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

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

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

OK, I feel silly now.  I haven't been keeping track of things, and
completely
spaced off the fact that extra DCP's in MT were massless additions!  I
remembered you could add them, and that they gained threshold icons, but
thought
they took mass.  <sigh>

>> 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.

See above...

>> So help fill in the holes in understanding your proposal-

>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

Extra DCPs are 10 pts each - What about 6 for BPs? limited to the number
of
Defense teams, or crew units at most.

>
>> Marines (yours): Mass 1, Cost 3, 2 for defense or offense.

The trouble I have with the combat factor of 2 is that once you got your
boarding units (offensive or defensive) into combat, each unit would be
cleanly
represented by one die.  If that means the defense team is 8 guys while
the
marine team is just 4, so be it, I just wanted a unit (or 'Boarding
Factor') to
behave identically once combat begins.	Otherwise you have to pay more
attention
to allocating casualties among your units between combat rounds

>> >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.

You were correct - extra DCPs are still massless (Jon hasn't said
otherwise that
I have seen)

>> 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.

hmmm...Rather than buying extra no-mass boarding parties, what about a
cost to
convert your crew-based defense factors into boarding parties to cover
these
situations?  This way you could spend points to supplement the ability
of your
crew-mustered forces, but if you want to expand beyond what your crew
muster can
support you then need to dedicate the extra mass for more forces (be
they naval
or marine specialists.)  so spend an extra 6 pts per crew unit and your
defense
teams are now Boarding parties.

>> 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.

Small craft are also reasonable - The reason Schoon and I tried hashing
out the
details for a boarding cutter.	But it was also intended to enable the
'projection' of boarding forces - enabling boarding actions while the
action is
still hot, rather than relying on your opponent already being crippled
swiss-cheese.  Since these necessitate mass, (2, so 3 in a standard
fighter
bay), we figured on keeping the powered-armor with maneuvering jet idea
for
standard boarding actions (within 6", course within 1, speed within 1)

Jared