In June 03, I posted a suggestion for using Crew Quality in FT, and I've
finally gotten around to putting it on the web. This method does
use d4, d6, d8 d10, d12, but does not use FMA-style opposed
rolls--essentially it's just normal FT mechanics with different dice.
If you've always wanted to pit Honour Harridan's cruiser against a Perp
battleship, or the veteran Battlescar Galatika against several Crylon ships,
this might be for you:
http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/ft/quality.htm
I like the idea of doing crew quality stuff but what about the technology? All
things being equal would a poor crew really misread the dials and instruments
so much to warrent a d10?
Back when I played FT at least twice a year I tinkered with using the
Ace/Turkey thing to model crew quality figuring a +/- 1 would be more
than enough to get the effect on the table.
> I like the idea of doing crew quality stuff but what about the
IMO all things won't be equal--take a look at some of the African
"navies" in Janes and you'll see that some of them can't even get their ships
away from the dock.
> Back when I played FT at least twice a year I tinkered with using the
Just a +1 / -1 to the die roll, so a -1 crew will never get rerolls on
beams and a +1 crew will always hit with PTorps in the first 6mu? Or
something else? Curious to see how you did it.
[quoted original message omitted]
> That's an issue of readiness though isn't it? You can have the best
If they're good crews, they'll maintain their ships. Poor crews either can't
or won't.
> On Saturday 18 December 2004 05:26, Laserlight wrote:
I've been thinking of ways to merge FT and roleplaying (so PCs from say a
Traveller or B5 game can crew ships, with combat resolution done using FT).
The main mechanic I've played around with is weapon range - on the
thoery that a highly skilled character can target weapons better at longer
ranges, increasing their effectiveness. A high skill therefore gives a
reduction to effective range to targets.
I like your mechanics, though my two issues with it are that I like high =
good systems (they feel better), and that you'd need to keep piles of dice of
all types, not just d6 (which is the nasty real world infringing on your nice
theory).
> The main mechanic I've played around with is weapon range - on the
You might like Noam's version of Stealth, then. Ithought about that, but the
issue is that there will be ranges where a good crew can hit and a poor crew
has "zero chance" (rather than "little chance") of hitting back.
> I like your mechanics, though my two issues with it are that I like
You don't really have to reverse the dice -- you could just say, for
example, "for dN, a beam does 2+reroll on N, and 1 point of damage on
N-1 and N-2". But I figured reversed would be easier to explain. As
for multiple dice types--well, I play StarGrunt, so that's not really
an issue for me.
I should also have added, in response to Damond: an alternative would be to
have poorer quality ships roll thresholds before the battle starts, to see how
much gear is out of commission. It was, I gather, not that unusual to see a
Soviet ship at anchor in the middle of nowhere, waiting for a repair expert
because equipment had broken down and no one aboard knew how to fix it.
Okay, trying to make foot figures in my units for DS 2 and SG 2 as similar as
possible. Right now I know that GZG makes both 6 mm and
15 mm figures for some (but not all) nations/factions that I can use.
Who else makes figures in two or more scales for a
group/nation/faction?
I am currently collecting/painting:
NPC - using GZG NI in 6 mm, 15 mm, 25 mm (!) plus have some second hand
Scotia 6 mm and sometimes currently use 6 mm and 15 mm NAC also.
IC - using GZG IF in 6 mm and 15 mm (Since the GZG IC is only 25 mm.)
Have some OOP 15 mm. May eventually get IC in 25 mm, definitely would if
Jon did them in 6 mm/15 mm also.
NEA - using GZG FSE in 6 mm and 15 mm plus have OOP 15 mm
PHR - Brigade Models 6 mm planned, currently using 5 mm WW1 from H&R
and 15 mm OOP
LIRA/LLAR - GZG ESU? in 6 mm and 15 mm planned plus have 15 mm OOP
RH - GZG NAC or NSL in 6 mm and 15 mm a possibility
Have some second hand 6 mm Adler troops and vehicles which will fit in
somewhere.
Gracias,
Glenn
Gracias,
Apology - forgot to change subject line.
Gracias,
> On Saturday 18 December 2004 19:49, Laserlight wrote:
I haven't seen them, but if it modifies effective range based on
stealth and sensors, then it's similar to mine :-) Mostly inspired
by the ELINT rules in B5 Wars, which I quite liked (so, yes, ships can share
sensor info to an extent, and blind other ships).
> I thought about that,
Well, a d6 is hardly fine grained, so any 'little chance' details are lost
anyway (moving up to d10s is a little better of course). Unless the poor crew
ship has no engines and can't move, this situation will probably only last for
a round, maybe two, before the ships close to a range where they can both hit.
On another point - how about a C&C ship giving a bonus to crew quality?
All ships within 12" of C&C ship get one level bonus maybe. Could be
base on quality of commander and/or ELINT quality.
SPenn said:
> I haven't seen them, but if it modifies effective range based on
No, no--YOURS is similar to HIS <grin>
see http://nift.firedrake.org/defences/WDA-ECM.htm#StealthHull
> On Monday 20 December 2004 13:16, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Heh, I notice he references my old rules for Minbari Jammers,
> Heh, I notice he references my old rules for Minbari Jammers,
Hey, he called it 'Sam's website'; he got it right at least once... ;->=
By the way, how's Robin?
The_Beast
> On Monday 20 December 2004 14:11, Doug Evans wrote:
;->=
Yeah, that's the confusing thing :-) Getting it wrong twice would
have been more understandable! (I did once get an end of year report from one
of my teacher's made
> On 18 Dec 2004 at 23:00, The GZG Digest wrote:
> >I like the idea of doing crew quality stuff but what about the
Yep.
The issue is one of training.
1) How well does the crew do their job under ideal circumstances? This would
be the "reading the dials and instruments", and most navies in the
Tuffleyverse, I suspect, could manage this part at least more-or-less
competently. But is that the case with all navies? Is there even the remote
likelihood that a rookie scanner tech might yell, "Dummy salvo missiles
inbound, range 10,000 kilometres!" during a training exercise when, in fact,
he had the scanner scale wrong and the range is actually 100,000 km, or 1,000
km? And how good is the user interface on these ships, anyway? I'm willing to
bet that more than one Tuffleyverse nation
contracts out to the "lowest bidder".
2) How well does the crew do their job when things get hairy? This is where
training and panic collide. Are the crew able to read "the dials
and instruments" effectively when their scanners show a cloud of _real_
salvo missiles headed right at them? When the commander yells at them to
take evasive maneuvers, do they punch in the orders correctly and immediately,
or do they sit stunned for a couple of seconds?
3) How well does the crew do the job of the guy next to him when there are
combat losses? Are the crews cross trained? If so, how well are they
cross trained? Can a beam gunner take over p-torp control? Can a beam
gunner pilot the ship? Does the technology allow the ship to be piloted from
the forward gun turret in dire circumstances? Or can the ship only be piloted
from the bridge or the combat bridge?
4) How well does the crew handle combat losses from a psychological
standpoint? Will crew members panic at the sight of the person next to them
having the top half of his body vaporized by a penetrating beam shot? Or will
they sit stoically at their post and do their job? Will they panic and head
for the escape pods the moment the ship takes damage, or will they stay at
their posts when ordered even though they know one more hit will destroy the
ship? If the crew panics, all the technology in the world (except for sentient
AI, and if you have that why have people in the ships?) can't save the ship.
5) How well does the commander and his immediate staff handle stress? The crew
can read their "dials and instruments" correctly and efficiently, but it means
little if the commander himself panics, yells orders, and then changes his
mind twenty seconds later.
I think crew quality is entirely valid, even in the Tuffleyverse where all the
crew members have to do is read "dials and instruments".
---
> >I like the idea of doing crew quality stuff but what about the
Look at the ship conditions of the navies of, say, Cote d'Ivoire or Nigeria.
(in fact, this argues more for "poorer crew quality means you take irreparable
thresholds before the game starts")
Or to put it another way: if a first-rate NAC crew is facing a PAU
colonial crew in identical NAC frigates, which will have an advantage, and by
how much?
> Look at the ship conditions of the navies of, say, Cote d'Ivoire or
This almost suggests campaign differences, such as a lack of infrastructure to
maintain those ships. SFSFW's site has David Manley's rules for shipyards, and
covers some of this. He mentioned crew quality, but I seem to recall it was
mostly folded into the above.
> Or to put it another way: if a first-rate NAC crew is facing a PAU
If they're raw enough, you'd have to roll for PAU's written orders being
followed, or setup in an inferior position. Nothing like starting with someone
on your baffles to suggest your previous maneuvers were less than sterling.
This MIGHT suggest inferior captaining, but if the crew is sluggish, it's
as bad as mis-driving.
Then, there's further possibilities as to poor shots and inability to fix
anything...
The_Beast
> Damosan wrote:
> Back when I played FT at least twice a year I tinkered with using the
Exactly. Applying a +/- 1 DRM is MORE than enough to get this effect:
for
most weapons a -1 DRM gives an effect somewhere between "D10" and "D12"
crew quality in LL's concept (and sometimes even worse than D12, too). I
believe that LL is looking for something which is merely ENOUGH :-/
Regards,
Interesting rules.... I had worked on this myself a bit back... but I had
started by trying to extrapolate the systems from SG2 & DS2.... using mostly
DS2's rules as far as the to hit rules went... but then I wanted to do some
with SG's rules on command and morale... got things quite nicely buggered up
into a compitent fashion... then the whole idea took a plunge into the abyss
.... not sure where I left off... might pick them up and finish them before
FT3 gets published... or GZGECC 10.... which ever comes last....
Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:In June 03, I posted a suggestion
for using Crew Quality in FT, and I've finally gotten around to putting it on
the web. This method does
use d4, d6, d8 d10, d12, but does not use FMA-style opposed
rolls--essentially it's just normal FT mechanics with different dice.
If you've always wanted to pit Honour Harridan's cruiser against a Perp
battleship, or the veteran Battlescar Galatika against several Crylon ships,
this might be for you:
http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/ft/quality.htm
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:35:56 -0600, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
wrote:
> >Look at the ship conditions of the navies of, say, Cote d'Ivoire or
But,. as in all things military, that lack of infrastructure translates
directly into having bad crews.
The only way to get good at doing your job in the military is to go out and do
it in practice. You only get good at driving tanks if you go take your tanks
and drive them around to get a feel for how they handle.
Simillarly, you only become a good seaman (or starman) by getting in a ship
and going out and handling it in Real World seas with Real World weather. And
running drills for contingencies and combat operations requires a working ship
in the first place.
Simulators are nice, but will never replace going and doing. And
without the gear to go and do, the crews will be half-trained at best.
Depends on the crews. In Tuffley's write up of the PAU, there are some PAU
forces that are as good or better than their super power counterparts, while
others create a moving navigational hazard.
If the PAU takes pride in their ship, they will generally keep it in good
working order while the NAC's may have deferred the maintenance of the ship
sue to operational requirements of the navy.
> "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Look at the ship conditions of the navies of, say, Cote d'Ivoire or Nigeria.
(in fact, this argues more for "poorer crew quality means you take irreparable
thresholds before the game starts")
Or to put it another way: if a first-rate NAC crew is facing a PAU
colonial crew in identical NAC frigates, which will have an advantage, and by
how much?
Most of those examples relate to Damage Control (for which automation can't
yet make a "leap of faith" to fix a problem).
In the automation of FT, crew quality doesn't matter once the targetting
solution is locked into the computers. Where it does matter is in the
maintainance of the systems, damage control and initiative.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> In the automation of FT, crew quality doesn't matter once the
Assuming, of course, that your fire control software has been properly
maintained and updated. And the actuators which point your weapons. And your
weaopns have been aligned so they're actually aiming at what the FCS thinks
they're aiming at. Etc....
> Brendan wrote:
I've read that in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war crew quality
made a big difference in combat between missile boats.
The Arab/Syrian missiles needed several minutes warm up
time for their internal gyros. The Israelis correctly guessed that a badly
trained crew would fire as soon as they got a missile lock. Their boats
charged in quickly, the enemy boats fired, the missiles crashed into the
water. This also shows the advantage of well trained crews: it must take a lot
of confidence in your officers and intelligence to deliberately let the enemy
shoot first.
The Isralie boats also had ECM for the missiles which did fly straight, but
again this relied on the operators staying at their consoles as the missile
came in.
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:01:18 -0500
Also does the NAC still have the backdoor to PAU frigate system?
:-)
Have a Good One, DOC Agren    (Lurker on the Digest)
Still maintains my premise: The missiles weren't ready to fire when required
(maintainance) and the Israelis charged under the effective range of the
enemies weapons (initiative). You could probably call having ECM a form of
Damage Control (no hits mean no damage to fix).
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:32:46 +1100, Robertson, Brendan
> <Brendan.Robertson@dva.gov.au> wrote:
My read of that suggested that they instead fired the missiles as soon as they
had lock, but not when the missiles were actually ready for launch, as the
missile's internal Gyros were not warmed up and stabillized. Without said
prepping, the missiles would just function as fancy ballistic missiles and
would miss anything that was not perfectly still.
In any case, it really dosen't change the arguement and in fact reinforces the
human element. If you don't know how your fancy weapons work, you might as
well be using slingshots.
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
As I understand it, part of the decline of the Revolutionar French Navy was
because the RN blockaded them in their ports, so that the new
conscripts and non-guillotined officers never got to practice and thus
performed terribly when they did sortie.
J
It didn't help the [revolutionary] French Navy that most of the competent
naval officers were originally part of the king's Navy and the French
guillotined everybody, well almost everybody, associated with the king.
> J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
As I understand it, part of the decline of the Revolutionar French Navy was
because the RN blockaded them in their ports, so that the new
conscripts and non-guillotined officers never got to practice and thus
performed terribly when they did sortie.
J
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 09:42:49AM -0800, Thomas Westbrook wrote:
> It didn't help the [revolutionary] French Navy that most of the
Most officers were aristos, and therefore for the chop. Some of the ratings
had natural talent as officers, but as one would expect most of them didn't
(it's a rare talent, after all). I'm sure JohnA among others has encountered
the Sergeant who Knows How To Make Everything
Work If Only He Were In Charge... well, suddenly they _were_ in charge.
R