Empire Tech Levels

[Tyrel Lohr]

The next item up for bids...

Should the Campaign Guide include rules for Empire, Colony, and Unit Tech Levels as part of the default rule set, or should these be converted into optional rules for inclusion in the same or later book?

Empire Tech Levels chiefly influence how many population growth points an empire must spend to purchase new Census points, what technologies it can research, and how much those technologies cost. It also defines the maximum tech level that any of an empire's colonies can be upgraded to.

Colony Tech Levels apply modifiers to a colony's outputs in much the same way as morale states already affect them. The more advanced the colony, the greater its colony outputs will be.

Unit Tech Levels are defined by the most advanced components used in their construction. A colony can only build a unit whose Unit Tech Level is less than or equal to its own.

All of these tech levels are measured using a system similar to that from the 1E Companion and are, in ascending order: Pre-Industrial, Industrial, Interplanetary, Interstellar, Ascendant, and Ancient.

Up until this point we have considered these rules to be fairly central to the VBAM 2E experience. However, with "slash and burn" simplicity in mind, I am personally starting to believe that they might add an extra level of complexity that most players frankly won't want to deal with. They add additional modifier into the mix that have to be tracked and fall into the zone of "conditional rules" that will only be used here and there, but probably won't be all that common outside of larger campaigns.

These rules will definitely exist in one form or another regardless of where they end up, but the core question is whether they need to be integrated into the rules or not. Right now I am leaning towards "not" simply because most players and campaigns are going to focus strictly on Interstellar powers, and these empires don't receive any bonuses or penalties by design. Therefore moving the ETL/CTL/UTL rules to optional status will make the core rules more approachable, and a player could always use these rules if they want to.

-Tyrel

[wminsing]

In my opinion these definitely seem like optional rules to me.

First, as was pointed out, a vast majority of the campaigns are likely going to involve only interstellar powers, so the rest of the rules are going to be just take up space.

Second, and this might be just me, but the whole 'lose population growth capability' as you increased in tech level, while VERY flavorful and a good balancing tool, always seem to set a 'clock' on the campaign. Eventually everyone hits Ascendant then Ancient, and stops expanding, and one of the main drives for conflict putters out. If the benefits of advancing your Empire Tech Level are good enough everyone does it, and eventually warfare stops as no one wants to risk losing irreplaceable census. If the benefits do not outweigh the cost of losing population growth, then no one upgrades and the rules don't get used. And striking a perfect balance between the two choices will be extremely difficult.

I think the rules would be perfect for a 'round robin' type campaign, where once you get your race to Ancient status you hand it off to the CM, and pick up a new, rising Interstellar race on the edge of known space and keep going. Whoever did the 'best' overall is considered the victor. This would keep the game dynamic even as the original races 'aged'.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying that the rules can probably wait for a later book.

-Will

[Emiricol]

While I would always want to use them, I can get quite fiddly. The question wasn't would I use them, but should they be included in the core rules. I've been thinking about this some, and would like o change my vote from yes to no. I think it's a layer of complexity that doesn't need to be included in the base rules.

[Tyrel Lohr]

It is one of those things that you can go back and forth on, and I have been agonizing over it for awhile.

For all of my solo campaigns I would always want to use these rules just so that I could come across powers of differing levels of technical ability. But, at the end of the day, I don't think my particular playing style if typical for your average VBAM player that is more interested in warfare and intrigue between interstellar empires.

The poll is currently split about half and half, so this is definitely a contentious issue. I will think about ways that the rules might be able to be simplified a bit, but I am not sure if simplification is really the way to go. We could eliminate the ETL effects on colony outputs, but I really don't like doing that because then you eliminate one of the core benefits of increasing your ETL: more efficient planetary industry. The equipment tech modifier is very easy to apply and isn't a problem, I don't think. The population growth modifier, too, is situational enough as to not be a problem.

To me the real contentious element that seems to present the biggest mental impasse is the Colony Tech Level rules. Tracking a colony's tech level is one extra bit of bookkeeping required which isn't that bad by itself, but adding the additional modifier could be. The CTL modifier is essentially of the same type as is applied by the colony's morale state.

I look forward to some more discussion and feedback on this topic to see if we can hash out a good compromise.

[HairyHeretic]

While I want, and would definitely use, the tech rules, I do not think they are an essential component. Tech generally doesn't tend to advance all that fast, so having them as part of the optional rule set seems the better option to me.

[wminsing]

Yes, I forgot for solo campaigns they add an important element of flavor as well, so that's a point for inclusion.

But overall the rules still strike me as chrome- very cool and interesting chrome, but still not a part of the core 'experience' the rules provide. And I'd rather have the rules intact and whole and in a later book than chopped up and stuck in the core book. Just my take on it.

-Will

[Tyrel Lohr]

Very convincing arguments for leaving them out of the core rules and moving them to the optional rules. At this point I am almost thinking they would make a better fit in the Companion instead of the Campaign Guide.

The poll is still currently split roughly in half on the issue, but I myself have been leaning towards removing them for the time being, so that might just be the best course of action for now. It will also give me a bit of extra time to determine just how involved they should be. The rules are pretty simple right now, but they still seem a little bit "off" somehow -- like there is some obvious simplification option that I am missing.

On a related topic: I have been calling these empire, colony, and unit tech levels; do you feel that this is confusing when considering the other individual tech levels an empire will research in the various tech fields? If so, is there a better term that could or should be applied instead of ETL/CTL/UTL?

-Tyrel

[nys]

Flavor aside, fundamental game mechanics with formulas that include variables like "0.95^4" have significant impacts to the look and feel of a game -- particularly first impressions for players new to the genre. If I were in your shoes, I'd leave it out of the core rules for that reason alone.

That being said, an empire with tech level 4 weapons isn't exactly bursting with flavor. It is an abstract representation of overall weapons research that boils down to an economic bonus. *yawn*

But hold on.. "technologies that take the form of equipment that can be used to design new units or serve as enhancement or munitions that a player can purchase and use?" Talk about a goldmine of creativity!

What's more interesting for a solo campaign, generating an ancient race that has tech ratings of '8/7/8/3/5/6,' or an ancient race with three free starting discoveries of 'mothership,' 'planet buster missile' and 'blink drives?' Granted there is a risk here that I'm horribly misinterpreting the blog post, but nevertheless, I'd be much more excited to play a game that had concrete one-off technologies for purchase/discovery as the core mechanic. With a fleshed out system like that, I'm not even sure if the concepts of empire tech levels and miniaturization bonuses would even matter anymore.

Anywho, that's my 2 cents. Hope your editing goes well.

[Tyrel Lohr]

Flavor aside, fundamental game mechanics with formulas that include variables like "0.95^4" have significant impacts to the look and feel of a game -- particularly first impressions for players new to the genre. If I were in your shoes, I'd leave it out of the core rules for that reason alone.

When it comes to technology effects in a 4X game such as this, you are fundamentally limited as to what form they will take. Generally you can either make the existing abilities cheaper (miniaturization) or more powerful. Some games manage to sidestep this issue by disallowing unit design altogether and having fixed units that provide incremental stat bonuses/differences (the Civ games are a great example of this route).

Since we are going the miniaturization route, we have to end up using a mathematical formula to apply those miniaturization effects. Does it look pretty? No, but 9 times out of 10 it will be hidden behind a spreadsheet and no one will notice it. Take Starmada, for example; lots and lots of formulas, but hidden elegantly behind a spreadsheet.

Now, I will grant you that someone could build a component-based tech design system if they wanted to that would meet more the design criteria that it seems you prefer. For instance, you could have a "Gatling Laser" that provides a +1 Anti-Ship, +1 Anti-Fighter bonus, while a "Point Defense Laser" only gives +1 Anti-Fighter. Each would be have a specific cost, and each unit type would have a limited number of slots to fill. This would be similar in flavor to something like the old Stars! computer game.

The primary advantage to the component-based design method is also its biggest weakness: it minimizes the amount of variation that can be expressed between certain designs. This is more true of component systems where the ship hulls limit the number or type of specific components that can be added, but it still an issue even when you just have a limited number of spaces to fill. It also makes it so that there are no trade offs for keeping a ship slow at high tech levels, as that newer, faster engine is going to have a flat +3 Engine bonus and you are going to install it by default.

That being said, an empire with tech level 4 weapons isn't exactly bursting with flavor. It is an abstract representation of overall weapons research that boils down to an economic bonus. *yawn*

Tech *is* handled abstractly in the game because the abilities it is affecting are distinctly limited by design. There are a handful of core unit values that will be modified by tech, and each technology will simply provide a benefit to one of these stat areas. Exciting? No, but it makes the game flow much easier while still allowing players to field a diverse mix of unit designs.

In the end, almost all 4X tech systems end up boiling down to economic bonuses, or are otherwise geared so that the most advanced technologies are the most economically efficient.

What's more interesting for a solo campaign, generating an ancient race that has tech ratings of '8/7/8/3/5/6,' or an ancient race with three free starting discoveries of 'mothership,' 'planet buster missile' and 'blink drives?' Granted there is a risk here that I'm horribly misinterpreting the blog post, but nevertheless, I'd be much more excited to play a game that had concrete one-off technologies for purchase/discovery as the core mechanic.

These are both valid game design philosophies, though the more specific options that you have listed above are a much better fit for a tactical space combat game rather than a strategic campaign system. The VBAM rules are meant to simulate any number of different settings and environments, and for that reason the tech system is fairly non-specific.

That being said, let me analyze each of the three sample discoveries you mentioned above and how they would relate to the VBAM rules:

• Mothership: This is a design philosophy rather than a technology. A player could choose to design his empire's navy around the central concept of having one extremely large, formidable mothership unit and its cadre of smaller craft (either gunboats or frigates, depending on strategy). Any empire could build large ships like this, it would just require the player to decide this as their doctrine.

• Planet-Buster Missile: This technology would be subsumed under the "Planetkiller" technology. The equipment technologies in VBAM are generic in this manner so that one ability can simulate anything from a planet-buster missile to a planet cracking beam. The effects are the same, so they are handled the same. It is up to the player to decide what their new equipment actually represents within the scope of their setting.

• Blink Drive: I am not sure what this represents -- from the name is sounds like the subspace distorter type drive technology from MOO, where a ship phases in and out of real space to protect it from enemy weapons. This is an extremely specific type of technology that would not be seen in every setting. Such a tech would likely provide a +1 Engine/FTL bonus combined with a +1 Formation Point or +1 Formation Level bonus. It is more the type of specialist technology that one would find outside of the core rules, though, but it is an example of a type of combo technology that would cost more than either of the techs alone but less than both in combination.

With a fleshed out system like that, I'm not even sure if the concepts of empire tech levels and miniaturization bonuses would even matter anymore.

The biggest problem with having fixed tech levels representing the empire tech levels that we've found is that it breaks many other aspects of the game system because you have to make sure that the costs at level 0 are extremely high to account for a Pre-Industrial level of ability. It also means that the baseline player empire (starting Interstellar) won't be at 0, but will rather be starting at TL 10 or higher in each area, which causes other logical issues that we have spent a considerable amount of time chasing our tails over.

If this was a tactical system, then we could definitely move to a component-based method to handle technology research and design. However, there are numerous core stats that simply will never change over time. For example, Anti-Ship always represents a unit's ability to damage enemy starships and starbases. This equipment and ability is a fixed quantity and won't change. Advances in Weapons TL represent the development of newer, more powerful weapons so that you can feasibly fit more or better guns on a design.

Once the rest of the game is finished, it might be interesting to put together a component-based method that provides components with +X bonuses to the core stats, and then limits the number of components that can be added based on unit size, but that approaches the complexity of a tactical game system and starts getting extremely particular about the setting. This game doesn't delve into that layer of detail. Anti-Ship might represent kinetic, ballistic, or energy weapons -- it really doesn't matter; what does matter is how many weapons of that type that a player can add to their combat units.

-Tyrel

[nys]

It was my attempt to translate:

"In addition to advancing these tech levels, empires will be able to purchase individual technologies that they can use in the game. Most of these technologies take the form of equipment that can be used to design new units, but some will serve as enhancement or munitions that a player can purchase and use. Enhancements provide permanent effects and require refit time to install, while munitions are one-use weapons that are used once and then lost (WMDs are the best example of munitions)."

into examples so I could praise the idea. I intended them to be generic keywords, but maybe I should have said 'enhancement x', 'one-use weapon y' and 'enhancement z.'

I'm pretty certain that you read into my post far deeper than the main points I was trying to express. I'll attempt to restate in a less dramatic (fun to read?) manner in case that was getting in the way:

A. Technology in the game, according to the blog post, has two aspects: tech levels and the ability to purchase individual technologies in the form of one-off enhancements and weapons.

B. Tech levels add complexity to the game, and are potentially going to be cut from the core rules.

C. There is hesitation to cut tech levels because it adds flavor to solo games.

D. (my first point) Even if tech levels are cut, there remains the one-off enhancements and weapons technology to add flavor to solo games.

E. (my second point) One-off enhancements and weapons technology are fundamentally more flavorful than tech levels due to their tighter scope, making them better suited for adding flavor to solo games in the first place.

[MarkNorfolk]

As a player/moderator who runs the VBAM system for 40k/BFG the whole idea of tech development is kind of redundant. In fact for most campaigns where conflict is resolved using a licensed setting with fixed ship designs it would hardly be used. It would be cool for an empire to get a one off or experimental system but situations where the Imperium ships are outflying Eldar or the Narn having better Hyperspace flight than the Shadows are better avoided.

Cheers
Mark

[Tyrel Lohr]

Here's an update on the tech rules, after a day of feverish editing and rewriting:

* The basic skeleton of the empire tech rules are staying in place, but I am removing their economic and population growth implications from the core rules. These will converted into optional rules so that players can use them or not at their own discretion.

* A power's current empire tech level is back to being determined by its individual tech levels, but now the thresholds for advancement are based on the empire's average tech level in these areas. For example, if your average tech level is 0, then you become Interstellar.

* Upon reaching a new empire tech level, an empire will unlock a number of additional core technologies. Most unlocks exist along the Pre-Industrial to Interstellar axis, so that early tech expansion is the most important.

* Following along with the concept that all colony statistics should be in the X times Y format, colony tech output is equal to Tech x Census. The cost for tech advancement is then set to Census x 100. This means that a 10 Census empire with 10 Tech will get a tech advance every 10 turns.

* When a tech advance is secured, the player will roll on the Tech Advancement Table. This table provides a random chance of receiving +1 TL to a research field, a new special equipment, a player's choice of result, or roll twice. This is a hybrid of the Starmada Edition micro tech concept where tech results were randomized. Rules are included for trying to do emergency/crash R&D to secure a specific technology or for rolling for increment tech advancement if you empire doesn't have enough Tech infrastructure to get at least one advancement per campaign year. The latter two mechanics work similar to 1E tech advancement, where normal 2E tech advancement simply occurs when the number of tech points in an empire's Tech Pool is greater than or equal to its tech investment requirement (Census x 100).

* Most of the special abilities from 1E are now classified as Special Technologies, and an empire has a 20% chance with each tech advancement of earning an additional one. The Campaign Guide will likely only contain a limited number of basic special technologies, with those that require a lot of extra rules being deferred to another book.

* The interaction between equipment, enhancement, and munitions technologies has been finalized. Equipment technologies are used to design new units. Enhancements are applied to existing units and cost nothing to purchase but do cost supply points to maintain. Munitions technologies cost EP to build and nothing to maintain but can only be used once, but are extremely effective at what they do. The core book will include 10 of each type at a very bare minimum as special technologies. This is not counting those that are included as core technologies.

The idea with the three technology types is that the player will research and use the equipment to build new units, and these will provide the most important effects. The enhancements are then used to represent the various class variants that you often see in games. Babylon 5 Wars was very hip on its variants, for example, and a player could use these enhancements to represent some of those types of minor class differences without having to completely redesign a unit. Munitions meanwhile codify the way that WMDs were treated in 1E and allows other technologies to use the same rules.

==========================

That should provide a pretty good overview of where we are at. I have to finish getting the blueprint rules reconciled and all of the various technologies ported back over. I have probably a dozen different working drafts of technology ideas in my working files that have been created since work began on 2E. Not all of the technologies will actually see final publication, and I am trying to keep their effects from being too gimmicky or annoying for players to deal with. Given how abstract the VBAM system is, it can be difficult finding good rules that will adequately simulate certain sci-fi effects. Too often the effect can just as easily be explained as an extension of the core Defense/Anti-Ship/Anti-Fighter equipment techs.

-Tyrel