Re: FT: Damage Track Sliding Scale Suggestion

At 14:01 27/02/97, you wrote:
>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)
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
---------

	First Alun, thanks for the above comments, I worked out my
posentages from the following understanding of your plan :

1 hit point -			X			( One row, no
checks )

2 Hit points -			XX			( One row )

3 Hit points -			XX			( Two rows, one
check )
				X

5 Hit points -			XXX			( Two rows )
				XX

6 Hit points -			XXX			( Three rows,
two
checks )
				XX
				X

9 Hit points -			XXXX
				XXX
				XX

10 Hit Points - 		XXXX			( Four rows,
Three
checks )
				XXX
				XX
				X

14 Hit points - 		XXXXX
				XXXX
				XXX
				XX

15 Hit points - 		XXXXX			( Five rows,
Four
checks )
				XXXX
				XXX   
				XX
				X

20 Hits points -		XXXXXX
				XXXXX
				XXXX
				XXX
				XX

	And so on, A threshold check being taken at the end of each row,
thus the results I calculated. Looking at our figures I think you may be
using a different layout for you charts.

	I think if you look at the above charts, you can see why I say
that
the escorts are worse off and that the large ships are better off.

	With the modified chart ( First roll 6, second plus 5 or 6 ) I
think
we have a possible answer to ensure that the large ships donot have it
all
there own way. I would admit that I donot wish to see a situration were
the
small ships are forced out and we end up with two battle lines slugging
it
out, with the fighter diving in for a ( very ) quick pass.

	I think we are heading toward the possible solusion that will
remove
the Ecsort / Cruiser / Capital break point problem - a little refinement
and
pass it to Jon at GZG.

	Graham Tasker.

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