VBAM Games Forums

I am a veteran user of the 3rd Edition of Starfire (Imperial and SM2's modifications) for some solo pen & paper games, but I've become dissatisfied with it of late because I want something that can be used to model a universe similar to David Weber's Honorverse. The SITS tactical game is way beyond me and I was hoping to find some other way to game in this type of setting.

Imperial Starfire can't model it very well (despite being designed by Weber) for a few reasons. Someone on the Ad Astra boards suggested VBAM. I don't think it will work based on the discussion there, but I thought I would ask a few questions here.

1. Can VBAM be used to model a setting with lots of ships? Manticore and Haven have hundreds of ships each. Starfire works pretty well on larger numbers, but my understanding is that VBAM tends to emphasize smaller ship counts.

2. Can VBAM be used to model a universe that does not use warp points? I think the answer to this is yes.

3. Can VBAm be used to model a setting where a small, but very prosperous, empire is capable of economic output comparable to a big, ramshackle power? Starfire cannot do this. The low population and industry cap in Starfire means that every system tops out at a relatively low level. This means big empires are necessary to generate large economies (sort of like Russia and Austria being better economically than Britain and Prussia, which wasn't really true). This completely precludes it from being used as an Honorverse analogue, where the 3 planet Kingdom of Manticore has an economy capable of competing with the hundred star system Republican of Haven. My understanding is that VBAM does not do this very well (someone told me large systems top out around 100 EP).

4. Can VBAM be used to model a universe where colonization/exploration is not important (maybe not even going on anymore) and economic growth is primarily achieved by developing systems that are already well-settled at the start of the campaign? Starfire strikes out here, for the reasons listed above. Its economic system is built around dropping population on new planets as fast as possible. All 4X games are usually made this way, which is a major problem with the genre (for me at least).

A poster at Ad Astra thought that the Age of Sail module for VBAM might be usable, with just minor changes. I know nothing about how its economic system functions, so I don't know.

Thanks all.

I'm a novice with VBAM myself, but I did have some thoughts regarding your questions:

(1) How well VBAM handles large number of ships probably depends on how you set it up. One of the ideas I've considered using in a VBAM game with the built in combat system is to conceptualiz the 'ships' as squadrons of ships. So, without actually changing any of the rules, building a single Cruiser actually represents building a squadron of cruisers. It would shift the conceptual emphasis away from the single ship alone against the universe to one of fleets and squadrons, but that would probably be a better fit for the overall Honor Harrington setting anyways.

It would also be dependant on what you use as your tactical system. If you are just using VBAM as the strategic layer and are switching to starfire or some other system to actually run the battles, you'd need to set the economic costs at the right balance point, but otherwise I would think VBAM should be able large numbers of ships.

(2) IIRC the campaign moderators guide includes several different movement models including a hex driven 'open' movement system and a hyperspace system that reminds me a lot of Babylon5.

(3) I've not played enought to be sure how well VBAM would handle the small but economically powerful vs. large but sluggish set up, but you might be able to get close. The Menagerie includes rules for modifying empires based on differences between different races that could easily be used to model differences between different nations. IIRC one of the books also includes rules for adding factions to a government if you run all of the nations as quasi-NPEs (Non-Player Empires).

My concern would probably be that even if you carefully balanced the starting positions to model the setting, if a human player is in charge of the Peeps, they may be able to resolve their disadvantages and end up an economic monster before the Manty player could build up enough to compete.

(4) I would think VBAM could handle a non-colonization oriented setting, especially if you use some of the rules from the campaign moderator book for additional installations and crew experience an so on. There appear to be lot of different angles that can be added to a VBAM campaign. Planetary outcome is not based on just population, so you could emphasize improvement in planetary Productivity instead of population as the typical means of improving economic power.

EDIT -- Forgot to add:
You may also want to consider how you want Technology development to work in your game. The basic VBAM set up is pretty simple, with each empire having a 'tech year' that can be advanced separately from actual game time passed. Different units have a 'tech year' that they become available at which restricts when an empire can build them. If you don't want players to vary much from the capabilities developed in the books, this might work fine. You'd need to stat up the different units and decide which tech years they become available at. The players could then influence how quickly they get their hands on LAC Carriers for instance, but they would not develop all the individual advancements that went into the LAC Carriers becoming a viable combat platform.

If you wanted a more complex system you'd need to come up with something of your own or use the tech advancement system from another game.

First, welcome to the VBAM forums!

jscott991 wrote:1. Can VBAM be used to model a setting with lots of ships? Manticore and Haven have hundreds of ships each. Starfire works pretty well on larger numbers, but my understanding is that VBAM tends to emphasize smaller ship counts.

2. Can VBAM be used to model a universe that does not use warp points? I think the answer to this is yes.

3. Can VBAm be used to model a setting where a small, but very prosperous, empire is capable of economic output comparable to a big, ramshackle power? Starfire cannot do this. The low population and industry cap in Starfire means that every system tops out at a relatively low level. This means big empires are necessary to generate large economies (sort of like Russia and Austria being better economically than Britain and Prussia, which wasn't really true). This completely precludes it from being used as an Honorverse analogue, where the 3 planet Kingdom of Manticore has an economy capable of competing with the hundred star system Republican of Haven. My understanding is that VBAM does not do this very well (someone told me large systems top out around 100 EP).

4. Can VBAM be used to model a universe where colonization/exploration is not important (maybe not even going on anymore) and economic growth is primarily achieved by developing systems that are already well-settled at the start of the campaign? Starfire strikes out here, for the reasons listed above. Its economic system is built around dropping population on new planets as fast as possible. All 4X games are usually made this way, which is a major problem with the genre (for me at least).

A poster at Ad Astra thought that the Age of Sail module for VBAM might be usable, with just minor changes. I know nothing about how its economic system functions, so I don't know.

Thanks all.

1. As brennanhawkwood mentioned, you could handle large numbers of ships by simply shifting the scale, or literally have large numbers of ships. Especially if you're not planning to shift to a tactical system to resolve combat, VBAM can handle lots of ships - it's just a bit more paperwork - nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle.

2. Absolutely, other kinds of maps besides point-to-point are quite do-able. The languishing Federation Admiral that Jay Waschak put together for ADB as a campaign system for Federation Commander uses hex-based maps, for example.

3. Yes, that can be done. Manticore, for example, would have extensive trade connections on the map generating lots of extra commerce income. Haven would not have nearly as extensive a commercial network. I would also purposefully set most Haven worlds to low Productivity. Over time, Haven could still build up their economy by investing in Productivity, but it would be very expensive and take a long time. If Haven starts with a large military that eats up the lion's share of their income, then the Havenite player would have to choose between demobilizing that military to free up resources to invest in Productivity, or go take it from Manticore (or someone else, like Yeltsin).

4. Absolutely. I refer you to my answer above. Use a map with few or no unexplored areas and there you go.

Hope that helps!

Thanks for the great replies.

I'm still a bit concerned about the economic scale issue because I wouldn't want to have to rewrite that section in order to use the VBAM rules.

The only other major concern I have is the fact that ships have to be built from the ground up at the start of the campaign. I guess 2.0 will add a ship building element to the game, but that seems an awful lot of work (although I can always figure out some way to use the SITS point values to determine relative strengths of PN, RMN, and IAN ships).

After acquiring a copy of SITS a while ago, I had begun work on a conversion process to turn SITS stats into VBAM stats. I'll see if I can dig up the file.

jscott991 wrote:I'm still a bit concerned about the economic scale issue because I wouldn't want to have to rewrite that section in order to use the VBAM rules.

I'm actually noodling around with the exact same concept right now, although it sounds ike you're looking for more rigorous source accuracy than me (I'm happy with the general feel being about right)

The tiny-Manticore vs. giant-Haven thing was the first challenge for me, too. The way I resolved it was through the Menagerie supplement. If you give Manticore lots of Trade Fleets/Routes and some of the Cultural Traits that give commerce bonuses, they can have a lot of money coming in. You can load Haven up with tons of crappy Traits - rebellious Census, poor education system, reduced Productivity, Aristocratic government, you name it - and use those bonus points to buy more colonies. This gives the effect of an astrographically large star nation whose member worlds don't produce very much and require lots of EP dedicated to ships and troops to keep Morale high - just like Haven.

You don't have to worry too much about Haven suddenly going all Hayek-on-steroids overnight if you use the rules for Social Upheavals and Government Changes in Menagerie; they can rearrange those points to something different, but it'll take a campaign year to do it and they'll be vulnerable during, plus their net Trait point total won't change.

Lastly, I wouldn't get too hung up on scale in the Honorverse. Weber likes big numbers and handwaves a lot, and the speed and scope of the construction efforts described at verious points in the series are more than a bit unbelievable.

Giving Haven a crappy tech base might also help a lot - that combined with some poor research ability will keep them behind the curve even with their massive economy,

Weber does handwave an incredible amount of ship construction (Grayson's ridiculous navy growth is one of the main reasons I stopped reading the series around HH8, only skimming 9 and 10), but I do actually like the idea of lots of ships . . . a lot. I'm not fond of 4X games (pc or otherwise) that involve something like 1 or 2 ships per planet, or even less. Maybe you don't need exactly 2,000 Haven ships facing 1,500 Manticore (or whatever), but it wouldn't be the Honorverse if it was something like 20 on 15.

That's why one of my major concerns, outside the size of the economy (and I'm still not clear whether VBAM's economy can be made to support large fleets), is whether VBAM will bog down or can't support a large number of ships.

I THINK I see two different issues with "scale" in Honorverse under VBAM
1) Do you track each ship in the verse in VBAM ?
Any pen and paper (or even spreadsheet game) is going to take a lot of time if it is tracking thousands of ships. So either you need to scale up (Each VBAM entity is a squadrons/divisions) or you need a computer program to organize and track them.

2) Economy and scale
Most VBAM settings have expensive ships (both in cost and maintenance) relative to the economies producing them. e.g most home worlds have a productivity of 60, most sample force lists have battleships with a maintenance of 2/1 or so.. that means that the home world can maintain a max of 30 BB.. So the Honorverse force list is going to be VERY different than most I have seen.
If you give Manticore a Productivity of 200 ( 3 times normal homeworld)..
Given build rates / sizes ..
Target navy = (400 Capital Ships 1200 escorts ) (giving 1/2 to maint and 1/2 to new construction)
assuming Capital Ship is 5 times the cost of an escort in both maint and construction..
maint of 1 per 32 for escorts and 5 per 32 in Capital ships = 100 / turn
assuming Capital Ships take 12 months to build and escorts take 6 and you want to build half of that navy in 5 years.. (replacing losses etc)
100 * 5 * 12 = 6000 EP (200 Capital 600 Escorts)
gives 18.75 EP for a Capital and 3.75 for a Escort.

Thanks mriddle. Those are kind of the numbers I was looking for. It seems a bit unworkable, especially since a SD in the Honorverse is probably 100 times the cost and effectiveness of a DD/CL. Even a BC is about 6-7 times the effectiveness (and presumably the cost) of a DD/CL. This is based on the SITS point values.

I guess I'll try to modify Starfire to work without WPs and to have no cap on population and industry units.

In that case.. just ignore the escorts.. If they bring that little to the table.
Just go with the Capital ships..

Ignoring all the light ships wouldn't make it feel very "Honor", considering that the focus of all of the early books (except for Flag in Exile) is on ships smaller than BCs. Even as late as Honor Among Enemies, she is the commander of a CA squadron.

You'd have to have DDs, CLs, CAs, and BCs in the game. Just pushing around SDs and DNs wouldn't be that much fun.

I guess it is what you want to play..

Looking at a war from the point of view of the First Lord/First Space Lord of Manticore, (which is where I thought you were) do the CAs have a real bearing on the war ? Is he/she aware of where those escorts are ?

The books are not written fully from any one point of view.. They use Honor's point of view quite of bit, but for the majority of her stories have little impact on the whole of the war (really until the second war)..

What sort of game do you want to play ?

strategic level game
What technologies to pursue, What ships to build ? Which systems to attack ?

Or a tactical game where you are controlling 10-40 ships in a given battle/campaign ?

Or almost a roleplaying game where you are following some small number of individuals in a war setting ?

The key is to play a strategic level game that preserves the feel of the Honorverse.

Look at Honor Among Enemies. Admiral Tourville's huge victory is scored by a fleet of BCs and CAs against a fleet of CAs and CLs. Manticore is garrisoning a strategic system with just a CA squadron. So, the light ships have to matter? If you leave out the light ships entirely, then you are garrisoning Adler with SDs or DNs. That doesn't feel quite right.

The world is contradictory and illogical. I'll grant that. But I don't think you can just have capital ships.

Mucking around with VBAM last night and this morning, I came up with this chart for Manticoran ships. Peep ships should be about 25% worse, while costing the same. Perhaps someone can tell me if this is just ridiculous.

Superdreadnought, Cost: 100, Maint:10, Long Range Attack:61, DV:100, CR:30, CC:4
Dreadnought, Cost:90, MT:9, LR:51, DV:90, CR:24, CC:3
BB, Cost:45, MT:4.5, LR:27, DV:45, CR:18, CC:2.5
BC, Cost:11, MT:1.1, LR:10, DV:11, CR:10, CC:1.5
CA, Cost:4, MT.4, LR:4, DV:4, CR:4, CC: .5
CL, Cost:2, MT:.2, LR:1.6, DV:2, CR:5, CC: .75
DD, Cost:1.5, MT:.15, LR:1.4, DV:1, CR:4, CC: .5

The CRs and CCs are designed to allow one ship to command 7 of its brethren. I have no idea if/how this would work in VBAM's strategic combat system, but a squadron in the Honorverse is generally 8 ships, led by one of its own (DD and CL squadrons are bigger, but that can be fudged).

The Long range attack value is something I was noodling with. I was going to split combat into Long Range and Short Range and come up with a way to allow a fleet to keep the range open if it wanted (like how the surprise attack option works in the Moderator's Companion). So I have short range attack values worked out for each ship too.

I plan to use an OOB equal to 1/5 of the numbers given in Short Victorious War (which is about 400 Peep ships versus 300 Manticoran). That should be enough to give the "huge" feel of the war, while eliminating the need to track enormous numbers.

I've never played VBAM, so I don't know if any of this is workable. A lot is just based on ratios using SITS point values and the OOB in Short Victorious War.

Others with more experience may have a better feel than I, but I suspect you would need to either scale those costs down or scale up the economic values (or a bit of both) to make it work.

Looking at the example ship listings in the back of the 1ed book it looks like it is intended at least economically for the cost value to cover a narrower range than your numbers cover. For example, the Brindaki are described as being 'average' all around and the costs (not counting fighters) range from 2 to 8 for ships with all single digit combat values. The Starbase II unit costs 35 (5 maint) for a 20 DV, 25 AS.

I have not played enough to know if the combat values will scale properly or not.

It might be possible to compress the range some without loosing the overall feel. I could also see adjusting the eceonomic output of worlds some if needed by simple expedient of adding a multiplier so that worlds produce a larger amount of economic power to fit better with the higher cost levels.

Another option that may or may not capture the feel you are looking at is considering VBAM entities for smaller ships represent squadrons while the heavier ones (SD, DD, BB maybe BC) represent single ships. It wouldn't fit the setting exactly, but it might get you closer with fewer needed tweaks to the underlying game.