Star Wars Sim Forum: Roleplay, Simming and Fan Fiction
THE GALACTIC ARCHIVES => SWSF Uni Archives => Retired Game Archives => SWSF: OOC Discussion => Topic started by: SWSF Hoppus on July 19, 2017, 03:25:44 PM
-
Hey Guys,
As I have begun to plan my own units out and replace units I've realized that is a bit problematic to combine cost + length.
As the COST of units is based on their strengths (Damage Tolerance, Damage Out put, etc), I think an easier way to handle this is to simple say you can replace units MC for MC.
Bulk Crusier has 2 Z95s & 2 R41s = 120 MC + 138 MC = 258 MC fighters budget
Example 1 - More expensive units
Replacing with Y-Wings, which cost 72 MC per squad (6 MC per fighter).
Math: 258 MC / 6 MC = 43 Y-Wings (five less than total max).
Eample 2 - Less expensive units
Replacing with TIE Fighters, which cost 48 MC (4 MC per fighter).
Math: 258 MC / 4 MC = 64 TIE Fighters (an extra 16 fighters).
I think this makes a better dynamic? Lets you use cheap TIEs in more plentiful numbers? Prevents abuse still? Agreed?
-
I tend to agree. Basically in my mind these ships are massive so as long as you weren't replacing a 5 meter ship with a 50 meter ship it really wouldn't make sense to me to be too crazy.
-
I tend to agree. Basically in my mind these ships are massive so as long as you weren't replacing a 5 meter ship with a 50 meter ship it really wouldn't make sense to me to be too crazy.
Right, and pricing takes size into account, so, really, that scenario shouldn't happen anyway. I think it will be hard to abuse.
-
Ok this is the rule of the land now. Rules updated. Thanks.
-
I guess I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I think it'd be easier to just say the number of squadrons have to stay the same.
This.
I guess cost works, but same #s just seems simpler and with less possibility for conflict/weird things.
Agh, sorry Ranes, accidentally modded post instead of reply. Newbs! :-[
Cleaned up to reflect theme! apologies! - Eid
-
Its either same number of squads no limits or mc limit. I like mc limit, it captures most scenarios. A ship that carries a squad of ties in racks wont fit twelve xwings, which are more than teice the size.. the mc method captures the nuance well enough.
-
I'm still open to changing this, depending on what people think.
1) MC limit - whatever is default = total MC spend allowed on unit type (current rules)
2) Unit for unit as long as they are same type. Size, cost, etc don't matter. In other words, you can put 6 B-Wing Squads on an ISD-I or 6 TIE Fighter squads. You can use all ATAT or all Speederbikes, so long as count is not exceeded.
If we went #2 route, I would make units *not* included on capital ships/facilities as a balance. You just build what you want, end of story.
Thoughts? I want to get this resolved, and I would like the best solution for the game - maybe its not mine! - so I'll listen to any arguments/votes/passionate rhetoric one way or another.
Ideally its something simple and fair. I dont think GAVs have MASSIVE difference, so dont care much if ATATs replace Speeder Bikes, so long people are paying the difference :P Starfighters, is another matter, but still, so long as you pay the difference... If you really want ot use TIE Advanced and B-Wings for every fighter unit, the cost will probably catch up to you if you lose a lot of fighters anyway.
What do you think!
This is the last issue, after we resolve this, we lock it down.
One other wrinkle, if we dont include units with a capital ship, then I believe we need to adjust the algo to give emphasis on firepower/damage tolerance and less on what it can carry. Probably would lower overall cost of ships as well... basically, ANOTHER PRICE CHANGE :P **kills self**
-
How about this so as not to go nuts with price changes.
For the starting units the price gets you those units. If anyone has seen Ranes spreadsheet for his bank he did a good job of "remove X" "replace Y". For all starting units that's how we go.
After the starting units then we can say anything on standard HAS to be built to be added. Want B-Wings? Build them. Then either scrap the X-Wings or maybe someone creates a new mothball depot tech or something.
-
How about this so as not to go nuts with price changes.
For the starting units the price gets you those units. If anyone has seen Ranes spreadsheet for his bank he did a good job of "remove X" "replace Y". For all starting units that's how we go.
After the starting units then we can say anything on standard HAS to be built to be added. Want B-Wings? Build them. Then either scrap the X-Wings or maybe someone creates a new mothball depot tech or something.
I've played with the spreadsheet and formula and actually am leaning this way now (ha!) as prices reflect unit value much better, IMO.
-
Option 3:
Change all specs to generic listings "X (Unit Type)."
Default for Imperial is TIE Fighter.
Default for everyone else is Z-95 Headhunter.
Default GAVs are Speeder Bikes.
Default AUX are Lambda Shuttles.
Default INF are (Faction) Infantry.
Faction leaders pay difference in cost to upgrade accordingly.
Length is disregarded.
Cannot exceed max number allowed.
-
Hales idea seems like a lot of work
Either of the first two options is fine by me
If I had to vote I'll go with size
If you pick MC I will never buy a VSD :p
-
I get where you're coming from as far as wanting to use some unit of measure for replacements.
If size is our justification, then we should use ship length. I don't like using the cost because pretty much any ship you're going to want to upgrade to is going to cost more. A TIE is 7m and costs 48MC. A TIE Interceptor is 7m and costs 54MC. Why shouldn't you be able to do a 1 for 1 replacement here? With length, you can, with MC, you can't. If we want to go for some realism there, then I think we should stick to length.
That said, at some point we shoot ourselves in the foot for realism vs simplicity. I absolutely agree that it makes sense and is more realistic to have some sort of comparative measure for replacements. But, at the same time, that adds a rather significant level of complexity, too. Is that complexity worth it? I lean towards no. If you're really concerned about it, then I would propose to classify fighters into 3 groups. Light, Standard, Heavy, then use the table below. A TIE would be light, an x-wing standard, and a b-wing heavy, for example. Say, <=10m is light, >10 to <=16 is standard, and >16 is heavy.
| | Light | Standard | Heavy |
| Light | 1:1 | 2:1 | 3:1 |
| Medium | 1:2 | 1:1 | 1:2 |
| Heavy | 1:3 | 1:2 | 1:1 |
So, within class it's a 1:1 for squadrons. Moving up a class means you can fit an additional squadron. Moving down a class means you can fit half the squadrons. If you're worried about swarm tactics/too many fighters then make it a one way conversion by saying you can never have more total squadrons than you start with, like AUX are now (and we probably should have that, even though it reduces options).
Using the VSD as an example: The VSD gets 2 TIE squadrons (a light squadron), so a VSD could carry 2 TIE, 2 TIE/I, 2 IRD/A, or 2 A-Wing squadrons. OR, 1 TIE/A, 1 TIE B, 1 Z-95, 1 CloakShape, 1 R-41, 1 Hornet, 1 X-Wing or 1 Y-wing squadron. OR 1/2 B-Wing squadron.
The DRED would look the same (starting with 1 standard sized squadron), unless you want the rule of no more than the starting squadron count. In which case, it can have 1 of any light or medium squadron and 1/2 of any heavy.
The Venator starts with 5 Standards, so you could do something like this as an upgrade: 2 IRD/A Squadrons (1:2), 2 CloakShape (1:1 exchange), and 1 B-Wing (2:1). Still 5 squadrons, still basically the same amount of space accounted for.
This approach gives us some level of realism while significantly reducing the number of calculations that need to go into it. I would say with this approach that you keep the starting squadrons as is and we pay the difference for replacements. It also means that ships don't need to be re-priced again.
TL;DR: 3 Sizes of Fighters. 1:1 replacement within sizes, 1:2 / 2:1 between adjacent sizes, and 1:3 / 3:1 between the others. Limit of same number of squadrons as started with. Upgrade cost is replacement fighter cost - base squadron value at build time. Sizes are <=10m is light, >10 to <=16 is standard, and >16 is heavy.
P.S./Side Note: I'll start another thread to discuss mothballing.
-
Not that I took it personally, but I don't think my method is a lot of work. In fact I think it's the simplest of all.
If the ISD comes with 6 TIE Fighter Squadrons and you want an-all TIE Interceptor load out, you pay the difference in production costs.
TIE Interceptor (54 MC) - TIE Fighter (48 MC) = 6 MC difference per squadron.
6 MC x 6 TIE Interceptor (Upgrade Squadrons) = 36 MC.
Done.
-
Some good ideas here. I will post again later once I've had time to think on them more. Thank you!
-
Not that I took it personally, but I don't think my method is a lot of work. In fact I think it's the simplest of all.
If the ISD comes with 6 TIE Fighter Squadrons and you want an-all TIE Interceptor load out, you pay the difference in production costs.
TIE Interceptor (54 MC) - TIE Fighter (48 MC) = 6 MC difference per squadron.
6 MC x 6 TIE Interceptor (Upgrade Squadrons) = 36 MC.
Done.
It's simple, yep. It's basically what we had, minus the length restriction and with all units being base units instead of defined in the stats as they are.
-
My Thoughts
With the goal of trying to balance simplicity with fairness, I think this is what is best:
Prices will be updated with a new algo that weighs DT and Damage Output more heavily, and capacity to carry other units less so. Prices will also be dropped slightly overall. On the flip side, a ship/facility will get generic capacities listed (4 SF Squads, 20 GAVs, etc) and come with NO onboard units when built.
That means you are free to put whatever units of whatever size on your ships, if you can afford them.
From past experience, especially as an NR player, the cost of expensive SF and Aux units catches up to you, since they are small and suffer high losses. So eventually the game should balance itself out a bit. Also, with a few exceptions, there aren't MASSIVE differences that aren't also accounted for heavily in cost (TIE F vs B/W prices for example). And for GAVs, theres even less of a concern in my mind. Again, prices for similarly powered units are similar enough that I'm not too worried about abuse here.
More to come soon.
-
Every time I get my prices right....... lol
I actually printed out the specs so I could more easily work with them. Silly me!
-
Every time I get my prices right....... lol
I actually printed out the specs so I could more easily work with them. Silly me!
Sorry, trust me I feel the same pain!
The other route is to just keep prices, keep defaults, and you just build what you want to swap and store what you dont use? Would people prefer that?
-
I am good with either option. I prefer whatever is easiest for everyone involved. :)
-
SSD 8000
ISD2 1879
ISD 1641
VSD2 968
VSD 898
STRIKE 451
CARRACK 296
ISG 385
MC80 Home One 1416
MC80b 1302
MC80a 1244
MC75 970
RAF 532
GR75 68
TIE 21
TIE Int 33
XW 51
BW 66
Standard Inf 7
ATAT 3.5
ATST 2
Heavy Und Hangar 1193
Some examples of prices under new scheme ( no onboard units included)
-
The focus of the game is strategy ... not equality. The SW universe is not equal. I wouldn't spend much more effort on tweaking damage points and cost. I do not think these micro changes will have much significance for game play ... especially for game enjoyment.
-
The focus of the game is strategy ... not equality. The SW universe is not equal. I wouldn't spend much more effort on tweaking damage points and cost. I do not think these micro changes will have much significance for game play ... especially for game enjoyment.
My experience is just the oppoiste. When prices and value are not well balanced, then one sim gets an advantage on the battlefield and it inevitably ruins the game (LotF being a prime example here. The cost of Reb SFs were so high it literally crippled the NR while the ISDs adn VSDs of the Empire destroyed everything).
-
In the words of Yoda: a game's strength flows from the specs.
-
SSD 8000
ISD2 1879
ISD 1641
VSD2 968
VSD 898
STRIKE 451
CARRACK 296
ISG 385
MC80 Home One 1416
MC80b 1302
MC80a 1244
MC75 970
RAF 532
GR75 68
TIE 21
TIE Int 33
XW 51
BW 66
Standard Inf 7
ATAT 3.5
ATST 2
Heavy Und Hangar 1193
Some examples of prices under new scheme ( no onboard units included)
Mmmmm I see some nice ideas formulating.....maybe
-
SSD 8000
ISD2 1879
ISD 1641
VSD2 968
VSD 898
STRIKE 451
CARRACK 296
ISG 385
MC80 Home One 1416
MC80b 1302
MC80a 1244
MC75 970
RAF 532
GR75 68
TIE 21
TIE Int 33
XW 51
BW 66
Standard Inf 7
ATAT 3.5
ATST 2
Heavy Und Hangar 1193
Some examples of prices under new scheme ( no onboard units included)
The formula weighs things thus:
Damage Tolerance (50%)
Mandatory Damage Output (25%)
Total Damage Output (20%)
SF Capacity (including Auxiliary Units) (2%)
Vehicle Capacity (1.5%)
Troop Capacity (1.5%)
-
So, just so myself and others don't possibly waste time. Is another price change coming or.....?
-
So, just so myself and others don't possibly waste time. Is another price change coming or.....?
Yes. Will get it up ASAP.
-
Danke!
-
Decision:
1. No onboard units included and prices will be lowered across the board.
2. Onboard capacity will be generic (50 Vehicles, 10,000 Troops, 72 Starfighters, 24 Auxiliary)
3. If you can build it, you can fit it on your ship. 1:1 swap, type for type.
-
Bold flavors!
-
For no onboard units, since the ISD specifically lists Pre-Fab is that included in the "no onboard" or..? Just want to make sure I budget the right way! :)
-
So if I buy a ship with 4 fighter squadron and 1000 troops .....
I also need to specify the troop and squadron type and factor both of those into the cost.
So if a ship costs 1000 I might be adding in another 200 MC for fighters and 200 MC for troops. I notice some ships list vehicles. I assume those specific vehicles are included with the ship price.
Thanks for the confirmation
-
For no onboard units, since the ISD specifically lists Pre-Fab is that included in the "no onboard" or..? Just want to make sure I budget the right way! :)
Yes, will need clarification on this to crunch my numbers, too.
-
So if I buy a ship with 4 fighter squadron and 1000 troops .....
I also need to specify the troop and squadron type and factor both of those into the cost.
So if a ship costs 1000 I might be adding in another 200 MC for fighters and 200 MC for troops. I notice some ships list vehicles. I assume those specific vehicles are included with the ship price.
Thanks for the confirmation
Yes. Examples are available in the basic costing spreadsheet I've been updating in the sample fleets: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oKZsUV2FfQUkwrhZbl6q5Lw9seN4GuBAVDK9A8CRPLM/edit?usp=sharing
The tab labeled with today's date is the latest costs under the current rules. Scroll right to see all the variations (3 Imperial, 2 Rebel, 4 Independent).
-
So if I buy a ship with 4 fighter squadron and 1000 troops .....
I also need to specify the troop and squadron type and factor both of those into the cost.
So if a ship costs 1000 I might be adding in another 200 MC for fighters and 200 MC for troops. I notice some ships list vehicles. I assume those specific vehicles are included with the ship price.
Thanks for the confirmation
No units included just mistakes in specs
I will fix today