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

On Fri, 5 Feb 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Tom wrote:
>
> >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?

points, just like extra DCPs. sorry, i wasn't being clear here.

> 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.

well, i can't argue with gut feeling! just bear in mind that extra DCPs
-
which are really just extra training and equipment - do not take up
mass.
i would argue that boarding parties are also just extra training and
equipment.

> 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.

understood; i wasn't happy with not having a no-mass boarding option.
without it, i have to design ships specifically with boarding in mind.
with it, i can just stump up the extra points and buy some boarding
parties for some ships on some missions, just as i would extra DCPs.

> So help fill in the holes in understanding your proposal-
> Crew: No mass, no cost, and 1/2 for defense only.

rephrase:

Defence Parties: Mass 0, Cost 0, number = crew / 2, 1 for defence

> BPs (yours): Mass ?, Cost ?, 1 for defense or ?offense?

Mass 0, Cost <same as DCPs? or 3 pts?>, 1 for defence or offence

> 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).

right, i was thinking of the extra DCPs. i'd forgotten the intrinsics.

> The
> Boarding parties were modeled on these 'extra' DCPs.

exactly.

> 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.

i agree completely - this is just what i was thinking. all ships get
built-in DCPs, and can have extras. no ships get built-in BPs, but all
can 
buy extras.

of course, if you're playing Klingons or some such, perhaps your ships
do
get built-in BPs.

> 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.

i can believe that. in these cases, unarmed crew can also cross over.

> 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.

ahh, good point. i imagine this type of boarding as being carried out by
small craft, such as shuttles, carrying boarding teams. thus, my
proposed
BPs can do it, even though marines can do it much better. the DPs can't,
because they lack the training.

Tom