Re: FT: Damage Track Sliding Scale Suggestion

At 14:16 24/02/97, you wrote:

>How about changing the damage track, so that it forms a triangle, with
each
>row being 2 or 3 boxes shorter than the one above it?
>
>eg:
>a mass 32 ship (16 hits) could have a damage track like this:
>
>    XXXXXXX
>    XXXXX
>    XXX
>    X
>
>As ships get more massive, their damage tracks get wider and deeper.
With extra
>points being put on the higher rows.
>
>eg:
>a mass 36 ship (18 hits) has one extra box on each of the first two
rows:
>
>    XXXXXXXX
>    XXXXXX
>    XXX
>    X
>
>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.
>
>What do you think ?
>
>Alun.
>
>
========================================================================
========

		Reference the above -

When I first read the Sliding scale Damage Track, I felt that the
problem
of damage thresholds had been overcome. Then I decided to check the 
probilities of a system suriving the threshold chesks. This showed up a 
possible problem :

Under the present system the chances of a sustem surviving all the
threshold
checks are as follows :

	Escorts ( Mass 18 units or less )		- 83.33%
	Cruisers ( Mass between 19 and 36 units )	- 55.56%
	Capitals ( Mass greater than 36 units ) 	- 27.78%

The possibilities of a system surviving all the threshold checks using
the 
system suggested by Alun Thomas are as follows :

	Ships mass 4 units or less			- No checks
	Ships mass beteen 6 and 10 units		- 83.33%
	Ships mass between 12 and 18 units		- 69.44%
	Ships mass between 20 and 28 Units		- 57.88%
	Ships mass between 30 and 40 Units		- 48.23%
	Ships mass between 42 and 54 Units		- 40.18%
	Ships mass between 56 and 70 units		- 33.49%
	Ships mass between 72 and 88 units		- 27.91%
	Ships mass between 90 and 108 units		- 23.26%
	Ships mass between 110 and 130 units		- 16.15%

The above posentages show the problems -

	1 : The escort class are worse off especally between mass 12 &
18

	2 : Light cruisers ( Masses less than 28 ) are far better off.

	3 : Cruisers whith a mass of greater than 28 Units, are worse
off.

	4 : Capital ships of masses between 38 and 70 units are better
off,
	    This is at an extreme with masses of less than 56 units.

	5 : Only capital ships with a mass over 90 units are worse off.

Also it should be noted that where as a mass 64 ( 32 hit points ) ship
will  
take it third check after 24 points damage ( Under the old system ) with
a 
27.78% chance of a system having survived all the checks. With the
sliding 
scale system there is a 57.88% chance of a system being intact after
taking
the same amount of damage. O.k. over the next 8 points of damage the
ship on 
the sliding scale would take 3 more checks, BUT there is still a 33.49% 
change that a system would have still survived all the checks. I know
which 
methord I would prefer! - But is it right?

What is the effect of this - first there is a strong bias against the 
smaller ships, "Escort" type ships are already badly off, this would
finish
them off. 

Secondly : the larger ships will become harder to disable, less chance
of 
knocking out a system for the same amount of damage. Probable result -
battle lines of large ships blazing away at each other, no room for 
finness!!

Thirdly : Fighters may well be better off, no small ships loaded down
with
ADAF to worry about and the big ships ( as thay move slower ) are better

targets.

Yes I know we are out to get rid of the three classes of ship, but the
resulting system MUST remain balanced, keep it simple ( some how ) and
get
it right.

Possible ways arround the problems high lighted above -

	1 : Make the smaller ships harder to hit, ( at the present it is
as
	    easy to hit a small ship as a large one ). Even with moden
day
	    systems it is easer to hit a large target than a small one
so
	    why not in Fall Thrust?

	2 : Make the larger ship's hull cost proportionally more. I.e.
the
	    hull for a mass 100 ship will cost more than 10 mass 10
hulls.

	3 : Make the drives for a larger ship cost proportionally more
and
	    require proportionally more mass. I.e. to get a thrust of 4 
	    factors on a mass 10 ship may require 2 mass points ( 20% ),
on
	    a mass 20 ship, 5 mass points ( 25% ), a mass 40 ship, 12
mass
	    points ( 33% ), and so on. ( Remenber inertia has an
nonliner
	    effect. )

	4 : Allow ships to take evasive action, but to do this will
require 
	    half of the ships thrust factor, with a mimimun cost of (
say )
	    2 factors. There fore not available to large ships. 	

	Graham L. Tasker.

P.S.	Some people have pointed out that it is quicker to look for a
'6' on
	a die, than a '5' and '6'. Simple answere - Take three old dice,
on
	one paint one face Red the others Green, on the Second die,
paint 
	two faces Red, the others Green and on the last one Three Red
and 
	three Green. Red = threshold test failed, Green Passed, Quick
and 
	simple.

P.P.S.	One use for escorts - figher cover, take a mass 18 distroyer,
equip
	with 2 ADAF's, 2 PDAF's and a 'C' Beam ( 3 arcs ). 3 or 4 of
these
	to cover a capital ship and the fighters have a hard time of it.

	O.K. not much use against other ships but that is what the large

	one is for!

========================================================================
========