Things we can leave till FT3?
Campaigns Ground Interface Terrain Debris Striking colours (suggest a check
every turn at last hull box and get
damaged - score must equal the number of hull boxes left, but a 6 always
fails)
No, no, a thousand times no. I hate this rule. This is not the wooden ships
and iron men era. How many ships "struck their colors" in
WW1 & WW2? And what do you mean "a 6 always fails"? That
they surrender on a 6? This would be way way too often. Our games have had
people flee when on the last roll of hull boxes and have a working FTL drive,
but this is at the player's discretion and not on a fluke of a die roll. Make
it a 2D6 possibility and I MAY accept it.
I'm glad it's optional because I ain't playing with it as is.
Glen
> Things we can leave till FT3?
You forgot SENSORS!
> Campaigns
Actually, I'd say that Campaigns can wait till after FT3. I'd rather see the
rest of the regular rules hashed out before getting into the campaign game.
> Ground Interface
This really would only need a rehash of the MT interface rules.
But don't forget BOARDING ACTIONS.
> Terrain
Sounds fine.
> Striking colours (suggest a check every turn at last hull box and get
An alternate idea for this one:
If a ship takes damage in the last hull box row, he must roll under the number
of boxes remaining in that row.
> On Tue, 02 January 2001, GBailey@aol.com wrote:
> No, no, a thousand times no. I hate this rule. This is not the
The flip side of the question is how many times in World War II did two fleets
meet where both sides lost all of their escort craft and all but
one or two capital ships? This is pretty common in FT pick-up games.
The problem with any naval wargame is that players will play to the last ship.
Losing a ship is less important than losing a scenario. If there is the
slightest chance that a ship will do major damage to the enemy, even though it
means certain destruction for the ship, the player takes it. There is no
reason not to. Losing the scenario with 10 ships
destroyed is no different -- in players' minds -- to losing a scenario
with 100 ships destroyed... they still lost. The tactical game doesn't take
into account the importance, and rarity, of the ships as strategic assets.
This is true of naval games and sci fi starship games. I've seen it argued
that the only way to properly play naval games is as part of a strategic
campaign. That's the only time you see players try to protect ships during a
losing battle. It's the only time you see both players willingly disengage
after having dealt and received what many in FT would consider minor damage.
The "strike the colours" rule tries to bring this sort of situation into play
by not letting players waste their ships. It's essentially a morale rule. It's
the same reason Stargrunt players aren't allowed to waste their squads to the
last man (though the morale rules are too forgiving
IMO).
I've used the rules in one shot games and I don't mind them. It helps simulate
"the big picture". Perhaps more of a SG2 type of rule is needed, though, with
differing motivation rules.
Certainly ships shouldn't surrender during a "last ditch attempt to save
Earth" scenario. On the other hand, a squadron commander should be shot if he
loses all of his destroyers to a chance encounter with a battlecruiser on a
simple patrol mission. In the FT tournaments I've
helped run, a ship loses after half of the fleet is destroyed -- points
wise -- which essentially mimics a "we've lost too many ships, time to
bolt!" situation. Still, in "real life" most of those fleets should have left
MUCH sooner than before half the fleet is destroyed.
> On Tue, 02 January 2001, GBailey@aol.com wrote:
> No, no, a thousand times no. I hate this rule. This is not the
The flip side of the question is how many times in World War II did two fleets
meet where both sides lost all of their escort craft and all but
one or two capital ships? This is pretty common in FT pick-up games.
The problem with any naval wargame is that players will play to the last ship.
Losing a ship is less important than losing a scenario. If there is the
slightest chance that a ship will do major damage to the enemy, even though it
means certain destruction for the ship, the player takes it. There is no
reason not to. Losing the scenario with 10 ships
destroyed is no different -- in players' minds -- to losing a scenario
with 100 ships destroyed... they still lost. The tactical game doesn't take
into account the importance, and rarity, of the ships as strategic assets.
This is true of naval games and sci fi starship games. I've seen it argued
that the only way to properly play naval games is as part of a strategic
campaign. That's the only time you see players try to protect ships during a
losing battle. It's the only time you see both players willingly disengage
after having dealt and received what many in FT would consider minor damage.
The "strike the colours" rule tries to bring this sort of situation into play
by not letting players waste their ships. It's essentially a morale rule. It's
the same reason Stargrunt players aren't allowed to waste their squads to the
last man (though the morale rules are too forgiving
IMO).
I've used the rules in one shot games and I don't mind them. It helps simulate
"the big picture". Perhaps more of a SG2 type of rule is needed, though, with
differing motivation rules.
Certainly ships shouldn't surrender during a "last ditch attempt to save
Earth" scenario. On the other hand, a squadron commander should be shot if he
loses all of his destroyers to a chance encounter with a battlecruiser on a
simple patrol mission. In the FT tournaments I've
helped run, a ship loses after half of the fleet is destroyed -- points
wise -- which essentially mimics a "we've lost too many ships, time to
bolt!" situation. Still, in "real life" most of those fleets should have left
MUCH sooner than before half the fleet is destroyed.
> On 2 Jan 2001 15:28:30 -0800 agoodall@canada.com writes:
Maybe the answer is a rule that if you DON'T withdraw at a (secret to the
enemy) level of losses (mechanism TBD) that you automatically lose the
scenario. It seems that the scenario design needs to reflect this and
not just in the victory conditions side - but this is not just a FT
problem <grin> by any means!
Good thing that people don't have the morale of some rules/lead armies
(or there would be no one to provide the next generation of warriors.
{aside - one day a coworker who did her Masters on the
Cherokee/Tsalagi/etc. of the decades just before the Trail of Tears time
said: "The Cherokee of that time had only two groups that were of
paramount worth - warriors and mothers of warriors." Since I knew she
was a social Liberal at heart I looked up, put a quizzical look, on my face
and said "Isn't that still really the only groups of value?" as earnestly as I
could... The initial look on her face before she knew) I was baiting her was
worth the flack she gave me all week (she was my
project lead...) I have to admit. (Well it really *was/is* true but
it's not that simple. <grin>}
How does that tie? Well, any warband leader (Ani Yu-niwa or any other
group) who lost 25% of his people, no matter how many 'enemy' he killed, would
probably have been given a hint as to where the nearest cliff was located. And
that he should use it post haste. Yet how often do we
callously spend 50+% of our forces to achieve a tactical goal in our
games?
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:04:27 -0800 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> On Tue, 02 January 2001, GBailey@aol.com wrote:
A good campaign should have this as one of the factors involved (except for
'to the hilt' hatreds...)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 20:16:45 EST, Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> How does that tie? Well, any warband leader (Ani Yu-niwa or any other
Right you are. 10 percent casualties was considered pretty high during the
second world war in the Western theatre. And for a reason. It doesn't take
many battles at 10% casualties for your unit to become essentially worthless.
The American Civil War was far worse. World War 1 was the first war with
modern (or something resembling it) field hospitals, and the death rates
dropped because of it, even though casualties were monstrous.
> On Tue, 02 January 2001, GBailey@aol.com wrote:
I wouldn't necessarily play it as "stike" but I would have morale effects, at
least as an option. I'd make it about the same as a Core
Systems roll--if the ship loses its morale and has a reasonable
prospect of getting away, it tries to break contact. In a campaign game with
crew quality, I'd add or subtract a DRM based on the captain's rating, and
allow an Admiral to try to rally his ships. You
could also put it situational modifiers--Desperate Defense of Home is
more likely than Patrol The Spaceways to generate a "to-the-last-man"
mentality. This would be a convenient way to help balance campaign games,
which otherwise tend towards "build ships, take the other guy's resources and
build more ships" snowball effect. As you take over more and more of the other
guy's territory, his units keep increasing their willingness to stand fast,
while yours keep getting more open to the idea of withdrawing.
> Schoon wrote:
> >Things we can leave till FT3?
[snip]
> But don't forget BOARDING ACTIONS.
He didn't forget them, no. They were in the section "things to do in
FB3" above the part you snipped :-/
Regards,
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 GBailey@aol.com wrote:
[...]
> Striking colours (suggest a check every turn at last hull box and get
> fluke of a die roll. Make it a 2D6 possibility and I MAY accept it.
I was never real warm to the 'striking the colours' optional rule as it is
written, but I *did* like the idea of some sort of morale check for ships to
depart the battlefield (battle area?) so as to 1) preserve a force from utter
destruction, and 2) give an influence (to some small degree) of a "larger
picture". I have rarely been satisfied with the "we fight until only one side
remains" mentality (yes, sometimes this is appropriate and has a place, but in
each and *every* game?). As Allan pointed out in another reply to this thread,
many naval wargamers don't blink twice at sending a damaged ship headlong into
utter destruction if they think it will damage the enemy sufficiently before
it dies. I think this applies to other gamers (not just naval), also, and I
have to admit to being guilty of it in my past.
In order to try and stem this philosophy from being all-pervasive,
I began to introduce scenario-specific 'withdraw' conditions until
I came up with a general set I like. It is as follows:
"Once a ship takes damage to it's 3rd damage row, it must with draw from the
fight, if at all possible, unless the commander of the ship rolls a '5' or '
6' on 1d6, then the ship can stay in the battle. If a ship has taken damage to
it's 4th row of boxes, it must withdraw from the fight if at all possible. It
is considered a mission kill at this point and may no longer participate in
combat (beyond any PDS defensive fire that may need to be done against
incoming attacking fighters or missiles). Any ship which is forced to withdraw
is considered a 'kill' for Mass casualty calculations.
"Whichever side suffers 75% total Mass in casualties must withdraw from
the system. If both sides suffer 75%+ total Mass in casualties at the
same time, the side with the least amount of Mass of ships must withdraw
(really, neither side has the resources to suffer too many ships lost; it is
better to withdraw with intelligence on the enemy at this point and return
with reinforcements rather than press the issue and retain the system with a
weakened force). Fighters do not count for the casualty calculation. Ships
which were forced to withdraw due to damage do.
"If one side suffers more than 85% total Mass in ships lost, they may be
required to surrender (if they are unable to escape the map under standard
Thrust power the immediately following turn). Each ship is rolled for. On
a 1-3 they surrender but scuttle the ship (escape the ship in lifepods,
but are picked up as POWs for later political exchanging). On a 4-5 the
ship is captured relatively intact by the winning side. On a 6 the ship
attempts to escape, anyway, and the winning side may opt to re-issue the
surrender order the following turn, or blow it out of the sky. Should the
winning side opt to issue a surrender notice to the losing side, the winning
side may not fire that turn! Otherwise the losing side can ignore the
surrender request."
Of course there IS room for interpretation of events, and these should be
dealt with by a gamemaster (eg, an SDN just took it's first damage point to
the 4th hull row, and it now *must* retreat and cannot continue combat; well,
the opposing forces don't WANT it to go, so they continue to dog it; what's
the poor SDN to do but fire back as it departs? is
that considered "participating in combat" or "self-preservation"? that
is for the referee to decide).
Anyway, this is what I now use in general (except for the Siege of
Sol scenario to be played at GZG-ECC IV; there the humans basically
have their backs to the wall... ;-)
> GBailey@aol.com wrote:
> Things we can leave till FT3?
No, no, a thousand times no. I hate this rule. This is not the wooden ships
and iron men era. How many ships "struck their colors" in
WW1 & WW2? And what do you mean "a 6 always fails"? That
they surrender on a 6? This would be way way too often. Our games
G'day guys,
Derek was interested to here about this thread as he's been reading some
naval history just recently, so he's asked me to pass this along to you.
Enjoy
Beth
> [quoted text omitted]
> Striking colours (suggest a check every turn at last hull box and get
Recently I just finished reading a book from the state library (sorry I forget
the title, it was a couple of months before Christmas) on the development and
evolution of the battle fleet which made a interesting observation. At the
beginning of the WWI the Royal Navy was surprised by
the behaviour of the German Navy, the British were prepared to accept a
surrender if the Germans struck their colours during an action. But the
Germans with something to prove to the Royal Navy weren't about to strike.
Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean it never will, but why is this so?
For instance, one reason the striking of the colours may have become less
prevalent was because of the advance in technology, the replacement of wooden
hulls and solid shot with armour plate and explosive shells. Ships like HMS
Victory, Nelson's flagship were difficult to sink. Shot from cannon fire would
puncture the wooden hull with little structural damage to the ship itself, but
the effect of splinters and the like plus the passage of the cannon ball
inflicted grievous damage on the crew. Once enough causalities were inflicted
a captain of a ship wouldn't have enough crew
left to fight the battle, so he had little choice, strike the colours withdraw
from the fight and tend to the wounded. So through accident or design the
weapons of Nelson's day were man killers but by WWI they were
designed to defeat the armour plate protecting a enemy hull and explode inside
it wrecking the ship. Not much chance of surrendering there.
Derek
> Striking colours (suggest a check every turn at last
> On Tue, 02 January 2001, GBailey@aol.com wrote:
> This is not the Wooden Ships & Iron Men era. How
None that I can think of. The WW1 German fleet scuttled itself at Scapa Flow
AFTER it had been surrendered. The last case of warships surrendering to an
enemy en masse was at Tsushima Strait, though a lot of obsolete Japanese ships
were captured in 1945 for lack of fuel, etc.
(Mes Il Kebir / Oran doesn't count; they were FSE*)
> From: Beth Fulton
> So ... the weapons of Nelson's day were man killers
A badly smashed-up ship might not be capable of making
a coherant surrender. The crew would probably be reduced to struggling teams
separated by areas of extensive damage, with no clear idea of how the battle
was going or how spaceworthy their own ship was.
From: Laserlight
Date: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 12:05
Subject: Re: strike the colors rule
> I wouldn't necessarily play it as "strike" but I would have
I would also agree with the other previous comments I haven't included here.
Ships will only surrender if they cannot escape and have no chance of damaging
the enemy, and even then would not surrender in cases such as that outlined on
MT pg 8.
Where the morale factor should come in to play is before this point where one
side believes that it has been placed at a disadvantage and no longer wishes
to continue the action. In these cases the losing side would wish to disengage
before it had suffered any significant damage. Historians failing to take this
or the benefit of hindsight into account might think that the side had fled
before it was necessary.
I suspect that all we can do is write Morale off to "It can only be done
properly in campaign" and put a very basic (and optional) break rule into
effect.
Has the list raked over changing threshold checks? If you want to see more
crippled ships for boarding practice, consider modifying the current rules.
* my personal entry for tasteless comment of the month, but I'll let it stand.
Continuing this a little further--an extreme example:
A German cruiser during Jutland (can't remember the name) was basically
knocked out of action (severely reduced speed, most weapons not functioning)
but even though it was passed (and shot at) by just about every Brit ship,
it continued to fire when it could--and even ended up sinking a Brit
vessel
via torpedo--until it finally sank the next day. Or something like
that--read about the incident in a 1980 book called "Cruisers."
Either a perfect example of a vessel making all its morale rolls or a good
example of why not to use morale rules for "modern naval" combat. I prefer the
latter (and to write victory conditions that force players to behave wisely
with regards to losses).
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:31:48 -0500, Richard Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
> I have to agree with Glen. Historically, ships stopped striking their
Then I suppose we need scuttling rules. The reason ships were scuttled was to
stop a ship from being captured even though the crew was surrendering. The
point is that the ship didn't keep fighting after it was hopeless.
On the other hand, this is a sci-fi universe. We don't know what
policies are in place when fighting battles with other ships. Are crews picked
up if they abandon ship? If they are, are they treated reasonably well? It's
quite
possible that, in a sci-fi universe, the only thing coerscing an enemy
into taking a crew that has abandoned ship is the possibility of keeping the
ship. Especially if it still has a certain punch.
I like having the colour striking rule, but I'd like to see a scuttling rule,
too...
Sounds like an example of a ship making all of it's rolls. The literature is
FULL of ancedotes about ship crews losing all discipline. Excellent story
however. It does add proof to the theory that you can never say never.
--Peter
> From: "Robert W. Hofrichter" <RobHofrich@peoplepc.com>
G'day Allan,
> I like having the colour striking rule,
In the orders phase you could simply write down SCUTTLE and then x turns
later it happens... if you want to add some risk to the procedure you make it
that you roll as if you've got an engine critical every turn before the
scuttling turn (in case it goes up early). If you want to reverse the
scuttling you have to make a successful repair roll (or if you're Kirk or
Picard wait until the counter gets to 0:00:01 and press the cancel button).
Just a thought
Beth
Allan Goodall suggested
> Then I suppose we need scuttling rules. The reason ships were
In a recent battle, my Islamic Fed forces isolated and crippled an enemy
capital ship (damage included FTL drive, of course). I issued a surrender
demand and added that if the enemy attempted to abandon ship and scuttle, we
would fire on lifeboats. NAC or others might not be
Or every time you loose a crew factor, the ship must make a morale check or
withdraw from battle (move out of weapons range or shut down if unable to
withdraw). The ship may continue to make morale checks each turn until it
successful (and may reengage).
Morale Check: Roll equal to or under the number of crew factors the
ship has left +1 to stay in the battle.
I like "strike the colors" idea, but think that it should be a optional and
lightly enforced rule (i.e. allow for heroism on the part of captain and crew,
but not have every ship fight to the last hull box).
> Or every time you loose a crew factor, the ship must make a morale
The only problem with this technique is that MASS 21-30 and MASS
41-50 ships (assuming average hulls) will have a crew hit in the
first few boxes and be MUCH more likely to "strike," especially the
21-30 case.
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >Or every time you loose a crew factor, the ship must make a morale
That makes sense to me and feels right, too, actually. I mean, if you've only
got 20 people on your ship and you get thumped a few times and end up with
half your crew dead or incapacitated, that
could be grounds and incentive to Bug Out(tm). :-) In any event,
you will be also taking, or about to take, your second threshold check, so the
odds of systems shorting out are beginning to increase. And this kinda sorta
fits with the houserules I developed and posted yesterday, too (eg, you start
rolling to see if your ship is going to beat feet when you start taking damage
to your 3rd hull row; I may amend this to 'starting with the 2nd threshold
check', however).
True. That is one of the reasons I made it at 1 + the number of crew
factors.
So alter it to "at 2nd threshold check and every time a crew factor is lost
thereafter". With this alteration, the morale checks start when the ship has
sustained about 50% of the total damage it can take and get progressively
harder with each crew loss.
The "roll under hull boxes left" works well for cruisers, but not for
capitals. I guess that is why the "a roll of 6 always fails" clause was put
in.
> And this kinda sorta fits with the houserules I developed and posted
That's why I think that Morale linked to damage or thesholds (preferred) works
better than links to crew. Crew is too "granular," with only one or two on
smaller ships.
A MASS 20 ship is immune to "bug out" when it's linked to crew, a MASS 21 ship
is not.
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:
> >And this kinda sorta fits with the houserules I developed and posted
Isn't that kinda where the Kra'Vak phase uttered by one of the P'Ah'Cad
Patriarchs "Kill 'em all and let the Holy Mother sort them out!" came from?
:-)
> Isn't that kinda where the Kra'Vak phase uttered by one of the
No, mass 20 would do a morale check at the 2nd threshold, but
not again (as it would be destroyed -- automatic failure). It
would be the same with all ships under 45mass (3 crew), as the first crew
factor would always be before the 2nd threshold.
If you go just by damage (i.e. roll under # of hull boxes left), the large
capitals would be immune until they are down to about 7% hull integrity
(checks should start at 50%, IMHO).
I don't want to do a check based on percentage (i.e. have to figure up what
percentage is left in the fly) of hull left, or a check every turn, but do
want some additional checks as the ship takes further damage (more than just
at the 3rd threshold check).
That's why I turned to crew factors. They are already on the SDD. They
decrease with damage (no extra bookkeeping). And the number of them in the
last 2 rows is enough to roll under on 1d6.
In some ways, I think that the captains of larger (and more expensive) ships
would be somewhat quicker to withdraw to fight another day than the smaller,
"expendable" ships (I said ships, not crew).
I guess that we could keep it really simple and make a morale check at each
threshold and then each turn a ship takes
damage to the 4th damage row (roll under 2 + number of damage
rows left or must attempt to withdraw).
I am open to other suggestions.
And as Tony Francis stated, it would be nice if a modifier could be added for
specific scenarios (fighting the Sisters of Wrath [No one expects the Spanish
inquisition!]). Perhaps
assign a Mission Priority to each side (1-6; 6 high) and roll
under the mission priority to continue the battle. Add the number of threshold
checks a ship has made to the die roll. Check at each threshold check and each
time damaged in the last row.
Also, a fleet (ships 1 player controls) check should be made each time a ship
is lost or leaves the battle. Add a modifier if 25% of the fleet points are
lost to destroyed ships or ships that have left. Fleet morale is much more
tricky, as it can end a game and ruin the fun. Fleet morale should be a lot
more fuzzy. Perhaps roll the test, but leave it up to the player whether to
leave immediately or make one last play to "change the odds". Also, losses to
the enemy play a greater role in fleet morale. If you are damaged, but the
enemy is decimated, you should not have to retire your fleet because of a bad
morale roll. Mission priority could be different for different ships within a
fleet (must get the vaccine through). And may change during a game (mission
priority drops when the ship carrying the vaccine is destroyed).
> On Wed, 03 January 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:
> In the orders phase you could simply write down SCUTTLE and then x
I like this!
Another option is just to make it an immediate engine critical that you write
in the orders phase. No turns are given, you just immediately give the ship an
engine critical. At the end of the turn, the scuttled ship checks to see if
the warp core went critical. In the meantime, the ship is considered empty.
This is a neat idea, as it gives (with boarding rules) a reason to send a crew
over to try and end the scuttling.
I know that in the Second World War scuttling was often done by ships of the
same fleet deliberately sinking the vessel after it was emptied. I can see
players being allowed to fire on their own ships. I would allow, in this
instance, shields to be considered "off" and so any attacks on the ship ignore
shields.
From: "Richard Bell" <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
> I have to agree with Glen. Historically, ships stopped striking their
the
> german vessels lacked the range and speed to even shoot back, and
Some interesting examples pro and con:
EMDEN - Light Cruiser eventually struck after running aground and all
weapons disabled (WW1)
RAWALPINDI - an armed merchant cruiser, deliberately charged 2
Battlecruisers in order to cover the escape of a convoy (WW2).
JERVIS BAY - much the same, only a pocket Battleship rather than 2 BCs.
GLOWWORM - Destroyer that deliberately Rammed a BC to help others
escape.
Quite a few U-boats struck after being disabled, though most were
scuttled.
There is one issue that hasn't been raised. After a ship has taken the last
hull box, is it
*really* destroyed? Or is it a wreck floating in space? Maybe - except
in cases of gross
overkill - a ship that takes the last hull box strikes its colours
rather
G'day Alan.
> There is one issue that hasn't been raised. After a ship has taken the
We play the rule (written in one of the rule books somewhere) that once a ship
losses its last hullbox then you see how much "overkill damage" there is and
if you roll higher than that on 1D6 then its a hulk but not a debris field,
but if you fail then it explodes impressively.
Cheers
Beth
> Alan said
Beth said
> We play the rule (written in one of the rule books somewhere) that
there
> is and if you roll higher than that on 1D6 then its a hulk but not a
My view is that the last hull box is "beyond economic repair", not vaporized.
It's not like wet navy where you take X damage, then sink. If it were ever of
sufficient interest, I'd say perhaps "if it takes another
row of damage after the last one, it's small bits of scrap--if it takes
two rows of overkill, it's vapor and slag."
> "Robert W. Hofrichter" wrote:
> Continuing this a little further--an extreme example:
That could be the Seydlitz. It did not actually sink, it merely ran aground
some distance from port. There was an impressive amount of water in her, as
more had been let in to keep an even keel. Her forecastle was awash. She is a
tribute to design and damage control. I think she suffered 40 hits from 15" AP
shells.
Although, it may not have "passed all of its morale rolls", it may simply have
been leaving the batle as fast as it could, while being in the worst possible
location. As for the torpedo launch, it may have been an opportune thing at
the time. However, it is an overpowering testament to the training of the men
that they were able to continue fighting the flooding while the shells kept
crashing through the ship.
Morale in a naval battle depends on the situation. Under the Harpoon system,
there is little point in surrender rules, as anti-ship missiles don't
take prisoners and aircraft do not hang around long enough to check if the
colours are still flying. Finally, turning tail and running only works against
other ships, not missiles and planes.
For morale rules to be useful in FT it should take into account the damage to
the ship's side, and the apparent damage to the enemy, along with the ships
damage. Lastly, they should consider the ability to flee. In vector, fleeing
is difficult and is simply a matter of not accelerating back to the battle.
The
only reason for an FT ship to surrender is if the vessel is dead in space, and
the opponent is the same species. The vessel will propably be scuttled;
unless, starships are VERY expensive and every repairable FTL drive counts.
(much like wooden ships when trees for masts were hard to find, and many ships
of the line fought on both sides in the same war).
So, a crew will surrender when the only way to get planetside is an enemy ship
and they can reasonably expect the enemy to deliver them to a habitable world
(if not actually repatriate them), but the vessel itself will only be
surrendered if ships are very expensive to build and every space worthy vessel
is a treasure.
I suppose an interesting campaign idea would be to start with an assortment of
> Laserlight wrote:
> In a recent battle, my Islamic Fed forces isolated and crippled an
I am surprised that anyone would fire on a lifeboat, as that is considered an
atrocity. In WWI, the germans actually tried to recover survivors until
circumstances made that too dangerous for the U-boats. In WWII, no
U-boat
attempted to recover survivors because there was nowhere to put them. I doubt
the crews would fire on a lifeboat, for the simple reason that they may be on
the other end of the stick some day; unless, none of the IF
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 20:04:10 -0500 Richard Bell <rlbell@sympatico.ca>
writes:
> Laserlight wrote:
IIRC, under ideal situations and my memory of certain Qur'an statements,
killing (prisoners consisting of) "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians)
before offering them a CHANCE AT CONVERSION IS FROWNED UPON... Heathens don't
count of course. <grin> Always honored? Of course not but...
That would be SMS Wiesbaden.
[quoted original message omitted]
> > In a recent battle, my Islamic Fed forces isolated and crippled an
My opponent surrendered that ship, plus another one that I would have
let go. Would I have given the order to fire if he'd scuttled and
bailed out anyway? Maybe so, maybe not. As it happens, the threat
> IIRC, under ideal situations and my memory of certain Qur'an
These were heathenns. I know because they were shooting at me.
All, IIRC there was a standing order from ADM Doenitz that survivors were to
be rescued. There was one incident that ended this practice. I forget the
U-Boot's number, but it was operating in the Southern Atlantic/Southern
Indian Ocean near South Africa. It sank a Brit ship, attempted to rescue
survivors by towing the life boats. The life boats were covered by
lean-tos/tents for shade and displaying the Red Cross. A Brit ASW plane
saw fit to fire upon the sub and the lifeboats. Fratricide ensued. The sub cut
the boats loose and submerged. The surviving survivors languished in the
lifeboats until rescued by other Brits. Hitler then ordered that survivors
were not to be rescued. IIRC, Doenitz was brought to trial at Nuremberg for
his follow on order to not rescue survivors. There may have been an additional
note about machine gunning them, I forget. Jay
[quoted original message omitted]
> Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
[...]
> There is one issue that hasn't been raised. After a ship has taken the
The way I've played it is that once the last box is destroyed the ship is
essentially gutted. If you do one more row of damage (what would be, in
effect, a 5th hull row), then the ship is utterly destroyed (ie, becomes a
debris field or whatnot). For those ships which have differing numbers of hull
boxes in their rows, it becomes a question of which row do you pattern it
after. I leave that up to individual choice (since overall for 99% of the
games it just isn't
going to matter :-). This is all for atmosphere and effect, and
generally has no bearing on the game itself.
From: Alan and Carmel Brain
Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:23
Subject: Re: strike the colors rule
> There is one issue that hasn't been raised. After a ship has
From: Beth Fulton
Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:29
Subject: Re: strike the colors rule
> We play the rule (written in one of the rule books somewhere)
MT pg 9, Battle Debris
As other posters on the subject have pointed out, a hulk is likely to be
vapourised by its own side once they have picked up any surviving hands if
salvage is not possible.
Vessels wrecked near a planet may suffer orbital decay and crash or burn up
before an FTL tug can arrive. A vessel may also fall into the gravity well of
a planet or star over a longer period of time. Finally, if it is left
unattended then private scavengers will strip what they can, though making off
with the entire hulk seems unlikely.
MT pg 13-14 Planets and following rules give a basic set
of guidelines for those uncomfortable situations where altitude suddenly
becomes a factor.
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 Richard Bell wrote:
> I am surprised that anyone would fire on a lifeboat, as that is
From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com>
Date: Friday, January 05, 2001 01:34
Subject: Re: strike the colors rule
> IIRC, under ideal situations and my memory of certain Qur'an
So NAC, FSE, NSL, LLAR, RH, OU and amazingly NI prisoners are in with a
chance, but it's bad news if you were aboard an ESU vessel. Do we know
anything about the prevaling faiths in the PAU and the IC, or are the
"Levantine" blocs the only ones where religion is a factor?
Was the Koran written before or partially after the Shia schism? The Islamic
penalty for apostasy (denying one's faith) can be death, but it would be
illuminating to know the orthodox view on heresy.
Nathan said:
> Vessels wrecked near a planet may suffer orbital decay and
You weren't here for the Vultures'R'Us...er, I mean, SARCo Search & Rescue
Company thread last year, were you? Let's just say that if you leave
a hulk unattended around Alarishi or OU space, there's a pretty good chance
> So NAC, FSE, NSL, LLAR, RH, OU and amazingly NI prisoners
PAU countries today are a mix of Muslim, Christian, animist/pagan, and
syncretic mixes of the above.
Indonesian Commonwealth is Muslim--IIRC, it's the largest Muslim
population in the world.
> Was the Koran written before or partially after the Shia schism?
al Quran was written by the Prophet (dictated to him by either an angel or a
demon--he wasn't sure at first--that's always bothered me). Therefore
before the schism. However, history has, every once in a while, recorded a few
aberrant individuals whose action in the name of a religion are totally
contrary to
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:55:06 -0500 "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
writes:
> So NAC, FSE, NSL, LLAR, RH, OU and amazingly NI prisoners
Bingo! And religion is the label given for fights that frequently are
property, wealth or privilege based.
> Was the Koran written before or partially after the Shia schism?
In peace time most try to stress the commonalities but in war time it's easy
(for everybody I might note) to find things to demonize the enemy.
> al Quran was written by the Prophet (dictated to him by either an
True, the schism was based on WHO succeeded the Prophet, not theology
(initially.)
> However, history has, every once in a while, recorded a few aberrant
Like the sack of Jerusalem in the First Crusade? (Thought it only right a
Christian should bring it up first... it was certainly an excess of misguided
zeal (although more revenge and greed in some writings.)
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:04:05 -0000 "Nathan"
> <Nathan_at_Spring_Grove_UK@email.msn.com> writes:
Islam sees Hindu as 'heathen' and not salvagable. At least in most
understandings if not in practice (but frequently so among the masses -
see India/Pakistan independence bloodbath...
> Was the Koran written before or partially after the Shia schism?
Um, 'senior moment' - I can't be sure, but I believe a little bit of
both...
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:04:05 -0000 "Nathan"
> <Nathan_at_Spring_Grove_UK@email.msn.com> writes:
In practice Communists are right up there with idol-worshippers (Hindus
and animists) - see Afghanistan (not counting the Russians!).
Regarding striking colors, scuttling, and other such stuff, here's the WW1
event that I mentioned previously.
To quote "Cruisers: An Illustrated History" by Anthony Preston:
Battle of Jutland-31 May 1916
"The German cruisers were quickly punished when Hood's battlecruisers came
storming out of the mist. The 'Wiesbaden' was shattered by 12-inch
shells and came to a stop..."
Then
"The crippled 'Wiesbaden' lay between the opposing lines of ships and she was
fired on in turn by the British ships as they passed. The destroyer 'Onslow',
for example, fired 58 shells into her while the 3rd Light Cruiser
Squadron poured 6-inch shells into her as they passed, but still she
refused to surrender and her guns fired intermittently. Then...1st Cruiser
Squadron came into view, crossing the bows of the 'Lion' in its haste to get
at 'Wiesbaden'. Once again the treacherous visibility allowed ships to get
surprisingly close and while 'Defence', 'Warrior', and 'Black Prince' were
briskly pouring salvoes of 9.2-inch shells into the blazing hulk, they
were surprised by the German battlecruisers..."
Finally
"But before night fell the indomitable 'Wiesbaden' scored a final success by
torpedoing the British dreadnought 'Marlborough' in the engine-room. As
the 'Wiesbaden' sank with all hands later that night, we will never know what
heroism it took to get that torpedo tube trained and fired."
The 'Wiesbaden' was a LIGHT CRUISER!
Enough about WW1.
I still think that additional morale rules (at least for Navy vessels) really
have no place in FT scenario games. What do I base this supposition on? Well,
WW1, WW2, and modern examples show that surrender should be VERY rare (barring
unusual circumstances). Running away generally occurred with a force
commander's permission (or, more frequently, when ORDERED to by the force
commander). Furthermore, when surrender or scuttling did occur, it was
generally after a vessel was (for all intents and purposes) completely
out of action anyway-such as what happens when a Full Thrust starship
loses
all of its Hull or weapons. Please note that I say "generally" in the
previous sentence and not "always." I guess I'm just saying that well
written or game-mastered victory conditions should force the proper
amount
of "skittishness" in one-of games while the strategic situation should
control it in campaign games.
For those that still want morale rules, I would suggest ones that depend upon
the last row of Hull boxes rather than ones that would be triggered more often
or more easily. I personally like the following (for tournament
battles and other non-scenario-type battles):
When a ship suffers the loss of its 3rd row of hull boxes, make a system check
(per normal Core System chances) against Crew Morale. If the crew fails the
check, the vessel will attempt to leave the battlefield (and then enter
hyperspace, if capable). If the ship's drives are out, the crew will set
scuttling charges and abandon ship. Please note that the above is only for
Navy ships (or the equivalent) when facing foes of the same race.
For civilian ships, I think morale rules make a lot of sense. Maybe the
following: upon challenge by warship, roll 1d6. A modified roll of 4 or less
means that the civilian ship will attempt to do whatever its (the civilian
vessel's) owner wants. A modified roll of 5 will mean that the civilian ship
will shut down its drives and coast, unless that means it will
run into an asteroid or the like-in which case it will deviate from its
flight plan the minimum required to avoid destruction. A modified roll of 6 or
better will mean the civilian will follow the challenging ship's orders. This
roll is modified by the following:
-1 if the civilian ship is armed
-1 if civilian ship has more thrust than known capability of closest
enemy warship
-1 for each friendly (to the civilian ship) warship (or fighter
squadron) within 12 mu
+1 for each enemy ship (or fighter squadron) within 12 mu
+1 if enemy warship is closer to civilian ship than any friendly
warships
+1 for each hull row destroyed on the civilian ship
+/- 1 or 2 depending upon "mission" motivation
I think the above modifiers take into account many of the items that a
merchant captain would have to consider when making the decision. Any
thoughts?
[quoted original message omitted]
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:38:20 -0500, "Robert W. Hofrichter"
> <RobHofrich@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Running away generally occurred with
This is, I think, the reason some of us want some sort of morale rule. In the
absence of a campaign setting, the "force commander" will fight each ship to
the death. In reality, he might do that. Or, he might have his head handed to
him on a platter for destroying valuable assets after it was clear that he had
no hope of winning.
Players will send vessels to their doom if they are losing a scenario but
there is still a tiny sliver of a chance of salvaging a win. "Real life"
commanders can't do that.
Morale rules, which would be optional, help simulate the "big picture".
> True, the schism was based on WHO succeeded the Prophet, not
IIRC it was who succeeded about 3 or 4 in line from the Prophet. But Sunni and
Shi'a aren't the only two flavors, there are lots of schisms and heresies and
sects.
> >However, history has, every once in a while, recorded a few
That was one I had in mind. Also Albigensian crusade, Torquemada, the
conquistadors, and so forth. You've heard the line "Kill them all,
let God sort them out" (more accurately "kill them all, God will know
His own")--that was a French bishop, IIRC.
Not that the Muslims have been better. I don't know about Buddhists, etc, but
somehow I suspect that the West hasn't cornered the market on
From: Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
Date: Saturday, January 06, 2001 03:05
Subject: Re: strike the colors rule
> You've heard the line "Kill them all, [for] God [shall] know
Arnaud, papal legate at the seige of Beziers, 1209