Re: FT: Damage Track Sliding Scale Suggestion

celticcross @ chiswick.globalnet.co.uk ("Graham L. Tasker. M.B.C.S.")
wrote:

> 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?

> 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 :

[ Currently: Escorts=83.33%, Cruisers=55.56% and Capitals=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%

I'm not quite sure where you're figures come from above: I can see how
the 
percentages you
list would derive from each line in the above list taking one more check
than 
the previous
line (eg mass 42->54 taking 5 checks) but you seem to be adding extra
threshold 
checks
faster than my proposal.

Here's how I think it should work out

   Mass   <= 6	 [hits	 <= 3]	 No Checks    100.00%
   Mass   7->16  [hits	4-> 8]	  1 Check      83.33%
   Mass  17->30  [hits	9->15]	  2 Checks     69.44%
   Mass  31->48  [hits 16->24]	  3 Checks     57.88%
   Mass  49->70  [hits 25->35]	  4 Checks     48.23%
   Mass  71->96  [hits 36->48]	  5 Checks     40.18%
   Mass  97->126 [hits 49->63]	  6 Checks     33.49%
   Mass 127->160 [hits 64->80]	  7 Checks     27.91%

(note by the way, that under the proposed system, these %ages would only
apply when when a ship was, at most, 3 hits from destruction)

> The above posentages show the problems -
> 
>  1 : The escort class are worse off especally between mass 12 & 18

I disagree:  escorts up to mass 6 are better off, from 7 to 16 the %ages
are
the same (but the first check will occur later) mass 17 & 18 escorts are

slightly
penalised.

>  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.

Generally fair comment.

Even using my figures, most ships are better off (mass 17 and
18 are worse off, and I think ships above mass 160 will also be
worse off).

One possible way of getting around this is to re-introduce some
variation in the threshold rolls (but not much):

If the first threshold is rolled against 6, and all subsequent ones
against 5 or 6 then the above table changes to:

   Mass   <= 6	 [hits	 <= 3]	 No Checks    100.00%
   Mass   7->16  [hits	4-> 8]	  1 Check      83.33%
   Mass  17->30  [hits	9->15]	  2 Checks     55.56%
   Mass  31->48  [hits 16->24]	  3 Checks     37.04%
   Mass  49->70  [hits 25->35]	  4 Checks     24.69%
   Mass  71->96  [hits 36->48]	  5 Checks     16.46%
   Mass  97->126 [hits 49->63]	  6 Checks     10.97%
   Mass 127->160 [hits 64->80]	  7 Checks	7.32%

This seems a bit more reasonable to me.
(by the way, if the 7% seems a bit low, how much of its equipment would
you expect a mass 160 ship to have left after taking 77/80 hits?)

What do you think?

Alun.
(alun.thomas@cbis.com)