Jump to content

Upgrades and their associated costs


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But if you have an upgrade like armor should the # of DA/IA/MA affect the cost?

I was talking specifically about Accurized. Of course Armor or ECM or any other upgrades wouldn't be effected by #DA.

 

Doing things this way would require a different formula for each upgrade. Do we want to go that route?

Each upgrade already has a seperate formula in CAV 1: Crew, Movement, Armor, Repair and Equipment Pods. It was easy enough to use then, why would it be any different now? All it takes is a simple table and then maybe a special notation like "Multiply by # of DA".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Each upgrade already has a seperate formula in CAV 1: Crew, Movement, Armor, Repair and Equipment Pods. It was easy enough to use then, why would it be any different now? All it takes is a simple table and then maybe a special notation like "Multiply by # of DA".

 

True, true. I'm not arguing, but arent there quite a few more options in CAV2 then 1. I just think the KISS principle makes seperate formulas for each upgrade seem over the top, I guess.

 

To reply to the base cost plus # of Damage tracks camp: Wouldn't that screw certain models? Why should my 250 point 4 dmg track model pay the same cost as my 350 point 4 dmg track model. If we say "X" upgrade costs "Y" percentage of said models cost that should account for dmg tracks, # of attacks, effectiveness of those attacks, etc. By using the base model cost as the benchmark for the cost of the upgrade aren't most if not all of the bases covered?

Link to post
Share on other sites
To reply to the base cost plus # of Damage tracks camp: Wouldn't that screw certain models? Why should my 250 point 4 dmg track model pay the same cost as my 350 point 4 dmg track model.

Because you're paying to upgrade the models RAV/DV/ECM/whatever, not all of the SA's that the model has on it. 2 Models, both the same basic stats (DTs, RAV, DV, ECM, etc) should cost the same to upgrade, not have the value artificially inflated by SA's that have no effect on the upgrade being applied.

 

Example 1

Cougar (237 pts) and Jaguar (280 pts) both have 11 DV and 5 DT. If you're saying each should pay 10% of their cost to upgrade their Armor, you're paying 4 pts more to do the exact same thing to the Jaguar (28 pt upgrade) as the Cougar (24 pt upgrade)

 

Example 2

Cougar (237) and Jo-99C (330) both have 10 ECM and 5 DT. Using the 10% cost again, is it fair to have to pay an extra 9 pts to put the same upgrade on the Jo?

 

Example 3

Warlord (364) and Gladiator II (308) both have same # of DA, DT and RAV, but at 10% price, it'd cost 5 pts more to upgrade the Warlord.

 

In all 3 cases, you'd end up with models that have the exact same base stats, yet the upgrades would be priced differently due to mostly non-related costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever system is used, I'm advocating less ugrades with high point values, like enough to almost make you think you're better off fielding another unit.

 

My feeling is that the end product of the upgrade should be figured into the upgrade cost. It should cost way more to go from RAV 5 to RAV 6 than it should to go from RAV 2 to RAV 3 (or whichever stat is being increased). IMNSHO the cost to increase should be on a hyperbolic curve (implying an exponential increase) rather than a linear increase (a direct multiple). Unfortunately this increases the difficulty of figuring the upgrade cost, but limits "uber-CAVs" through several upgrades (that whole diminishing returns thing again).

 

You can blame WH40k for my belief that upgrades should be expensive and rare. I really hate the notion that unmodified models can't be very successful (without having 4 billion of them). Unless you're playing Space Marines. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest base costs with additional cost per damage track.

 

For example: A model has 0-1 damage tracks. Tha base cost is 10, or 15 or whatever, with +5 points per damage track over the first.

Does that make any sense? It does here but does it to you guys? It seems pretty simple to me but is it equatable?

 

Makes sense although I'd raise all base costs and additional costs... 20-30 base cost plus 10 for each additional DT... roughly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That was just an example.

::):

Link to post
Share on other sites
In all 3 cases, you'd end up with models that have the exact same base stats, yet the upgrades would be priced differently due to mostly non-related costs.

Non-related, but still combat-effective. Defense-wise (i.e., Armor & ECM) I'd like to see upgrade costs scale with model cost. You should pay more to keep a more valuable (for whatever reason) unit alive.

Offensive upgrade costs should vary with the effectiveness of the upgrade and how long the unit will stay alive (i.e., #DA and damage tracks).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cougar should cost more to upgrade than a Jaguar. It's a better CAV. I feel in any universe you go through. I ALWAYS cost more to upgrade an individual that is better than an individual of lower statis. Damage tracks may, but should be considered I think because as was already it shouldn't cost the same for 2 4 DT CAVs is there is a difference in points

 

It was also brought up tonight that is there is a CAV that you don't want a certain attribute to be upgraded then you could always give them that attribute as a upgrade since you can't get the same attribute twice....Like a Rhino. if you think RAV 5 is already too high, then give it Accurized, but keep the RAV 5 the same....then for that specific CAV you are limited to what can be upgraded.....this in itself may solve many o' problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer a simple cost over a percentage based system. Damage tracks should not affect the cost of certain upgrades like RAV but rather the current RAV (or whatever stat is being increased) should be taken into account. In this instance the cost to increase to the next RAV should be the new RAV multiplied by 15. So to upgrade from RAV3 to RAV4 it would cost (4*15) 60 points. Or you could use multiples of 10 or any other number. Also to stop people from upgrading certain models with a RAV bonus just list Accurized as an Upgrade on the Data Card. Someone mentioned the Falcon would be bad with a RAV increase so this would be a good example to do this to. But I can hear certain players complaining about that restriction and saying things like, "the SyRaM could make better targeting computers than that." However, there are simple fluffy reasons that can be used to explain the situation like, "cuz Terrans are teh suk!!?!!11." ::D:

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, to upgrade from RAV 5 to 6, from DV 13 to 14, or Mov 15 to Mov 16 should cost a LOT more than an upgrade from RAV 2 to 3, DV 10 to DV 11, or Mov 8 to Mov 9. I don't think a linear upgrade cost increase shows the difficulty of improving an already excellent targeting system/weapon system/control system to an uber setup that doesn't miss inside it's effective range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...