> -----Original Message-----
Unless they force a threshold check at the end of the column as well as the
end of the row.
I posted something similar a couple of months ago to the list. A cutter beam
that does damage vertically starting at the first undamaged armor box and
first undamaged hull box. If the damage penetrated to remove a box in the 4th
row, the ship takes a threshold check at the current level (based on row*).
Any damage beyond what can be marked in a column is wasted. I think
that I had it be the same mass/cost as a Class-3 Beam (including arcs).
It rolled 3d6 doing the same damage a a beam weapon, but the damage was marked
vertically (screens had normal effect on the roll). * Threshold level was
slightly redefined as going up only when all the hull boxes for a row were
damaged (as opposed to the last box).
Testing Outcome: 1) The Cutter Beam must be used in combination with more
standard style weapons (that damage horizontally) to be truely effective. The
reason is that even with 3 dice of damage, the 4th row is usually not damaged
until both armor and the 1st row is removed. As the ship looses hull, the
weapon becomes more and more effective. 2) It is a little of an odds changer
for smaller (Cruiser) ships as they can force a large ship to threshold checks
sooner. And...
3) It has little value against smaller ships (regular Class-3s are more
effective). 4) It is possible (but unlikely) that all DCPs will die before the
ship is destroyed. To do this you would have to have hit every row that has a
DCP and have done a complete penetration on the last row (to get the last
DCP).
This would indicate that they had major hull breaches (consistant with a
cutter beam) and that all the extra crew that would be used for DCP has either
dead, disabled, or sealed behind bulkheads unable to help. This only
occured once in play-test and that was on a Vandenburg (last column was
penetrated) that has all of its DCPs in one column.
If you go to a spinal mount or 1 arc version, you will want to: 1) Add to the
damage. Increase the number of dice or change to type of dice from beam to the
actual number rolled. 2) Have damage beyond the bottom row continue to the top
of the next column 3) Ignore screens.
> Unless they force a threshold check at the end of the column as
That would be a simple way to do it, yes. You might also consider doing damage
horizontally as well as vertically. Or roll a die to see which row you do your
damage to.
1 2 = armor 3 4 = 1st row 5 = 2nd
6 = reroll 1-4 =3rd row, 5-6 = 4th row
That's not necessarily the best distribution but you see the general idea.
***
That would be a simple way to do it, yes. You might also consider doing damage
horizontally as well as vertically. Or roll a die to see which row you do your
damage to.
***
Why do I keep visualizing the damage templates from the Renegade Legion
games resurrected in Crimson Skies? ;->=
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
Why do I keep visualizing the damage templates from the Renegade Legion
games resurrected in Crimson Skies? ;->=
That's the reason I could never get into that system (Renegade Legion), me I'm
in favour of KISS.
***
Why do I keep visualizing the damage templates from the Renegade Legion
games resurrected in Crimson Skies? ;->=
That's the reason I could never get into that system (Renegade Legion), me I'm
in favour of KISS.
***
I'm a simple guy myself, but have to admit the system gave a real feeling of
the guts being torn out of something; somehow more appropriate when applied to
big ships rather than Interceptor's fighters or Centurion's tanks, but
compelling nonetheless.
While it's strange to use the phrase when talking sci-fi(sic), it's the
old debate of playability vs. realism. Genius is trying to get the most
realistic feel with the simplest mechanics.
Special damage patterns for 'spinal' mounts may be teetering on the edge,
though that complexity was certainly added with armor, and even further with
FBII.
The_Beast
-Douglas J. Evans, curmudgeon
One World, one Web, one Program - Microsoft promotional ad
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer - Adolf Hitler
> Unless they force a threshold check at the end of the column as well as
This would unjustly penalize larger ships.
> 1) The Cutter Beam must be used in combination with more standard style
I'd question this, particularly in the case of larger ships. With only 16
points of damage, you get four threshold checks. Granted they're only the
1-in-6 variety, but that still adds up to a sizable percentage that any
given system will go bye-bye.
> devans@uneb.edu wrote:
I actually really liked the damage profiles -- to me, it was an
elegant way to demonstrate that an APFSDS round will have a different attack
pattern then a HEAT round or a HEAP round. I'm not sure it works on a larger
scale though, since the FT 'hull boxes' were an abstraction in my mind anyway.
(A weapon can blow through a
portion of the hull, or there could be a lot of general damage --
it still translates to 12 damage points.)
JGH
Yes. As I said: 2) It is a little of an odds changer for smaller (Cruiser)
ships as they can force a large ship to threshold checks sooner. And...
3) It has little value against smaller ships (regular Class-3s are
more effective).
However, it actually brings some balance back between equal mass of large and
small ships. Take 1 large ship with 80 hull and 4 smaller ships with 20 hull.
The 4 smaller ships take 4x the number of threshold checks as the large ships.
However, I grant that each
threshold check on the small ships may only effect 1/4 of the systems
(only those of the ship that takes the treshold); but the smaller ships
can only put 1/4 as many DCP to repairing the damage from any one
given threshold loss.
In play test, you still had to get through the first damage row of a large
ship before the Cutter Beams started to become effective. On the larger ships
this is quite a task.
Massed cutter beams against a single target became very effective
late in the game, but regular Class-3s actually forced threshold
checks sooner on small and medium size ships.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
Taking damage vertically without additional effects (threshold check if bottom
hull box is damaged) is a much less powerful weapon than regular ones because
it takes MUCH longer to reach the end of a row for a threshold check.
Example: the target ship has 20 hull boxes (4 rows of 5). A standard weapon
would have to do 5 points of damage to get a threshold check, but a vertically
damaging weapon would have to do 17 points of damage to get the same threshold
check.
This is why there was the proposed effect of taking a threshold check when the
last (lowest) hull box in a column is destroyed by a vertical damaging weapon.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> Jerry Han wrote:
> ***
...it's just that the attack pattern of APFSDS rounds *isn't* particularly
different from those of HEAT rounds...
Regards,
> Alex Kettle wrote:
> Hello all, just a thought on this.
Hull damage alone doesn't cripple a ship - it will *destroy* it
eventually, but unless that ship also takes threshold checks it'll be fighting
at its full strength right up 'til the second it blows up. Threshold checks do
cripple ships, diminishing their combat power before they die.
If the vertical-damage weapon doesn't inflict (considerably) more
damage than the same cost of horisontal-damage weapons, and doesn't
inflict extra threshold checks, they will delay the enemy's threshold checks
and thus allow him to hurt *your* ships worse than he would've
been able to if you had used normal weapons - probably enough to knock
out some (more) of your weapons, further reducing the amount of damage he
takes, etc.
Regards,
Hello all, just a thought on this. If you were to mark the damage off of the
first undamaged box in each row, with extra damage being applied starting
again at the top, wouldn't this tend to weaken the ship rather effectively for
follow up attacks with regular weapons? As each row now has that many fewer
boxes of structure. So 6 points of damage (assuming no armour) would do 2 to
first row, 2 to second row and 1 to the third and fourth rows. Seems as though
this weapon wouldn't be to much use in causing threshold checks, but would be
great for weakening the structure on heavies to be attacked by a group of
lights. Make it a weapon with a long range and it would be a great sniping
weapon to open up battles and set up for attacks. Then as a ship lost rows the
damage is still applied to the first undamaged block in each row. So any ship
that was down to it's third row, that took 6 damage would end up taking 3
damage to each remaining row...seems pretty effective to me. Just wondering,
as we've only played a couple of games so far and this seems like it would be
a pretty useful weapon.
Later,
Hi all,
> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
> Hull damage alone doesn't cripple a ship - it will *destroy* it
I know, and I agree totally (heh you guys are the real experts on this, I'm
still pretty new to FT). But what I was thinking was more of a support
weapon. Make it a long range weapon- and use it as I described to hit
ships
at extreme ranges. Have damage set at maybe 2-3 d6s, and use the weapon
while your other ships with more traditional beam and Ptorps (I love this
weapon- in our first game here, my first 5 hits with one all rolled 6
damage- it's great :-) all close range. Those ships that take hits now
could have significantly fewer columns left for the other ships to have to
destroy to force those threshold checks. I wasn't suggesting a weapon to force
checks with one shot, I was more aiming for a support weapon, that could be
used to weaken ships at long range for the rest of the fleet to make quick
work of. Imagine smaller ships taking a heavy hit from it, it may not cripple
them on it's own, but now that ship could have only a couple blocks
in each row left- easy pickings for other ships.
Anyway, as I said just a thought. If you're going for the mega gun effect then
I agree forcing checks per column seems the right idea though.
Later,
i have to agree with schoon here. since all FT ships have 4 rows, vertical
damage does more to larger ships.
we use a differing method for "piercing" type weapons:
* the purpose is to hit deep into the ship and damage a few components early.
as you will see, these weapons are not good for causing normal thresholds, but
the
trade-off is to nail a
couple of components earlier than other weapons. * uses FT damage dice *
damages 25% armor (rd up), skip remainder.
* skip-count damage: mark 1st undamaged hull box and every 3rd one after
that. continue to next row until last row exceeded.
* for every time 1/2 the @original@ row was exceeded, make 1 random
threshold check
with +1 to the roll. so that's 1 check at the half-way and row-end
points. if the piercing weapon happens to damage the last box on the row, then
perform the normal threshold
checks with the 1st one at +1 to the roll.
* any damage left over after the last row is reached, is lost.
* low-tech piercing weapons can skip every 2nd box, and/or do less
damage dice, and/or
require longer to recharge. higher tech ones may have other similar
(increased) benefits.
dave
> -----Original Message-----
[Bri] I don't see this as a problem. ALL OTHER weapons do more to
smaller ships (with the possible exception of EMP MT Missile, but even it
faces more PDS from large ships, so is less likely to effect large ships than
small ones). One weapon that disadvanages large ships out of numerous weapons
that disadvanatges small ships does not seem unbalancing.
> we use a differing method for "piercing" type weapons:
[Bri] Agreed.
> * uses FT damage dice
[Bri] ??? Beam? PTorp?
> * damages 25% armor (rd up), skip remainder.
[Bri] Seems overly complicated compared to vertical damage.
> dave
[quoted original message omitted]
> Alex Kettle wrote:
> Hull damage alone doesn't cripple a ship - it will *destroy* it
A horizontal-damage weapon inflicting the same amount of damage on
those target ships will already have inflicted some of those threshold
checks *before the targets get to fire back at your close-range
sluggers*.
> I wasn't suggesting a weapon to force checks with one shot, I was
But even though it only has a couple damage boxes left in each row, *all of
its weapons and systems are still operating and can fire at
your close-range ships*. Since moreover you keep part of your fleet
back, the enemy most likely outguns your close-range ships, so unless
you win the initiative you're in for a rough ride.
If the target ship had taken the same amount of "support fire" damage in the
normal (horisontal) fashion, it would most likely have lost
50-75% of its weapons and other systems to threshold checks - so it
*couldn't* fire those weapons at your other ships.
It doesn't matter which combat role you envision for the weapon, it doesn't
matter at which range intend it to fight: when employed *in that role*, *at
that range*, it must at least match a beam's ability to
knock out enemy weapons. This is why vertical-damage weapons need to
inflict either more damage per cost overall than horizontal-damage
weapons, or inflict extra threshold checks: if they don't, you're
better off simply using long-range beams which can destroy enemy
weapons before they can shoot back.
Regards,
> My comments marked by [Bri]
To expand slightly on Brians comments: If using Core system rules, the
vertical piercing weapon could cause a threshold check on the core systems on
a 6 only.
Bye for now,
> [Bri] I don't see this as a problem. ALL OTHER weapons do more to
No. I'm going to have to raise the flag on this one. Existing weapons DO NOT
do more to smaller ships. They have a greater effect sometimes because
smaller ships reach their thresholds more quickly - an inherent problem
with their smaller hulls. That is why they are small and cheap, compared to
larger hulls. There's a reason that SDNs cost 600+ points and frigates
are only a tenth of that.
> -----Original Message-----
But that was exactly what you were arguing (quicker threshold checks) when you
stated that the vertical damage weapons woud do more to larger ships. You
can't argue one and ignore the other. The actual damage (hull) would be the
same for large and small ships because the extra damage (beyond the bottom
hull box) is not applied.
---
> But that was exactly what you were arguing (quicker threshold checks)
when
> you stated that the vertical damage weapons woud do more to larger
would be
> the same for large and small ships because the extra damage (beyond the
Not really. Perhaps I didn't explain it adequately.
Small ships reach their thresholds quickly - and tend to have fewer
systems
to check against - as a result of their size. These two factors balance.
Large ships reach thresholds slowly - and tend to have more systems to
check against - again as a result of their size. These two factors
balance as well.
Granted that the chance of any ONE given system going down is the same for
both, but we're looking at the whole enchelada (so to speak).
If a large ship took many threshold checks, it would be at a disadvantage. You
would now force it to check "quickly" on its "more systems."
Schoon wrote in reply to Brian:
> But that was exactly what you were arguing (quicker threshold
Actually they don't.
While it is true that a multitude of smaller will ships only lose a small
proportion of their combined weapons in each individual threshold check, they
*start* taking threshold checks much earlier than the big ship.
Consider this *very* simplified example:
Four DDs (Mass 32, 8 hull boxes each) fight a single BB (Mass 128, 32 hull
boxes). The combined weapons of the DDs exactly match the BB's armament; none
of the ships have any armour or screens or DCPs, but they do have an infinite
supply of FCSs. The BB concentrates its fire at one DD at a time, destroying
it, before it switches its fire.
Damage inflicted: Weapons left - BB: Weapons left - DDs:
0 100% 100% 2 100% 96% 4 100% 89% 6 100% 82% 8 83% 75% (DD1 destroyed) 10 83%
71% 12 83% 64% 14 83% 57% 16 56% 50% (DD2 destroyed) 18 56% 46% 20 56% 39% 22
56% 32% 24 28% 25% (DD3 destroyed) 26 28% 21% 28 28% 14% 30 28% 7% 32
Destroyed DD4 destroyed
At each level of damage, the DDs have lost *more* weapons than the BB, simply
because they take many small threshold checks often instead of a few big ones
occasionally. Since the DDs lose their weapons faster than
the BB does, they won't inflict as much damage as the BB can either -
which means that the DDs fall still further behind. In a slug-out with
no maneuvers but with simultaneous fire, the last DD will usually die before
the BB takes its 3rd threshold check.
But it doesn't end here. I've made several simplifications in this example,
and most of them penalize the BB. They are:
1) Loss of FCSs was ignored. Small ships tend to have fewer FCSs than large
ships, so are more likely to become unable to fire due to lack of fire
controls even if all their weapons are working.
2) Fire was assumed to be simultaneous. In a fight between one large ship and
several small ships, the large ship gets to fire earlier than the majority of
the small ships even if it loses the initiative. This means that *on top* of
the DDs having lost more weapons at each given damage level (which hurts them
even if fire is simultaneous), the BB is most likely able to destroy DD
weapons before they get a chance to fire at all.
3) Damage Control was ignored. The BB is likely to be able to repair several
of its downed systems since it can "pool" all its DCPs; the DDs aren't able to
do this since most of their DCPs aren't on the ship that just lost systems.
4) Maneuvering was ignored. Depending on the players' skill levels,
this can benefit either side :-/
...I *know* there's one more favouring the BB, but I can't remember which it
is. Ah well.
> If a large ship took many threshold checks, it would be at a
This is true, yes; and if the "new" checks come too often or are made at too
dangerous a level they'll outweigh the disadvantages the small
ships currently suffer. Getting the balance right will be tricky :-/
Regards,
[snipped good examples]
Oerjan has put things, for the most part, far better than I could have. He
seems to have made the point that I was ATTEMPTING (poorly) to get across.
> This is true, yes; and if the "new" checks come too often or are made
This is my main beef, and well said.
> At 20:37 2000-08-03 +0200, you wrote:
5) Range. Usually a larger ship can carry heavier weapons (Class-3s and
P-Torps) that can allow them to inflict damage on smaller ships while
the smaller ships' weapons are out of range and thus unable to damage the
larger ship.
---
----------
> Från: Brian Bell <bkb@beol.net>
Make that "two more favouring the BB" :-/ The extra range is somewhat
balanced by the shorter-ranged weapons' ability to dish out more damage
once they do get close, but that ability depends a lot on maneuvering.
Later,
> Make that "two more favouring the BB" :-/ The extra range is somewhat
And let's not forget the extra arcs for shorter ranged weapons.