Re: [FT] Replacement Boarding Rules v1.0b

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:

>> >Jared spake thusly upon matters weighty:
>>
>> >> It was accurately pointed out on the FTML that it is contrary to
current
>> naval
>> >> practice for vessels to carry trained teams for boarding actions.
>>
>> >Um. I beg to differ. I know of several Canadian ships that have a
>> >staff of trained experts in boarding actions (they give extensive
>> >courses on this) that can be assembled at short notice by the Bosun.
>>
>> OK, amend to read "contrary to current naval to carry trained and
equipped
>> boarding teams on _every_ vessel."  Some may, many (or most) don't.

>how about this. your current rules allow for organic defence-only
units,
>taking no extra mass, marines, which take up mass due to the hefty
>equipment, and footsloggers in spaace, which come under the usual troop
>rules. i agree that 2 crew -> 1 defence factor,

That's a pretty good summation.

>but would up marines to
>being worth two factors in attack, or being able to attack and defend
in
>the same turn.
>
>then, add another possibility: boarding parties. these are like defence
>teams, but with more training and equipment. because they are part of
the
>crew, they take up no mass, just like DCPs. so, if you want to do
>lightweight boarding, or are worried about being boarded, pack in some
>BPs. if you are serious about boarding all sorts of things, take
marines.

That's an interesting idea, but if 'boarding parties' are still part of
the crew
(which comes free and takes no dedicated mass) then what is the extra
cost
incurred in making some of them boarding parties?  It seems to me that
in order
to add an ability that you would not otherwise have, you should have to
pay for
it somehow.  Do you want to simply make the crew more expensive to
reflect this
ability?  That may work, but I still think that some MASS will be
involved -
call it a gut feeling.

Also, when I referred to the BPs as Marines, I meant specially trained
and
equipped CQB teams with the interface equipment to cross the space
between ships
and breach during hostile actions.  Whether Marine or Naval makes no big
difference to me.

So help fill in the holes in understanding your proposal-
Crew: No mass, no cost, and 1/2 for defense only.
BPs (yours): Mass ?, Cost ?, 1 for defense or ?offense?
Marines (yours): Mass 1, Cost 3, 2 for defense or offense.

>i am assuming DCPs are still massless as they were in MT; i have a
>horrible feeling that they aren't, and jared's marines are modelled on
>them. if so, ignore this post.

Well, the understanding I have, (and my intention) is that you have
inherent
DCPs (one per crew unit), but that you can still purchase more (as in
MT). The
Boarding parties were modeled on these 'extra' DCPs. I cannot see any
warship
that does not have Damage control teams as an integral part of the crew.
 I do
not envision _every_ warship in the future carrying specialized boarding
parties, though.  Especially not with the relatively small crew sizes we
see in
the FB. But they can all pick up a gun and help fight off the invaders.

Just a point of clarification:	If you have 2 ships dock "peacefully"
(granted
no rules for that yet), I can imagine that even your naval 'defense
teams' could
cross to the other ship and then participate in action if necessary -
this IMO,
is how typical customs inspections might occur.  When I refer to
'Boarding
Parties' per se, I mean the guys that can pull on the specialty PA, fire
off
thier boosters to cross the space inbetween the ships, set thier hull
breaching
explosives, enter and engage in CQB with the defenders.  This is _not_
the same
as a typical customs inspection.  They are 'above and beyond'.

>Tom

Jared