How about changing the damage track, so that it forms a triangle, with each
row being 2 or 3 boxes shorter than the one above it?
eg: a mass 32 ship (16 hits) could have a damage track like this:
XXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
X
As ships get more massive, their damage tracks get wider and deeper. With
extra points being put on the higher rows.
eg: a mass 36 ship (18 hits) has one extra box on each of the first two rows:
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXX
X
This system would lead to threshold checks becomming more frequent after a
ship had taken some damage, so it might be a good idea to drop the rule about
successive thresholds rolling against different numbers.
What do you think?
In reply to Alun Thomas
> How about changing the damage track, so that it forms a triangle, with
With extra
> points being put on the higher rows.
This sounds good to me, so long as small ships started out with two rows max.
That ways small ships would keep on going until they suddenly vaporised
(pretty much how I always imagined it happened in battles with
the large ships anyway - you were either there in a small ship or you
were flotsam). I think it simulates the abilities of large ships to handle
damage well.
Regards,
> From: Alun Thomas <alun.thomas@cbis.com>
Sounds like a great idea.
> This system would lead to threshold checks becomming more frequent
Especially if the rows are narrow enough that you could conceivable have more
than one threshold check, it would be best to flatten the number rolled. In
fact, I think I'd rather have noticeably narrower and taller damage tracks,
thus making for more frequent, though less severe checks. Also, if you make
all checks at 6, it's easier and faster
to roll 3d6 and look for 6s than it is to roll a d6, then go back through
and roll for a 5-6, etc., if you have more than one check in a turn.
> I Wrote:
> k.g.mclean @ cqu.edu.au (Kevin Mc Lean.) wrote:
> This sounds good to me, so long as small ships started out with two
Well, I'd see the progression for small ships going like this:
1 Hit X
2 Hits XX
3 Hits XXX
4 Hits XXX X
5 Hits XXXX X
6 Hits XXXX XX
7 Hits XXXXX XX
8 Hits XXXXX XXX
9 Hits XXXXX XXX X
So ships wouldn't get three rows until they got to 9 hits anyway (ie the
current
escort/cruiser boundary).
In fact, ships with under 4 hits (mass 8 military or mass 16 merchant) only
get
*one*
row - they'll go bang without taking any threshold checks at all - which
I think is a plus point.
(If you want ships to be initially more fragile, but gradually take fewer and
fewer thresholds then you could try putting the short tracks at the top and
the long ones at the bottom)
> >> From: Alun Thomas <alun.thomas@cbis.com>
[...]
> >> This system would lead to threshold checks becomming more frequent
> jjm @ zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) wrote:
> Especially if the rows are narrow enough that you could conceivable
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of keeping all threshold
rolls the same, and using the shape of the damage track to vary their
frequency - makes ship design take a little longer, but could speed up
play.
If you want more frequent threshold checks, you could adjust the rate
at which the rows get smaller - I picked 2 boxes per row because it
seemed to give roughly similar results to the current system. You could choose
to make the rows one box smaller than the previous row, or even one box every
two rows:
eg. One box every row:
6 hits XXX XX X
7 hits XXXX XX X
8 hits XXXX XXX X
9 hits XXXX XXX XX
10 hits XXXX XXX XX X
11 hits XXXXX XXX XX X
12 hits XXXXX XXXX XX X
One box every other row: (flying eggshells!)
6 hits XX XX X X
7 hits XXX XX X X
8 hits XXX XXX X X
9 hits XXX XXX XX X
10 hits XXX XXX XX XX
11 hits XXX XXX XX XX X
12 hits XXX XXX XX XX X X
> johnjmedway wrote:
My only concern about this damage sliding system is for big ships.... If you
have a big ship, you will have quit ungodly number of box on the first row,
and it may be hard to keep in current diagram.
> >> From: Alun Thomas <alun.thomas@cbis.com>
[...]
> >> This system would lead to threshold checks becomming more frequent
> jjm @ zycor.lgc.com (johnjmedway) wrote:
> Especially if the rows are narrow enough that you could conceivable
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of keeping all threshold
rolls the same, and using the shape of the damage track to vary their
frequency - makes ship design take a little longer, but could speed up
play.
If you want more frequent threshold checks, you could adjust the rate
at which the rows get smaller - I picked 2 boxes per row because it
seemed to give roughly similar results to the current system. You could choose
to make the rows one box smaller than the previous row, or even one box every
two rows:
eg. One box every row:
6 hits XXX XX X
7 hits XXXX XX X
8 hits XXXX XXX X
9 hits XXXX XXX XX
10 hits XXXX XXX XX X
11 hits XXXXX XXX XX X
12 hits XXXXX XXXX XX X
One box every other row: (flying eggshells!)
6 hits XX XX X X
7 hits XXX XX X X
8 hits XXX XXX X X
9 hits XXX XXX XX X
10 hits XXX XXX XX XX
11 hits XXX XXX XX XX X
12 hits XXX XXX XX XX X X
Sometime in the past, it was written:
}>
}> >> This system would lead to threshold checks becomming more frequent}> >>
after a ship had taken some damage, so it might be a good idea to drop}> >>
the rule about successive thresholds rolling against different numbers.
}>
}> Especially if the rows are narrow enough that you could conceivable}> have
more than one threshold check, it would be best to flatten the}> number
rolled. In fact, I think I'd rather have noticeably narrower}> and taller
damage tracks, thus making for more frequent, though less}> severe checks.
Also, if you make all checks at 6, it's easier and faster}> to roll 3d6 and
look for 6s than it is to roll a d6, then go back through
}> and roll for a 5-6, etc., if you have more than one check in a turn.
}>
}
}My only concern about this damage sliding system is for big ships....}If you
have a big ship, you will have quit ungodly number of box on the}first}row,
and it may be hard to keep in current diagram.
My opinion on the sliding scale thread:
I like it. I like it lots. The idea of each row forcing another threshold
check at 6, but having more rows, really makes battle damage a bit more "fun"
in my mind. It would need play testing tho... Not every idea that looks good
in email survives the tabletop.
Now, my suggestions (wouldn't be a complete post without opinions!):
Maximum number of boxes per row. It's simple, it forces bigger ships to have
more damage checks, it keeps the damage chart smaller.
Number of default damage control teams as a function of number of rows, say
one for every two rows.
Perhaps make some systems that degrade after losing a specific number of
rows, like thrust or maybe FTL? I'm thinking of "auto-6's" when you
lose a row or something. That's a wild possibility... Might work best for
armor, screens, or engines. The bigger systems that could have many redundant
components throughout the ship, so it's more system degradation than taking it
out.
Relating to Jon's recent proposals for a straight scale for engine thrust to
mass, this is a possibly simple way of solving it. Make the engine cost based
on the number of rows! Something as simple as:
"Each point of thrust takes an engine that masses the same as the number of
damage rows."
This could break the three classes into lots of different ones, and it
satisfies the laws of diminishing returns.
Anyways, that's my take on it.
> To: FTGZG-L <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
And different cultures/shipyards get different basic layouts of hits.
Say you're using B5 (since I gave up on the silly background in FT/MT
when I read it, this seems one of the more widely accepted standards),
and say an Earth Force-style Cruiser/Destroyer and a Narn-style BC each
have 20 hits (absurdly small, but it's the shape we're after, not millions of
rows of 0s for the example):
Earth Force Narn
----------- ----
(fragile open structure (compactness -->
and rotating section) sturdiness) 0000 00000000 0000 000000 000 0000 000 00
00
00
00
The Narn can be hammered for 19 points in one turn and roll 3d6 looking for
6s. The Earth Force wreckage would be rolling 6d6 looking for 6s, showing how
much more easily their ships can be trashed.
> cwang @ dpg.devry.edu (Chun-Kai Wang) wrote:
> >> From: Alun Thomas <alun.thomas@cbis.com>
> My only concern about this damage sliding system is for big ships....
Ok, here's a quick analysis of how quickly the first damage track grows under
both the existing system and my suggestion.
[ By the way, I've just moved house, and my copy of FT is in a box
somewhere, so I've had to go from memory for the current system. Please feel
free to correct me.]
Current system: Escorts
> From 1 to 9 hits (1-18 mass), with 2 damage tracks.
The tracks build up as follows:
01 03 05 07 09
02 04 06 08
Current system: Cruisers
> From 10 to 18 hits (19-36 mass) with 3 damage tracks.
The tracks build up as follows:
01 04 07 10 13 16 02 05 08 11 14 17 03 06 09 12 15 18
Current system: Capitol ships
> From 19 to 50 hits (37-100 mass) with 4 damage tracks.
The tracks build up as follows:
01 05 09 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 02 06 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50
03 07 11 15 19 23 27 31 35 39 43 47 04 08 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Proposed system: All ships (Ilustrated for 1 to 50 hits, with variable no of
damage tracks) The tracks build up as follows:
01 02 03 05 07 10 13 17 21 26 31 37 43 50 04 06 08 11 14 18 22 27 32 38 44 09
12 15 19 23 28 33 39 45 16 20 24 29 34 40 46 25 30 35 41 47
36 42 48
49
Here's a quick graph of number of hits (hor axis) against length of the first
damage track (vert axis). (look at this in a fixed width font if possible)
15 14 13 nnnnnnbb 12 nnnnnn oooo 11 nnnnnn oooo
10 nnnnn oooo
9 nnnnn oooo 8 nnnn oooo 7 nnnn oooo 6 nnn ooo oooo
5 nnb ooo oo
4 nnoo ooo
3 nnoo
2 noo
1bo
....5....1....1....2....2....3....3....4....4....5
0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0
o = old n = new b = both
This shows that the proposed system gives first tracks that are generally
longer than the current system up to 50 hits, but shorter beyond 50 hits (this
would seem to penalise superships more than the current system does)
At most the new system's first tracks are 3 boxes longer than the old
system's. Against this you have to consider that most of the subsequent lines
will be shorter than in the current system.
> At 14:16 24/02/97, you wrote:
> How about changing the damage track, so that it forms a triangle, with
With extra
> points being put on the higher rows.
========================================================================
========
Reference the above -
When I first read the Sliding scale Damage Track, I felt that the problem of
damage thresholds had been overcome. Then I decided to check the probilities
of a system suriving the threshold chesks. This showed up a possible problem:
Under the present system the chances of a sustem surviving all the threshold
checks are as follows:
Escorts ( Mass 18 units or less ) - 83.33%
Cruisers ( Mass between 19 and 36 units ) - 55.56%
Capitals ( Mass greater than 36 units ) - 27.78%
The possibilities of a system surviving all the threshold checks using the
system suggested by Alun Thomas are as follows:
Ships mass 4 units or less - No checks
Ships mass beteen 6 and 10 units - 83.33%
Ships mass between 12 and 18 units - 69.44%
Ships mass between 20 and 28 Units - 57.88%
Ships mass between 30 and 40 Units - 48.23%
Ships mass between 42 and 54 Units - 40.18%
Ships mass between 56 and 70 units - 33.49%
Ships mass between 72 and 88 units - 27.91%
Ships mass between 90 and 108 units - 23.26%
Ships mass between 110 and 130 units - 16.15%
The above posentages show the problems -
1: The escort class are worse off especally between mass 12 & 18
2: Light cruisers ( Masses less than 28) are far better off.
3: Cruisers whith a mass of greater than 28 Units, are worse off.
4: Capital ships of masses between 38 and 70 units are better off, This is at
an extreme with masses of less than 56 units.
5: Only capital ships with a mass over 90 units are worse off.
Also it should be noted that where as a mass 64 ( 32 hit points) ship will
take it third check after 24 points damage ( Under the old system) with a
27.78% chance of a system having survived all the checks. With the sliding
scale system there is a 57.88% chance of a system being intact after taking
the same amount of damage. O.k. over the next 8 points of damage the ship on
the sliding scale would take 3 more checks, BUT there is still a 33.49% change
that a system would have still survived all the checks. I know which
methord I would prefer! - But is it right?
What is the effect of this - first there is a strong bias against the
smaller ships, "Escort" type ships are already badly off, this would finish
them off.
Secondly: the larger ships will become harder to disable, less chance of
knocking out a system for the same amount of damage. Probable result -
battle lines of large ships blazing away at each other, no room for finness!!
Thirdly: Fighters may well be better off, no small ships loaded down with ADAF
to worry about and the big ships ( as thay move slower) are better
targets.
Yes I know we are out to get rid of the three classes of ship, but the
resulting system MUST remain balanced, keep it simple ( some how) and get it
right.
Possible ways arround the problems high lighted above -
1: Make the smaller ships harder to hit, ( at the present it is as easy to hit
a small ship as a large one). Even with moden day systems it is easer to hit a
large target than a small one so why not in Fall Thrust?
2: Make the larger ship's hull cost proportionally more. I.e. the hull for a
mass 100 ship will cost more than 10 mass 10 hulls.
3: Make the drives for a larger ship cost proportionally more and require
proportionally more mass. I.e. to get a thrust of 4 factors on a mass 10 ship
may require 2 mass points ( 20%), on a mass 20 ship, 5 mass points ( 25%), a
mass 40 ship, 12 mass points ( 33%), and so on. ( Remenber inertia has an
nonliner effect.)
4: Allow ships to take evasive action, but to do this will require half of the
ships thrust factor, with a mimimun cost of ( say) 2 factors. There fore not
available to large ships.
Graham L. Tasker.
P.S. Some people have pointed out that it is quicker to look for a '6' on
a die, than a '5' and '6'. Simple answere - Take three old dice,
on one paint one face Red the others Green, on the Second die, paint two faces
Red, the others Green and on the last one Three Red and three Green. Red =
threshold test failed, Green Passed, Quick and simple.
P.P.S. One use for escorts - figher cover, take a mass 18 distroyer,
equip with 2 ADAF's, 2 PDAF's and a 'C' Beam ( 3 arcs). 3 or 4 of these to
cover a capital ship and the fighters have a hard time of it.
O.K. not much use against other ships but that is what the large
one is for!
Hello List, After reading the analysis of the sliding track damage system, I
would like to mention something that occurs to me after reading Mr.Alun's
conceptual statement earlier...
If a ship has 3 damage tracks, with 4, 5, and 5 on it's tracks, then doesn't
it take 4 points of damage under the old system before it takes a threshold
check rather than the 3 that Mr.Alun seems to imply? I was confused by the
statements recently made.
With regards to the concept that I mentioned earlier, I suggested that we
break the track down into "groups" and also standardize how each grouping is
done. With that thought in mind, I considered the concept that each ship has a
number of damage points equal to the actual tonage. A mass two ship, still
gets only two damage points, but since it has to stretch the points in 4
tracks, the first track is "empty", the second track has one, the third track
is empty, and the fourth trach has the final damage point. When skipping over
a line due to "empty", the ship has to take threshold checks at the worse
level rather than the missed level. Thus, after the first hit, the small two
mass ship checks it's systems at a 5&6 rather than the 6. On the last hit, the
ship takes threshold checks at 3,4,5, and 6. It blows up on excess damage with
a roll of a 1d6 on rolls equal to or less than the excess damage.
If we want to make the number of "group" checks per 1/3 of a line (ie
three threshold checks per "line"), then the following kinds of threshold
checks come into being:
36 mass ship:
6) OOO OOO OOO 5) OOO OOO OOO 4) OOO OOO OOO 3) OOO OOO OOO
13 mass ship:
6) OOO 5) OOO 4) OOO 3) OOO O
8 mass ships:
6) OO 5) OO 4) OO 3) OO
100 mass ships:
6) OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 5) OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 4) OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 3) OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
If you noticed, I have 9 in the first (section or begining of row) hit
grouping, then 8 in the remainders. The reason is that I didn't know what to
do with the "odd" number of hits. Had the ship been 101 masss, I would have
put the "odd" remaining 1 in the last row, ie the "3" threshold check line.
This would have had two groupings with 9 hits, and the last row getting the
extra hits. Thus, the 101 mass ship would look like:
101 mass ships:
6) OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 5) OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 4) OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO 3) OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
I almost forgot:
5 mass ship:
6) O 5) O 4) O 3) OO
Thoughts?
> hal @ buffnet.net wrote:
"Alun"s my forename - If you want to be formal, my sirname is "Thomas"
:-)
> If a ship has 3 damage tracks, with 4, 5, and 5 on it's tracks, then
Err, did I say that somewhere? (could you let me know what gave you the
impression I was saying that?)
> [...] gets only two damage points, but since it has to stretch the
Wouldn't this clobber escorts? A 4 hit ship currently gets 2 rows with 2 hits
each. This would give it 4 rows
with 1 hit each - 1 threshold check per point od damage taken.
[Moved from above for clarity]
> With regards to the concept that I mentioned earlier, I suggested
> 6) OOO OOO OOO
I'm not sure how these group checks differ from the normal threshold checks.
If theyre the same, then you might as well say that the ship has 12
(4lines*3groups) damage track lines. If they're not the same, then how would
you envisage your "group" checks
working?
celticcross @ chiswick.globalnet.co.uk ("Graham L. Tasker. M.B.C.S.") wrote:
> At 14:16 24/02/97, you wrote:
> When I first read the Sliding scale Damage Track, I felt that the
[ Currently: Escorts=83.33%, Cruisers=55.56% and Capitals=27.78% ]
> The possibilities of a system surviving all the threshold checks using
> Ships mass 4 units or less - No checks
I'm not quite sure where you're figures come from above: I can see how the
percentages you list would derive from each line in the above list taking one
more check than the previous
line (eg mass 42->54 taking 5 checks) but you seem to be adding extra
threshold checks faster than my proposal.
Here's how I think it should work out
Mass <= 6 [hits <= 3] No Checks 100.00%
Mass 7->16 [hits 4-> 8] 1 Check 83.33%
Mass 17->30 [hits 9->15] 2 Checks 69.44%
Mass 31->48 [hits 16->24] 3 Checks 57.88%
Mass 49->70 [hits 25->35] 4 Checks 48.23%
Mass 71->96 [hits 36->48] 5 Checks 40.18%
Mass 97->126 [hits 49->63] 6 Checks 33.49%
Mass 127->160 [hits 64->80] 7 Checks 27.91%
(note by the way, that under the proposed system, these%ages would only apply
when when a ship was, at most, 3 hits from destruction)
> The above posentages show the problems -
I disagree: escorts up to mass 6 are better off, from 7 to 16 the%ages are the
same (but the first check will occur later) mass 17 & 18 escorts are
slightly penalised.
> 2 : Light cruisers ( Masses less than 28 ) are far better off.
Generally fair comment.
Even using my figures, most ships are better off (mass 17 and 18 are worse
off, and I think ships above mass 160 will also be worse off).
One possible way of getting around this is to re-introduce some
variation in the threshold rolls (but not much):
If the first threshold is rolled against 6, and all subsequent ones against 5
or 6 then the above table changes to:
Mass <= 6 [hits <= 3] No Checks 100.00%
Mass 7->16 [hits 4-> 8] 1 Check 83.33%
Mass 17->30 [hits 9->15] 2 Checks 55.56%
Mass 31->48 [hits 16->24] 3 Checks 37.04%
Mass 49->70 [hits 25->35] 4 Checks 24.69%
Mass 71->96 [hits 36->48] 5 Checks 16.46%
Mass 97->126 [hits 49->63] 6 Checks 10.97%
Mass 127->160 [hits 64->80] 7 Checks 7.32%
This seems a bit more reasonable to me. (by the way, if the 7% seems a bit
low, how much of its equipment would
you expect a mass 160 ship to have left after taking 77/80 hits?)
What do you think?
> Alun Thomas writes:
@:) > [...] gets only two damage points, but since it has to stretch @:) > the
points in 4 tracks, the first track is "empty", the second @:) > track has
one, the third track is empty, and the fourth trach @:) > has the final damage
point. When skipping over a line due to @:) > "empty", the ship has to take
threshold checks at the worse @:) > level rather than the missed level. [...]
@:) Wouldn't this clobber escorts? A 4 hit ship currently gets 2 rows
@:) with 2 hits each. This would give it 4 rows with 1 hit each - 1
@:) threshold check per point of damage taken.
Yeah - that would kinda suck, huh. So how about this. Let's say
that a ship may have as many as four damage rows (threshold checks at 6,5,4
then *boom*). A "complete" damage row will always have a multiple of five
damage boxes. Any damage row will have the same or fewer boxes as the next row
and the same or more boxes as the previous row. When determining how many rows
to put on a ship, complete rows are created starting at the bottom and working
up through the 4, 5 and 6 threshold levels. Any spare points are assembled
into an incomplete row, also working from the bottom up. It looks like this:
(spaces between o's are to help you count and have no game meaning)
Mass 10 ship: 6: ooooo
Mass 18 ship: 6: oooo 5: ooooo
Mass 36 ship: 6: ooo 5: ooooo 4: ooooo 3: ooooo
Mass 46 ship: 6: ooooo 5: ooooo 4: ooooo 3: ooooo ooo
Mass 82 ship: 6: ooooo ooooo 5: ooooo ooooo 4: ooooo ooooo 3: ooooo ooooo o
This system, like most of those already discussed, has little effect on heavy
capital ships. It makes escorts tougher but more brittle since no ship below
mass 11 gets a threshold roll. I think this is acceptable, though, since
escorts typically break down after their first hit and pop after their second.
This would give them a slightly higher likelihood of delivering some damage
before they die.
Another possible idea would be to create the damage boxes from the top to the
bottom of this template. It has always seemed unfortunate to me that, under
the current system, a mass 6 ship is typically less
effective than a mass 4 ship because it takes an often-crippling
threshold roll after only one hit. If the largest row of the chart were the
first one, bigger ships would always be tougher than their
smaller bretheren - in terms of combat effectiveness and not just
number of hits until destruction.
Such a system would then give us:
Mass 10 ship: 6: ooooo
Mass 18 ship: 6: ooooo 5: oooo
Mass 36 ship: 6: ooooo 5: ooooo 4: ooooo 3: ooo
and so forth.
Hello Alun,
<grinning> sorry about mis-remembering your name...
With respect towards your questions...
The way you labled your damage tracks was:
146 25 3
which led me to believe that it was your intent to use the number of boxes
as numbered - sequentially. Probably a mistake on my interpretation...
Also, in my set up, I suggested that the number of damage points be doubled,
not kept as they are now... Thus a mass two ship will have two
damage points. A mass 4+ ship will have at least one damage point per
track.
As for the effective damage rows being 12 rather than 4 assuming that a
cruiser has a mass of 36 and having 4 rows with groups of 3 per row, you are
functionally correct in that matter. However, the idea as put forth by myself
isn't so much as to generate more "rows" of damage per se, but to get not only
an increased number of threshold checks, but also, a graduated
system. Consider: if you use 12 rows of damage records - that would
make it hard to know when to roll 6's, 5's, 4's, or 3's. By keeping the
original number of "rows", the first row shows that threshold checks are 6's.
The second row shows that checks are at 5's, etc...
The proposal is more for allowing larger ships to be damaged proportionately
to their size as opposed to watching a large ship get hammered for a long time
before it finally loses some systems. My "proposal" would be just as good if
the rows were divided into two groups per row rather than three groups. The
point of this whole "idea" was to explore ways and means of giving the escort
a little bit more "survival time" and having super ships lose their overly
extreme edge of "invulnerability" to damage. Also, I find it hard to believe
that an escort type ship can be "blown" out of space without having undergone
the same process of rolling a check versus a 6, 5, and 4 through out it's
existance.
In general, I suspect that my "optional" rule concept is not overly liked
- which is ok. It was an attempt to fix what I consider to be a
problem, yet that others do not...
Enjoy...
> At 14:01 27/02/97, you wrote:
wrote:
> At 14:16 24/02/97, you wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
---------
First Alun, thanks for the above comments, I worked out my posentages from the
following understanding of your plan:
1 hit point - X ( One row, no
checks)
2 Hit points - XX ( One row )
3 Hit points - XX ( Two rows, one
check)
X
5 Hit points - XXX ( Two rows )
XX
6 Hit points - XXX ( Three rows,
two checks)
XX
X
9 Hit points - XXXX
XXX
XX
10 Hit Points - XXXX ( Four rows,
Three checks)
XXX
XX
X
14 Hit points - XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XX
15 Hit points - XXXXX ( Five rows,
Four checks)
XXXX
XXX
XX
X
20 Hits points - XXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XX
And so on, A threshold check being taken at the end of each row, thus the
results I calculated. Looking at our figures I think you may be using a
different layout for you charts.
I think if you look at the above charts, you can see why I say that the
escorts are worse off and that the large ships are better off.
With the modified chart ( First roll 6, second plus 5 or 6) I think we have a
possible answer to ensure that the large ships donot have it all there own
way. I would admit that I donot wish to see a situration were the small ships
are forced out and we end up with two battle lines slugging it out, with the
fighter diving in for a ( very) quick pass.
I think we are heading toward the possible solusion that will remove
the Ecsort / Cruiser / Capital break point problem - a little refinement
and pass it to Jon at GZG.
> On 24 Feb 1997, Alun Thomas wrote:
There's a problem with this: "the poor get poorer". Once a ship has
taken about 1/2 damage, it starts to degenerate into a drifting lump of
wires & circuit boards as more and more systems fail due to all those
threshhold checks. This would make it easier to destroy the ships in
the game, especially the large, "fear-of-ghod" capital ship. For
example,
I assume a mass-84 superdreadnaught would look something like this:
damage boxes Threshhold roll:
(12) XXXXXXXXXXXX 6 (10) XXXXXXXXXX 5,6 (8) XXXXXXXX 4,5,6 (6) XXXXXX 4,5,6
(4) XXXX 4,5,6 (2) XX dead
As compared to the current system:
(11) XXXXXXXXXXX 6 (11) XXXXXXXXXXX 5,6 (10) XXXXXXXXXX 4,5,6 (10) XXXXXXXXXX
dead
In the current system, a heavily damaged capital ship can still present a
considerable threat, while the in new system, it can be neutralized somewhat
more easily.
Here's an extreme example for a 98-mass capital ship:
damage boxes Threshhold roll:
(13) XXXXXXXXXXXXX 6 (11) XXXXXXXXXXX 5,6 (9) XXXXXXXXX 4,5,6 (7) XXXXXXX
4,5,6 (5) XXXXX 4,5,6 (3) XXX 4,5,6 (1) X dead
As compared to the current system:
(13) XXXXXXXXXXXXX 6 (12) XXXXXXXXXXXX 5,6 (12) XXXXXXXXXXXX 4,5,6 (12)
XXXXXXXXXXXX dead
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:50:38 -0500 (EST)
I believe it is supposed to look more like this:
damage boxes Threshhold roll:
(12) XXXXXXXXXXXX 6 (10) XXXXXXXXXX 6 (8) XXXXXXXX 6 (6) XXXXXX 6 (4) XXXX 6
(2) XX dead
> There's a problem with this: "the poor get poorer". Once a ship has
you have to lok at things like shock damage, power surge/power failure
damage, Not just battle damage. The more a ship is damages the harder it is to
keep working systems working.
> damage boxes Threshhold roll:
maybe skipping the threshold check on the first row, that would keep them
alive longer, but still model the ease knocking out systems on a heavily
damaged ship. or Buying Armor, add an extra row of boxes for a price.
here's a wacky idea... each row of boxes contains half the remaining damage
points, rounded up.
a mass 100 ship: 50 25 13 6 3 2 1
a mass 8 ship 4 2 1 1
let's say all checks are a 6 on d6. what this does, is it prevents a supership
from taking threshold checks too soon, while simulating the "slide to doom" as
outer armor is damaged beyond use and the internal structure starts to take
serious damage.
> rickr @ ss1.digex.net (Rick Rutherford) wrote:
> On 24 Feb 1997, Alun Thomas wrote:
> There's a problem with this: "the poor get poorer". Once a ship has
> Here's an extreme example for a 98-mass capital ship:
Well, I was aware of this, which is why I suggested making all threshold rolls
at 6. Unfortunatly, as Graham Tasker noticed, this is too easy on damaged
ships.
So, I changed the proposal so that the first threshold check is still against
6, but all subsequent ones are against 5 or 6. This seems to give fairly
similar results to the current system.
damage boxes Threshhold roll:
(13) XXXXXXXXXXXXX 6 (83% of equipment should survive)
(11) XXXXXXXXXXX 5,6 (56% of equipment should survive)
(9) XXXXXXXXX 5,6 (37% of equipment should survive) (7) XXXXXXX 5,6 (25% of
equipment should survive) (5) XXXXX 5,6 (16% of equipment should survive) (3)
XXX 5,6 (11% of equipment should survive)
(1) X dead (0% :-] )
This is actually fairly similar to the rate at which the mass 98 ship falls
apart under the current system, except that it's less granular.
lojeck @ mizar.usc.edu @ CBISINET
> here's a wacky idea... each row of boxes contains half the remaining
> a mass 100 ship:
Actually, that would be: 25 13 6 3 2 1
Whereas the current system would give: 12 12 13 13
And the triangular sliding scale proposal would give: 14 11 9 7 5 3 1
> a mass 8 ship
That should be: 2 1 1
Current: 2 2
Triangular: 3 1
> let's say all checks are a 6 on d6. what this does, is it prevents a
It makes the first track on an escort half as long as the current system, but
makes a capitol's first track twice as long!