Have points costs for ships.

[DrSeltsam]

Under the present system, very much so - but if you were to try and apply arbitrary costs to the systems on the ships, then I think you'd find that the Shantavi would come out cheaper (simply by virtue of the total no. and type of AD it can put out against an opponent - since AD and weapon types is the only variable between the ships).

Now, you have to think - if you equate points to PL, at the present time the ships cost the same. In a points system, with nothing changing, I doubt that /any/ of the hull variants in the game would come out at the same cost. Which is somewhat annoying... especially when many of the variants have overlapping roles, or no clearly different role at all.

I like the PL system far more than I like points systems. Personally I think it can stay, but it requires a more balanced view within fleets, at the equivalent PL, as to what you're getting for the points you put down.

Im totally with you on the "PL raid = x pts".
This would change nothing at all. But i believe that the only way to balance the PL system is to redesign all ships. Im not sure if this is the best way ... sometimes it is better to let-go of the current and restart from scrap.

Why don't use this oppertunity to implement something new ?
Or do you see any other alternative ?

 

[LordClinto]

I just want to say I personally don't like point systems. After playing 40k & fantasy for 11 years and BFG for a mercifully short 2 years I really enjoy the PL system. Yes it has flaws, all systems do.

Can someone suggest a good way to fix this unique(?) system instead of adopting the common points system?

My 2 cents.


additionally:

For beam weapons the point cost should considered to be higher because there is no defensive system to reduced its effect.

What about GEG? As far as I know that works on everything, except crits.

I think Drakh fleets (and Adiras) would be tremedously expensive points-wise due to GEG.

 

[frobisher]

OK I have one particularly valid point here.

If Mongoose cannot get a decent balance from only 5 Priority levels (at release) how in the blue hell does anyone expect them to get a points system right?!

The obvious answer is they need more granularity which isn't the one you were looking for is it..?

 

[Alexb83]

Im totally with you on the "PL raid = x pts".
This would change nothing at all. But i believe that the only way to balance the PL system is to redesign all ships. Im not sure if this is the best way ... sometimes it is better to let-go of the current and restart from scrap.

Why don't use this oppertunity to implement something new ?
Or do you see any other alternative ?

Simply? The way in which ships are put into their PLs needs to be reviewed. I don't know how it currently works, but at MoW Matt gave the impression that they think up an idea and try and build a ship around it. Then they playtest it against likely opponents and tweak it until it 'feels right'. But I heard nothing mentioned about how they level it against its PL peers within its own fleet.
The x options in every PL in every fleet should all offer something unique, whilst at the same time none of them should be a 'lemon' (i.e. all should, if worked out using an arbitrary points system, have equal points values). Currently I don't think this is true in the slightest - there are specialist ships, and then there are ships which you should never choose, and ships which you would /always/ choose.

 

[Epaminondas]

As a person who runs alot of campaigns, and wants to give the players complete freedom to build ships based on resources, and fight with what they want to fight with, priority is hell.

First off, the resource to ship cost figures are out of whack- they to heavily discount the higher priority ships.

Second, sticking all the ships in priority levels is to confining. Why would anyone take a primus over a tertius in a campaign? It makes no sense in priority level games... but in a points buy system, the Tertius would cost a significant amount more then the primus.

Lastly, the complaint some have over points being hard to manage- try using army builder or a spreadsheet. If the system is well balanced (battletech, flames of war) the choices are tough not because there are obvious choices, but you have a candy store of choices.

Priority level puts people in straight jackets of highly effective ships and gimp ships... with the gimps not being fielded by anyone. Command Hyperions and Omegas anyone?

A rationally designed ship construction system resulting in a points buy would be a huge improvement in the current system.

 

[DrSeltsam]

I just want to say I personally don't like point systems. After playing 40k & fantasy for 11 years and BFG for a mercifully short 2 years I really enjoy the PL system. Yes it has flaws, all systems do.

Can someone suggest a good way to fix this unique(?) system instead of adopting the common points system?

My 2 cents.


additionally:

For beam weapons the point cost should considered to be higher because there is no defensive system to reduced its effect.

What about GEG? As far as I know that works on everything, except crits.

I think Drakh fleets (and Adiras) would be tremedously expensive points-wise due to GEG.

Considering the systems you mention ( all GW ) im sorry to tell you that you are completly correct in this example :!:
Tried 40k (what a waste of time+money) , i still play WFB (only because of the big player base in our region) and i will not even coment on Gothic here ... i can't remember any GW system that was balanced more than 3 months (next army book) or not broken from the start. They officially confirmed that they do not use a proper point-base system. They look at the stats of a model and decide the point value "what feels right" - so far for the GW play testing and balance issue. This will never work !

Maybe you should consider to try and give some other companies and their systems a chance. Take a look at Infinity ( http://www.infinitythegame.com ) for example. Small company, nice modells, good rules.

GEG, Dodge and Adaptive Armour are defensive systems that help against anything and everyone ( even explosions ... ) so why shouldn't the cost a lot ?

To compensate the high cost you can reduce it by less weapons / less speed / less turns / ... If the current PL system is balanced this would not change much. Otherwise some ships would change slightly to "Fit into their PL level" more.

 

[Locutus9956]

As a person who runs alot of campaigns, and wants to give the players complete freedom to build ships based on resources, and fight with what they want to fight with, priority is hell.

First off, the resource to ship cost figures are out of whack- they to heavily discount the higher priority ships.

Second, sticking all the ships in priority levels is to confining. Why would anyone take a primus over a tertius in a campaign? It makes no sense in priority level games... but in a points buy system, the Tertius would cost a significant amount more then the primus.

Lastly, the complaint some have over points being hard to manage- try using army builder or a spreadsheet. If the system is well balanced (battletech, flames of war) the choices are tough not because there are obvious choices, but you have a candy store of choices.

Priority level puts people in straight jackets of highly effective ships and gimp ships... with the gimps not being fielded by anyone. Command Hyperions and Omegas anyone?

A rationally designed ship construction system resulting in a points buy would be a huge improvement in the current system.

Ok I personally think the PL system has its issues but some of those points are just plain wrong:

1) Resource costs. Have you tried playing a full campaign? It may look like big ships get discounted but they also DIE alot more than smaller less tempting targets as people focus on them. On top of this they have much higher costs to actually maintain as you generally need to repair far more damage/crew loss etc even if they dont actually go down.

2) Yes its confining but I disagree with your example, sure the Tertius is arguably better (though I would only stretch to SLIGHTLY better). Heres a situation Id use a Primus over a Tertius by the way: Fighting EA. The Tertius has more firepower but alot of it is interceptable. The Primus has more BEAM power. The Primus also carries more fighters which are VERY handy for fighting off nasty things like T-Bolts.... There are problems within PLs and generally speaking it WOULD be better imho if you have Priums 1200 pts, Tertius 1300pts or something like that but it's not THAT bad at the moment.

3) OK now this is the one point I will agree with you wholeheartedly. If you prefer PL to points fair enough. But if your only objection to a point system is that your tiny humanoid meat brain cannot cope with the immensly complex task of ADDING A FEW NUMBERS TOGETHER!!!! :shock: then you probably should try another game. Snakes and ladders for example.

so, overall, I would prefer a point system but the PL system isnt the horrifically unbalanced mess some people would have you believe.

Oh and also to whoever it was earlier, what, pray, is wrong with BFG? It's one of the best games GW ever made and still good today. And ACTA is so similar to it in so many ways that to say you like ACTA but hate BFG seems a little odd.... I personally prefer ACTA to it but only because of the B5 theme. I actually find the BFG system rather more elegant and balanced for the most part...

 

[frobisher]

There is of course a hybrid system between the two (for those who just want to more accurately balance a game).

The ships don't change in the slightest, they still have their PL. However, (and for the sake of argument, arbitrarily) each "point" at that level is worth 10 balance points.

Some ships would be worth the full 10 - the "correctly" balanced ones, and some would not - say worth 7 or 8, and there would be some absolute crackers that would be worth 12. So if you had 5 Raid "points" worth to buy, that would give you 50 balance points of purchases at that level (and that level only - balance points only trade up or down in 10 point packets).

How does this help? You can actually buy more hulls for your buck of the "crap" ships so instead of getting just five Raid selections, you could actually buy five "8 pointers" and one "10 pointer".

And best of all it would be an easy optional rule to append...

 

[TenaciousB]

Locutus, me and you seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet today!!!! :lol:

For those who say it's too complicated to use points systems, hand back your GCSE maths certificate with shame :lol:

Jesting aside, a points system would get rid of that god-awful PL breakdown stuff - makes no sense and limits the hell outta ship selection.

Viva la Points over PL!!!!! 8)

 

[DrSeltsam]

There is of course a hybrid system between the two (for those who just want to more accurately balance a game).

The ships don't change in the slightest, they still have their PL. However, (and for the sake of argument, arbitrarily) each "point" at that level is worth 10 balance points.

Some ships would be worth the full 10 - the "correctly" balanced ones, and some would not - say worth 7 or 8, and there would be some absolute crackers that would be worth 12. So if you had 5 Raid "points" worth to buy, that would give you 50 balance points of purchases at that level (and that level only - balance points only trade up or down in 10 point packets).

How does this help? You can actually buy more hulls for your buck of the "crap" ships so instead of getting just five Raid selections, you could actually buy five "8 pointers" and one "10 pointer".

And best of all it would be an easy optional rule to append...

This may be worth a try ...

Im not sure if it would be useable with the current split-process for FAP ... to be true im not sure if it would be useable with any split-process at all. How would you suggest to make Raid-Skirmish-Patrol break-down ?
I still think that the PL-break-down system only adds more inbalance ( as some fleets get even more ships this way that are "slightly over the top for their PL" ).

I believe that the fast-fleet-build/not-very-detailed PL system can not be combined with a slow-fleet-build/more-detailed point system without loosing the original benefit of each system. Why create a Frankenstein ?

Regarding the fast-fleet-build argument. I would like to say it is currently so fast because you do not have much of a choice regarding your fleet. This is not an advantage if you ask me ...

But I still welcome your idea !
If it is a possible way to get a little more balance - i'll buy it
Maybe you can test it or we can discuss it here constructionally.

Thank you !

 

[LordClinto]

Oh and also to whoever it was earlier, what, pray, is wrong with BFG? It's one of the best games GW ever made and still good today. And ACTA is so similar to it in so many ways that to say you like ACTA but hate BFG seems a little odd.... I personally prefer ACTA to it but only because of the B5 theme. I actually find the BFG system rather more elegant and balanced for the most part...

I realize that BFG is on a totally different time scale (according to the novels at least). Where a game turn that takes 15-45min to play is equal to about 1/2 hour 40k time (moving, firing, waiting to see if the weapon hits & having 300+ press-gangers reload your weapons). While ACTA is more of an edge of your seat kind of game (according to the series).

But my biggest beef with BFG was the stupid firing table, whatever it was called. Example: You have a weapon with a value of 2 firing at a ship, depending on what direction it is moving & if I remember correctly how far away it was, it either rolls 1 die to hit or 0 dice. Same ship with a weapon value of 16 firing at the same ship, again depending on what direction it was moving & how far away it was, would roll something like 2 dice, 4 dice... up to like 10 dice; never the full value of the weapon.

Additionally all torpedoes (other then eldar) were basically dead-fire, and used to make the opponents ship move rather then do damage. Only in rare, short range, or shooting at a non-moving ship would the ever really hit. (I know the Imperium is technologically deficient but if Subs from WW2 could track other ships they should be able to also).

ACTA: your weapon has a value of 4AD, you roll 4d6, if it had 16AD you roll 16d6.

Sorry to rant!

 

[katadder]

locutus, you do realise the tertius and primus have the same beam, which is why most people have a problem with it.
only time anyone sues a primus is if ISDs are used.

 

[Greg Smith]

GEG, Dodge and Adaptive Armour are defensive systems that help against anything and everyone ( even explosions ... ) so why shouldn't the cost a lot ?

GEG works less well gainst Precise weapons.

Dodge doiesn't work against anti-fighter wepaons. If you are playing against Shadow scouts then your dodge is useless and therefore over priced.

Frobisher's suggestion is more workable. If we were to go to a points system, it would be better to cost ships rather than base a point system on individual components, since individual components can be of varying use depending on the opposition.

Scout is another item of varying use: invaluable against the Minbari, of little use against anything with low hulls and no stealth.

 

[frobisher]

Im not sure if it would be useable with the current split-process for FAP ... to be true im not sure if it would be useable with any split-process at all. How would you suggest to make Raid-Skirmish-Patrol break-down ?

Exactly as it is at the moment pretty much, only each PL point at each PL gets you (say) 10 balance points at that PL. You can only trade up or down a full PL point (i.e. 10 balance points) as you can at the moment, mainly to keep it simple. If you're trading fractional points you might as well have a full blown points system and forget the PL completely.

You should be aiming to stay within "budget" at each PL. You could award positive victory points for shortfalls within PLs, and negatives for being overdrawn (scaled to the PL that is short/over...). I'd also enforce that you mustn't be over budget over all. I.E. the number of PLs that are over budget must be equal or less than the number of PLs that are under budget.

Also, the "budget" at each PL couldn't be over or under by more than, say 10%.

So if you only have 1 War PL point, the most you can spend with War balance points would be 11 and the least you could spend would be 9.

Similarly if you've allocated 4 Patrol PL points then your range would be 36 - 44 balance points.

I still think that the PL-break-down system only adds more inbalance ( as some fleets get even more ships this way that are "slightly over the top for their PL" ).

This would potentially knock that on the head. If they're over the top, they won't cost 10 points, they'll probably cost 12. If it's too good for its PL, you'll not be able to buy your normal allowance, you'll have to trade off against some of the units that aren't as good for the PL.

I believe that the fast-fleet-build/not-very-detailed PL system can not be combined with a slow-fleet-build/more-detailed point system without loosing the original benefit of each system. Why create a Frankenstein ?

Regarding the fast-fleet-build argument. I would like to say it is currently so fast because you do not have much of a choice regarding your fleet. This is not an advantage if you ask me ...

But I still welcome your idea !
If it is a possible way to get a little more balance - i'll buy it
Maybe you can test it or we can discuss it here constructionally.

I'm not a ACtA player (just an interested observer...), so I'll not be able to test it, but I'm certainly willing to discuss it. You'll note that I'm ACtA rules lite in my examples above - I know the shape of the rules but can't remember the specifics (ie the PL breakdown) as I don't have the rules to hand here in work.

As a first pass, we really just need to get a list of the ships at each PL ranked (by consenus - and its whole can of worms...) and work out which ships are "spot on" and the spread to apply.

 

[frobisher]

Almost forgot, and this is the most important thing for the system.

Each ship would be listed as something like War [10] or Patrol [8] or Raid [12] indicating a perfectly sound War selcetion, a slightly naff Patrol selection and a damn good Raid selection respectively (or whatever the points actually worked out to be).

The balance points are only valid at that PL and that PL only.

[Edit to stop the examples showing up as smilies...]

 

[Kadorak]

Without going down the whole thing, I think the #1 reason to oppose a *STRICT* priority level system is inflexibility. It's difficult to have ships with any variety or 'fluff' ships that would be taken reasonably with a strict PL system with only 2:1 ratios. Every ship HAS to be twice as good, just as good, or half as good (or quadruple, or 1/4th, etc...) as a 'baseline' ship of a certain PL or its over/under powered. That makes the fleets look very unrealistic and leads to some silly situations on 'advancing technology' in particular - Armageddon PL is fine, some people might build REALLY BIG doomsday ships, but if I were building a replacement for my Battle PL mainline warship with only 10 years of technology difference, I'd upgrade it but have it be about 25% better...not TWICE as good and seemingly much larger.

Same problem applies to command variants etc. - they're either overpowered for the base ship's priority level, or very much underpowered for the priority level above it. Or ridiculously overgunned compared to the base hull - if you could stick 2x the weaponry and improve the hull durability of a ship, without compromising living conditions (don't want the admiral to be uncomfortable) or range of operation (has to keep up with the ships it's supposed to 'command') then WTF were you doing with the original hull? This isn't science and 'well it's unrealistic', this is common sense ship construction - B5W, SFB, etc. at least sortof obey it, ACTA doesn't.

I think PL is fine if it's a more slowly graded PL system or one with ships that are "Raid +" and "Raid -" ... but then is that very different from points? Might as well go points system.

 

[Lawdog1700]

OK I have one particularly valid point here.

If Mongoose cannot get a decent balance from only 5 Priority levels (at release) how in the blue hell does anyone expect them to get a points system right?!

Now this is a valid point. I think that a points system would be great....done in the classic Battletech style with each system...each arc of fire...each speed value of a ship being pointed the same. However, the game would lose some of its simple charm if we did that.

 

[Slightly Norse John]

It's not hard to use a points system; it's hard to create one.

My seventh or eighth post here- mercifully purged- attempted something like that; but it tried to take the synergy of ship systems into account.

I costed a ship outward from it's weapon load; each dice fell into a category, 1-5 from subaverage or negative qualities class 1 up to ubermegazapofdoom cat 5, which was also their base cost. Multiplier modifiers for range and arc based on the weapon system.

For synergy's sake- you're more likely to get the shot you want on a fast than a slow ship, yes I reckon manoeuvrability does matter, and a ship that can last twice as long is going to keep it's weapons in action twice as long- I basically multiplied outwards by a cost factor, proportional to the value of the stat or trait. So, yes, there were multipliers piled on multipliers- we're talking things like 0.6 to 1.3 here, but it still pyramids up.

Basically, the results bore no resemblance whatever to the PL value of the craft. Special trait dependent ships like WS were stunningly poor value, and I think a Hyperion worked out at 278 and 1/2 points, from all the light all round dice, and an Apollo weighed in at 112 with it's smaller number of heavier weapons.

The real catch is, any cost system is going to establish it's own economic logic as to what ships are more or less value for points, and change the balance of the game accordingly. If I'd gone ahead with my idea and tried to build ships on it, they would have been very different to ACtA standard.
This is after you set the relative values of each trait and component, of course.

 

[Mr_Punch]

Ahem,
Just to remind people (and introduce newbies), I did up a series of points conversions for ACTA about six months ago.

The ships are converted to match their B5W original stats, and their points are based off those. As such this system allows quick and easy conversion of other races (for example the Hyach, below)

The lot:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~mrpunch/Babylon5/B5W/#AACTAPoints

Individual Races:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~mrpunch/Babylon5/B5W/ACTA-Points-EA.pdf
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~mrpunch/Babylon5/B5W/ACTA-Points-Minbari.pdf
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~mrpunch/Babylon5/B5W/ACTA-Points-Dilgar.pdf
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~mrpunch/Babylon5/B5W/ACTA-Points-Narn.pdf
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~mrpunch/Babylon5/B5W/ACTA-Points-Hyach.pdf

Standard rules all apply to the ships (with the exception that Masters of Destruction does NOT apply to these Dilgar).

Playtest reports on the level of balance present would be more than welcome. :wink:

john

 

[Reaverman]

Without going down the whole thing, I think the #1 reason to oppose a *STRICT* priority level system is inflexibility. It's difficult to have ships with any variety or 'fluff'

Surely you mean;

:twisted: