Re: [Epic] Net Epic

From: Cameron Bentsen <stu7i95_at_...>
Date: 31 Jan 1997 15:17 EST

In message "[Epic] Net Epic", you write:

>
> Excerpts from Epic: 31-Jan-97 Re: [Epic] Net Epic by "Cameron Bentsen"_at_nortel
> > I disagree. What you're actually talking about here is a unit that is
> > slightly undervalued. What we really should do is get rid of the "half-point
> > hosing" (as you put it) and make the Bloodletters be worth 175 VP (and worth
> > 1.75 VP, or 7 VP, or whatever.) There really is no excuse for not making
> > units have VPs directly related to what they are worth, providing you ensure
> > that all units are properly balanced to their effectiveness!
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Once again, the main problem is that there is too broad a range of
> > effectiveness for things that are worth 150 VP. In order to correct this, we
> > need a finer scale (i.e. 25 point increments) and if we're going to do that,
> > we should keep partial VPs (or multiply by 4, or whatever) in order to
> ensure > that things are really worth what they say they are worth.
>
> Eh... I dunno. Being a Squat player, I tend to see the points value of
> a unit and the VPs they cough up as not so strictly related. After
> starting to design ships in Full Thrust, where there are two scales
> (mass and points) used to balance ships, this belief was reinforced.
> While EPIC PV and VP should still be tied together, a direct 1:1 (or
> 25:1, or whatever) relation is, IMO, too strict. You might as well just
> count up how many points of troops each side has left. Making some
> units give more VPs when they break would be a good balancing factor for
> their effectiveness.

I don't mind this so much, as long as it's spelled out specifically,
intentionally, and with good historical reasons. For instance, a Leviathan
could have some of its cost be offset by a higher VP than normal, reflecting
it's valuableness as a command and control vehicle. Same goes for Titans, to
reflect their rarity. However, the current system of screwing anything that's
worth 150 points just because that's how many points it happens to be worth is,
IMO, ludicrous.

>
> Take Squats. Everyone knows how hard the large companies are to break;
> a 22-model company breaks at 17, for example. But then, that's why the
> Squats give out more VPs: because they're harder to break. If you
> increased the points cost of the companies to match the VPs, though, the
> Squats would never win: they'd be *severely* outnumbered in every
> situation.
>
> Now, that's not to say that the people working on Net EPIC were going to
> do that to the Squats; in fact, I'm fairly sure you weren't. However,
> you might consider using the Squat-type formula (though I don't think
> there's an actual formula) on some of the harder-to-break units, like
> Bloodletters, Trolls, Carnies, Long Fangs, etc.
>
> Aaron Teske
> Mithramuse+_at_...
>

I suppose that wouldn't really bother me, providing that there was some
linkage of VP to some other factor, such as break point. In fact, I think it
might be kind of neat to see some of the lower morale forces having lower
break points, but be worth less VP as a result. My point is that, if you say
that for most units a 50% breakpoint means 1 VP per hundred points, then
that's what it should be. I don't mind keeping track of partial VP.

Interestingly enough, this raises another idea. Everybody has cards wherein
the breakpoint of the unit isn't *really* 50%, it's more like 60 or 66%.
Perhaps, then, we should have the VP for these cards be related more closely
to their breakpoints, as well?

A formula for VP like the following might work well (assuming we retain the
current points cost in the 100s):
  PV/50 * breakpoint/#models = VP.

  Thus, Tarantulas would be worth 1.2 VP.
        Guardians would be worth 1.5 VP.
        Bloodletters would be worth 1.8 VP.

Aaron, if you wouldn't mind figuring out what the values for some Squat units
are using this formula, we could compare them to what they currently are and
see if we need to add a "fudge factor" or if this comes close to what the
Squats are already like. I would but I don't have the Squat info handy.

Using this kind of formula allows you more freedom to vary the breakpoint
of the unit based on troop quality, and still have the result reflected in
the victory conditions. For instance, you could have "green, regular, and
crack" IG troopers, all of which have different breakpoints and different
VP as a result. It would make a nifty house/scenario rule, anyway.

Of course, I still think we would need 25 point increments to properly
differentiate between the value of Bloodletters and the value of Guardians,
since the change I mentioned above only accounts for the differences in
breakpoint, not those of unit quality.

Cameron Bentsen, Ottawa
Received on Fri Jan 31 1997 - 20:17:00 UTC