Warp Points, Take 2

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Thu 24 Jan 2013 12:22

tmul4050 wrote:I guess we have gone full circle. For my 10 cents worth, I would rather a percentage chance for each ship, saying that the vessel was destroyed. Lockdowns and extra penalties are simply to discourage the ST (speaking meta gamer of course ;) ) and you said you did not want to disadvantage attackers too much. The percentage of destruction can be adjusted a bit I suppose. A way of speeding the action could be to link identical ships and saying that you remove the percentage to be destroyed. So if the bugs attacked with 150 identical CLs (I know they didn't :) )and the percentage was 30%, just remove 45 units. Or roll 150 times.

One thing about the original system is that it was easy to work out. Any replacement hopefully will be the same.


Yes, that's very much my intent here ... simplicity. The original ST model was fairly simple. I want to be at least as simple, if not more so.

I'd like to remove the pairing-up part of the process. It takes time, and it creates a presumption that all IP destruction is always occurring in pairs, which it would not. My intention is to have a single 1d10 die roll per individual ship, though with the same '3' or less on 1d10 indicating the ship was destroyed. And even if a single ship is destroyed, it will be presumed to be lost in transit due to unknown causes, rather than forcing the loss of a second ship.

And even if one wants to merely wipe out 30% of the ships in the ST, they should take 30% of each group of exactly similar ships, by hull type, by ship class, even down to by crew grade. I must say though, that it might take almost as long to do it this way than it might be to just make the die rolls, since determining all the various differences and applying the loss rate without die rolls might be a lengthier process than people realize, if the ST wave is a mish-mash of various hull types, ship classes, and crew grades.



I do have a question. Are WP capacities and ST survival determination worked out per impulse or per turn?


Per impulse.

Though I don't recall reading in the 2 ISW4 novels where any ST's were carried out in multiple impulses over a turn or more. They were always just big wave. Oh, at 2nd Centauri, there were 2 Bug ST waves ... one to start the battle, and a final one, but they were many turns apart, with a lot of battle and a lot of ships making normal "serial" transits in between.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Dawn Falcon on Thu 24 Jan 2013 13:43

Crucis wrote:it also seems hard to justify from a pseudo-science PoV, as long as WP's are a single "road" and not a "divided highway", if you catch my drift.


Well, we don't have ships hitting in them...it was a thought, anyway :)

Furthermore, I'm wary of making ST''s too penal to the point that they'd make the battles with ST's seen in ISW4 impossible.


Perhaps...

ST SIze (vs. WP Capacity)IP%
200% or less20%
Greater than 200% and less than or equal to 400%32%
Greater than 400% and less than or equal to 600%30%
Greater than 600% and less than or equal to 800%35%
Greater than 800% and less than or equal to 1000%40%
And so on...


i.e. it ramps up more slowly

I also prefer the multi-impulse transit for bigger ships myself...rather than blocking them.
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Thu 24 Jan 2013 14:21

Dawn Falcon wrote:
Crucis wrote:it also seems hard to justify from a pseudo-science PoV, as long as WP's are a single "road" and not a "divided highway", if you catch my drift.


Well, we don't have ships hitting in them...it was a thought, anyway :)

Furthermore, I'm wary of making ST''s too penal to the point that they'd make the battles with ST's seen in ISW4 impossible.


Perhaps...

ST SIze (vs. WP Capacity)IP%
200% or less20%
Greater than 200% and less than or equal to 400%32%
Greater than 400% and less than or equal to 600%30%
Greater than 600% and less than or equal to 800%35%
Greater than 800% and less than or equal to 1000%40%
And so on...


I think that you meant 25%, not 32%, for the emboldened value above. ;)


i.e. it ramps up more slowly


True, but it requires the use of d100, rather than d10. I've been trying to reduce things to a single die (be it d10 or d6) rather than d100's (which are 2 d10). With single d10's as long as you have multiple colors of dice, you can roll a bunch simultaneously, as long as you know which color is assigned to which ship in the portion of the list you're rolling for. That is, if you have 3 colored d10's (red, white, and blue), you could roll for 3 ships at the same time, as long as you knew that the red d10 was for the 1st ship, the white d10 was for the 2nd ship, and blue d10 was for the 3rd ship. D100's (i.e. 2d10's) really slow things down in this regard.

I also prefer the multi-impulse transit for bigger ships myself...rather than blocking them.


How every 4E of you! ;) Of course, it's also non-canon, though we don't see any example of this in the 4 Weber and White Starfire novels. It's not until Exodus and Extremis that this becomes an issue. Regardless, I'm not entirely against the idea of WP capacities being a little "soft". However, I'm also wary of letting WP capacities be abused by ridiculously oversized ships, like letting an Arduan "system defense" ship transit WP's. (Arduan SDS's might be on the order of a few thousand hull spaces.)

I'm sort of liking the idea of allowing over-capacity ships to transit in a single impulse, but with a risk of destruction die roll. But I'm also tempted to say that there might be a hard limit of something like double the listed "soft" capacity.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of multi-impulse transits, at least how Ultra/Solar do it. I like simple. And in the Ultra/Solar version, if you send thru an over-capacity ship (say that it requires 4 impulses including the normal impulse in which the ship entered the WP), thru on impulse 1, the WP is NOT locked down while the ship makes transit. Other ships can still enter the WP, and then cause an ST with the over-capacity ship. And what if the over-capacity ship was trying to escape a hostile system with an enemy ship on its tail? If the enemy ship was close enough to make transit during this unstable period, it could do so and force an ST with the over-capacity ship and perhaps get a cheap kill. (Of course, it should probably be treated similar to a ramming attempt for the purposes of whether the attempt would even be made...)

Overall, I think that it's simpler to just say that over-capacity ships attempting to make transit risk destruction and must make a die roll to see if they survive. Of course, this will probably create a bit of a de facto limit on oversized ships using those WP's under normal conditions, since players won't want to risk losing large and expensive capital ships unless there's a darned good reason.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Fri 25 Jan 2013 03:19

I haven't been entirely satisfied with the WP distances and capacities as yet. So here's another attempt to produce a satisfactory result. I'm using the Ultra WP distance table as the starting point.


1d100 Die RollDistance from PrimaryCapacity
011 sH100 hs
022 sH110 hs
033 sH120 hs
044 sH130 hs
055 sH140 hs
06-076 sH150 hs
08-097 sH160 hs
10-118 sH170 hs
12-139 sH180 hs
14-1510 sH190 hs
16-1811 sH200 hs
19-2112 sH210 hs
22-2413 sH220 hs
25-2714 sH230 hs
28-3015 sH240 hs
31-3416 sH250 hs
35-3817 sH260 hs
39-4218 sH270 hs
43-4619 sH280 hs
47-5020 sH290 hs
51-5521 sH300 hs
56-6022 sH310 hs
61-6523 sH320 hs
66-7024 sH330 hs
71-7525 sH340 hs
76-8026 sH350 hs
81-8527 sH360 hs
86-9028 sH370 hs
91-9529 sH380 hs
96-0030 sH390 hs


A few notes.

1. Clearly from this table, the average distance is 20.5 sH, which is a good average for the LH system. Put another way, 15% of the distances are from 1 to 10 sH; 35% of the distances are from 11 to 20 sH; and the remaining 50% of the distances are from 21 to 30 sH.

2. This table creates an absolute linkage between the WP's distance to primary and its capacity. (If I wanted to end the table at 400 HS, I could just start at 110 HS, rather than 100 HS.) A simpler version of the distance to capacity linkage would be:

1-10 sH: 100 HS
11-20 sH: 200 HS
21-30 sH: 300 HS

or alternatively:

1-6 sH: 100 HS
7-12 sH: 200 HS
13-18 sH: 300 HS
19-24 sH: 400 HS
25-30 HS: 500 HS

3. This table creates no linkage between a WP's type (i.e. visibility) and its distance to primary (and thus capacity).



I like the results that this table produces for distance to primary, but am not entirely happy with the capacity result as yet. Perhaps it's because I'm such a 3E person that those "unnatural" multiples of 100 WPs look "normal" to me in spite of myself.

Comments?
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby tmul4050 on Fri 25 Jan 2013 07:24

I have just noticed that HS capacity is linked to didtance from the primary. Is that intentional?
The table looks good, and gives a good range of posible WP. Have you given up on a D10 only table?
tmul4050
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun 27 Dec 2009 20:28

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Dawn Falcon on Fri 25 Jan 2013 10:01

Crucis wrote:True, but it requires the use of d100, rather than d10. I've been trying to reduce things to a single die (be it d10 or d6) rather than d100's (which are 2 d10).


True enough. A flat 30% still works, or perhaps it could scale up fairly fast from say 500%, to stop making ridiculously oversized transits viable (i.e. STing the entire fleet). So 40% at 500%, 50% at 700%, etc.

However, I'm also wary of letting WP capacities be abused by ridiculously oversized ships, like letting an Arduan "system defense" ship transit WP's. (Arduan SDS's might be on the order of a few thousand hull spaces.)


Easily handed by not allowing ships that big a drive field. (Also, honestly, I'd just ignore the entire Arduan novels myself, especially since they won't be active in the Expanse)

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of multi-impulse transits, at least how Ultra/Solar do it. I like simple.


It's not that complex! Most of the complexity is in transit size, which I assume you're not going to use. So..it simply ties up the WP for as many impulses as it takes to pass through. Halve any remaining capacity in the final impulse (or round it up, still works), done.

Otherwise you'll have ships dying in routine transits on the way to the front!
User avatar
Dawn Falcon
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:26

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Fri 25 Jan 2013 13:04

tmul4050 wrote:I have just noticed that HS capacity is linked to distance from the primary. Is that intentional?


Very much so. The various versions of the D10 table also contained this linkage, but not so obviously or strongly.

The table looks good, and gives a good range of possible WP. Have you given up on a D10 only table?


No. The above table is an idea for handling distance from primary and WP capacity only. The D10 table would still be used to get the WP's "type" (i.e. its visibility).


Frankly, I find the above table to be overly large and cumbersome for my tastes, but it produces an excellent result for WP distances. I'm not completely sold on having such a strong and incremental linkage to WP capacity, but it's a very useful mechanism. The problem I have to deal with is that Closed WP's aren't like other low visibility WP's, even on the earlier revisions of the D10 table. Closed WP's shouldn't be linked to a single capacity or distance from WP. They need to be anywhere in the system, and be of any of the allowed WP capacities.

But in the earlier rev's, I had Open WP's in the outermost portion of the system, while the lowest non-closed WP types were closest to the star. In theory, this sounds cool, but in practice, I think that it could cause players to want to focus their surveying efforts in a single region when looking for each Type of WP, whether the rules require full system surveys or not. But by de-linking WP Type to distance and having all types possibly existing anywhere in the system, this is no longer a problem. OTOH, I'm not aware of any real or meta-gaming issues that might be related to linking WP capacity to a WP's distance from its primary.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Warp Points, Take 2

Postby Crucis on Fri 25 Jan 2013 13:35

Dawn Falcon wrote:
Crucis wrote:True, but it requires the use of d100, rather than d10. I've been trying to reduce things to a single die (be it d10 or d6) rather than d100's (which are 2 d10).


True enough. A flat 30% still works, or perhaps it could scale up fairly fast from say 500%, to stop making ridiculously oversized transits viable (i.e. STing the entire fleet). So 40% at 500%, 50% at 700%, etc.


Regarding using different scale for sizes to try to continue to use a single d10 or d6 (to avoid the problem of having to roll 2 dice for each IP roll). I guess that on the question of "ridiculously oversized transits", they don't bother me because they're canonical. And to make them still viable within ISW4, the % chance of destruction even for a ST wave that was 20x the WP capacity would still have to be relatively low. (I don't think even the Bugs would send through a massive 10,000+ HS ST of MT's and BC's only to lose 50% or more of them to IP.)


However, I'm also wary of letting WP capacities be abused by ridiculously oversized ships, like letting an Arduan "system defense" ship transit WP's. (Arduan SDS's might be on the order of a few thousand hull spaces.)


Easily handed by not allowing ships that big a drive field. (Also, honestly, I'd just ignore the entire Arduan novels myself, especially since they won't be active in the Expanse)


That probably is the easiest solution. Simply state that DF's have a max size, hence defining the max size for any DF-driven starship.

As for the Arduan novels, I pretty much agree, though my problem with them is that I don't think that they'd translate well into a scenario module, because the vast size of the SDS' and generation ships pretty much forces the use of huge fleets on the scale seen in the ISW4 scenario module. I think that they make for a perfectly acceptable story for a novel, but not so much for a game.



I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of multi-impulse transits, at least how Ultra/Solar do it. I like simple.


It's not that complex! Most of the complexity is in transit size, which I assume you're not going to use. So..it simply ties up the WP for as many impulses as it takes to pass through. Halve any remaining capacity in the final impulse (or round it up, still works), done.


If you've read procyon's thread in the private Solar forum, you'll see a reason why I don't like the exact method used by Ultra/Solar for multi-impulse transits. I don't like the idea of leaving the WP "open for business" while an over-capacity ship is in the process of transiting. I'd rather lockdown the WP (in the direction the ship is transiting only) for those few impulses than allow the for the possibility and complication of another ship attempting to transit in a later disrupted impulse, thus forcing an ST, whether by accident or intentionally.


Otherwise you'll have ships dying in routine transits on the way to the front!


Well, with the "risk of destruction" die roll for over-capacity ships idea, yes, it's possible. But I'm of the opinion that navies would be highly wary of sending over-capacity ships thru WP's merely to get to the front if there was a risk of destruction, which would seem to create a de facto hard limit on capacity, except in exceptional circumstances.

And then one has to ask, why bother with the idea at all if it creates a de facto hard limit? And wouldn't it be better to just have a hard limit in the first place? Or just ignore any chance of destruction for over-capacity ships and go with safe multi-impulse transits.

I am STRONGLY tempted to say that over-capacity ships must endure the same penalties as ships in an ST because over-capacity transits are not as smooth and uneventful as regular under-capacity transits. For normal (non-combat) travel from system to system, this isn't a big deal. It is meant to make over-capacity transits a bit more painful in combat situations.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Previous

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron