Smotherman Formula Discussion

[horizon]

I like 3 pts per hit, seems to fit and brings the cost on cruisers down to 25 pts.

Just like I would value prow armour: 25 pts.

[RCgothic]

RCG's formula seems ok but I still don't think the 6+ prow is that much their weight in gold nor do I just think it's a simple 20% increase in both bands of the WB table. There's other stuff at play which I think should be discussed so that it can be introduced in the system which can tweak it to be better.

I actually agree. 20% per range band is simplistic. From 15-30cm and 30-45 both have column shifts as well as range increases.

Prices should probably be regulated from the lances, which only deal with the range upgrade. However, if we use Smotherman lance prices and accept that Lances at 45+ are 4.5x WBs at 45cm+ and 3x 30cm-, we end up with 30cm WBs costing more than 60cm ones. Some rejigging obviously required, and I'm having a go at a rev 2 with these considerations in mind.

Gron - your formula is certainly impressive in terms of recreating existing pricing, and applying a quadratic least-error method is technically brilliant. However, it assumes the ships are priced correctly in the first place - having a formula that deviates from what the ships are priced at is not neccessarily a bad thing if that isn't what the ships are actually worth, and this is reflected in the under-estimation of the power of long ranged lances and the value of hits, and the massive over-cost of the Nova Cannon.

[Trasvi]

Trying RCGothic's formula on the (new) Tau fleet :

Warden: Real = 30, Formula = 34.5
Castellan: Real = 50, Formula = ~46.2
Protector: Real = 185. Formula = 185 / 187
Emissary: Real = 110. Formula = 110/115/115
Custodian: Real = 330. Formula = 362+ tracking system.


Warden: Justified in that 5pts of the warden's cost is included in the Grav-Hooks on their motherships.

Castellan: Without missiles, the Castellan comes to 31.5pts. I extrapolated that Tau Missiles are worth 2x a normal torp, thus at 7.5pts each (always forward arc).

Protector: This is with using 7.5pts for missiles, and counting the prow deflector at 2pts per hit.

Emmisary: The Dalyth configuration probably should be cheaper, as its launch bays are only fighters, which would price it at 105. Also, is the Sa'cea configuration supposed to have only 3 WB per side?

Custodian: This came out way over-budget, even without adding in the tracking systems. Even valuing the front deflector at 10pts rather than 20 (as per Emissary page) still only brings it down to 352.


And also:
Hero: Real = 180, Formula = 203.1

[RCgothic]

So what is it about the Slaughter, Hero & Custodian that brings them in way over budget?

On the custodian, compared to a retribution it has:

 -2hits, -1 shield, same prow, same speed, same turrets, same turns = -16pts. (hits/shields possibly under-valued)
Prow Gravitic Launcher = 16/9 of a Retribution's prow torps = +26.25 (this seems steep)

broadsides:
Gunnery is slightly more than half (being partially composed of lances and +10% for arc): = +12pts (this seems fair)
Launch bays are a replacement for the remaining half: +40pts (possibility for a large chunk here, but I'm pretty confident my LB values are accurate based on upgrade costs of IN and Chaos Cruisers)

Loss of Dorsals -51.9 (probably fair - 17.3pts each per dorsal lance is pretty steep).

Total (not accounting for tracker or grav hooks): +10.35.

As far as weapons go, the only bit that feels wrong is the gravitic launcher. Perhaps the Custodian is just worth that much? Or maybe I need to go back to the drawing board on shields/hits.

[Sigoroth]

I think that speed should be a factor of hits. So, for example, 25cm speed might cost 2/hit.

[RCgothic]

It's not the only factor though: escorts have unrestricted turns, cruisers only get to turn if they go more than 10 (15 under fire, or 20 under fire and crippled), and battleships need to go 15 minimum. It's another of those non-linear things.

[Phthisis]

Everyone seems to think that 6+ prow armor is overrated and yet nobody is complaining that fleets with gobs of 6+ prow armor are weak for their points.  The issue you have is with the points values assigned in the Smotherman formula itself, not with the points costs of the ships.  Were it so vastly overcosted as you claim, then Orks and IN would suffer in game for it.  But they don't.

6+ prow armor is a huge advantage.  First, they get damage against them from WBs and torpedos halved as they close, which is when the ships are most vulnerable.  Second, they get to form a shield wall against enemy fleets while they loose salvo after bloody salvo of torpedos.  I don't know how many of you actually play against this, but it's ridiculously effective.  Third, it makes ramming a viable, even preferable, tactic.  I'd never ram with a chaos ship as it's likely to cause a couple of points of damage.  But with an IN ship, I'd feel comfortable ramming a chaos cruiser from any direction, even the front. 

This does several things strategically.  First of all it makes the area to the fore of your fleet a killing ground.  It forces your opponents to try and attack from the sides.  From the sides your fleet is abeam.  Second, because of the 6+ fore armor and the severe penalties for WBs abeam, it forces your opponent to stock up on lances, which are expensive and few.  Third, once the main pass has been made the prow armor can be used for opportunistic ramming.

I played a game against an IN player last week that didn't fire a single broadside at me the whole game.  But we still tied because of torpedos, bombers and ramming.  And almost all of the damage came from torpedos. 

If youre going to reduce the points cost for prow armor, then you really need to boost the cost for torpedos to even it out with the effectiveness of that combo.

[Plaxor]

Pthisis, the 6+ prow is overcosted in respect to smotherman, however he undercosted 30cm wbs. So it kind of balances out in these two fleets.

They're trying to make a smotherman system where everything has a value relatable to the player.

[Phthisis]

So the idea is to rewrite smotherman in a way that doesn't effect the points costs of already crated ships?   And this will acheive what exactly?

It seems to me that as long as no existing ships will be changed because they are fine as they are when corrected, and any new ships conform to the character of the fleets they belong to, then smotherman works fine as is.

This reminds me of the eternal 'lets make bombers more powerful without making bombers more powerful' debate.

[RCgothic]

There's no harm in the new formula exposing ships that aren't worth their stated points value. Some ships, such as the Slaughter, Devastation and Custodian, seem to be a deliberately good deal.

But there are lots of things smotherman doesn't take account of properly that can be improved: Speed, turrets, price of lances vs price of wbs, etc.

[left of west]

Smotherman formula is inherently broken in that it doesn't ascribe value to the number of arcs into which a weapon can fire (a forward only battery costs the same as a F/L/R battery).  Further, it fails to routinely do any of the following:

Assign to official ships their official values
Assign to official ships values which are fair when compared to the values it assigns to other official ships
Assign to custom ships values which are fair when compared to the official values of official ships
Assign to custom ships values which are fair when compared to the values it assigns to other custom ships

Though it is capable of producing ships which are fair, this isn't due to any systemic properties of the formula--when it succeeds, it is essentially coincidence. 

The Smotherman formula is ill-conceived, it is ill-executed, and it fails to produce worthwhile results.  It is, in fact, a complete waste. 

Some other system, designed with all the relevant criteria for valuing ships (such as the number of arcs into which a weapon can fire) and intended to completely replace the official ship costs could be worthwhile, and I see a couple of promising starts in this thread. 

[Sigoroth]

Smotherman formula is inherently broken in that it doesn't ascribe value to the number of arcs into which a weapon can fire (a forward only battery costs the same as a F/L/R battery).  Further, it fails to routinely do any of the following:

Assign to official ships their official values
Assign to official ships values which are fair when compared to the values it assigns to other official ships
Assign to custom ships values which are fair when compared to the official values of official ships
Assign to custom ships values which are fair when compared to the values it assigns to other custom ships

Though it is capable of producing ships which are fair, this isn't due to any systemic properties of the formula--when it succeeds, it is essentially coincidence. 

The Smotherman formula is ill-conceived, it is ill-executed, and it fails to produce worthwhile results.  It is, in fact, a complete waste. 

Some other system, designed with all the relevant criteria for valuing ships (such as the number of arcs into which a weapon can fire) and intended to completely replace the official ship costs could be worthwhile, and I see a couple of promising starts in this thread. 

Hey, did I create another account and post or what?

[left of west]

Hey, did I create another account and post or what?

No, no.  I'm pretty sure I'm not you.  That said, hello!  I read some of the early posts in the thread, but I haven't read all of them.  I take it that you agree with me on the Smotherman formula.  Since you seem to be somewhat better acquainted with the community, do you have any favorite alternative systems?

[Sigoroth]

Hey, did I create another account and post or what?

No, no.  I'm pretty sure I'm not you.  That said, hello!  I read some of the early posts in the thread, but I haven't read all of them.  I take it that you agree with me on the Smotherman formula.  Since you seem to be somewhat better acquainted with the community, do you have any favorite alternative systems?

Yes, the Smotherman formula is rubbish. I actually think it has caused more harm than good. People use it to justify stupid costs on outrageous ships. I don't use a formula, I use comparative differences between ships from multiple directions/ This is fairly tried and true and almost always comes to agreement from the converging directions. When it doesn't then it is usually due to imbalances in original costs.