Re: FT: Damage Track Sliding Scale Suggestion

johnjmedway wrote:
> 
> >>  From: Alun Thomas <alun.thomas@cbis.com>
> >>  Date: 24 Feb 97 14:16:51
> >>  Subject: FT: Damage Track Sliding Scale Suggestion
> >>
> >>  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?
> 
> Sounds like a great idea.
> 
> >>  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.