Command Costs

Blue? Green? Red? Refuse? It's time to talk about rules for a new community edition of the VBAM rules!
Post Reply
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Command Costs

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

Is everyone still happy with the command cost breakdowns listed below, or should we shift to a construction cost / 4 (round up)? The reason I ask is because if we move to the "cost" of several abilities (Guardian, Disruptor, etc.) being tied to CC, then it might be better to lower the command costs overall. For example, a BB would drop from 5 to 3 if we go with Cost / 4. The amount of Guardian required to boost the formation level of a BB would then be 3, where right now it is a 1:1. This would scale better and be a bit more consistent.

CT/DD: 1
CL: 2
CA: 3
CB: 4
BB: 5
DN: 6
SD: 8
TN: 10
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
User avatar
aelius
Commander
Commander
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:51 am

Re: Command Costs

Post by aelius »

That works for me. I'm a big fan of consistency.
4. Killing is not too good for my enemies
Evil Overlords Survival Guide
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: Command Costs

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

I'm just thinking that it would make the Scout missions work better if they did align with the existing abilities. Then the Scouts could just be really versatile, swapping between abilities as needed whereas the dedicated ships just aren't as expensive to field.

Guardian: raise formation
Disruptor: lower formation
Suppression: lower AS/AF
"Targeting": raise AS/AF

I need a better name than Targeting, and I am not sure if this would water Scouts down too much.
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
User avatar
aelius
Commander
Commander
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:51 am

Re: Command Costs

Post by aelius »

Tyrel Lohr wrote:I'm just thinking that it would make the Scout missions work better if they did align with the existing abilities. Then the Scouts could just be really versatile, swapping between abilities as needed whereas the dedicated ships just aren't as expensive to field.

Guardian: raise formation
Disruptor: lower formation
Suppression: lower AS/AF
"Targeting": raise AS/AF

I need a better name than Targeting, and I am not sure if this would water Scouts down too much.
Call it Coordination or Coordinated Firepower. Or even Squadron Targeting.
Or you could always just go with Fire Control... :wink:
4. Killing is not too good for my enemies
Evil Overlords Survival Guide
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: Command Costs

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

aelius wrote:Call it Coordination or Coordinated Firepower. Or even Squadron Targeting.
Or you could always just go with Fire Control... :wink:
Coordination or Fire Control both sound good for the ability.

I just think removing a few of the extra decision nodes at the start of the combat round so they use similar systems could end up working better overall. But I really need to get another 12 turns done in my playtest campaign to get a better feel for some of this.

I think we're getting close to the point that we can do a general playtest, either with our own solo campaign attempts or a 3 or 6 player forum game with the Galaxies rules to work through things together and see what happens. Would anyone have the time or interest for something like that?
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
User avatar
aelius
Commander
Commander
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:51 am

Re: Command Costs

Post by aelius »

Interest, yes. Time, I don't know. I'll see what I can do because it sounds interesting.
4. Killing is not too good for my enemies
Evil Overlords Survival Guide
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: Command Costs

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

Another advantage of going to CC = Cost / 4 (round up) would be that it is easier to require ships to have a minimum DV/CR = 2 x CC. This would help to ensure a minimum level of competence for ships of any given class. I mean, sure, you could end up with a 12 EP Battleship that still only has 6 DV or CR, but at that point you're probably some interplanetary power that is going to be sitting there hoping that no one comes by to blow you up :wink:
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
User avatar
aelius
Commander
Commander
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:51 am

Re: Command Costs

Post by aelius »

Sucks to be in the Havenite's way. :)
4. Killing is not too good for my enemies
Evil Overlords Survival Guide
User avatar
BroAdso
Commander
Commander
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 4:27 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: Command Costs

Post by BroAdso »

Agreed, I really like the greater standardization. The only problem I have is with some odd break points - for example, an Era IV destroyer gains 5 CP, (4.8 ), and gains one point each at Eras I and II - but goes to +4 (3.8 ) CP at Era III. This can distort the percentage of total CP that needs to be devoted to CR to get CR above CC.

However, ultimately the whole reworking of scout, disruption, and guardian missions to CC seems great. I like the idea that I might have two Disruptor functions in my force already, but need three to reduce the BB's formation, so I need to send one ship on a mission, etc...introduces some good tactical choices.
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: Command Costs

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

BroAdso wrote:Agreed, I really like the greater standardization. The only problem I have is with some odd break points - for example, an Era IV destroyer gains 5 CP, (4.8 ), and gains one point each at Eras I and II - but goes to +4 (3.8 ) CP at Era III. This can distort the percentage of total CP that needs to be devoted to CR to get CR above CC.
Yes, that problem exists in the 2E construction rules, too, where you have some breakpoints where you can crunch the numbers and find the "optimal" cost-to-points options and exploit them. Luckily, as the base game is assuming pre-built force lists, we can address most of those issues through the contents of the sample force lists.

In a game where players are allowed to create their own classes on the fly, however, you're going to see some players that are going to crunch the numbers and find the "best" unit and exploit it to their advantage. But that extra point here and there shouldn't win them the game, as the VBAM CSCR really comes down more to aggregate firepower and abilities rather than the performance of a single class.
However, ultimately the whole reworking of scout, disruption, and guardian missions to CC seems great. I like the idea that I might have two Disruptor functions in my force already, but need three to reduce the BB's formation, so I need to send one ship on a mission, etc...introduces some good tactical choices.
This approach does seem to give a lot more interesting decision to the player, and the individual ships become more meaningful (and worth naming!) because there is a very good chance that they'll survive multiple engagements with the enemy.

Using CC as mission costs prevents the "Guardian spam" issue that I saw first hand in 1E, and I can also see situations where I might have to send a ship out on a Scouting mission in order to get that extra Scout function I need to protect one of my ships or weaken an opponent.

Something I want to do tomorrow is set up one of the scenarios that concerns me, which is a 20 vs 20 light cruiser engagement and see if the system can handle that. I'm hoping that such a battle is going to see about 10 ships crippled/destroyed on each side, but not be necessarily decisive on either side. The low CR of the smaller ships, like a CL, is what I worry about. In 1E/2E, the squadrons would allow almost all of those ships to be in the task force at once, where I think you're only going to see about 5 at a time with the new CSCR. But each player is going to be actively cycling their units in and out of combat, and I hope that dynamic creates a situation where the player ends up after 6 turns with quite a large number of cripples, which would be a better outcome than the "mutual annihilation" of some 1E battles.
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
Post Reply