> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 23:22:02 -0500
> turn. The ship rolls a 6 for the engines. The engines are damage and
> rolls for the 3rd section. The engine survives, but the FTL is
> rolled during the threshold roll, so no systems are damaged.
By this system, it seems that your 50 ton ship can not suffer more than 5
system failures as a result of Threshold checks. That seems far too slight to
me. So, how about with each threshold check, the maximum number of systems
that can go down in that check is the row of the check, i.e.,
on the first check only one system can die, on the second two _more
(even
if one's already dead), on the third three _more, etc.
With this scheme, your 50-ton ship could suffer, at most, 1+2+3+4+5 = 15
system failures as a result of threshold checks. Given that rolls would be for
6s, you'd almost never get that many, but better to allow it than artificially
cap damage.
As for the order of checks, how can we easily represent that system so that it
is obvious what gets checked first, second, third,..., and how
can we decide which A-bat to check first, second, third, etc.
> PDGA6560 @ compuserve.com (Brian Bell) wrote:
> The problem with the Sliding Scale for damage is that it mirrors or
Well, I think most escorts would be better off: ships of mass 6 and below wont
take any threshold checks at all, and other escorts get one extra damage box
in the first row.
Yes, larger ships get larger initial damage tracks, but the increase isn't
linear.
For instance, a mass 16 escort would get 5 hits in the first row of the damage
track, compared to 4 in the current system.
A mass 32 cruiser would get 7 hits in the first track, compared to 5 under the
current system.
A mass 64 capitol would get 11 hits in the first track compared to 8 under the
current system.
A mass 128 supership would get 15 hits in the first track compared to 16 under
the current system.
> Set Length Alternative:
> that can be damage equal to the total number of sections destroyed.
That sounds like it would complicate play somewhat.
The partitioning into sections of 5 boxes might be workable, but the extra
complications of counting the number of systems destroyed, and of working
through them in size order sound like they'd slow play down too much.
> By this system, it seems that your 50 ton ship can not suffer more than
> 5 system failures as a result of Threshold checks. That seems far too
> be for 6s, you'd almost never get that many, but better to allow it
This is what I meant. I meant that for that check the most systems damaged by
THAT check would be equal to the number of marked out sections (so that at the
end of the 3rd section, the ship could have 6 total systems damaged (1 from
the 1st, 2 from the 2nd and 3 on the 3rd).