Oddball build Question(s)

Check here for updates and discussion about the new edition of the Victory by Any Means Campaign System.
BLHarrison
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:02 pm

Oddball build Question(s)

Postby BLHarrison » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:15 pm

In the spreadsheet I've roughed out to create units I've been putting/adding any leftover fractions into Cargo. Therefore ...

Question 1: Can one actually make use of such fractional values. Example 4 ships with .5 cargo each could carry a 2 CC unit between them?

Question 2: If the answer to #1 is yes, can the same apply to Assualt?

Question 3: If the answer to both of the above is yes, can you combine them to carry ground units. For example one ship as Assalt .5, Cargo 1.5 and a second ship has Cargo .5 and Assalt 1.5. Could they carry a 4 CC unit between the two of them? I assume that no Assault bonus would be allowed.

Besides just filling in MU fractional amounts of Assalt/Cargo could represent ships that might have a something like a Marine Battalion spread throught the Squadron for Boarding/Inspection duties.

Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Re: Oddball build Question(s)

Postby Gareth_Perkins » Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:38 am

I am hoping that the answer is no, because it is an extra level of (unneeded) complexity to play,
Gareth Lazelle

User avatar
mwaschak
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:43 am
Location: The data mines of VBAM
Contact:

Re: Oddball build Question(s)

Postby mwaschak » Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:19 pm

Gareth_Perkins wrote:I am hoping that the answer is no, because it is an extra level of (unneeded) complexity to play,


Hi guys,

Reading through the new rules it is not exactly clear yet, but as the playtesters your input will be valuable here. In 1e, and to some extent in FA (let's call it 1.5), fractionals did work. We basically applied that to a fleet scale as to make the .5 ships worthwhile. I know with the construction system it can be hard to get to the XZY(1) stat. With that said, what are your thoughts? Too fiddly? Optional Rule?

-Jay

Gareth_Perkins
Captain
Captain
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:39 am
Location: Exeter; UK

Re: Oddball build Question(s)

Postby Gareth_Perkins » Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:27 pm

Too fiddly by far, and raises awkward question like "what happens if one of the four transports carrying my infantry regiment aboard is destroyed", etc

I think the only reason it comes up is because of the way ship-mass increases by tech level, so it can be ruled out by simply stating that "available mass" is rounded down after calculation.
Gareth Lazelle

mriddle
Commander
Commander
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:12 am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Oddball build Question(s)

Postby mriddle » Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:34 pm

I THINK it depends on the scale expected for the game. tracking .5 cargo when you have ten or fewer ships is one thing.. doing for one hundred ships..

Also what happens when one of the four ships is destroyed, is the "cargo unit" destroyed ? (or does it take two of the four ?) ..

I would say no, must be in complete units.. also if one can half partial cargo, why can not have a half size missile launcher ? so I can have a AS of .34313

Mike

BLHarrison
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: Oddball build Question(s)

Postby BLHarrison » Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:21 pm

mriddle wrote:I THINK it depends on the scale expected for the game. tracking .5 cargo when you have ten or fewer ships is one thing.. doing for one hundred ships..

Also what happens when one of the four ships is destroyed, is the "cargo unit" destroyed ? (or does it take two of the four ?) ..

I would say no, must be in complete units.. also if one can half partial cargo, why can not have a half size missile launcher ? so I can have a AS of .34313

Mike

Well, as far as a split unit taking a hit, why not treat it as taking damage, so if starts out at 4 CC(using my example) the loss of one of the transporting units reduces it to a 2 CC unit (with all other reduced stats). If the remaining ship(s) can't handle 2 CC then the unit is destroyed, if not it can be used in it's damaged state.

I don't consider it too fiddly, at least when sticking to using only Cargo or only Assault to transport a unit, BUT it could be a YMMV situation. One could considered this as a possiable optional rule. Splitting a unit between Cargo and Assault could be considered pushing it, which is one reason I asked the question.

User avatar
Charles Lewis
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 937
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 am
Location: Des Moines, IA
Contact:

Re: Oddball build Question(s)

Postby Charles Lewis » Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:47 pm

No reason this couldn't be an optional rule. After all, VBAM is all about "season to taste." :)
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone

User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1402
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: Oddball build Question(s)

Postby Tyrel Lohr » Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:19 am

In theory for something like Cargo or Assault I would be inclined to say that you *could* have 1/2 ratings, but likely no smaller fractions. That being said, I would highly discourage it because it opens up too many doors and runs counter to what 2E is doing with the rules. The unit design options are much broader than they were before. In 1E, an average heavy cruiser was typically a 6 EP ship with 6 DV, 6 AS, 3 AF, 6 CR with a maintenance cost of 2/3 per turn. In 2E, an average heavy cruiser (for a TL 10 power, which is pretty average) would be more like 15 EP, 16 DV, 16 AS, 10 PD, 12 CR, 2 FTL and a maintenance cost of 6 per year (or 6/10 per turn). Even a TL 0 power could build a heavy cruiser worth 15 EP with 8 DV, 8 AS, 5 PD, 6 CR, and 1 FTL, and its maintenance cost would only be 3 per year (3/10 per turn).

Note on maintenance costs: maintenance is being used as a balancing factor in 2E to cut technologically inferior powers a bit of a break while at the same time making hyper-advanced civilizations pay enough to maintain their units that they can't just ship-spam an opponent to kill them. The Vorlons can build extremely potent starships, but they are expensive enough to maintain that they won't be able to field as many of them.

Getting back to the original question, how I have rewritten the cargo rules the amount of cargo or troops that can be carried is now rated on a squadron/corps basis. You take the total Cargo or Assault rating in the formation, and that is the maximum construction cost of applicable units that the formation can carry. If you ever have more construction cost of units in the formation than it can carry, then you have to destroy based units until the total construction cost is reduced to a manageable level. This does mean that stuffing your transports full to the gills with goods or personnel is a resoundingly bad idea, as you are very likely to lose units should those transports be crippled or destroyed.

While I don't like fractional ratings, fractional mass unit costs are another matter entirely. After testing, the new cost for FTL is 20% x Construction Cost. If you have a 13 EP light cruiser, the cost of 1 FTL is 13 x 20% = 2.6. Giving the unit 3 FTL would therefore cost 3 x 2.6 = 7.8 MU. Fractional mass units don't matter that much because there is a hard limit based on construction cost and tech level. For example, at TL 5, that 13 EP CL would have 39 MU available to spend. It couldn't go above this level, though you could spend less in order to keep its maintenance down (maintenance is MU / 10, round down, minimum 1/2). Charlie does have a point that it would be easy to create an optional rule for, and the rules themselves already accommodate fractional unit ratings.
"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"


Return to “Second Edition Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest