RE: Re: [GZG] John's Shipbuilding

["McCarthy, Tom \(xwave\)" <Tom.McCarthy@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think it's reasonable to assume that in almost any setting, two forces
with a history of dealing with each other will have either adopted a 'no
surrender' policy, or have a recognized way to denote surrender.  

And powering down FCS and engines is an easy way to do it.  If that's
our typical PSB for surrender (our even just the Tuffleyverse version),
it means a ship which has lost all thrust and FCS through thresholds has
effectively struck, should be announced as such, and can't return to the
battle, even with good Damage Control results.  

And it follows as an argument that, even in playing groups where
threshold results are kept secret, you can tell if a ship has any FCS or
any thrust available to it (barring nebulae effects and other sensor
obscuring effects).

As to the odds of surrendering, I do think a combination of mission
motivation and guidelines/modifiers for how likely one nation is to
surrender to another should give us pretty good morale rules.  

I'd argue that morale tests may need to be tied not just to thresholds,
but to losing one (or the last) FCS, losing thrust, and losing FTL.  

I might throw in modifiers for having core system problems, too.  Bridge
hits should probably be cause for a test, while power core hits almost
certainly are.  Life support hits probably concentrate the mind on one's
own mortality as well.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l