Designing a Carrier in 2E

[nimrodd]

There's not that much difference in size (relatively speaking) between a Size 1 fighter flight & a Size 1 ship. I was under the impression that there would be greater differences.

I think the disconnect is that it 'Ship Mass' and 'Fighter Mass' do not appear to be exactly analogous. That is, 50 mass of fighter does not equal exactly 50 mass of ship. In the construction system it may be better to make this more explicit. I might even consider dropping 'mass' as a term- it does create assumptions about sizes of things that will trip people up, when all it really is a highly abstract measurement of capability costs.

The example is overall great though, the possibilities inherent in the construction system make me really excited to start a new campaign.

-Will

But, yes they are analogous, as they use the same engine and weapons mass.

And, just for giggles, let's say we were also designing a SIZ 1 Light Fighter to be berthed aboard this Carrier. SIZ 1 Flights have a Maximum Mass of 50, which means that, well, they can't do much. In that 50 Mass we could just insert 1 Anti-Ship (29 Mass) and 1 Engine (all flights are considered to be SIZ 1 for Engine costs, so that is 20 x 0.87^2 = 16), for a total of 45 Mass.

[nimrodd]

All right, so far we have defined that we are going to use up to a maximum of 900 Mass for our ship, and that it is going to be a SIZ 5 Protected Cruiser with Command Cost 2. That gives us our initial stats -- now to add equipment!

Okay, I don't remember seeing Command Cost calculation listed. How is this calculated now?

[Tyrel Lohr]

There's not that much difference in size (relatively speaking) between a Size 1 fighter flight & a Size 1 ship. I was under the impression that there would be greater differences.

The biggest problem is that if the Flight masses were severely limited there would be little difference between Flight units and most Flights would only ever be able to be equipped with a single stat. There would be little or no variety between Flight units, and smaller Flights would be completely useless.

The middle ground solution adopted so far is to have the Flights have roughly 1/4 the Mass of their Starship equivalents, except that the SIZ 1 Starship aligns with the SIZ 1/2 Shuttle for those equivalencies. It isn't a perfect correlation, either, as I foresee SIZ 1 Flights with 50 Mass, SIZ 2 Flights with 75 Mass, and SIZ 3 Flights with 100 Mass. These Mass values allow Flights to be built at lower tech levels and still be somewhat viable, and even at mid-range tech small Flights will still be quite limited as to their capabilities.

Previously, I had thought about reducing the Mass values of the Flight family and then halving the costs of all equipment to fit this model. However, after more thought, I decided it would be better if the Mass values for Flights was inflated so that they could still use the same costs and basic unit construction engine as Starships, so there wouldn't be strange exceptions within the rules to confuse people.

As for correlating the size and mass of a Flight to that of its basing unit, it is best to think of a Flight's Mass as being proportionally less than that of its carrier. Mass in the case of Flights is just a convenient shorthand to describe how much space is available, and Flight Mass and Carrier Mass do not line up on a 1:1 basis.

After all, this is a Carrier, not a Tardis.

Wibbley wobbley, timey wimey?

I understand where you're coming from, but without an elegant solution that doesn't make unit design confusing, I think we will have to live with a note being added to the Flight and Aircraft sections saying that their actual Mass values are probably about 1/100 of that provided, but that the larger values are used to provide a consistent unit construction experience.

-Tyrel

[Tyrel Lohr]

Okay, I don't remember seeing Command Cost calculation listed. How is this calculated now?

Command Costs are generally equal to a unit's SIZ divided by 2 (rounding down). Starships, Starbases, Troops, and Installations all have Command Costs, while Flights and Aircraft do not (they must be brought into battle by a unit capable of basing them).

An exception exists for SIZ 1 units, as their Command Cost is 1/2, and doesn't get rounded and remains a fractional value.

-Tyrel

[Tyrel Lohr]

Is 2E still going to have #* weaponry for fighters, or is it going to be only whole numbers now?

No, the asterisked values for Flights are gone in 2E. They either have the combat stats or they don't. They can still get bonuses to non-zero stats by performing dedicated missions, however.

The closest we come in 2E to the asterisked values (as far as their effect on dedicated missions) are two new technologies: Bomber and Interceptor. Bomber provides AS only when performing dedicated AS missions, while Interceptor provides AF only when performing dedicated AF missions. Each costs less than full AS/AF, but they also limits the options available to the Flight and its Strikegroup. Because attack orders are given to Strikegroups, you would have to make sure that all of the Flights in the Strikegroup are configured to be able to leverage the technology. Mixing Flights with Bomber and Interceptor equipment would not be optimal, as only one or the other could ever be used at any given time (or neither, if no dedicated mission is ordered).

-Tyrel

[nimrodd]

Is 2E still going to have #* weaponry for fighters, or is it going to be only whole numbers now?

No, the asterisked values for Flights are gone in 2E. They either have the combat stats or they don't. They can still get bonuses to non-zero stats by performing dedicated missions, however.

The closest we come in 2E to the asterisked values (as far as their effect on dedicated missions) are two new technologies: Bomber and Interceptor. Bomber provides AS only when performing dedicated AS missions, while Interceptor provides AF only when performing dedicated AF missions. Each costs less than full AS/AF, but they also limits the options available to the Flight and its Strikegroup. Because attack orders are given to Strikegroups, you would have to make sure that all of the Flights in the Strikegroup are configured to be able to leverage the technology. Mixing Flights with Bomber and Interceptor equipment would not be optimal, as only one or the other could ever be used at any given time (or neither, if no dedicated mission is ordered).

-Tyrel

Do I remember something about fighters now being able to be crippled, or are they still destroyed when taking their DV?

[Tyrel Lohr]

Do I remember something about fighters now being able to be crippled, or are they still destroyed when taking their DV?

You remember correctly. If a Flight is equipped with Defense Rating, then it will take an amount of Damage equal to its Defense Rating before being Crippled, and then it is Destroyed when it takes Damage equal to twice its Defense Rating.

Now, if a unit (Flight or otherwise) doesn't isn't equipped with Defense, then it is destroyed when it receives its first point of Damage. In essence, the first point of Defense Rating you purchase is only half as effective as each subsequent point.

So you can build a Flight without Defense installed, but it will be blown up very easily. At the current Mass values, it remains hard to balance defense, propulsion, and weaponry on the SIZ 1-3 Flight units even at mid-game. You have to make a conscious decision about what role you want your Flights to serve in. Light Fighters (SIZ 1) in particular have a quandary, and I have a feeling that a lot of player will just throw a point of Engine Rating on them to help provide some screening duty to their Strikegroup or Squadron and leave them otherwise weaponless and defenseless.

-Tyrel

[wminsing]

Light Fighters (SIZ 1) in particular have a quandary, and I have a feeling that a lot of player will just throw a point of Engine Rating on them to help provide some screening duty to their Strikegroup or Squadron and leave them otherwise weaponless and defenseless.

Speaking of which, what exact effect does Engine Rating have on a fighter? Do fighters count as for 'fastest/slowest ship' rules, or does this imply fighters can operate on their own? How would independent fighter strikes be handled with the new Strikegroup system?

-Will

[Tyrel Lohr]

Speaking of which, what exact effect does Engine Rating have on a fighter? Do fighters count as for 'fastest/slowest ship' rules, or does this imply fighters can operate on their own? How would independent fighter strikes be handled with the new Strikegroup system?

Engine Rating generates Formation Points that in turn provides Strikegroups with a Formation Level, insulating them against Damage. Strikegroups can then turn around and gift some or all of their Formation Level to their basing Squadron. Now, this does mean a single 1 Engine shuttle could be carried along to give its Squadron a +1 Formation Level for a combat round... but that shuttle almost certainly won't survive that first round of fire.

Now, Flights with Endurance Rating can operate a distance away from their carriers equal to their Endurance Rating, so you could end up with independent Strikegroups that are operating away from their carriers. Endurance is a fairly expensive option (though cost has not yet been defined, probably the same as for Engines), so independent Flights are going to trade combat performance for the ability to operate away from their carriers.

A Flight's Engine Rating doesn't affect the speed of its Squadron, because the units are being based aboard the unit. However, concerning independent Flights, their Engine Rating should probably affect the speed of their Squadron, as they can't just dock aboard carriers for the journey, and would therefore slow down the fleet if they were too slow.

-Tyrel

[wminsing]

Engine Rating generates Formation Points that in turn provides Strikegroups with a Formation Level, insulating them against Damage. Strikegroups can then turn around and gift some or all of their Formation Level to their basing Squadron. Now, this does mean a single 1 Engine shuttle could be carried along to give its Squadron a +1 Formation Level for a combat round... but that shuttle almost certainly won't survive that first round of fire.

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Strikegroups and Squadrons turn Engine rating in a Formation Level bonus. That does go a long way towards making light fighters a lot more interesting- I'm seeing some interesting possibilities in a Wing Commander game....

Building a 1 Engine, nothing else shuttle flight might seem a bit 'cheap' though to a lot of players. On the other hand it might encourage ships to carry non-combat shuttles, which is a feature in a lot of settings.

-Will

[Tyrel Lohr]

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Strikegroups and Squadrons turn Engine rating in a Formation Level bonus. That does go a long way towards making light fighters a lot more interesting- I'm seeing some interesting possibilities in a Wing Commander game....

I had fighters like the Hornet or Arrow in mind when formulating some of these rules In those examples, first-generation light fighters will pretty much just be flying Engines, providing Formation Points to be used to either defend other fighters or their carriers ("flying escort"). It is assumed that these fighters have some kind of weaponry present, only that it is not powerful enough to count as a full AS/AF point. As your tech gets better, you will eventually be able to mount some actual useful weaponry.

Going back to WC1, the Hornet probably would be a SIZ 1 Light Fighter with 1 Engine and *maybe* 1 AF, if the tech would allow it. A Scimitar would be a SIZ 2 Medium Fighter, with probably 1 AS/1AF plus the 1 Engine, plus at least 1 Defense. The Raptor would be a SIZ 3 Heavy Fighter with most of its extra space given over to AS and Defense. The Rapier, meanwhile, would just be a more advanced SIZ 2 fighter that is able to incorporate more equipment than the old Scimitar could.

Building a 1 Engine, nothing else shuttle flight might seem a bit 'cheap' though to a lot of players. On the other hand it might encourage ships to carry non-combat shuttles, which is a feature in a lot of settings.

Basically, that 1 Engine shuttle would be serving as a forward reconnaissance craft (ala BSG's Raptors, just smaller), and in that light the Formation Level bonus makes some degree of sense. Also, any player that wanted to game the system like that could do it all of once per encounter, because after that he would likely be out of shuttles.

There is also the case that Flights are not going to be instantly delivered to units anymore, so the loss of those shuttles means that the ship won't get any more of them until they return to base and pick some more up. It means a bit more micromanagement in that you have to build Flights at specific planets and then either move your carriers to their location to pick them up for move them via freighters/carriers to their destination, but it also helps to keep Flights from being wholly expendable units that can be instantly replaced.

There will be a special piece of equipment called the Shuttlebay that is roughly half the size of a Carrier slot which provides 1/2 Cargo Rating. This allows a player to more economically add shuttle basing to their ships, which is important in some settings. The Star Trek universe in particular will benefit from this, especially if you wanted to try and simulate the "new" Star Trek universe from the latest movie, where even relatively small ships have tons of shuttlecraft based aboard them.

The Shuttlebay also gives an empire the opportunity to actually specialize in deploying swarms of the things. It would take a lot of miniaturization to ever make them useful, but at some point you could build a shuttle with a gun on it -- at very high tech, mind you. More likely that a player would try to throw on a <= 30 Mass support tech onboard along with the Engine. At TL 5, you could also shove 2 Engine aboard a shuttle, which would means that a horde of 20 of them in a Squadron would provide enough Formation Points to put them in a Formation Level of 4.

-Tyrel

[OldnGrey]

So far I have the SIZ mass rounded to the nearest hundred, giving 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1500, 1700 & 2000.
This in a mini 2E ship construction, which I will have toggle between ship and fighter flight. Eventually moving towards having the 2E stats updating and visible whilst constructing a Starmada ship as per 1E.
The Tech level mod will also toggle between Starmada and 2E.

I cannot seem to find a figure for "sensor" yet. For 1E I made the first Passive and Active 1 sensors free as per Starmada AE.

It does appear strange that the SIZ of a ship gives nothing towards defence.

Tyrel, you said elsewhere that the engines should port over without much problem. How do you see this, Starmada engines / 2?
One basic engine (TL0) in Starmada goes from 3% on a hull1 to I think it is 7.9% on a hull 24. The 20% cost per engine in 2E is a bit of a difference.

Paul

[Tyrel Lohr]

So far I have the SIZ mass rounded to the nearest hundred, giving 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1300, 1500, 1700 & 2000.
This in a mini 2E ship construction, which I will have toggle between ship and fighter flight. Eventually moving towards having the 2E stats updating and visible whilst constructing a Starmada ship as per 1E.
The Tech level mod will also toggle between Starmada and 2E.

I think those SIZ values are probably a good starting point, as they match up with my original SIZ values from 100-800 Mass, though I am still wondering if we shouldn't have the larger ships (SIZ 8-10) have a bit higher Maximum Mass values. However, that being said, I am probably going to wait until some further testing is done to see if that is right or not.

I cannot seem to find a figure for "sensor" yet. For 1E I made the first Passive and Active 1 sensors free as per Starmada AE.

I can't remember if the Starmada X "Long Range Sensors" equipment got ported over to AE or not. I was thinking that the Starmada ships with that equipment could receive a Sensor value commensurate with the cost.

The current Mass Cost in 2E for Sensors is 40, the same cost as Stealth.

It does appear strange that the SIZ of a ship gives nothing towards defence.

I originally had the ships receiving a Defense bonus equal to their SIZ, but after running the numbers I decided it was better to force the player to expend some of their extra Mass on Defense instead of giving it to them for free. Essentially, the "free" Defense worked good at lower tech levels to compensate for a lack of technical skill, but as the empires became more advanced it seemed to become more an excuse not to use the increasing Mass for Defense but rather for more weaponry, and I didn't particularly like the direction that took gameplay.

Tyrel, you said elsewhere that the engines should port over without much problem. How do you see this, Starmada engines / 2?
One basic engine (TL0) in Starmada goes from 3% on a hull1 to I think it is 7.9% on a hull 24. The 20% cost per engine in 2E is a bit of a difference.

In my tests with the Stars Divided ships, I found that, assuming that the units are of "average tech level", the only ships that couldn't port Engines over at a 1:1 rating were the smallest ships, like the Hull 1 patrol craft. I would say that Starmada engines could be multiplied by 2/3 and rounded up to find a value appropriate to VBAM 2E. The multiplier might have to dip down lower for the small Starmada craft, but I know that the 1:1 conversion for the larger ships seemed to be working out -- although, now that I think of it, most of those ships topped out at 3-4 Engines, which means Starmada craft with higher Engines might still have problems.

-Tyrel

[OldnGrey]

Thanks I'll add them.
"Long Range Sensors" got lumped under "Fire Control" in Starmada AE.
For 1E conversions this just did not work, for example, some ships would come out as scouts when not wanted. So I kept the option (5% SU) available. Same with "Electronic Warfare System" (5% SU) which changed to part of the "Fire Control" in Starmada AE.
Without having these (and some other) options available it just would not have been possible to give ships some of the VBAM 1E options.

For Defence I tried adding up the mass used for Shields (any type), Countermeasures, Point Defence, Regeneration, Armor Plating and Cloaking Device divided by 50 Rounded. It seems to give a reasonable number and as you say, it does make having defensive systems important.

Will there still be mods to cost and maintenance for things like "Ballistic"?

Paul

[Tyrel Lohr]

"Long Range Sensors" got lumped under "Fire Control" in Starmada AE.

Okay, so my idea won't work then. Fire Control is a better conversion stat for the Electronic Warfare equipment type in 2E. So that does leave using the Active/Passive Sensors as the best way option to translate into 2E Sensors. I am thinking that Passive Sensors would be only half as effective in the conversion compared to Active Sensors, but that is just an off-the-cuff reaction.

Will there still be mods to cost and maintenance for things like "Ballistic"?

In the 2E construction system, all equipment options will just have a Mass Cost which indirectly aligns with their cost to add to the ship (i.e., a 50 Mass system effectively costs 1/2 EP to add to any given unit). So I think we are going to get away from having specific +- modifiers to cost or maintenance for specific equipment types.

Also, in relation to the K/E/B mix, I am still somewhat on the fence as to what if anything to do with them. There are several different options, the easiest being to just keep them as cheap weapon options that simply allow weapons packages of their related type to be added to a ship, so they would be treated as empty hardpoints to be filled with weapons packages. Another option could be to have a comprehensive optional rule where players define their ship's armaments and defenses to be K, E, or B, but that would means breaking the weapons fire phases down into a phase for each... which really won't work.

-Tyrel