[FT] A bizarre FT idea for the Friday topic

Ok just as a wild and crazy idea I fiddled with the FT design a bit to come up
with hull boxes to represent front, sides and rear of the ship.

Take a look and see. First the idea

This is more akin to armour than hull strength... now armour arrayed in this
way might make sense (although armour would then have to be completely
revalued).

> Jeremey Claridge wrote:
http://freespace.virgin.net/jeremey.claridge/downloads/New%20Cruiser.gif
> workable? stupid? interesting?

> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
http://freespace.virgin.net/jeremey.claridge/downloads/New%20Cruiser.gif
> workable? stupid? interesting?

At present, I would say 'interesting'

Some remarks:
- What happens to hits on side with no hull boxes left ? Threshold
checks only? Or is damage applied to other hull sections? Adjacent? Opposite?
- How do you determine which side is hit ? Direction of the shooter ?
Semi-random between the two sides facing the shooter ?
- Should the array always be square ? Or dependent on ship shape ?
- The square array defines direction arcs that are different from the 6
fire arcs of FB1. I would prefer to have the hull boxes distributed in 6 arcs
- Does this work for all enemy weapons ? How about SMLs or fighters ?
- It will be harder to get threshold checks than now. Now all hits go
to the first row. All shots are unlikely to hit the same side of a ship
- The effect on crew casualties is interesting. At the first threshold
check, each box has 1/6 chance of being killed, 2nd check 2/6, 3rd 3/6
resulting in chance of 5/6 , 20/36, 60/216 ( 83%, 55%, 28% ), whereas on

the present system, 1/4 is eliminated by the point each threshold check
is reached. So the first hits are less deadly to crews. The rest are roughly
similar, though more random.
- Shouldn't at least the non-core systems be assigned to specific hull
sides and suffer damage accordingly?

Greetings

> At present, I would say 'interesting'

Some! I call this many remarks:)

> - What happens to hits on side with no hull boxes left ? Threshold

> Opposite ?

Well just as a first idea on this I would say threshold checks every time. As
for the rule of threshold checks getting harder I would say keep it at 5 or 6
since they will be more frequent. Damage to the other sides of the vessel
could be the basis for B5 style beam attacks going straight through the hull.

> - How do you determine which side is hit ? Direction of the shooter ?

> 6 arcs

Well this was just an idea and a simple one. It was intended to make players
more aware of positioning. Little ships could be used to give bigger ships
nasty hits on exposed sides. To keep it simple I would stick with the 4 sides
and simply overlay an X on the ship to represent the front back and sides. See
where the tape measure falls.

> - Does this work for all enemy weapons ? How about SMLs or fighters ?

Again for things like SMLs they will be coming from a direction so what side
of the ship is closer.

> - It will be harder to get threshold checks than now. Now all hits go

Well no the first threshold check is practically the same as the normal rules.
Unless the rear is hit which may have fewer hull boxes at the start. The real
damage comes when a side has no hull boxes left. Every hit results in
threshold checks.

> - The effect on crew casualties is interesting. At the first threshold

> check, each box has 1/6 chance of being killed, 2nd check 2/6, 3rd 3/6

> resulting in chance of 5/6 , 20/36, 60/216 ( 83%, 55%, 28% ), whereas

Yes the crew was a novel idea. although it is representing the repair teams.
You could if unlucky lose all repair teams on the first threshold.

> - Shouldn't at least the non-core systems be assigned to specific hull

> sides and suffer damage accordingly ?

Yes the core systems are a problem since they should be better protected as to
an answer well I'll have to think on about the core systems.

I think Tony had an interesting point about armour perhaps being the
locational element and the hull boxes representing the overall ship integrity.

> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----

I don't think you understood my remark here. Think about the following (rather
artificial) example:

Assume a target ship with 16 hull boxes, equally distributed. Target and
shooting ship are stationary, but target can turn. Whenever a side gets 3
hits, target turns 90 degrees. First threshold check occurs after 12 hits.
Under present rules, it happens after 4 hits.

Even if this is an artificial example, I would think that there is scope in a
normal game for distributing hits over all sides and thus delaying threshold
checks.

Greetings

> > Well no the first threshold check is practically the same as the

> > at the start. The real damage comes when a side has no hull boxes

> (rather artificial) example:

> gets 3 hits, target turns 90 degrees. First threshold check occurs

Ah right I see what you mean. Well yes if you do this but it comes down to the
issue of what fire arcs your weapons have. And in some ways rewards the player
who is better at manuvering to limit threshold checks.

> Jeremey Claridge wrote:

Except that a BB or DN could simply roll on the spot and present an
undamaged side to the enemy - this hardly counts as fancy manoeuvering
in the 'Nelson-at-Trafalgar' class.