Having played most of the GZG games (except for Stargrunt which I will play at
Gen Con), it strikes me odd that Full Thrust is the only one with only a
rudimentary morale system.
Has anyone come up with a morale system where each individual ship has a
morale?
Also, in the interest of contributing, I have thought up a morale system which
could be used with the existing rules, and which ties in nicely with SG and
DS.
In this system each ship would be assigned a leadership number either 0, 1, or
2. 0 would be the best and 2 would be the worst.
A Leadership check would be taken each time a threshold check is made. If the
die roll is equal to or greater than the Leadership number then the ship will
continue as normal. If the roll is less than the Leadership number then the
ship will "bug out" unless command can be re-established. There is a +1
modifier to the roll for each previous threshold check made. So on the 3rd
threshold check there is a +2 to the roll. Alternatively the roll could
be required to be GREATER than the Leadership which would make it more likely
that the ship would "Bug Out".
Bugging Out
Bugging out would be defined as either a) applying maximum thrust to exit the
table or b) jumping out, whichever will be safer.
Re-establishing command (Rally)
To re-establish command the ship would have to make a Leadership roll at
the same level it missed PLUS one. This is to simulate their reluctance to
return to the fray once they've decided to leave. This test is made at the end
of any turn that the affected ship is on the table, EXCEPT the turn they lose
their cool. This means that the ship will spend at least one turn not doing
what you want them to do.
Optional rule
The flagship could provide a modifier to a rally check depending upon the
flagships own Leadership level. I think a suitable modifier would be +1
for each level of Leadership better than the affected ship. (Example: A
flagship
with a Leadership of 0 could give a +2 to a ship with a Leadership of 2)
This
may be too powerful to allow for every ship, so limiting it to one ship per
turn would fair IMO.
You could also use the confidence levels from SG and DS instead of making it
an automatic "bug out" but I thought for simplicity's sake this would be
better.
This idea was inspired by David Weber's Honor Harrington series, in which ship
morale plays an integral role in most battles. In honor of that system I would
also propose that "Bugging Out" be also referred to as "Pulling a Pavel
Young". Those of you who are familiar with the series will know what that
means.
What do you think? (If someone already thought of this, I apologize for the
waste of bandwidth)
Brushman
G'day,
> Having played most of the GZG games (except for Stargrunt which I will
Your ideas sound pretty good, but rather than inventing a new role how about
tying it to the "strike the colours" rule? So instead of a class
0,
1, 2 have a -2, -1, 0 and they're the modifiers you apply to the "strike
the colours" roll? Anyway just a thought.
Cheers
Beth
On 18-Jul-99 at 00:50, bbrush@rev.state.ne.us (bbrush@rev.state.ne.us)
wrote:
> Having played most of the GZG games (except for Stargrunt which I will
If
> the die roll is equal to or greater than the Leadership number then
Alternatively the
> roll could be required to be GREATER than the Leadership which would
I don't think I like this idea very well. Since we are playing a "fiction"
game I don't see many places in fiction where part of your battleline runs.
See, there is this problem, cowardice in the face of the enemy is
In a message dated 7/19/99 8:35:11 AM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us
writes:
<< Since we are playing a "fiction" game I don't see many places in fiction
where part of your battleline runs. See, there is this problem, cowardice in
the face of the enemy is often a hanging offense. If you think of the David
Webber books, what
I consider _the_ space combat books, I can only think of one time when
an individual ship broke and ran. The CO busted out, and the reason for not
hanging him was political. >>
Any number of actions under sail ended in a "sauve qui peut" type situation.
When the battle has been lost the individual captains choose to surrender, run
or fight to cover the withdrawal of others. A ship involved in a general
evacuation of course does not fight and the hulk may be salvageable. A fleet
that has been broken becomes a collection of individual ships whose command
structure responds in different ways. To have a fleet morale is a reflection
of reality, not a game mechanic.
> On 19-Jul-99 at 10:01, ScottSaylo@aol.com (ScottSaylo@aol.com) wrote:
> To have a fleet morale is a reflection of reality, not a game
That's fine, but while the fleet is in good shape we shouldn't be making
morale rolls for each ship. If you want to make a "fleet" morale roll, and if
broken start rolling for individual ships that would work, but I don't think a
detailed morale for every ship is really necessary or even a good indication
of reality. If you really want to deal with morale on an individual ship level
it doesn't have much affect on wether you run or not, it has an affect on how
well you fight.
First to Brushman,
Howdy, Bill! How long have you been lurking here? I've been a bit
incommunicado, just ask Hobie, so I didn't pipe right in. Are you
interested in a trial get-together before GenCon for SGII? I
did a bad thing and promised a trial of the derivative FMA Skirmish rules, and
starting on SGII would be a big help to me.
Now, back on topic.
My take on this is rather different. Firstly, ships tend to be rather
different from army units. Bolting by individuals that becomes a rout is a
different matter on a ship unless the escape pods can be expected to be
available before 'abandon ship'.
Secondly, the examples given tend to be Napoleonic. My impression is that
surrender before a ship was completely ungunned is extremely rare after the
turn of the century. And by then, they are often a short way from sinking
anyway. And, we tend to follow ironsided history.
Now, one could argue that panic would cause a decrease in the efficiency of
systems and weopens, but I tend to think that is added confusion in an elegant
system that strives for simplicity. Besides, I always assumed that was
included in damage control rules. A positive roll COULD be repair of a system,
or remanning of a station after the rating had gone battle fatigued. As well
as the aforementioned 'striking the colors', of course.
Anyway, we all know that the space services are staffed with far more noble
and brave fellows than the rabble that are found amongst the
groppo's. ;->=
The_Beast
In a message dated 7/19/99 9:11:49 AM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us
writes:
<<
That's fine, but while the fleet is in good shape we shouldn't be making
morale rolls for each ship. If you want to make a "fleet" morale roll, and if
broken start rolling for individual ships that would work, >>
Notice I was speaking of "sauve qui peut" situations, not pristine fleets
splintering apart. Though I wonder if the slow development time of a battle
under sail did not allow the captains and crews time to ponder their situation
and make a "rational" decision. When ships disengage under steam too often the
whole situation is lost and the ships CANNOT escape anyway, i.e.: The light
cruisers at the First Falklands, any number of surface engagments in the
second world war.
Perhaps morale should take effect before the engagment begins, and individual
ships should be checked when the Gods of war do not favor the individual ship.
Admiral, you must let me leave. I'm down to one point defense system, the
engines are fluttering on and off and I only have one type one left. This
isn't a cruiser anymore, it's a frigate. One more hit and it's space dust.
Captain, you are relieved. Your XO is now in command.
JMO, but you paint a tad too extreme picture of military discipline.
If a ship is no longer an effective fighting unit (i.e. massive damage) then I
would see an admiral not only not denying the request, but ordering it if
necessary. A ship is a very expensive piece of equipment and if it was the
difference between saving a ship to repair and having a bunch of wreckage to
clean up, I would expect that everyone involved (except for the guys shooting
at them) would rather have a ship.
I believe you are the one that mentioned the Honor Harrington series and
stated that you could only think of one instance where a ship broke from
formation and ran for it. You are partly correct. There is only one example of
a comparatively undamaged ship breaking out, the Pavel Young incident. There
are however numerous mentions of SD's and DN's dropping out of the wall due to
battle damage. Presumably without orders, but required by the situation. I
would also humbly submit that however important the battles are that are
portrayed in the books they are a small fraction of the number of battles that
would have actually had to take place.
I guess my motivation for this is that I have a philosophical problem with a
ship ALWAYS staying in the fight until it's dead. The people running that ship
have the same self-preservation instinct as any ground-pounder, and it's
captain knows that while a ship may need to be sacrificed for victory staying
in a fight when you no longer have anything to contribute is foolish and
wasteful.
I also think that the "Strike the Colors" rule is perhaps too harsh in that
you have a one third chance of losing a ship at every threshold check (I'm
guessing, but I would surmise from your comments you don't use that rule) and
I would find that withdrawing from the battle would be much more likely than
surrendering. Another problem with it, IMO is that it makes no allowance for
the quality of the captain.
Well I guess I'm just going to have to test my ideas and see if they go too
far or not far enough. Those of you who are happy with the perfect control
over your fleets are welcome to ignore them, but IMO it's not terribly
realistic.
Brushman
Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> on 07/19/99 10:18:00 AM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject Re: [FT] Ship morale
:
Admiral, you must let me leave. I'm down to one point defense system, the
engines are fluttering on and off and I only have one type one left. This
isn't a cruiser anymore, it's a frigate. One more hit and it's space dust.
Captain, you are relieved. Your XO is now in command.
In a message dated 7/19/99 10:19:18 AM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us
writes:
<< Admiral, you must let me leave. I'm down to one point defense system, the
engines are fluttering on and off and I only have one type one left. This
isn't a cruiser anymore, it's a frigate. One more hit and it's space dust.
Captain, you are relieved. Your XO is now in command. >>
OR: Admiral! Admiral! Are you there! Admiral!
.............................................
Hard a port get us out this helm!
***
I also think that the "Strike the Colors" rule is perhaps too harsh in that
you have a one third chance of losing a ship at every threshold check (I'm
guessing, but I would surmise from your comments you don't use that rule) and
I would find that withdrawing from the battle would be much more likely than
surrendering. Another problem with it, IMO is that it makes no allowance for
the quality of the captain.
***
I'm afraid you've got me on this one; it's been a long time since I used the
rule,
and I'm afraid I mis-remembered it not coming to play until well after
the first threshold.
As far as staying to the death, though, I maintain most of my previous
statements, both as to historical underpinings of the systems and the
avoidance of further complexities.
Given what I've read of battles, ships from WWI on HAVE stayed until
obliterated. Removal of a ship on an FT board CAN mean it's not blown up, but
a floating hulk.
Rather than a morale roll per ship, scenerio VP's should probably include
making it worth while for a fleet commander to withdraw a ship or even a fleet
in the case of a hopeless cause.
Course, the description of Honor Harrington space doesn't effect how I
perceive space battles. YMMV is a big one here.
The_Beast
> At 11:18 19/07/99 -0400, you wrote:
SNIP
> Captain, you are relieved. Your XO is now in command.
Then again, on retrieving the captain's escape pode from the debris of the
cruiser, "And just what do you think you were playing at, you 'orrible little
MAN? HMG did NOT provide you with a VERY expensive cruiser for you to run
around playing at kamikazes! Never seen anythin' laik i' 'nawlme LAIF!* Caps
on! Abaht face! Quick march!"
Individual ships breaking would very much be part of ancient medieval and
renaissance naval warfare- I suppose it fits your background or it
doesn't.
*copyright Regimental Sergeant Major Brittain, 1950's; a magnificently
terrifying real life Guards RSM who, portraying himself in a film, once put
a squaddie on a charge for "coasting" on a bike- "Idle while cycling"!
Rob
*ARRRG*
No matter HOW HARD I TRY, I cannot defeat the word wrap!
Somebody just target me with numerous SML's!!!
The_Beast
On 19-Jul-99 at 11:52, bbrush@rev.state.ne.us (bbrush@rev.state.ne.us)
wrote:
> JMO, but you paint a tad too extreme picture of military discipline.
Yes, I agree with this, a good Admiral should order that ship to drop out, but
that is not a crap shoot morale roll. And sometimes it may be a case where the
Admiral needs that ship in even with the major damage.
> I believe you are the one that mentioned the Honor Harrington series
There is a major difference between a ship dropping out because it is unable
to follow the Admirals orders and due to dropping morale. In the "unable" area
it is still basicly the Admirals decision, either he can ammend his orders to
stay with the problem ships, or he can leave them behind.
> I guess my motivation for this is that I have a philosophical problem
I agree with this also, I just don't like the particular mechanic that is
being proposed. I think a better one would be any ship completely destroyed
counts as double it's NPV for victory conditions.
> The people running
There are many scenarios where that lone cripple would be ordered to stay and
fight.
IE, been left as gaurd for that civilian transports full of doctors and med
supplies while the rest of the task group went off to deal with the bad guys,
only the bad guys managed to slip one in close to the convoy. Hold him while
while the fleet comes back at max.
> I also think that the "Strike the Colors" rule is perhaps too harsh in
> Well I guess I'm just going to have to test my ideas and see if they
I would rather have the perfect control rules rather than an crap shoot.
I know we fight many battles of the type "two fleets happen to encounter each
other in space" type, but in reality those should rarely occur. The battles
you would see would be fixed point things. You see incompetant Admirals and
CO's making mistakes, but seeing someone turn tail and run because of morale
is going to occur to infrequently to really model it. If your fleet is
fighting as a unit removing your piece without the Admirals consent could well
cost the battle.
Just as an example, current carrier escorts are tasked with attempting to
imitate a carrier to draw fire off of the carrier. When the weapons they are
expecting are tactical nukes they know before they start their survivability
chances will be slightly above 0. Same thing with the destroyers people put
out to soak up salvo missles. If it was a war most governments would do
exactly the same thing. A 1 hull box no weapon speed 2 CL can draw off any
number of SM's if maneuvered properly. I can't see making the CO cut and run
when he knows there are more lives than his and his crews at stake.
I don't think you've really thought about the rules as I proposed them. Let me
run the numbers for you.
Assuming most ships would have a Leadership of 1 (veteran) they would pass the
first test automatically (1+ on a d6), would pass the second test on a
2+, and
pass the third test on a 3+. An elite ship would not even have to test
until the third threshold check. This is hardly a "crap shoot". Using the
"Strike
the flag" mechanic you lose the ship on a 5+ on a d6, although someone
stated that he thought you only checked on the 2nd and 3rd threshold checks.
Apparently nobody uses that rule though.
You seem to be looking at this as though an Admiral does and should have
"god-like" powers of command. They don't. In actuallity there are
people on those other ships that want to live just as much as anyone else. As
long as the ship is ok the captain is going to follow orders, but if the ship
is within seconds of being blown out of the sky then the captain will think
much harder about how his country is best served. I'm sure if the admiral had
his way every ship would fight until it was dead rather than retreat or
surrender. After all if they surrender then the enemy just got a ship.
As far as your description of how screening units are used to soak up missile
hits, you are correct that this tactic is used, but I have philosophical
problems with it too. (As well as the fact that i think missiles are a little
too effective in the FT universe) Given the technology of the FT
universe I would expect a Naval design office to be able to come up with ship
designs capable of either a) severely degrading a missile salvo's
effectiveness (increase PDS, ADFC, etc), or b) absorbing the damaged caused by
it. That's JMO, but I think most navies find that replacing ships and crews is
pretty expensive and finding a way to avoid having to do that is high on their
list of priorities.
You state several scenarios where these morale rules would not be applicable,
but if you are playing a scenario, then it would certainly be within reason to
adjust them to meet your needs.
I think you are looking too much of this as being a mechanism to model
cowardice. It's not. It's proposed mechanism for how to model the presence of
a living breathing captain on board each ship. A captain that has to make
decisions which affect the suvival of himself and his crew, not to mention the
strength of his country's navy. The basic question that is being
answered when the Leadership roll is being made is: Is the ship still in good
enough shape to fight in the opinion of the captain (not the admiral)? For the
most part a good captain is going to stay in there until his admiral tells him
to leave, but captains are only human and sometimes they are going to decide
their ship has had enough and attempt to save it to fight another day.
Sometimes a captain is going to have a difference of opinion from the Admiral.
This may get him
court-martialed, but at least his crew will be alive to attend his
court-martial.
You state that you don't like the mechanic being proposed. That is perfectly
acceptable to me, you don't have to use it. Personally I'm not a real big fan
of of victory points. IMO it should be fairly obvious who got the better end
of the fight. VP's all too often result in someone doing something that
results in a lot of VP's gained, but at the expense of what is tactically
sound, especially at the end of the game.
Brushman
Roger Books <books@mail.state.fl.us> on 07/19/99 12:29:16 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject Re: [FT] Ship morale
:
<snip>
Yes, I agree with this, a good Admiral should order that ship to drop out, but
that is not a crap shoot morale roll. And sometimes it may be a case where the
Admiral needs that ship in even with the major damage.
<snip>
There is a major difference between a ship dropping out because it is unable
to follow the Admirals orders and due to dropping morale. In the "unable" area
it is still basicly the Admirals decision, either he can ammend his orders to
stay with the problem ships, or he can leave them behind.
<snip>
I agree with this also, I just don't like the particular mechanic that is
being proposed. I think a better one would be any ship completely destroyed
counts as double it's NPV for victory conditions.
<snip>
There are many scenarios where that lone cripple would be ordered to stay and
fight.
IE, been left as gaurd for that civilian transports full of doctors and med
supplies while the rest of the task group went off to deal with the bad guys,
only the bad guys managed to slip one in close to the convoy. Hold him while
while the fleet comes back at max.
<snip>
I would rather have the perfect control rules rather than an crap shoot.
I know we fight many battles of the type "two fleets happen to encounter each
other in space" type, but in reality those should rarely occur. The battles
you would see would be fixed point things. You see incompetant Admirals and
CO's making mistakes, but seeing someone turn tail and run because of morale
is going to occur to infrequently to really model it. If your fleet is
fighting as a unit removing your piece without the Admirals consent could well
cost the battle.
Just as an example, current carrier escorts are tasked with attempting to
imitate a carrier to draw fire off of the carrier. When the weapons they are
expecting are tactical nukes they know before they start their survivability
chances will be slightly above 0. Same thing with the destroyers people put
out to soak up salvo missles. If it was a war most governments would do
exactly the same thing. A 1 hull box no weapon speed 2 CL can draw off any
number of SM's if maneuvered properly. I can't see making the CO cut and run
when he knows there are more lives than his and his crews at stake.
In a message dated 7/19/99 1:56:16 PM EST, bbrush@rev.state.ne.us
writes:
<< The basic question that is being answered when the Leadership roll is being
made is: Is the ship still in good enough
shape to fight in the opinion of the captain (not the admiral)? For the most
part a good captain is going to stay in there until his admiral tells him to
leave, but captains are only human and sometimes they are going to decide
their ship has had enough and attempt to save it to fight another day.
Sometimes a captain is going to have a difference of opinion from the Admiral.
This may get him
court-martialed, but at least his crew will be alive to attend his
court-martial. >>
Indeed! Even a courts martial will recognize the excuse of "sauve qui peut"
Which is French for save your own ass! It is a military precept that once the
cause is lost every man and officer becomes responsible for saving himself as
best he can. Navy's recognize it too.
I was debating posting this, but we've got enough historical interest here I
think I will. I don't know if this supports my position or if it's irrelevant,
but it's interesting regardless.
Note: The positions One and Two are the essense of debate at hand as I
understand them.
The individual who wrote this works on the US's battleships in a
consulting/restoration capacity and has demonstrated a great deal of
knowledge on naval matters. I don't know if that is pertinent, but there you
have it.
Brushman
***********Begin quote
<< One: A ship pulling out of a battle for any reason would get it's captain
court-martialed for cowardice in the face of the enemy and probably
executed.
Two: A captain has sufficient discretion to to determine if his ship is still
a capable fighting force and would therefore be able to pull out of a fight if
it was sufficiently damaged that in his estimation it could no longer
contribute to the fight and was in serious jeopardy of being lost for no
reason.
> [quoted text omitted]
Number one is reminescent of the French Army in WW I. Though faced by
murderous machine gun fire, artillery and mortars, a retreat from the charge
meant death by firing squad. At least for a few chosen members of the unit to
"set an example". Kirk Douglas made a movie documenting that several years
ago. Sorry, I forgot the title.
Number two is the most accepted for a ship having to withdraw from battle. The
only time a Captain would be disciplined would be if he did not announce his
need and time of withdrawal to the fleet commander if his communications
systems were working. Generally, a modern fleet commander would see if a ship
is too badly damaged to either carry on a meaningful fight or would be
hazardous to its own allies (in the way of line of fire from a replacement
ship).
A ship Captain could get into trouble, however, if he recklessly placed his
ship in danger when a more reasonable course of action could have been done.
Generally, though, in combat this is more or less overlooked unless the battle
was lost as a result of a reckless action.
An example of overlooking a reckless action is during the Korean War, the
Battleship Missouri responded to a call for fire support by Marines pinned
down by a blockhouse on the other side of a bridge. The shots would have
called for absolute maximum elevation of the 16 inch guns to 45 degrees.
However, calculations done at the time of construction indicated that any
elevation greater than 42 degrees would put too much of a load on the turret
path roller bearings. So, the skipper deliberately beached the 57,000 ton ship
on a sandbar by flooding his wing tanks. He listed the ship 4 degrees, thus
giving the barrels the ability to elevate to 45 degrees relative to Earth. He
made the shots at 26 miles, dead on and the Marines were able to walk across
the bridge.
On the other hand, a few years later under another Captain, the Missouri was
going into port through Hampton Roads off of Norfolk, Virginia. The helmsman
was a former harbor pilot of the area and knew where the shoals were. However,
the Captain ordered a hard right rudder. The helmsman did not turn the rudder
as he knew from personal experience that a sandbar would have built up in that
area during that time of year. The Captain refused the helmsman's explanation
of why he should not turn that way and said, "When I order a rudder change, I
expect it to be carried out without question."
"Yes Sir."
CRUUUNCH!
That Captain's career was cut REAL short.
On the other hand, there have been cases where a ship Captain was disciplined
for NOT going into Harm's Way, but those are very, very few and I can't really
think of any at the moment except for the fictional scenario in the movie The
Caine Mutiny.
Sometimes, ship Captains are made the scape-goats just so the DOD
can put a finger to blame on a particular person rather than the entire
establishment. A good case in point is the Captain of the Indianapolis. After
delivering the Atomic bomb parts to Tinnian Island, the ship was ordered to
another port at all possible speed. A Japanese submarine torpedoed the ship.
Though most of the crew survived the sinking, most of those were eaten by
sharks. The Captain was blamed for not going on a
zig-zag course though the Japanese sub commander testified (at an
American
court martial no less) that zig-zagging makes no difference at all.
Usually it slows the ship down enough to get a better shot. So he would have
sunk the cruiser regardless.
No blame was laid on the lack of communications between point of departure and
expected point of arrival noting that a cruiser was several days late. No
search planes were sent out and it was only by chance a passing plane spotted
the few remaining survivors in the water. No blame was laid on the command
center that ordered "all possible speed" which usually
meant to forget zig-zag.
But the Captain was blamed, reduced in rank, cashiered out. Later he committed
suicide.
Well, I hope I somewhat answered your questions. Good luck.
***********End quote
ScottSaylo@aol.com on 07/19/99 02:52:26 PM
Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc: (bcc: Bill Brush/InfSys/Revenue)
Subject Re: [FT] Ship morale
:
In a message dated 7/19/99 1:56:16 PM EST, bbrush@rev.state.ne.us
writes:
<< The basic question that is being answered when the Leadership roll is being
made is: Is the ship still in good enough shape to fight in the opinion of the
captain (not the admiral)? For the most part a good captain is going to stay
in there until his admiral tells him to leave, but captains are only human and
sometimes they are going to decide their ship has had enough and attempt to
save it to fight another day. Sometimes a captain is going to have a
difference of opinion from the Admiral. This may get him
court-martialed, but at least his crew will be alive to attend his
court-martial. >>
Indeed! Even a courts martial will recognize the excuse of "sauve qui peut"
Which is French for save your own ass! It is a military precept that once the
cause is lost every man and officer becomes responsible for saving himself as
best he can. Navy's recognize it too.
> On 19-Jul-99 at 15:56, ScottSaylo@aol.com (ScottSaylo@aol.com) wrote:
> Indeed! Even a courts martial will recognize the excuse of "sauve qui
The question is who gets to decide the cause is lost? Personally, since I am
playing fleets that are heavy in SML's, I love your idea. I want those pissy
little frigates and destroyers people are using for screens to make die rolls
and run away.:)
In a message dated 7/19/99 3:15:59 PM EST, books@mail.state.fl.us
writes:
<<
The question is who gets to decide the cause is lost? Personally, since I am
playing fleets that are heavy in SML's, I love your idea. I want those pissy
little frigates and destroyers people are using for screens to make die rolls
and run away.:)
> [quoted text omitted]
When the ship is unable tofight or the fleet has broken up and become a group
of indiividual vessels unable to help each other.
> Roger Books wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> > I guess my motivation for this is that I have a philosophical
...Snip...JTL
> Roger Books (Who had a destroyer surrender in my last battle rather
It ir rather unlikely that a ship that has taken enough damage to render it
unable to continue combat will be able to withdraw. If either thrust or FTL is
destroyed the ship cannot leave, reguardless of the captains desires.
Bye for now,
G'day guys,
> Using the "Strike
I always knew I wasn't somebody, but did you have to confirm I was a nobody?;)
For what its worth we use the stirke the colours rule all the time (though
we play it as if checking for a critical system) and its a lot of fun -
its not like the SDN surrenders very often, but the odd couple of times one
has have been pure magic! The groans, the gnashing of teeth....;)
Cheers
Beth
> At 09:36 AM 7/20/99 +1000, you wrote:
Don't worry Beth! You're not the only "nobody" on this list! ;-) My
friends and I have been playing "Strike the Colours" as a Core System since we
first played using the Fleet Book and it is superb fun to use. As you say, its
not often that a ship surrenders, but it makes for an interesting game when
they do, especially that Superdreadnought or fleet carrier that surrenders
after the first Colours check.
Actually, My group uses "strike the colors" as well, but we play that a ship
that has blown her morale check, must make all possible attempts to disengage.
Every turn untill the ship leaves the table, I may make
additional check aginst the captains morale to attempt to re-enter the
action.
[quoted original message omitted]
> If a ship is no longer an effective fighting unit (i.e. massive damage)
then I
> would see an admiral not only not denying the request, but ordering it
Count victory points as Point Cost / Hull Boxes (eg Alacrity class BC 20
Hull Boxes, about 350 points, each hull box destroyed wins 3.5 points), with
a bonus of say 50%for finishing it off and +100% for capturing it.
Sound reasonable?
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, John Leary wrote:
> Roger Books wrote:
i disagree strongly. in the last game of FT i played, my NAC BC and a pair of
destroyers jumped out to escape Rob Paul's nefarious scots (who, i might add,
had fielded some very small heavy cruisers disguised as
destroyers, the bounders) - i had lost the ability to fight due to
losing FC and batteries, but still had jump drive, so i cut my losses and
left.
> If either thrust or FTL is destroyed the ship cannot leave,
true, but loss of FTL drive and ability to continue combat are not correlated:
if i lose all my FCs and weapons, i'm mission dead and it's time to leave.
tom
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Laserlight wrote:
> >If a ship is no longer an effective fighting unit (i.e. massive
almost. i'd say a full 100% bonus for killing it on table, or perhaps a
penalty equal to its original cost to the owning player. it is far more
expensive to build a ship than to repair even a badly damaged hulk
(although in many cases you go for the scrap + build for other reasons).
tom
> Count victory points as Point Cost / Hull Boxes (eg Alacrity class BC
Quoth Tom:
> almost. i'd say a full 100% bonus for killing it on table, or perhaps a
Note that as I described it, you get 100% of the points cost for nailing all
the hull boxes, plus 50% more for the kill, total 150%....you want more?
On 21-Jul-99 at 18:11, Tom Anderson
(thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk) wrote: > On Mon, 19
Jul 1999,
> John Leary wrote:
FWIW, this is a misattribution, other than the bit about the destroyer
surrendering.