# Thinking about point values

#### TJHairball

##### Mongoose
Over in my neck of the woods, we've noticed some issues with the pointing of ships, in particular in the Federation and Romulan fleets (as opposed to Klingons - I, as our resident Klingon player have seen reasons to take all ten of the ships in the fleet).

I, at this point, have been fiddling about with a spreadsheet full of formulae and looking at how one might systematically point ships in a way that works. I have a formula that looks reasonable to me, and amazingly - surprisingly, in fact, given that I came up with it before applying it to the Klingon ships - looked a lot like existing point values for the Klingon fleet and agrees with many of our intuitions (provided I haven't made data entry errors somewhere - I caught a few tonight), although gord314 may have some misgivings about the dreadnought values. Here are the modified point values I've proposed to my gaming buddies:

(Key: Name, New proposed value, old official value - copy and paste into a spreadsheet to recover formatting, it should work - it's tab-separated in the edit window, at least.)
Romulan:
KF5R 105 105
Battle Hawk 100 120
Snipe 90 120
Skyhawk 135 130
War Eagle 100* 140
KR 150 165
Sparrowhawk 160 170
King Eagle 170 175
Firehawk 200 225
KRC 230 230
Fasthawk 240 235
Novahawk 240 240
Royalhawk 240 240
Condor 285 305
KC9R 330 335
*Pointed on the basis that the "limited" R is half value, which is also about the same as putting the phasers at half value.

Klingon:
E4 80 75
F5 95 100
D6 150 150
D5 165 165
D7 160 170
D5W 185 185
D7C 205 200
FD7 190 195
C7 260 240
C8 295 345
As a Klingon player, I find these totally reasonable values... there are no ships in the Klingon list I'm not willing to take at these values, and I still don't feel like stacking multiples of any of the command ships given these point values.

Federation:
Callahan 85 85
Burke 95 95
Ramius 115 105
Ortega 120 120
DWD 130 110
Texas 135 130
Kearsage 150 160
Constitution 170 180
CC 200 205
Wolverine 200 180
Prometheus 175 185
Chicago 180 190
NCC 215 220
Manta 210 205
Kirov 265 240
BCJ 250* 215
BCF 255 240
Federation 290 315
DNF 280 310
*Pointed on the assumption that the two extra photon torpedoes are half value as a "limited" weapon. The BCH and BCF values are actually a bit lower than we had decided to put the Kirovs at as a house rule already (we'd been working with 270/245/265).

Although we haven't played much with the Gorn, Kzin, Orion, and civilian ships, I went ahead and plugged them in, and got some interesting-looking numbers. You might comment on these:

Gorn:
Carnosaurus 95 115
Ceratosaurus 120 120
Stegosaurus 135 145
Megalosaurus 135 175
Allosaurus 155 200
Allosaurus-Rex 180 225
Velociraptor 190 210
Epanterias-M 170 210
Epanterias-K 180 195
Albertosaurus 190 240
Tyrannosaurus-Rex 260 325
Doing these calculations has instilled in me a desire to never play the Gorn in any competitive match pointed with the official values, ever.

Kzin:
Frigate 100 120
Light Cruiser 135 150
War Destroyer 140 150
Medium Cruiser 155 160
New Heavy Cruiser 175 170
New Heavy Cruiser (Command) 210 195
Fast Cruiser 225 195
Battlecruiser 190 200
Battlecruiser (Command Variant) 215 225
Heavy Battlecruiser 240 245

Orion:
Light Raider 115 95
Raider 125 125
Salvage Cruiser 170 150
Pointed using drones as the "variable" mounts.

Civilian:
Small Freighter 10 10
Large Freighter 15 20
Free Trader 30 25
APT 10 10
Armed Cutter 45 30
Heavy Freighter 35 30
Prime Trader 45 40
These were also pointed using drones for "variable" mounts where such existed. We had already identified the armed cutter as having a fairly silly point value.

Here's the basic idea. We take two components, a measure of offensive capability and a measure of defensive capability. We take the geometric mean of these two factors, or multiply them together and then take a square root; then we multiply by factors related to movement, and adjust for the presence of command.

The idea is simple - something with twice the firepower and half the durability is about as useful. Something with twice the firepower alone isn't actually quite half as useful. And two forces with similar total firepower and total durability are about even, give or take initiative sinking (advantaging small ships) and premature explosion (advantaging larger ships).

Here are the base values I used for "defensive" equipment:
• Add 1 point per hull point.
• Subtract 0.5 points per crippled value (higher crippled values are worse, since it means you're crippled earlier).
• Add 1.333 points per shield (shields prevent crits, so usually a point of shield is better than a point of hull)
• Add 4.667 points per 10 whole shields (assuming shields are on average regenerated once per match)
• Add 0.444 per point and 1.556 per ten whole points if the shields are Klingon double-front shields.
• Add 2 points per tractor beam.
• Add 5 points per point of anti-drone, and per drone for Federation ships.
• Add 1 point for everything else (each point of Marines, Transporters, Shuttles, random special traits aside from Orion stealth, Labs score, everything potentially useful in some scenarios but generally not effective as conventional weapons - it's a bit of a grab bag technique, granted, but seems appropriate).
• For Orions, multiply this total defensive rating by 1.2 for their stealth.
You now have a defensive rating. Now, separately compute an offensive rating:
• Disruptors: 6.25 points per AD for 90 degree 15" disruptor. 10/15 points for 90/180 degree disruptors.
• Drones: 15 points per drone.
• Phaser-1s: 10/15/20/25 points for each AD of 90/180/270/360 degree phaser-1s.
• Phaser-2s: 4/6/8/10 points for each AD of 90/180/270/360 degree phaser-2s.
• Phaser-3s: 2/3/4/5 points for each AD of 90/180/270/360 degree phaser-3s.
• Photon torpedoes: 15 points per photon torpedo.
• Plasma-D: 8/12 points for 90/180 degree plasma-Ds.
• Plasma-F: 10/15 points for 90/180 degree plasma-Fs.
• Plasma-G: 16/24 points for 90/180 degree plasma-Gs.
• Plasma-S: 20/30 points for 90/180 degree plasma-Ss.
• Plasma-R: 60/90 points for 90/180 degree plasma-Rs. (This makes sense given the RoyalHawk/NovaHawk trade, even if it's steep.)
This is the offensive rating. Multiply defensive rating by offensive rating, and then take the square root. This is the base value.

Now, modify for movement and cloaking:
• Add 10% of base value if the ship cloaks.
• Add 13.33% of base value if the ship is Agile Turn 3.
• Add 10% of base value if the ship is Agile Turn 4.
• Add 5% of base value if the ship is Turn 4 [not agile].
• Subtract 10% of base value if the ship is Lumbering (which covers everything worse than Turn 6).
• Add 20% of base value if the ship is Fast.
• Subtract 20% of base value if the ship is Slow.
Multiply this modified value by 1.2. This is a convenient constant that brings the point values in line with the actual point values used in ACTA:SF, though it means that 5 points of "base" value convert to about three points of actual value. Finally, if the ship has command, add 25 points.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Somehow had the NCC's official point value off by five points. Fixed. Also, data entry errors on the Texas and Kzinti CL, both now calculate at 135 points; C8, data entry error, now calculates at 295 points. Battle Hawk, data entry error, 100 points. KR cruiser, data entry error, now calculates at 150 points. BCF, misread what the plasma torpedoes replaced, 255 points.

#### Da Boss

##### Mongoose
Most interesting and comprehenisive exercise...

Speaking as a Klingon Player the only one I would question in that fleet is the Dreadnought being now a bit cheap - especially since it has Command now, but I have not played enough games to comment for sure.

Also there is still the revised, revised, revised errata to come out so that may change things again?

#### MongooseMatt

Staff member
TJHairball said:
Snipe 90 120

I can tell you now, if you enact this, you will have issues with Romulans in your games

Matthew

#### Captain Jonah

##### Mongoose
TJHairball said:
Over in my neck of the woods, we've noticed some issues with the pointing of ships, in particular in the Federation and Romulan fleets (as opposed to Klingons - I, as our resident Klingon player have seen reasons to take all ten of the ships in the fleet).

I, at this point, have been fiddling about with a spreadsheet full of formulae and looking at how one might systematically point ships in a way that works. I have a formula that looks reasonable to me, and amazingly - surprisingly, in fact, given that I came up with it before applying it to the Klingon ships - looked a lot like existing point values for the Klingon fleet and agrees with many of our intuitions (provided I haven't made data entry errors somewhere - I caught a few tonight), although gord314 may have some misgivings about the dreadnought values. Here are the modified point values I've proposed to my gaming buddies:

War Eagle 100* 140

In agreement with you so far. With the War eagle it is very much not worth 140 points. Not that I would ever be caught dead using Romulan’s but for 145 points I can throw a HDD at it and for those 5 extra points I get the same Plasma AD, tougher hull, Phasers that I can fire while firing the Plasmas etc. In a straight exchange of fire a HDD can Phaser down 3-4 AD of the plasma R while the eagle has no Phasers that can be used so takes the entire 7AD on the nose. Not sure I would make that cheap though, that puts it below most peoples DD’s. It may only have a Plasma R to fire but that is still 7AD of Plasmas every other turn from something with a decent shield.

TJHairball said:
Klingon:
E4 80 75
F5 95 100
D6 150 150
D5 165 165
D7 160 170
D5W 185 185
D7C 205 200
FD7 190 195
C7 260 240
C8 270 345
As a Klingon player, I find these totally reasonable values... there are no ships in the Klingon list I'm not willing to take at these values, and I still don't feel like stacking multiples of any of the command ships given these point values.

They are very close to the actual costs which reflects your system is very close to accurate. The proof comes if people are happy to play the ships at the cost listed and if fleets become more self balancing as a result. Aside from Dreadnaughts which have all gone downa lot on every fleet. Still considering next to no one has taken one in any fleet they have admitted to there is something wrong with the high prices they currently have so it could be a truer reflection of the value. You have choice between a C8 and a C7, since the C8 is one of the few non lumbering DNs out there it is going to massively overshadow the C7 at that cost. Why take a C7 when for a mere 10 points more you have all the goodness of a C8 :lol:

TJHairball said:
Federation:
Callahan 85 85
Burke 95 95
Ramius 115 105
Ortega 120 120
DWD 130 110
Texas 140 130
Kearsage 150 160
Constitution 170 180
CC 200 205
Wolverine 200 180
Prometheus 175 185
Chicago 180 190
NCC 215 215
Manta 210 205
Kirov 265 240
BCJ 250* 215
BCF 260 240
Federation 290 315
DNF 280 310
*Pointed on the assumption that the two extra photon torpedoes are half value as a "limited" weapon. The BCH and BCF values are actually a bit lower than we had decided to put the Kirovs at as a house rule already (we'd been working with 270/245/265).

Its interesting to see that just about everyone who is taking what seems to be an unbiased look at the flat tops comes out with the BCH types being significantly under priced.

TJHairball said:
Although we haven't played much with the Gorn, Kzinti, Orion, and civilian ships, I went ahead and plugged them in, and got some interesting-looking numbers. You might comment on these:

Gorn:
Carnosaurus 95 115
Ceratosaurus 120 120
Stegosaurus 135 145
Megalosaurus 135 175
Allosaurus 155 200
Allosaurus-Rex 180 225
Velociraptor 190 210
Epanterias-M 170 210
Epanterias-K 180 195
Albertosaurus 190 240
Tyrannosaurus-Rex 260 325

Would I like to comment, damn right I would. But there are ladies and children who read these forums so I’ll just swear in a corner instead.

Your calculated values are fairly close in most cases, where there is a difference more than 5 or 10 points it is a case that we are already talking about as being a problem.

The fact that the same system that points many Gorn Cruiser sized ship as 30 or 40 points off is not something that fills me with Joy. Problem is in many cases the costs look about right when compared to each other and to other races. The HDD and CL are about as good as each other, one is tougher the other has more firepower. The CL was never worth 175 points.

Oh and a DN that comes out worth a Fed BCH. Joy, Oh joy.

TJHairball said:
Doing these calculations has instilled in me a desire to never play the Gorn in any competitive match pointed with the official values, ever.

Hey that the Gorn you are talking about, not some worthless fleet of lumbering targets waiting to be wiped out by everyone else. Oh wait……………..

TJHairball said:
Kzin:
Frigate 100 120
Light Cruiser 120 150
War Destroyer 140 150
Medium Cruiser 155 160
New Heavy Cruiser 175 170
New Heavy Cruiser (Command) 210 195
Fast Cruiser 225 195
Battlecruiser 190 200
Battlecruiser (Command Variant) 215 225
Heavy Battlecruiser 240 245

One problem here. Unless Drones are toned down (without crippling Plasmas at the same time) a Kzinti FF at 100 points allows a fleet of 10 at a 1000 point game. Is it cheese, yes. Will it crush most anyone else by Init sinking the heck out of them and using 40AD at 36” to destroy the enemy ships with ease, yes.

The points may be correct, but we need to make Drones easier to face before the calculation is truly accurate given the ability of Drone armed fleets to pound most other races at range.

TJHairball said:
[*]Add 5 points per point of anti-drone, and per drone for Federation ships.
[*]Drones: 15 points per drone.

Thoughts?

I left the above two for the Federation specifically. When you say add 5 per ADD and per Drone does that mean you are charging a G-rack 1 as 5 for the ADD and another 5 for being a drone 1 plus 15 for the drone or just 10 points for the G-rack.

I presume its 10 points only at Drone 1 since you will lose Drones as soon as you run out of ADD ammo, however at the top end Fed ships with Drone 4, 5 or 6 are vastly more capable than would be suggested by that price. A Fed ship with Drone 4 can use and lose 3AD of ADD every turn and start refreshed the next turn. A ship with ADD4 can be out in a single turn, the Feds get Drone -1 ADD every single turn with no fear of every running out of ammo unless they use that last dice.

Anyway aside from that outstanding work. Good number crunching and some fine calculations.

Sir I salute your efforts.

Matt has said the points were based on the FC costs and then tweaked a bit as a result of play testing. No points based system truly reflects a ship, what looks on paper like a good ship is a lemon and those cheap on paper ships suddenly become unbeatable fleets.

Having said that I like the numbers you have calculated. They feel right. They need some play testing to balance out but that’s not hard to do.

As Da Boss said the errata of the errata to the errata is still being sorted (or am I an errata behind). Weapons are being changed, taken away or added on and minor changes are still happening. Plenty of room to re price a bunch of ships.

The way the weapons, movement and ships work in ACTA-SF is very different to FC or SFB so using the FC costing doesn’t reflect the ships capabilities. We can make the ships match up in terms of shields, weapons hull and shuttles but the way those components work together is going to make for very different costs and balances.

msprange said:
TJHairball said:
Snipe 90 120

I can tell you now, if you enact this, you will have issues with Romulans in your games

Matthew

So Matt would that be the only Cost change you have any problems with?

You haven't mentioned anything about the Eagle going down, the Fed BCH types going up, many Gorn ships going down a lot.

Any comments, quotes or just Witterings for the avid reader :wink: :lol:

#### MongooseMatt

Staff member
Captain Jonah said:
You haven't mentioned anything about the Eagle going down, the Fed BCH types going up, many Gorn ships going down a lot.

Any comments, quotes or just Witterings for the avid reader :wink: :lol:

No plans to change the values of any of these.

#### McKinstry

##### Mongoose
Just from the Klingon v Federation games we've had, I'm not seeing the need for Feds to cost more. Those fleets seem well balanced against each other with maybe a slight edge to the Klingons as is.

We haven't played Romulans enough to really comment but a KR at 145 would be a steal as is the proposed Klingon C8.

All lumbering Dreadnought experience seems to indicate these turkeys should stay at home until the fleet total gets to about 2000 +/- and the target rich environment leaves things to stumble into their front arc. Lumbering should possibly be costed at a huge negative as they just don't get taken otherwise.

I'd like to see a drone tweak before any points change as that remains the questionable balance issue above all else.

##### Mongoose
McKinstry said:
Just from the Klingon v Federation games we've had, I'm not seeing the need for Feds to cost more. Those fleets seem well balanced against each other with maybe a slight edge to the Klingons as is.

Same here.
The Klingons seem to have an earlyy avantage, but as the players become more familiar wiht the rules and learn to finesse the Federation it evens out.

#### gord314

##### Mongoose
The dreadnought points seem a little low, but most of my recent experience with them involves a crew quality 6 DNG with XP dice that pretty much destroys everything that comes near it and repairs all its crits every turn.

As for the rest of the federation changes, the only one I don't really agree with is the OCL, but I don't have enough experience with it to support that claim. The BCH and variants are better for their points then many of the federation ships, so raising their price seems fair. The Wolverine is also a great ship, easily 20 points better then the constitution, maybe 30. On the other hand, the CA, NCA, and NCL actually went down in cost, and these are the ships people are probably taking the most of, so most federation fleets probably actually decreased in value.

#### TJHairball

##### Mongoose
I'll comment, by the way, that these are the rounded values, to the nearest 5 points.

In general, I'm a big fan of systematic pointing over ad hoc pointing, because in general, simple linear regressions beat expert ad hoc evaluation. This is true of pricing houses in real estate, predicting patient outcomes in medicine, et cetera, and I don't see why it wouldn't be true in gaming. As I've said, ship construction rules put a hard clear focus on pointing balance, among other reasons, because they require the existence of a pointing system.
McKinstry said:
Just from the Klingon v Federation games we've had, I'm not seeing the need for Feds to cost more.
On this; Feds wouldn't be actually costing more, on the whole, than they already cost. However, your comment has led me to check through the Federation ships that increased, and I caught some data entry errors on the Texas. It calculates to 135 rather than 140.

3 are the same price, or rather, within 2.5 points by the formula (Callahan, Burke, Ortega). 8 cost more (Ramius, DWD, Texas, Wolverine, Manta, BCH, BCJ, BCF). 8 cost less (Kearsage, Constitution, CC, Prometheus, Chicago, NCC, Federation, DNF).

Overall, the Federation ships would cost about the same, in other words - it's just that some ships decrease and some ships increase, and frankly, the Federation very transparently needs internal rebalancing. The ships which decreased in point value are incidentally mostly the ones that are supposed to be more common, and the ones which increased are incidentally mostly the ones that are supposed to be less common.

The Wolverine vs the Constitution. The former trades two F arc photon torpedoes for two additional FH phaser-1s, which is about an even trade, but then is Fast ... for no additional points cost over the Constitution. It's been noted by others that the Wolverine is quite strong.

The BCJ vs the NCC. The former is five points less and has 6 more points of shields (bringing it to +3d6 on a boost instead of +2d6, since 30 is a magic number for shields), 2 extra photon torpedoes the turn after it fires the first 4, 8 more hull points, 3 more marines, 4 more labs, 2 more transporters, 2 more shuttles. The latter has Enhanced Bridge. It's been noted very loudly and repeatedly on these boards that the Kirov is quite strong [and necessarily therefore strong in all its variants].

And the DWD, which is the other ship that receives a significant price increase, is transparently ridiculous. It's clearly a better ship than the Kzinti frigate.

#### TJHairball

##### Mongoose
Captain Jonah said:
They are very close to the actual costs which reflects your system is very close to accurate. The proof comes if people are happy to play the ships at the cost listed and if fleets become more self balancing as a result. Aside from Dreadnaughts which have all gone downa lot on every fleet.
Except, we should note, the KC9R, which is essentially unchanged.
Still considering next to no one has taken one in any fleet they have admitted to there is something wrong with the high prices they currently have so it could be a truer reflection of the value. You have choice between a C8 and a C7, since the C8 is one of the few non lumbering DNs out there it is going to massively overshadow the C7 at that cost. Why take a C7 when for a mere 10 points more you have all the goodness of a C8 :lol:
Dreadnoughts basically carry a huge pile of hull points (which aren't worth that much) and have a significant maneuverability downgrade relative to battlecruisers, with firepower very close to the heavy battlecruisers. It doesn't seem that amazing, on the whole. The C8 is just a regular Turn 6 ship, but in the Klingon fleet, that's pretty bad - the C7 is Turn 4, which lets it keep up with your other ships better.

The C8 actually only has a little more firepower than the C7 - two extra disruptors, two more phaser-2s, two more phaser-3s - but I missed something here. Data entry error - forgot to punch in the 4 in the drones column, at which point the C8 pops up to 295 points.

Yeah, many of the things that have made me go "Wait, maybe this isn't quite right..." have ended with my saying "oh, wait, I filled out the inputs incorrectly."
The fact that the same system that points many Gorn Cruiser sized ship as 30 or 40 points off is not something that fills me with Joy. Problem is in many cases the costs look about right when compared to each other and to other races.
It's mostly due to Lumbering, but I only priced that at 10%.

It's like Lumbering wasn't priced on Gorn ships? It's hard to see how Lumbering isn't a disadvantage.
One problem here. Unless Drones are toned down (without crippling Plasmas at the same time) a Kzinti FF at 100 points allows a fleet of 10 at a 1000 point game. Is it cheese, yes. Will it crush most anyone else by Init sinking the heck out of them and using 40AD at 36” to destroy the enemy ships with ease, yes.

The points may be correct, but we need to make Drones easier to face before the calculation is truly accurate given the ability of Drone armed fleets to pound most other races at range.
I agree there's an issue with drones. The house rule we've started using recently is that drones fired from more than 18" can be fired on by any ships. Don't know if that fixes the problem or not.
I left the above two for the Federation specifically. When you say add 5 per ADD and per Drone does that mean you are charging a G-rack 1 as 5 for the ADD and another 5 for being a drone 1 plus 15 for the drone or just 10 points for the G-rack.
No, I mean it's 15 per drone to the offensive value (on average adding 9 points or so to the final total); and then the Federation also adds 5 points per drone on defensive value (on average adding 3 points or so to the final total).
I presume its 10 points only at Drone 1 since you will lose Drones as soon as you run out of ADD ammo, however at the top end Fed ships with Drone 4, 5 or 6 are vastly more capable than would be suggested by that price. A Fed ship with Drone 4 can use and lose 3AD of ADD every turn and start refreshed the next turn. A ship with ADD4 can be out in a single turn, the Feds get Drone -1 ADD every single turn with no fear of every running out of ammo unless they use that last dice.

Anyway aside from that outstanding work. Good number crunching and some fine calculations.
I agree that Federation drone racks become much better at a 2 AD rating (and especially at 4 AD) than they are at a 1 AD rating, but this seemed a fairly straightforward way to address it.
Sir I salute your efforts.

Matt has said the points were based on the FC costs and then tweaked a bit as a result of play testing. No points based system truly reflects a ship, what looks on paper like a good ship is a lemon and those cheap on paper ships suddenly become unbeatable fleets.

Having said that I like the numbers you have calculated. They feel right. They need some play testing to balance out but that’s not hard to do.
Thanks. I know it's a relatively simple formula and doesn't capture everything (although I might want to capture Armoured more accurately - that would be a simple change, although).

##### Mongoose
Very interesting! As a Federation player I find myself stacking up on the ships you are suggesting need to increase in points and avoiding the ones that you are suggesting need a decrease in points (except the OCL - hate how that one looks).

Your NCC vs BCJ comparison is definitely a huge glaring error. I also think (not just federation) that some ships really had to pay the extra 25pts for command and some just seemed to have gotten it for free. Lumbering too is a huge disadvantage that I'm 100% sure is not reflected in the points as it is not in FC which is what ACTA point values are based on.

Anything with turn 6" (or more) and Lumbering is IMHO not worth even playing - except maybe if you are fighting a battlestation/mobile base that can't move.

-Tim

#### TJHairball

##### Mongoose
msprange said:
TJHairball said:
Snipe 90 120

I can tell you now, if you enact this, you will have issues with Romulans in your games

Matthew
You've mentioned that the Snipe is strikingly good before. I understand the idea is that it is an agile cloaking ship with lots of plasma, and that this is a synergistic combination. It's also a glass cannon in a game with sequential damage resolution, which is a sharp limiting factor.

You can tell me "now," but would you mind also telling me how? I need more than "Just try it, they're good."

#### MongooseMatt

Staff member
TJHairball said:
I need more than "Just try it, they're good."

This is absolutely the point - you _do_ need to try it, and this is where points calculation systems begin to break down. There can never be a substitute for playing with units.

#### TJHairball

##### Mongoose
McKinstry said:
We haven't played Romulans enough to really comment but a KR at 145 would be a steal as is the proposed Klingon C8.
So, to get to this comment (I already talked about the C8 a bit and fixed a data entry error there):

I'm not sure about "a steal," but double-checking the KR to make sure, I had the wrong hull point value put in. The formula now pegs it at 152 (rounding to 150) now instead of 147 (rounding to 145). I would be embarrassed about how many data entry errors I've found since posting this thread, but hey, I'm not getting paid to do this, I just felt like putting in the time to improve the pointing of the ACTA ships so that we would have an easier time putting together fair and interesting matches, and felt that it was worth bringing it to the community at this point, both to improve and share it.

I've played against the KR. Blew up some of them in my last match against the Romulans, in fact. Here's how the KR differs from its parent model, the D6.

• It loses 4 AD of disruptors (F), 2 AD of drones (T), 2 Marines, and the Anti-Drone 1 trait.
• It gains 8 AD of plasma torpedoes (FP, FS) as Plasma-S, 2 shuttles, and cloak.

Shuttles are a fair trade for marines, but 8 dice of plasma is not a fair trade for 4 dice of disruptors plus 2 dice of drones. The D6 has a firepower advantage, small but real. It also has a small but real advantage in durability, since it has anti-drone and the KR doesn't. Cloaking I'm saying is worth about 10% [that's how the KF5R, KRC, and KC90R end up so close to their original values] but it's at something like a 6-7% disadvantage in performance after it decloaks.

So as far as I'm concerned, the KR is basically very close to equivalent ship to the D6, including the cloaking capability. Maybe a little better, maybe a little worse, but very close. And the D6 costs 150 points.

So 145 points made a lot of sense to me, and 150 points makes a lot of sense to me now. 155 points would as well, but 150 is what the formula says, and systematic evaluations are generally more reliable than ad hoc opinions. It's true of medical opinions - doctors' prognoses are regularly beat by simple linear regressions on patient vital signs - and it's true, IMO, of pointing miniatures in combat games.

#### Captain Jonah

##### Mongoose
Lumbering too is a huge disadvantage that I'm 100% sure is not reflected in the points as it is not in FC which is what ACTA point values are based on.

Anything with turn 6" (or more) and Lumbering is IMHO not worth even playing - except maybe if you are fighting a battle station/mobile base that can't move.

-Tim

Hey that’s half my fleet you are talking about there :roll:

msprange said:
Captain Jonah said:
You haven't mentioned anything about the Eagle going down, the Fed BCH types going up, many Gorn ships going down a lot.

Any comments, quotes or just Witterings for the avid reader :wink: :lol:

No plans to change the values of any of these.

Are you then happy with the case of the NCC/BCJ in the Fed fleet :?:

McKinstry said:
Lumbering should possibly be costed at a huge negative as they just don't get taken otherwise.

I'd like to see a drone tweak before any points change as that remains the questionable balance issue above all else.

Hey that’s half my fleet you are talking about, wait I said that already

Re Drones. Yep. But we need to wait till enough people have used the cheese Drone heavy fleets and win disproportionate numbers of games before we can make the case as more than Gut Instinct and old timers eye for the rules.

TJHairball said:
It's like Lumbering wasn't priced on Gorn ships? It's hard to see how Lumbering isn't a disadvantage.

Hey that’s half my flee….. Oh just see above

TJHairball said:
[ I would be embarrassed about how many data entry errors I've found since posting this thread, but hey, I'm not getting paid to do this, I just felt like putting in the time to improve the pointing of the ACTA ships so that we would have an easier time putting together fair and interesting matches, and felt that it was worth bringing it to the community at this point, both to improve and share it.

You clearly don’t work as a contractor in IT then, those little data errors that crop up are worth hours to fix, it’s when you are on your own time you should stop doing them. And yes I do work with a few people who may, from time to time, be alleged to do this sort of thing. :roll: :wink:

TJHairball said:
I agree there's an issue with drones. The house rule we've started using recently is that drones fired from more than 18" can be fired on by any ships. Don't know if that fixes the problem or not.

Sounds like a good idea, I seem to have heard it somewhere before though, oh wait :lol:

#### MongooseMatt

Staff member
TJHairball said:
So as far as I'm concerned, the KR is basically very close to equivalent ship to the D6, including the cloaking capability. Maybe a little better, maybe a little worse, but very close.

Sorry, absolutely disagree with this. 8AD of plasma is a hot weapon, whichever way you look at it, and cloaks are valuable (not game-winning by themselves, but far more potent than you give them credit for).

##### Mongoose
TJ, this is pretty amazing. Our group attempted to "point" out the old Mongoose VaS system a few years ago (they were using the priority system ), so I know how much work this was. I look foward to testing some of them out (once I get a few more games under my belt).

Hey that’s half my flee….. Oh just see above
:lol:

#### andypalmer

##### Mongoose
TJHairball said:
In general, I'm a big fan of systematic pointing over ad hoc pointing, because in general, simple linear regressions beat expert ad hoc evaluation. This is true of pricing houses in real estate, predicting patient outcomes in medicine, et cetera, and I don't see why it wouldn't be true in gaming. As I've said, ship construction rules put a hard clear focus on pointing balance, among other reasons, because they require the existence of a pointing system.
The problem with a simple linear regression model is that it does not accurately reflect system synergy, at the individual ship, and fleet level. For example, have 2 ADD is more than twice as good as having 1; having 4 drone racks is often more than twice as good as having 2; a cloaking device has more value on ships with multi-turn arming weapons than those without; lumbering is a bigger penalty to ships with mostly forward firing weapons than those with more all around firepower, etc., etc.

While it might be theoretically possible to come up with a programmable points system to reflect all of these factors, it 1. would not be a simple linear regression model and 2. it would be far more effort that it would worth for the 5% increase in points accuracy over expert ad hoc evaluation, backed up by playtesting.

#### TJHairball

##### Mongoose
andypalmer said:
TJHairball said:
In general, I'm a big fan of systematic pointing over ad hoc pointing, because in general, simple linear regressions beat expert ad hoc evaluation. This is true of pricing houses in real estate, predicting patient outcomes in medicine, et cetera, and I don't see why it wouldn't be true in gaming. As I've said, ship construction rules put a hard clear focus on pointing balance, among other reasons, because they require the existence of a pointing system.
The problem with a simple linear regression model is that it does not accurately reflect system synergy, at the individual ship, and fleet level. For example, have 2 ADD is more than twice as good as having 1; having 4 drone racks is often more than twice as good as having 2; a cloaking device has more value on ships with multi-turn arming weapons than those without; lumbering is a bigger penalty to ships with mostly forward firing weapons than those with more all around firepower, etc., etc.

While it might be theoretically possible to come up with a programmable points system to reflect all of these factors, it 1. would not be a simple linear regression model and 2. it would be far more effort that it would worth for the 5% increase in points accuracy over expert ad hoc evaluation, backed up by playtesting.
There are flaws in a simple mathematical model in gaming as in anything else (this model is not quite linear, actually, though it is non-linear in a manner predictable and commensurate with the theoretical underpinnings of a wargame). Could this model be improved? Yes.

Is it already an improvement over the expert "ad hoc" evaluations that are the official values? I think so. Case in point: The BCJ is substantially better than the NCC. The official value puts the BCJ five points below the NCC. My formula puts the BCJ thirty points higher than the NCC, which seems a lot more reasonable.

Could I be missing something important? Well, either I'm missing something terribly important about the lighter Eagle series ships (Snipe, Battle Hawk, War Eagle) and the lumbering Gorn ships, or their current point values are horribly overpriced.

#### McKinstry

##### Mongoose
I think the Kirov is a fairly good example of synergy beyond the simple one on one points value. Alone it may be too cheap but in concert with the overpriced standard CA's, the Feds can hold their own with the seemingly better, cheaper Klingons. (The BCJ is too cheap any way you slice it)

I think any adjustments have to be sequential. Assuming some adjustment to drones (and I like the if fired over 18", anyone can shoot at it approach) is the first then a recasting of drone and ADD values is in order. I'd argue that Agile is still a bit underpriced and Lumbering probably deserves a discount more in the -20% range but I'd much rather adjust weapon and ship performance (such as taking lumbering off Gorn cruisers) first and then adjust points rather than the other way around.

Harking back to BFG, when the Necron fleet was unbalanced, the solution of tweaking the victory conditions and point values before adjusting the ships left nobody satisfied.

Replies
1
Views
871
Replies
73
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
17K
Replies
1
Views
5K