Tactical Command :: View topic - Weapon cost/stat analysis

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Weapon cost/stat analysis http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=5297	Page 1 of 1

Author:

Lion in the Stars [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:42 pm ]

Post subject:

Weapon cost/stat analysis

Quote (Me @ from AMTL 2.0 initial thread)

Blarg, regarding your weapon comparison formula: ?I think that part of your analysis was flawed. ?A direct fire weapon's effectiveness increases with the square of the increase of the range. ?I also agree that you seem to undervalue FF attacks.

Quote (Blarg @ earlier)

OK. ?Let me get this straight: as the range of the weapon increases the effect of range is squared. ?So, if we have a weapon that has a range of "1" its effect on the result would be "1" while a weapon with a range of "2" would have an effect of "4" on the result. ?"3" would be "9" and "4" would be "16," etc. ?Well, that makes sense, actually. ?My "Firepower Potential" equation was pretty much a measure of how much firepower could be placed over an area, and since area is typically a square function what you say makes sense. ?At least, that's the assumption.

There are 2 arguments against your assertion: terrain and what everybody other than you and I think.

If the battlefield were completely devoid of terrain that blocked LOS then range would become exceptionally important and the number for range would be squared to account for its importance. ?But since tournament, and scenario, games typically have LOS blocking terrain you start losing the importance of range. ?The more terrain you have the less square footage of area that you can fire into. ?Since terrain is so highly variable from game to game and player to player I just assumed that the effect of terrain would be to mitigate the importance of range down from a geometric progression to a linear function. ?Since the intent of the formulas was to offer approximations for starting points I figured that it was a safe assumption pending playtest.

The other problem is that everybody else who has had anything constructive to say about the formula has downplayed the importance of range. ?The feedback seems to be that if the range is over 60-90cm then anything over that is wasted ability. ?I disagree, but then I've always been a sucker for ranged combat and not being seduced by the Cult Of The Powerfist.

The thing about LOS-blocking terrain is it impacts every weapon's swept area beyond the terrain by the same percentage. ?Weapon effectiveness is almost certainly not simply a square function (have to ask the Steves at ADB what variables they consider for weapons BPV), but it's close.

Some ships (like the Kzinti, with their numerous close-range weapons [I'm speaking rather generically here, so I don't lose the folks that have never played SFB]) actually 'increase' in point value rather dramatically (like 40+%!) once you get inside their PD envelope (we'd call it FF range in E:A). ?The basic assumption is that any competent opponent will (try to) stay out of FF range of units that are 'disproportionally' powerful in FF, and the point values are computed based on an assumed 'typical' engagement range. ?This works out to be just outside the move+engage range (to use the E:A description) of the unit in question.

I disagree with the assertation that ranges over 60-75cm are not important, but they are more dramatically impacted by blocking terrain. ?Remember the complaints about popping-up Vultures with Hellstrikes? ?That obviously shows that range matters greatly without LOS restrictions, but is heavily impacted with limits on swept area.

I, too am not a fan of the cult of the powerfist (too much time playing Tau, probably, aided and abetted with RL experience).

I believe that FF attacks should be costed as a ranged weapon (they are ranged, after all, even if it is only 15ish cm (modified some by base size!))

I'm not sure how to handle CC attacks, though.

[edit: ?fixed Blarg's quote for readabililty]

Author:	dysartes [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:	Weapon cost/stat analysis
Two things. 1, Cult of the Powerfist? 2, Out of interest, and given what you say at the end about costing FF weapons as a ranged weapon, what are your thoughts on the Laser Burner and CAP as weapons, Lion?

Author:	Lion in the Stars [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:05 pm ]
Post subject:	Weapon cost/stat analysis
1. Cult of the powerfist = everything meaningful is settled in close combat. 2. I'll have to sit down and review everything again, that was just a cut&paste from the other thread. Laser burner I'm not sure about right now. CAP? You mean Carapace Landing Pad (CLP)?

Author:	dptdexys [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Weapon cost/stat analysis
CAP=Corvus Assault Pod

Author:	nealhunt [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:	Weapon cost/stat analysis
I've discussed Blarg's system with him and others in the past. While I think it has some flaws, I also think it is a decent system for ballparking a weapon's ability and giving a good starting point for playtesting. I think it is most skewed at the bottom end of the ranges, especially for assault weapons, but even then it's not so horrible that it gives obviously broken results.* Basically, not Gospel, but a useful tool. Despite differences in design philosophy, Blarg and I generally come to the same conclusions about balance issues. *He did come up with some whacky CC/FF weapons in his first version of The Formula, but he freely admits it and the mistake was quickly corrected.

Author:	Lion in the Stars [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Weapon cost/stat analysis
Ah. ?The corvus doesn't do damage directly, does it? ?That makes it ... challenging to creat a points cost for it. ?Well, more exactly, it doesn't follow the usual costing guide, and just gets a cost based on guaranteeing a safely delivered formation or two of (insert nasty footsloggers). My apologies for not being real concrete right now, it's been a while since I've looked at the AMTL list, and I need to refamiliarize myself with the state of the list

Author:	dptdexys [ Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Weapon cost/stat analysis
In AMTL v2 the CAP has 4 FF attacks aswell as transport(8 units).

Author:	Lion in the Stars [ Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:29 am ]
Post subject:	Weapon cost/stat analysis
Ahhh. Thank you. Hopefully I'll be able to get some time in to work on the lists over the Holiday (can't call it Christmas) Stand-down. Maybe I'll even get some games in

Author:

Blarg D Impaler [ Mon Dec 19, 2005 11:03 pm ]

Post subject:

Weapon cost/stat analysis

Quote (Lion in the Stars @ 15 Dec. 2005 (12:42))

I'd be interested in what the Steves at ADB have to say about the variables they use for costing weapons on SFB ships. ?The very first wargame I played (except for the Milton Bradly stuff) was SFB back when it first converted over from "Designers Edition" over to "Captains(?) Edition." ?Seeing the rules laid out as they were, and then all of the addenda and errata that came out (which I kept up with religiously), was quite a learning experience in how the interaction of rules are important.

One of the problems with citing the Kzinti ships (or any non-option mount SFB ships) is that the weapons suites are fixed, and because of that you can easily account for the tactics in the point costs. ?(Granted, there is some flexibility in the drone launchers and what type/speed/warhead they will have, but that can be assumed based upon what refit you are talking about.) ?With the Imperial titans and the ability to pick your weapons those assumptions go right out the door. ?That's the reason why with my formula I tried to incorporate the three basic variables that a titan weapon has: Range ?, Rate Of Fire (ROF), and Probability to Hit (PTH) and make sure that all of the weapons are equal (+/- 10%) to each other.

One of the inherent, basic assumptions about trying to do a system for mathematically evaluating titan weapon is that both players are sufficiently competant to play the game well, equally competant compared to each other, and that they will try to use maneuver to the best of their abilities. ?The one advantage that Imperial titans have compared to other titans (to make up for their advantages) is that they can mount any of a number of different weapons, compared to the other races where their weapons selection tends to be more predictable. ?If E:A were as tightly balanced and controlled as SFB this would be a problem for balance, but since E:A is only moderately detailed (at best) then I don't think the abiguity is that much of a problem.

I disagree with the assertation that ranges over 60-75cm are not important, but they are more dramatically impacted by blocking terrain. ?Remember the complaints about popping-up Vultures with Hellstrikes? ?That obviously shows that range matters greatly without LOS restrictions, but is heavily impacted with limits on swept area.

I completely agree with you, with one caveat: Terrain density (square inches of LOS blocking terrain per square foot of table space) over the area of the board is what heavily impacts swept area. ?Assuming that there is an even distribution of terrain over the playing area then the higher the terrain density the more of an impact it will have on weapon ranges. ?If you have a lower terrain density with an uneven distribution over the board then the impact will be situation dependent, with smarter players making the impact negligible.

I handle FF attacks as 15cm ranged attacks, pure and simple. ?It's probably wrong, but I haven't had a chance to playtest the FF weapons too much. ?I used to handle CC weapons as 7.5cm weapons also, but I wanted to keep the numbers simple so I made the ranges expressed as a multiple of 15cm. ?This made the math for CC weapons screwy because it doubled the ROF since PTH is fixed by the titan. ?Another problem with CC and FF weapons is that the combat resolution for CC and FF weapons is not the same as regular weapons. ?Regardless, though, CC and FF weapons are pretty much the same as normal weapons: They have an ROF based upon the number of attacks, they have a PTH based upon the CC and FF stat of the chassis, and their range are all fixed as per the rules.

Corvus Assault Pod - The P.165 stats list it as being able to carry 8 marine assault stands (harkening back to when it was listed as carrying a detachment of Terminators) and no FF attacks. ?Since this is going to be for the AMTL, say that it can carry 8 infantry, whatever they may be. ?There is no clean way to say to prove it, so the only thing to do is assume on faith that the original stats were equal to the average of all of the other weapons. ?Excluding CC weapons, the average Firepower Potential of the p.165 weapons was around 6. ?By my calculations, adding the 4 FF attacks brings the Firepower Potential up to 8, which is the target set by the current (post Jervis boost) Gatling Blaster standard. ?As far as I'm concerned the CAP as presented is just fine, pending playtest.

Any of the non-standard weapons, such as the Corvus Assault Pod, the Carapace Landing Pad, the Fire Control Pad, etc. are going to have to be swagged and ironed out via playtest. ?I dare say that given the cumulative experiance around here this should not be that hard to do. ?Somewhat...

Cult Of The Powerfist - The idea that you are going to send a highly technical (or highly trained) piece of walking equipment (or space marine) half-way across the galaxy just so they can waltz up to some alien/traitor/heretic/guy with bad breath and smash him with a fist is pretty damn silly. ?The only reason why a CC weapon should be issued is because of expected terrain or enemy, not because it is standard operating procedure. ?The farther away that you are killing Mr. Bad Guy, the less chance you are giving him to kill you. ?Assault Marines on the open battlefield?!? ?Ha! ?If you see a CC troop/titan outside of a city or suburbia then he deserves to have a shot placed between the eyeballs.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/