GamingGlen wrote:So you took one lousy example, show that it's not all that effective, and say the game is good.
No, I took an extreme example and demonstrated that while powerful, it's not quite as jaw-dropping as it looked at first glance. I didn't say the game was "good"; I was inviting further discussion.
By the way, very few book ships have a chance to shoot down the seekers at striking time since few book point defense weapons have Dfn. Pnp by itself is nearly worthless as a point defense option.
Because none of the book ships were designed to counter ships with seeking weapons, much less ships whose entire arsenal consists of seeking weapons. (As you imply, the point values should still account for this, but don't disparage the designs for failing to defend against things that don't exist.
Any game with a design aspect will see people try to find ways to “min/max” as part of the challenge. When the game becomes all about that it becomes Rock Paper Scissors as far as I am concerned.
No one is saying that is all the game is about. I like ship designing, ever since Traveller's 3 little books came out. But if exploits exist in the system they should be fixed, not house ruled by people who paid for the game.
Agreed. I will, however, wait until all the evidence is in.
No one is saying that the game is broken, just some parts of it are. Perhaps all that is needed is a re-evaluation of some of the values. For instance, I see by Beowulf's new design that Carronade is too cheap.
I had not really looked at Carronade from this angle. (Of course, doing so requires expanding available weapon ranges to 27, but that's neither here nor there.)
When comparing apples to apples (i.e. a carronade weapon and a non-carronade weapon with the same base range value), the multiplier of 0.6 makes sense. For range-based traits, I assume 50% of combat will occur at long range, 33% will occur at medium range, and 17% at short range. I further assume a default to-hit of 4+. For the non-carronade weapon, this means an average hit chance of 44%. For the carronade weapon, the average hit chance is 28%. 28%/44% = 0.64, rounded to 0.6.
However, if you compare apples to oranges (which I freely admit I never did), the carronade weapon does gain an advantage. Doing the math, a carronade weapon of range 18 costs 90% of a non-carronade weapon of range 12, but has the same effective range and a better average hit chance (using the above assumptions, 56% vs. 44%). Overall, that makes carronades about 40% more powerful than their point cost implies.
Clearly, the multiplier needs to be adjusted. I would recommend 0.8 as a starting point.*
Yet the designer says that should not matter. What the high TLs do is show the flaws in the system. Broken designs only show the problem in a big way, designs that happen to use exploits unintentionally will have an advantage. A very small one that will most likely have less effect due to actual tactical play and die rolls, but it is there.
You are right. The TL should not matter. The point value is based on the final capabilities of the ship.
However, adding weapons without also adding to defenses means ships become fragile eggshells which only last a turn or two in combat. This not only makes the game less fun (IMHO) it lessens the opportunity for die rolls and tactical choices to even out. Point costs are based on an average across a number of turns, and there is an implicit assumption that games will last a certain amount of time. If ships are designed in such a way, via a combination of high weapon TLs and a seeking arsenal, that they can dish out a crap-ton of damage in one blow, and the opponents don't have a commensurate defensive capability, the game is going to "break".
*FWIW, regarding carronades, the discrepancy is that, while I weight the long range band for purposes of evaluating range-based traits, for ease of computation, the range value of a weapon is treated as a linear multiplier.
Just in case you were wondering.