> The break points between hull classes is somewhat different. Adam
> made at 4+.
Actually, I have to give all the credit to Adam. :-)
My idea was to have a set length that would be filled before the next row was
started. Adam improved the idea as presented above.
I still would like to see the ship classes redefined more evenly. Such as:
02-10 Corvette Escort
11-20 Frigate Escort
21-30 Destroyer Escort
31-40 Lt Cruiser Cruiser
41-50 Med/Escort Cruiser Cruiser
51-60 Hvy Cruiser Cruiser
61-70 Battlecruiser Capital
71-80 Battleship Capital
81-90 Dreadnought Capital
91-100 Superdreadnought Capital
100+ Superships Supership
Even using the existing method of allocating ship diagrams, this would allow
more light, fast ships to be a factor in the game. I feel that giving escorts
an 18 mass range, cruisers an 18 mass range, but capitals
a 64 mass range (as it is currently) a little lopsided. This would distribute
it to 30, 30, & 40.
In a message dated 97-02-20 00:49:58 EST, you write:
> >Class name: Mass range: #rows of boxes: Max #boxes/row:
> >other ship in that class.
This system does work pretty well to bring capital ships down to Terra a bit,
but it does produce a lot of gutted hulks. All of those 4+ threshold
checks get pretty brutal. I would suggest that if using this system, that the
base number of Damage Control Parties be one less than the number of damage
rows, with the capacity to pay for an equal number of additional parties. Your
smallest ships just cannot spare the manpower, and besides they usually just
go straight to the escape pods.... Your larger ships will suffer a lot of
"temporary system failures" early in the battles as the DCP's are able to
repair systems taken down in that first check or two, but as the parties take
casualties, things get a little hectic.....
Later
Brian
Just an opinion - one that I don't expect will be used per se, but to
point out some "errors" in concepts overall...
If we use the concept of extra boxes and rows, might I suggest that we go back
to ships who use the exact same number of "rows"?
Rational: On smaller ships, one massive strike will do, well, massive damage.
The chances of getting a lot of systems failures will be exceedingly high.
However, on a Capital ship, such a massive hit might
not be all that "massive" with respect to the percentage volume/mass of
the ship. Therefore, it would take more of those "massive" hits to bring the
capital ship to the same state of existance as the smaller ship. Let's take an
example of what I mean...
Suppose you have a small ship with 4 rows of damage boxes. Each row has one
"threshold" check involved. Each row has only one damage box in it. A volley
doing 3 points of damage, will wipe out three rows all at once. This would
force a threshold check for a 6,5,and 4 respectively. This small ship will
suffer a lot of systems failures <grin>. On the other hand, a Capital ship
with 4 rows, each with 10 boxes in it, wouldn't even notice a similar volley.
Another suggestion might be to do this:
Break each row into a set number of groups, each group destroyed in a row
causes a systems check equal to the value of that row. Thus, a capital ship
might look like this:
6: OOO OOO 5: OOO OOO 4: OOO OOOO
Where each "circle" represents a damage box on the control sheet. The examples
I am using are off the top of my head, and not to canon examples.
In any case, I don't like the idea that a smaller ship can be badly damaged
enough to function fully one turn, and then explode the next turn, with a mere
2 or 3 points of damage.
I think rational wise, each ship should get an equal number of "threshold
check rows", but get unequal numbers of damage boxes. By using groups within
rows, you can bypass the problem of "invulnerable" types of CAPITAL and SUPER
ships...
Just musing...
Hello, I think that the Class Thrust rating rules have a serious problem,
especially because all of us yankees love to maximize our ships. History shows
We and the Germans had better success with our Battleship designs because of
this reason. So what seems to happen here is that all ships are either Mass
18, Mass 36.... Being an applied Math Masters candidate, the curve for all
this looks way to ugly to me. I know that what I'm about to propose violates
my earlier rule about making things simple, but this is an aspect of the game
that is a major weakness. Here goes: Mass Class Cost Thrust Factors 0 to 6
Boat 1 X Ship's Mass per Five Thrust 7 to 12 Corvette 1 X Ship's Mass per Four
Thrust 13 to 24 Frigate 1 X Ship's Mass per Three Thrust
25 to 36 Destroyer 1 X Ship's Mass per Two Thrust
37 to 66 Cruiser 2 X Ship's Mass per Three Thrust
67 to 96 Heavy Cruiser 1 X Ship's Mass per One Thrust
97 to 116 Battle Ship 4 X Ships Mass per Three Thrust
117 to 134 Battle Dread 2 X Ship's Mass per One Thrust
135 to 156 Super Dread 4 X Ship's Mass per One Thrust
157 to 180 Star Ship 8 X Ship's Mass per One Thrust
180 to 200 Battle Station 16 X Ship's Mass per One Thrust
> Phil P. wrote:
This reminds of one big area I would really like to see changed in FT -
classifying a ship type based only on its mass. I think it should be the
player's decision as to what type of the ship, the ship actually represents
based on its role, etc. I think a more efficient system would be to assign an
identifier to each mass range for helping with identification and ship
construction. One example is trying to represent races where the beings in
question may be of different sizes compared to humans. A race of beings much
larger than humans might have a scout as large as a human battle cruiser, etc.
Example using Phil's size listing:
> Mass Size Class
etc.
A ship of say 96 mass might be considered a battle cruiser, a strike cruiser,
a scout, a dreadnought etc. The ship type should be based on the its actual
role, not just its size. Many of todays modern destroyers and cruisers are
built on similar hulls and have similar tonnage, but they are not all called
destroyers or all called cruisers. They are primarily classed on their role.
In message
<Pine.BSI.3.95.970220175616.19803C-100000@buffnet7.buffnet.net> you
wrote:
> In any case, I don't like the idea that a smaller ship can be badly
I like the idea of every ship having an extra row of damage boxes, equal in
size to the last row. Once damage goes into
this last row of boxes, the ship is crippled - all systems
automatically fail threshold checks, and the ship is dead in space. If damage
goes off the end of this row, then the ship is destroyed.
Makes it easier to capture and board ships, without being forced to blow it to
bits just because you don't have any needle beams...
> Hal Carmer wrote:
> If we use the concept of extra boxes and rows, might I suggest that
> Another suggestion might be to do this:
The
> examples I am using are off the top of my head, and not to canon
Agree, and I like it. Suggestion: all ships get 4 lines.
2 Box Small ship:
4 O NOT 6 O as at present
3 O 5 O
4 Box Small ship
6 O 5 O 4 O 3 O
Boxes are added from bottom to top.
> Mike M. wrote:
Yes, I quite agree. The class names in FT are no more than arbitrary
labels, as I pointed out in the rulebook - they are simply to give
players used to "wet navy" terms a rough idea of the relationship between
ships. By all means call any size of ship a Cruiser, a Dreadnought or a
Vandanbladderstiddle* for all it really matters.... I guess the only real
reason for some sort of consistency is that it allows other players to
relate to ship sizes - if you say to your opponent "this is a Frigate",
he has a ROUGH idea of how big it is and what it canm probably do. BTW, one of
the changes that WILL come in FTIII (and probably be "previewed" in the Fleet
Book) is a revised construction system that fixes the mass problems and
removes the artificial class break points for good.... Then you really CAN
call your ships what the h*ll you like!
Watch this space....
> > In any case, I don't like the idea that a smaller ship can be
On the contrary - this is what space combat is all about ....
Don't you just love those scenes in B5 when ships just get sythed in half or
disolve in a ball a flame after a single hit. Even the capital ships are
rather crunchy.....
It's far more fun to be playing knowing that your prise CV could be smoke next
turn.... Adds a bit of "suspence"
-Michael