Re: FT: Damage Track Sliding Scale Suggestion

Sometime in the past, it was written:
}> 
}> >>  This system would lead to threshold checks becomming more
frequent
}> >>  after a ship had taken some damage, so it might be a good idea to
drop
}> >>  the rule about successive thresholds rolling against different
numbers.
}> 
}> Especially if the rows are narrow enough that you could conceivable
}> have more than one threshold check, it would be best to flatten the
}> number rolled. In fact, I think I'd rather have noticeably narrower
}> and taller damage tracks, thus making for more frequent, though less
}> severe checks. Also, if you make all checks at 6, it's easier and
faster
}> to roll 3d6 and look for 6s than it is to roll a d6, then go back
through
}> and roll for a 5-6, etc., if you have more than one check in a turn.
}> 
}
}My only concern about this damage sliding system is for big ships....
}If you have a big ship, you will have quit ungodly number of box on the
}first 
}row, and it may be hard to keep in current diagram.

My opinion on the sliding scale thread:

I like it.  I like it lots.  The idea of each row forcing another
threshold
check at 6, but having more rows, really makes battle damage a bit more
"fun" in my mind.  It would need play testing tho...  Not every idea
that
looks good in email survives the tabletop.

Now, my suggestions (wouldn't be a complete post without opinions!):

Maximum number of boxes per row.  It's simple, it forces bigger ships to
have more damage checks, it keeps the damage chart smaller.

Number of default damage control teams as a function of number of rows,
say
one for every two rows.

Perhaps make some systems that degrade after losing a specific number of
rows, like thrust or maybe FTL?  I'm thinking of "auto-6's" when you
lose
a row or something.  That's a wild possibility...  Might work best for
armor, screens, or engines.  The bigger systems that could have many
redundant components throughout the ship, so it's more system
degradation
than taking it out.

Relating to Jon's recent proposals for a straight scale for engine
thrust
to mass, this is a possibly simple way of solving it.  Make the engine
cost
based on the number of rows!  Something as simple as:

"Each point of thrust takes an engine that masses the same as the number
of damage rows."

This could break the three classes into lots of different ones, and it
satisfies the laws of diminishing returns.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

Michael Smit
mcsmit@aros.net