Starship Design System Sanity Check

[Tyrel Lohr]

Hey everybody! It is I, the world's oldest Fraggle! Wait, that isn't right!

I just wanted to post the framework of something that I have been working on the last month just so I can get a sanity check from the player base to see if this starship design concept it horribly, horribly broken or not. I have a feeling it is far from munchkin-proof, but I wanted to get some feedback at this stage to see if it is worth pursuing any further or not.

The primary conceit of this ship design system (and the tech system back end) is that you have Macro and Micro technologies just as Jay created for the Starmada Edition. In this case we are dealing with Macro Starship Tech Levels (as opposed to Fighter TL or Ground TL).

Starship designs are built off of archetypes, which represent the minimal statistics for a vessel of that size/type. Each archetype includes the following information:

Archetype Class: This is the name of the class.

Construction Cost: This is the base cost for units of this type.

Maintenance Cost: This is the base maintenance cost for units of this type.

Defense Value: This is the base Defense Value (DV) for units of this type.

Command Rating/Cost: This is the base Command Rating and Command Cost for units of this type. These values are set to the same value, so any given ship can command a minimum of one other unit of the same type.

Hull Points: This is the number of Hull Points the unit has available to spend on increasing its abilities. This is represented as a fixed value plus a percentage of the empire's Starship TL (round to nearest).

Bombardment Points: (Pending) As I have been working on this system, it has become clear that bombardment points need to be set at the archetype level. My current concept for this is to have a value set per archetype, which can then be upgraded via a bracketed table as with the Starmada Edition or Stars Divided ground unit creation.

As a quick overview, here are the basic ship archetypes I have drafted thus far:

PATROL BOAT (PT)
Construction Cost: 1 Maintenance Cost: 1/12
Defense Value: 1 Command Cost: 1/2
Hull Points: 1 + 10% x Starship: Construction TL

CORVETTE (CT)
Construction Cost: 2 Maintenance Cost: 1/8
Defense Value: 1 Command Cost: 1
Hull Points: 2 + 20% x Starship: Construction TL

FRIGATE (FF)
Construction Cost: 3 Maintenance Cost: 1/6
Defense Value: 1 Command Cost: 1
Hull Points: 3 + 30% x Starship: Construction TL

DESTROYER (DD)
Construction Cost: 4 Maintenance Cost: 1/4
Defense Value: 2 Command Cost: 1
Hull Points: 4 + 40% x Starship: Construction TL

PROTECTED CRUISER (CP)
Construction Cost: 5 Maintenance Cost: 1/3
Defense Value: 2 Command Cost: 2
Hull Points: 5 + 50% x Starship: Construction TL

LIGHT CRUISER (CL)
Construction Cost: 6 Maintenance Cost: 1/2
Defense Value: 3 Command Cost: 2
Hull Points: 6 + 60% x Starship: Construction TL

MEDIUM CRUISER (CR)
Construction Cost: 7 Maintenance Cost: 2/4
Defense Value: 3 Command Cost: 2
Hull Points: 7 + 70% x Starship: Construction TL

HEAVY CRUISER (CA)
Construction Cost: 8 Maintenance Cost: 2/3
Defense Value: 4 Command Cost: 3
Hull Points: 8 + 80% x Starship: Construction TL

LARGE CRUISER (CB)
Construction Cost: 9 Maintenance Cost: 2/2
Defense Value: 4 Command Cost: 3
Hull Points: 9 + 90% x Starship: Construction TL

BATTLECRUISER (BC)
Construction Cost: 10 Maintenance Cost: 3/3
Defense Value: 4 Command Cost: 3
Hull Points: 10 + 100% x Starship: Construction TL

DREADNOUGHT (DN)
Construction Cost: 12 Maintenance Cost: 3/2
Defense Value: 5 Command Cost: 4
Hull Points: 12 + 125% x Starship: Construction TL

BATTLESHIP (BB)
Construction Cost: 14 Maintenance Cost: 4/2
Defense Value: 6 Command Cost: 4
Hull Points: 14 + 150% x Starship: Construction TL

SUPERDREADNOUGHT (SD)
Construction Cost: 16 Maintenance Cost: 3/1
Defense Value: 7 Command Cost: 5
Hull Points: 16 + 175% x Starship: Construction TL

JUGGERNAUGHT (JG)
Construction Cost: 20 Maintenance Cost: 4/1
Defense Value: 8 Command Cost: 6
Hull Points: 18 + 200% x Starship: Construction TL


When designing a starship, you select an Archetype and then calculate the number of Hull Points you have available to spend on the class. Round fractional Hull Points to the nearest whole number.

A ship can increase the number of Hull Points available by adjusting some of its starting systems; however, due to the archetype system, these adjustments are fairly limited. For construction cost increases, I have a feeling I will need to make it a flat +2 Hull Points per +1 EP cost. For maintenance numerator/denominator changes, however, I will have to figure a good system to resolving those that is fair (I am open to suggestions). The danger is making it too easy for players to select one archetype and then adjust maintenance and/or construction cost values to earn more Hull Points but receive effectively the same base statistics.

With the Hull Points, players then purchase improvements for their units:

• +1 Defense Value (DV) costs 2 Hull Points.
  +1 Anti-Ship (AS), Anti-Fighter (AF), Command Rating (CR), Basing Capacity (BC) or Logistics Rating (LR)* cost 1 Hull Point.
  The cost of Micro technologies (special abilities) differ from ability to ability. For example, a FTL Drive might cost you 2 Hull Points, but +1 Armor Rating would only cost you 1 Hull Point.

* = I still call it Logistics Rating; in my campaigns, Endurance is equal to LR + DV. This is the maximum number of turns a ship can be out of supply before it is destroyed.

I have toyed with having a maximum value on some of these stats tied to the unit's DV. That would prevent a player from having a low-DV unit with all of its Hull Points put into one statistic (ex: AS). I am thinking a 3x to 4x DV modifier being fair for most ship types. Thoughts?

As far as the availability of these hull archetypes, I don't know if they should be instantly available, or if a player should have to research them as separate Micro technology advances. The greatest benefit to the latter method that I can see would be that it would make individual player fleets a bit more varied during the early game, as one player may not have wasted time developing a Battleship archetype and instead been happy with a mix of cruisers instead. Of course, that situation can be just as easily replicated (and in a less "gamey" way) via the existing prototyping rules.

Another option that I haven't entirely committed myself to is having a separate series of Carrier Archetypes to go with these (Warship) Archetypes. Carrier Archetypes, as I have them sketched out in my design document, would have lower maintenance costs (offset by the need for flight maintenance) compared to similarly sized warships, and would also receive fewer Hull Points. However, each Archetype would instead receive a set amount of free Basing Capacity.

Bases and fixed defenses are another beast entirely. One option I have for them is to use the same design archetypes, but just ignore the Command Rating/Cost values. Then they would receive a Hull Point bonus above that of the base archetype -- either a flat 2X fixed point bonus, a bonus equal to 2X the archetypes' Command Rating/Cost value, or a +50% bonus to total Hull Points. Satellites and mines need to be handled a bit differently, I think. In the case of satellites, I think they should be non-crippling units (take their DV and then die), but be a bit cheaper by comparison. Mines I would like to see serve principally as damage sponges, with the alternative option of putting AS, AF, etc. onboard them for one-off use. I know some people don't like minewarfare in their sci-fi (Charlie!), but I would still like to cover them somehow.

So what do people think? Is it a horrible mess? I have been playtesting this system in a current campaign, and so far I haven't been able to break things yet. The fact that the Starship TL is an expensive Macro TL (4 x TDP cost), it isn't increasing that fast, and it would have to increase a bit to make earth-shattering differences. A TL 10 empire is about what I would consider the equivalent of an INT-1 NPE power.

-Tyrel

[zyffyr]

It looks fairly workable to me.

On Carriers : I like the seperate hull types. To me the only real question is whether or not to make the carrier hull dependent on knowing the corresponding Warship hull.

Maintenance Costs : Improving the cost needs to be fairly expensive, but on the other hand making Maint more expensive needs to be a small price break.

Assuming an INT-1(TL:10) power..

Compare a CA and a CB.

Cost : 8 v 9
Maint : 2/3 v 2/2
CC : 3 v 3
DV " 3 v 4
Hull Spaces : 16 v 18

To make them match up, you need to add 2 Spaces (+1 EP) and 1 DV (2EP) for a total of 3EP, bringing the price to 11 for a CA - 2 more than the CB.

If you know the CA already, then learning to make a CB is pointless unless the price break for going from 2/3 to 2/2 is less than the 2 point difference.

To make the CA worth learning if you already know the CB, improving Maint from 2/2 to 2/3 needs to cost at least 3.

If one or both directions cost 2, there is no fundamental difference between a CA and a CB.


The sensible price range will vary a little with changes in tech levels (and with what ship sizes you use to do the comparison) - at TL:18 the break even point moves up to 3EP for the CA/CB.

[jygro]

Looks good so far.

Instead of the different classes, why not just base it completely on the cost of the ship and use formulas to create the other starting values. For example:

DV= Cost x 0.4 (round - minimum 1)
CC= Cost ^ 0.6 (round down)
HP= Cost x (1+Construction TL/10)

Maintenance is a bit harder to do, but a formula could be figured out as well that is based off of the cost.

Then your micro technologies instead of working through the ship classes, your nation just worries about the highest 'cost' ship it can do. I'm still thinking about bases and fixed defenses, but your thoughts are a good starting point.

-Bren

[Tyrel Lohr]

On Carriers : I like the seperate hull types. To me the only real question is whether or not to make the carrier hull dependent on knowing the corresponding Warship hull.

I am of two minds when it comes to having hull archetypes even be a researchable goal. From a gameplay side, it would be interesting to force empires to research each archetype first before they can use it in order to give players something else to worry about researching. On the other hands, I have not always been all that happy when other games have had this setup, disallowing the construction of a large ship simply "because" -- with no justification.

I am leaning heavily towards just saying "hey, you can build it without researching it" because the natural limitation of cost and construction capacity should be a practical limit for most empires. A small one-system power with a low Starship TL could build a Dreadnought, but the cost to do so would be impractical.

As for Carrier Archetypes lining up with Warship Archetypes, I agree. Historically, the first real naval carriers were converted warships, and you would want to keep the door open for allowing a player to convert their Lexington-class battlecruisers over into carrier units.

Assuming an INT-1(TL:10) power..

Compare a CA and a CB.

Cost : 8 v 9
Maint : 2/3 v 2/2
CC : 3 v 3
DV " 3 v 4
Hull Spaces : 16 v 18

Actually, the CA has a base DV 4, just like the CB. So that makes the difference between the two even less useful. It might also be a sign that some of the higher-level archetypes need to have a DV boost.

I encountered balancing issues with the Protected Cruiser and Large Cruiser in particular when I was working on this system. I would like to retain them, if I can find a way, as there are instances where they *are* useful or fit budgets a bit better.

Instead of the different classes, why not just base it completely on the cost of the ship and use formulas to create the other starting values.

A formula-based method would give more consistent results and be relatively easier to balance, and it may be worth a shot setting up. However, there would be a distinct loss of "flavor" to the design system by doing that. There is some strength be able to have those labels to refer to as a reference point, so that a destroyer is a destroyer, and a battleshp is a battleship.

The one thing that I do like over a formula-based model, though, is that the costs end up being more variable, as are ship class definitions. You could have a good cost range associated with any one class, where right now it is a fixed cost plus a small room for adjustment.

Of course, you could have the best of both worlds by using formulas to determine those values, and then providing archetype templates to show where the breakdowns in cost occur.

With Bren's formulas, Construction Cost is set by the player and is used to derive most of the starting values. Now, maybe Maintenance Cost could be used to separately provide Hull Points, too, in the same way Construction Cost is in his formulas? So you would end up setting those two values and then calculating how many Hull Points each provides.

Or perhaps you could have a Maintenance Cost modifier for each maintenance level that would be multiplied against the Hull Point total to modify it up or down? That would make taking higher Maintenance Costs a reasonable thing to do for ships that you wanted to actually utilize, but you could also build Heavy Cruiser sized vessels with very few Hull Points -- but low Maintenance Costs. I'm thinking if the maintenance bracketing table had a tipping point of 2/3 being a x1 multiplier, then you could apply modifiers from there:

1/12 x.2
1/11 x.25
1/10 x.3
1/9 x.35
1/8 x.4
1/7 x.45
1/6 x.5
1/5 x.55
1/4 x.6
1/3 x.7
1/2 x.8
2/4 x.9
2/3 x1
2/2 x1.1
3/3 x1.2
3/2 x1.3
4/2 x1.4
5/2 x1.5
6/2 x1.6

Something like that. The numbers aren't right, I'm sure, but I didn't take the time to compare them in Excel to try and balance them, either. But if the concept is sound, then Maintenance Cost could be selected simply as a modifier to total Hull Points. However, looking at the results, I can see that it would penalize smaller vessels pretty heavily, so some other fix would have to be applied to get it to work right.

[Rainer]

I am leaning heavily towards just saying "hey, you can build it without researching it" because the natural limitation of cost and construction capacity should be a practical limit for most empires. A small one-system power with a low Starship TL could build a Dreadnought, but the cost to do so would be impractical.

If somebody really wanted to build a big ship at low tech levels I also see no reason to forbid it. It would be fairly expensive (and inefficient) anyway.

As for Carrier Archetypes lining up with Warship Archetypes, I agree. Historically, the first real naval carriers were converted warships, and you would want to keep the door open for allowing a player to convert their Lexington-class battlecruisers over into carrier units.

Yeah, but there should still a lot of difference between carrier conversions and purpose built ones.

[Emiricol]

You know, that makes a lot of sense Rainer. I'd love to see conversions be faster to produce from ships on hand, but less potent than equivalent sizes of purpose-built carriers.

[jygro]

I like the idea of the maintenance cost being a multiplier to the number of hull spaces provided. It would be nice to allow a modifier to increase the cost to lower the maintenance costs, but that might be too much...

-Bren

[Chyll]

I haven't absorbed and processed it all yet, but my first reaction is that there are a ton of cruiser options and heavy ship options and not much on the low end.

There are certainly options that could slim the cruiser options some, monitors escort destroyers, etc. etc.

That said... I keep thinking on it as I type and I think archetype nomenclature is something that is somewhat setting specific. Not sure I like the idea of tying the archetype name as the basis of the structure. Hull size, sure. the name for those classes seems more limiting than necessary. Just my $0.02.

[Chyll]

Further thought on this.

The logic is sound.

I repeat the suggestion to drop the nomenclature approach, however. The setting will drive so much of that.

But you could provide a standard, game level descriptor
Tier I, II, II, ....
Tier A, B, C,....
very small, small,...

something in that vein

[Tyrel Lohr]

I agree that the nomenclatures are very setting specific and probably should be dropped from a general release (and just used in specific setting books or campaign diaries, as needed).

The thought I have been having recently is if the Construction Cost and Maintenance Cost should be two variables that determine the number of Hull Points that are available? I am not sure what formula would work in this regard, but say assign a multiplier to each Maintenance Cost bracket that is you multiply the base Hull Point number against to determine the final Hull Point total. That way you could vary both costs, but the cheaper a vessel is to maintain the fewer Hull Points you will have available.

EDIT: It looks like I actually had that same idea a month ago...

The trick then is to come up with the right formulas for everything. Construction Cost and Maintenance Cost would both be user-defined variables, whereas the rest of the basic stats would fall in line from there.

Bombardment Points would probably need to be set by a bracketed system tied to construction cost. That would allow proper simulation of the current orbital bombardment breakdown.

Command Cost (with initial Command Rating equal to Command Cost) is the hardest stat to define in a non-archetype system, as it has to allow for smaller units (even expensive ones) to have low CC values. Maybe a chart that cross-references Construction and Maintenenance Costs would work for this?


On the archetype-based angle, I had also considered creating "light/medium/heavy" subtypes for each, which would vary slightly but allow some room to maneuver within specific hull classes.

The one advantage of an archetype-based ship construction system vs. a non-archetype one is that it is easier to compare apples-to-apples, as the case were. The ships in universe might be called anything, but they would be of a defined type in the construction system that could be readily identified and discussed with a fixed frame of reference.

-Tyrel

[netwilk]

Command Cost (with initial Command Rating equal to Command Cost) is the hardest stat to define in a non-archetype system, as it has to allow for smaller units (even expensive ones) to have low CC values. Maybe a chart that cross-references Construction and Maintenenance Costs would work for this?
-Tyrel

<Heresy mode on>
Why should the CC be low for small ships just because they are small? If you have a very capable/multifunction (ie. expensive) ship, it make take a lot of effort to use it to the fullest potential.
On the other hand, if you have a big but dumb cruiser (low cost), then control is much easier (go here, shoot anything that moves).

One could argue that CC cost should be proportional to ability (the more things a ship can do, the harder it is to get it into position where it can do everything at once) and inversely proportional to agility (the more agile, the easier it can get into the right position).

You could decrease command cost by spending hull points (engine upgrades, inertial dampers, AI assist, etc ). I guess it could go in the other direction as well ( smaller engines, less automation ).
<Heresy mode off>

Lucas

[Charles Lewis]

I don't think that's heresy, but a small ship, no matter how capable, is only going to be capable to so much. Odds are, such a ship would also have some sort of datalink potential, making it potentially *easier* to command in a squadron than it might be otherwise. Basically, I think a lot of that balances out.

That said, there's no reason why a small ship or any ship couldn't have a CC equal to or greater than it's CR. That could be reflective of technical or technilogical limitations or pure doctrinal issues.

[netwilk]

I was thinking more that command cost would more represent the difficulty of formulating tactic/strategic plans for multiple units. If you have a scout/carrier/mauler/kitchen-sink combination ship, it will be much harder to figure out how to use it at 100% compared to a straight up carrier or pure scout.

Perhaps having a homogenous squadron would give a command rating bonus. 10 missile boats is much easier, than 2 close-in fighters, 2 carriers, 2 long range snipers and a partidge in a pear tree. But this might be going too high-complexity...

Sending commands is the easy part, it's knowing what commands to send is the trick.

[Charles Lewis]

True enough. However, militaries are generally pretty diligent about exercising and learning the capabilities of their equipment. Something totally new often doesn't fit into existing doctrine, but, for the most part, serving line officers are going to be very much interested in learning how to get the most out of what's available to them.

[logan400k]

I am having a little bit of worry over the % Variable for adding Hull Points. At first I thought having all hull types have the same %, based on Tech Level would be the answer. Since the variable is Technology, it reasons that as tech goes up, the effect would be more uniform across the board, instead of larger units have a larger percentage. That part bothers me, because the variable is tech based it does not seem, to my mind, to work well. Its like saying a bigger hull allows you to use more efficient technology, which is not necessarily the case.

So I think the Hull Space % should be across the board and rise across the board as TL rises.

However, that got me thinking that an Archetype might only be available at a certain TL. If that were the case, a doubling of initial Hull Space and efficiency might be the way to go. There is still the issue though of someone wanting to build a bigger hull than they might normally be able to handle.

That I do have a coherent solution for. Each Archetype has a minimum TL, and if you want to build it before then it does not benefit from the extra % of TL for Hull spaces.

So for example if you are a low tech polity wanting to build a DN, which you have not thoroughly researched yet, you still can but you do not get the extra +125% for Hullspace. You have to deal with just the base 12 Hull spaces of the a basic DN hull.