the stated idea of refit and modification rules for the Engineer's Handbook). However, there are still some issues that seem like they lay entirely within the point system itself rather than potential construction issues.

First, and in my mind the most important, is the value of breach values for sections. This is just... It seems to me like this was designed with Battletech's armor system in mind, where every point of armor on a unit is of equal value; 20 points of armor will always absorb 20 points of incoming fire before being destroyed (baring specialty armors like reflective, etc). With Leviathans however, this is not at all the case. Leviathans works on a Target Number system instead, and therefore higher breach values should definitely be worth more points than lower ones. Basically, I think that if you have a ship with one location with breach values of 12/12/12/12/12/12, then that should be worth a different amount of points than one that has 11/11/11/13/13/13, despite that location's breach value totals being the same (72). Likewise, the number of points it costs to go from 5 Breach Value to 6 should be drastically less than the points you pay to go from 15 to 16. Because of this, I think you would need to value each slot's Breach Value independently from one another, rather than just totaling all the Breach Values for a ship.

Likewise, breach value gained from armor should not be worth as much as the basic Breach Value, as Armor slots can be destroyed and their effects lost. I would imagine this might, in a meta sense, cause folks to design ships with Breach Values high up to a point, after which they insulate it with armor. Of course then you get interesting things like some ships biting the bullet and going for higher breach values to free up the limited commodity that is slots for crew or weapons or equipment like Steering Gear.

I would also think that a ship's location dice would act as a modifier for the ship's breach value points. After all, having 15 Breach Value when you have 2dRed for location (hypothetically) is not doing as as much good as 15 Breach Value with a single dYellow location die. Think of it like Battletech's modifier to armor based on the unit's MP.

Next, I definitely think that weapons should be accounted for with multipliers rather than flat additions to a base value, however it seems that Wundergoat has that well in hand. I think one could make a case for a ship's MP effecting weapon point cost, as a fast ship isn't bothered as much by having short ranged weapons as a big, slow ship is, but I'm not entirely sure how that might be done easily.

Lastly, I'm not entirely sure Miss slots should even be given a point value. It seems to me that their entire point, letting ships escape damage to represent being tiny, is entirely moot most of the time due to bracket fire being so prevalent. Occasionally one will Fire At Will be necessity due to not having anything it can bracket with within arc of fire, but for the most part I've seen bracket fire used almost exclusively when it's possible against ships with miss slots. As well, by making a slot a Miss Slot the ship is denied another weapon or armor slot or crew etc.

Lastly I want to bring up applying the Bracket ability for weapons that cannot bracket. While I understand that later rules may see equipment and optional rules for bracketing between ships, as it stands charging a ship for an ability on its weapons that it presently cannot at all use seems... well, bad. I would put forth the idea that a gun that cannot bracket at all should not pay for that cost. While I have heard a rumor or two about German (or was it Russian?) ships having bracket crew slots that would let two or more ships bracket together, it seems to me that that should be worked as a modifier used solely when a ship with such slots is used. Like C3 in Battletech , if you don't have all the components needed to make it work, you don't pay BV for it. Consider Bracket icons the Slave unit and this potential bracket crew slot the Master; without the Master, you don't pay any extra BV for having the Slave unit. Now, you would of course still pay for a gun being brackettable if it can bracket with another gun on the ship taking arcs of fire into account, but if a ship, like the Hertfordshire, has a 4.7 Inch gun on either side, it simply cannot possibly use their bracket ability without some upcoming rule for bracketing ships together.

That's all I've got, I'm sorry if some of these points have been brought up before but hopefully I've managed to make some good points.

wundergoat

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2014, 12:03:17 AM »
Welcome to the boards!  You've definitely noticed the elephants in the room and the challenges in dealing with them. 

I did a little bit of work on your hypothetical 12/12/12/12/12/12 layout vs 11/11/11/13/13/13.  Functionally, there is a barely noticeable effect with very small caliber guns (2dgreen).  However, I then tested 10/10/10/14/14/14 and the results were much different.  Smaller, unbracketed shots were substantially more likely to cause damage while bracketed attacks and torpedoes were slightly less effective.  Also, as you noted breach numbers do not scale linearly.  +1 is quite an improvement, especially if armor values are good.  In regards to location die, it seems to be that you are pretty safe just subtracting the average slot die result from breach numbers.  I've fiddled with different combinations of die and armor bonuses and for all intents and purposes effective breach numbers are the important factor when determining hit probability.  The problem for a point system is that you would need to use a table of values to assign points to different effective breach numbers AND you would need to calibrate that table to expected incoming attacks.  A lot more dgreen+dblue attacks than dgreen+dblack, and that isn't even factoring in bracket fire!  Another consideration is that not all slots are equally valuable.  For instance, trim tanks have a major effect when damaged but usually are the best protected slots on a ship.  However, on the Destrier CLs, they are exceedingly vulnerable to damage.

You are mostly right that miss slots are essentially filler.  I like to assign them a point value though, since they do drastically reduce the performance of torpedoes and fire-at-will gunnery.

Speed is another tough nut to crack.  By its nature, it has a multiplicative effect on firepower since it makes relatively low range (and therefore low value) guns more effective.  Case in point Pontbriand and Cassiopea.  Besides being incredibly hard to calibrate a point system around, we also have new rules that really mess with what speed means.  Elevation rules allow any unit to 'bank' speed, which helps slower, less agile ships more than faster ones.  Leviathan is surprisingly mobile under the elevation rules.  Fog of war initiative also messes with my changes to the point system since I assigned value to ship type and therefore initiative order.  The new initiative rules pretty much invalidate this thinking.  I think it is possible to account for speed as a multiplier, but it would take a lot of playtesting to get right.  I've been meaning to give it a shot, but unfortunately I don't have the games under my belt to feel confident at even doing a shoddy job here.

The bracket icons on unbracketable guns is a pet peeve of mine too.  As you said, there have been indications of rules coming out to address expanded bracketing, but we are waiting and in the meantime we have a few overpriced guns.  It doesn't make a huge impact, however.

Tonbo Karasu

  • Petty Officer
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
  • Dragonfly Clan Ambassador
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2014, 03:00:06 AM »
Just as a note, there is already one way to fire different-sized guns in a bracket.
The Expert Gunlayer card from the quirks deck does exactly that.

Other than that, wundergoat really has the points rules in his crosshairs, trust what he says.
Karasu



Shoeless

  • Airman
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Determining Points Value Beta Test
« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2014, 11:53:21 AM »
Yes, it definitely seems like a slots effective Breach Value is going to be lower than what it says, because of its location dice. And with most locations having a single die, that makes figuring the average there much more difficult than a bell curve on 2d[whatever]. But yeah, just taking the midline (4.5 for a dYellow, for example) as I've seen you do in another thread, that's probably the best way to go about it. The fact that you really cannot guarantee what guns the enemy will have doesn't make getting a good point value for Breach Values any easier. As you say, it seems the majority of guns in the game are Blue/Green, followed by Yellow/Blue. While not fully accurate and precise, I think it would be acceptable to use Yellow/Blue as the sort of 'default' assumption for enemy firepower, especially when you consider that bracketing does happen, making Blue/Green guns more powerful than a single Yellow/Blue.

Now, for what an actual slot contains, that I think is something that ought to be modified based on the slot's base breach value (the straight up number of the slot minus location dice average, without modifiers for armor) and then again for any armor slots in the location (alternately you could have a big table showing each applicable combination; assuming no more than 4 total Breach from armor per location (as I doubt we'll be seeing ships with armor slots giving a total of 5 or more to a location), go by what the total breach value is for the slot after subtractive location di(c)e average. For a total breach of 10 for example, you'd have a multiplier for the slot's point cost based on whether that 10 is pure Breach Value, or 9 base and +1 from armor, 8 base +2 for armor, etc, with those that benefit from armor having a lower multiplier since armor can be shot off. This would undoubtedly be more complex but more accurate). So for example a Trim Tank's base point value might be 40 (just pulling out a random number). If it has an Effective Breach Value of 12 (let's say with no armor, for simplicity) then its multiplier might be 1.25 (again, just pulling random numbers for example). So its total cost would end up being 50 points. Something that costs 80 points base though, would have a total modified cost of 100 points in the same slot.

As for Miss Slots, you're right, especially concerning Torps. I guess my main issue is that currently they cost the same as if you had just put an Armor +1 slot in there instead, which would A: allow for a hit to be soaked by bracket/saturation fire and B: increase the breach value of all slots in the location. As it stands, with breach values being valued as they are, I can think of very few situations, all of them uncommon, where I would rather have the Miss slot over an Armor +1 slot. More accurate breach value pricing would likely allow for Miss Slots to still cost some points while not being on equal ground, expense-wise.

You're definitely right about speed, but I don't think it should necessarily be valued too highly, since it is of use in a mostly offensive roll. That is to say, getting yourself into range. Also getting out of range of an enemy, true. However, it doesn't matter whether you move 1 hex or 10, if you move at all you use the "Moved" location dice, meaning that total speed should not, I think, have much (if any) bearing on breach values or defensive costs. Speed I think, as it applies as a modifier, should be taken into account for offensive matters such as weapons.