Ship Design Formula !

[Ships_Captain]

Could someone here kindly point me in the right direction for a ship design formula. Something that will help me to create my own ships so they are balanced to other ships in the game as well as other ships I may design.....if such a formula exists.

Thanks.

 

[Da Boss]

Ah sorry, but no such formula exists - the only way I find is to :

Look at ships of a smilar power level and abilities and try to balance it taking into account racial abilities/ styles / concepts.

playtest it and see what happens.

if you like, stick them on the forum here or at

http://babylon-5-acta.forumotion.net/forum.htm

and ask us for opinions

good luck and have fun!

 

[Burger]

Here is how they're generated...

Seriously, there is no formula. The best way to make a balanced ship is to start with an existing one that has similar stats to what you're trying to build. There are lots of ships out there so you should be able to find one fairly similar of the correct PL, use your favourite ship viewer to browse through them. Try to find one whose non-weapon stats closely resemble your new ship's, such as the traits, speed and turns. Weapons can easily be modified later. Then modify your stats one by one, remember that what you giveth you must also taketh away, for example if you give it 3AD extra, take away secondary weapons or take away double damage.

When you've finished you should be able to compare it to the sghip you based it on: for example, "my Green Star is like a White Star with 10AD secondary weapons but no primary, 20 damage/crew but no adaptive armour, and 3 Nials but only 1/90 turns".

 

[Alexb83]

Unfortunately, it's very much thumb in the air. I attempted to start on a formula, but ultimately got a bit bored...

For weapons, basically split out Range and AD, then consider traits.

Cost is equal to:

2 per AD for normal
3 per AD for MB
4 per AD for B
4 per AD for E-M
1,2,3 per AD for DD, TD, QD
-1 per AD for SL
-2 per AD for 1-shot!
-1 per AD for Bore
1 per AD for Turret
1 per AD for precise
-1 per AD for weak
1 per AD for TL

Add it all up, then multiply by the range/10 for cost, round to the nearest no. Examples: Transport 2 AD beam (at 24 inches not 18 ) would cost 29pts. VHC lightning gun 144pts, Omega boresight 6AD beam 72pts

 

[Alexb83]

It quickly becomes apparent how convluted the process is to start off with :S

Example:

Hull cost is equal to no. of boxes multiplied by the threshold to the nearest 5%, all multiplied by the hull value (and rounded to the nearest integer). So for instance the hull of an Omega would cost 230pts.

Crew cost is equal to the no. of boxes multiplied by the threshold to the nearest 5% only (and rounded to the nearest whole no.) - ancients are assumed to have a crew equal to their hull score divided by their hull value.

Turns cost 10 for 1/45, 20 for 2/45, 15 for 1/90 and 30 for 2/90

Speed costs 10 per inch.

Interceptors cost 5 per point.

Anti-fighter 5 per point.

Adv. anti fighter 7 per point.

And so on and so on... you need to be a bit arbitrary, and I'm sure there can be much arguing over what's worth what, but still. It's somewhere to start.

 

[Triggy]

There have been a few attempts to quantify ships and although this thread is going back to just before 2nd ed., there is some pretty good discussion of the sorts of lists that can be produced from calculating values of ships:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26657&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

A very brief intro to my method is in this thread:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3361

I'm on holiday at the moment and thought it might be fun to update the numbers for 2nd ed. We'll see how far I get

 

[Alexb83]

I do remember Triggy's scheme - but I can't remember how he came to the numbers at all.

The difficulty in creating numerical values for anything in ACTA is that you have traits on top of traits on top of range, arcs, etc. etc.

But if you come up with a robust methodology for costing the hull of a ship & the crew, then the traits on the hull, and /then/ look at the weapons - yes, you can end up with most ships costing 'big points' (the weapons alone get quite expensive, and most ships have lots of them in each arc - far more expensive than the hull, normally). Still - if you are methodical and consistent, you should end up with an effective 'you pay for what you get' system, which also happens to be 'you get what you pay for'.

Ideally, IMO /everything/ needs point costing. From every individual fighter flight upwards - and you can do that, if you have a system that costs hull and weapons and traits, for any ship from a '1 hull box fighter with 1 AD gun at 2 inches of range' to a Ka'bin'tak.
Flights included in ships should add their cost to that ship - there should be no double discounting or 'that looks about right' "balancing".

 

[Triggy]

Alex - agreed in principle although obviously some things are going to be way more important to cost than others. Also agreed that fighters, etc. add on cost to the parent ship at about what they would cost on their own (debatably a bit more as they don't give away VPs but then again a bit less with the "points" they are worth being part of the mothership's cost that can be given away in VPs).

Flat points costs for features don't work though for the vast majority of things. Most factors multiply in effectiveness and some are variable in how useful they are. For example, a weapon with double damage is near twice as good as a weapon without, regardless of AD, precise, etc. You couldn't just add a points cost for double damage as it would have a different effect on a Starfury's pulse cannon compared to a Lakara's beam!

 

[Burger]

You couldn't just add a points cost for double damage as it would have a different effect on a Starfury's pulse cannon compared to a Lakara's beam!

Double damage doubles the weapon's cost?

 

[Alexb83]

This is the issue with 'traits' - as far as I'm concerned, the paramount factor when working out a weapons cost is its range, and number of AD - fundamentally if you start with a system where the weapon costs a fixed amount for an AD; then apply modifiers (as I describe above) based on traits and arcs to produce a 'raw cost' THEN multiply in range and normalise (to avoid silly points costs) you should have a robust system.

If you don't like the 50% additional cost from DD that I suggest, then put it to a group and modify it.

As for the VPs vs. non VPs fighter issue - I would abolish it. You pay for them, you lose them, you lose the points. Simple as that.

I'd also avoid trying to apply points costs to certain 'race specific' traits like hyperspace mastery etc. - they're simply flavour. Take them as such.

 

[Alexb83]

Sorry for splitting posts - you can try and be all maffematikal about it if you want.

Is 1 AD of DD really the same as 2 AD of 'normal' at the same range, in the same arc?

For 'normal hits' and basic damage, yes - it's 2 damage, 2 crew from the 1 AD if it hits, and 1/1 for each single AD if they both hit. Net damage = same. Ignoring the fact that overall hit probability for the 2 AD 'normal' weapon is greater.

Also, 2 AD means 2 chances at criticals, for a start.

You can over-analyse this stuff, or you can get stuck into making a reasonably equitable system and then analysing its performance.

I think it would be interesting to apply 'the system' to all the ships currently out there, and see what sort of range you get for ships at the same PL - but I haven't got the heart to pump all of the numbers into my excel sheet.

 

[Burger]

Ah that old chestnut, which is better 2AD or 1AD DD!

Well bulkheads make the basic damage of 1AD DD slightly better. A 1AD DD bulkhead hit still does 1 damage, whereas a single damage bulkhead does nothing. So in terms of basic damage 1AD DD is slightly better.

Crits go the other way. The extra damage from crits is identical, you get twice as many crits from 2AD but the ones from 1AD DD are twice deal much damage so it cancels out. But the effects are another matter, 2AD will generate twice as many crit effects as 1AD DD.

 

[Triggy]

As Burger says, it isn't simple but 2AD are almost certainly better than 1AD DD due to the crits. However, 1AD DD is probably about 1.7-1.9 times as good as 1AD on its own.

 

[Alexb83]

Blah, blah: K I S S

As I said - you can get bogged down in minutiae, or you can opt for an arbitrary (but transparent and uniform!) system that produces consistent numbers.

I think I've covered most of the traits up top - try working out a few more weapons (remember, IMO range is multiplying factor here on how 'good' any weapon is) a 500 AD QD Beam weapon is only so good when it's boresight with 1 inch range.

Point some up, and then try and work out how sympathetic they are to 'real maths'.

Or just realise that it doesn't matter - so long as everyone is paying the same when they get the same, it's all okay.

 

[Alexb83]

You couldn't just add a points cost for double damage as it would have a different effect on a Starfury's pulse cannon compared to a Lakara's beam!

Double damage doubles the weapon's cost?

Actually you can just add a notional factor to the 'raw value' of each AD - what really differentiates the weapons is the range, moreso than their traits. I think Vorlon fighters are a reasonable example of this. Essentially it is just a capital ship weapon, with a fraction of the range. They should have the same base cost, multiplied by a function of that range to differentiate them.

 

[Triggy]

This is the issue with 'traits' - as far as I'm concerned, the paramount factor when working out a weapons cost is its range, and number of AD - fundamentally if you start with a system where the weapon costs a fixed amount for an AD; then apply modifiers (as I describe above) based on traits and arcs to produce a 'raw cost' THEN multiply in range and normalise (to avoid silly points costs) you should have a robust system.

If you don't like the 50% additional cost from DD that I suggest, then put it to a group and modify it.

As for the VPs vs. non VPs fighter issue - I would abolish it. You pay for them, you lose them, you lose the points. Simple as that.

I'd also avoid trying to apply points costs to certain 'race specific' traits like hyperspace mastery etc. - they're simply flavour. Take them as such.

Firstly about the fighters - that may be the best way of dealing with them but that's not how the rules work and it's not changing so we can't take that approach with any calculations.

Is a weapon of range 24" really twice as good as a weapon of range 12"? Even if it's in the side or aft arc? How about a 1000" weapon being ten times as good as a 100" weapon? Are any of these weapons as good on stationary/very slow ships as they are on fast ships?

I have looked at your numbers more and they're not too bad actually (I'd thought at first look they were additions rather than additions per AD) - the biggest issue I have is with the range modifier.

Using your system I'd have a 2AD system, with range 10", precise, TD and beam mounted on a ship with speed 15 costing (cost = 140) less than a 3AD system with beam and double damage at range 20" on a speed 6 ship (cost = 300). I know I'd rather have the main gun on a White Star than the main gun on a Raider Battlewagon...

My system would come out with values for the weapons of:
6.5733 for the White Star beam
3.6000 for the Battlewagon beam

It's not easy to get a robust system though!

 

[Burger]

I'll take a range 1 weapon with 30 AD B/P on a SM ship speed 40!

 

[Triggy]

If you want the simple way I work out weapon values, here it is:

Take your number of AD and multiply it by the following factors if present:

Weak = 1/6
Normal = 1/3
AP = 1/2
SAP = 2/3
T-L weak = 3/10
T-L normal = 5/9
T-L AP = 7/10
T-L SAP = 8/10
Beam = 7/6
Mini-beam = 7/12

Precise = 13/7
Double damage = 13/7
Double damage precise = 20/7
Triple damage = 19/7
Triple damage precise = 29/7
Quad damage = 25/7
Quad damage precise = 38/7
E-mine = 10/7
E-mine double damage = 20/7
E-mine triple damage = 30/7
E-mine quad damage = 40/7

Can be intercepted = 12/13

Masters of destruction = 5/4

Comms Disruptor = 1/6

Slow-loading = 2/3
One shot = 1/2

Accurate = 7/6

Fore arc = 1
Port/Starboard arc = 5/9
Aft arc = 1/9
Boresight = 4/5
Boresight aft = 4/45
Turret = 5/4

Range = (Range+Speed-8)/(Range+Speed)

And that's it! It should be noted that particularly for range I have a more complicated formula but for general figures for weapon systems this is what I use.

 

[Alexb83]

I don't follow your maths on my system - ship speed is not a factor of weapon cost in the system I set forward.

Weapons are weapons, hulls are hulls. The two are costed separately and added to make a gross cost for a ship. So yes, a ship with 50 hull, 50 crew, hull 6 with 500 AD of TL MB at 20 inches in all arcs will cost more than the same ship with 100 AD TL MB at 20 inches in all arcs. The important factor is that the cost difference between them is consistent and relates back to a clearly defined rule set for establishing the cost per AD for a weapon with those traits.

I think your point about 'the rules aint changing' is something of a throwaway comment. In moving the a points system and abolishing PLs the rules will have to change by definition.

 

[Alexb83]

WRT costing weapons vis. range; yes, a weapon with 24 vs. 12 inches range, with the same AD and traits /is/ twice as good. It may indeed be far more than twice as good.

Twice the range means twice the engagement envelope in any arc - against a stationary target doubling your range means twice as many shots in a passing engagement where your passing speed = 1/2 your range.

Against a target with a weapons range of less than 24, it means shots fired with no danger of return fire.

I would put forward that weapon range is the single most important factor in costing any weapon system - traits are just probability to hit modifiers. Whether or not you can hit in the first instance depends entirely on whether you are in range.