Prev: Re: [GEN] GZG UPDATE? Next: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals

Re: Railgun Goals II

From: John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@s...>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 06:12:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Railgun Goals II

Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

> I'm for the first option, the so called "trash can."
> However...
> I was just brainstorming different ways to use d6s to come up with
> sort of result - just trying to get something/anything different than
> 1) Roll d6s vs. a target number. Both target number and number of dice
> decreases with range.
     A variation of the 'Shotgun Effect'.   using more than one die to
determine damage at range, rather than simply reducing the damage on the
single die.  This will work.   JTL
> 2) Roll constant number of dice (not necessarily just one) against a
> number that varies with range. [This is closest to the old mechanic.]
     Multiple firing dice give a better chance to attain a hit,
mutiple damage dice reduce the averge damage per hit.
    This puts the damage on a bell curve, not as nasty as the 2X 
damage of the current system.	The average roll will reduce the
damage by (about) 33 percent from current values.  JTL 
> 3) Target thrust capability determines number of dice thrown, which
> against a target number that decreases with range. # of hits may
> damage multiplier. [This is sort of a variation of #1]
     A somewhat more simple comcept, but with the same theme, would
be: see chart.
Ship thrust  Modifier(to hit)
   7/8	       -2
   5/6	       -1
   3/4		0
   1/2	       +1

     The advantage here is that the chart can be memorized quite
easily and provideds a minimum of dice sorting/memorization/chart
referal ect.   JTL
> 4) I'm running out of decent ideas... help
     No, not really, there are just so many ways to drink water
from a glass before what you are doing becomes a varaition on a 
theme with added needless complexity.  JTL
> Schoon
     Remember K.I.S.S.	     JTL
(Nothing personal) :-)

Bye for now,
John L.

Prev: Re: [GEN] GZG UPDATE? Next: Re: [FT] Railgun Goals