RE: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal mounts)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Reeves [SMTP:davidar@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 10:52 AM
> To:	Full Thrust
> Subject:	re: Vertical Damage (was: [FT] nasty idea for spinal
mounts)
> 
> 
> i have to agree with schoon here.  since all FT ships have 4 rows,
> vertical damage does more 
> to larger ships.
> 
[Bri] I don't see this as a problem. ALL OTHER weapons do more to
smaller
ships (with the possible exception of EMP MT Missile, but even it faces
more
PDS from large ships, so is less likely to effect large ships than small
ones). One weapon that disadvanages large ships out of numerous weapons
that
disadvanatges small ships does not seem unbalancing.

> we use a differing method for "piercing" type weapons:
> 
> * the purpose is to hit deep into the ship and damage a few components
> early.  as you will 
> see, these weapons are not good for causing normal thresholds, but the
> trade-off is to nail a 
> couple of components earlier than other weapons.
> 
[Bri] Agreed.

> * uses FT damage dice 
> 
[Bri] ??? Beam? PTorp?

> * damages 25% armor (rd up), skip remainder.
> * skip-count damage: mark 1st undamaged hull box and every 3rd one
after
> that.  continue to 
> next row until last row exceeded.
> * for every time 1/2 the @original@ row was exceeded, make 1 random
> threshold check 
> with +1 to the roll.	so that's 1 check at the half-way and row-end
> points.  if the piercing 
> weapon happens to damage the last box on the row, then perform the
normal
> threshold 
> checks with the 1st one at +1 to the roll.
> * any damage left over after the last row is reached, is lost.
> * low-tech piercing weapons can skip every 2nd box, and/or do less
damage
> dice, and/or 
> require longer to recharge.  higher tech ones may have other similar
> (increased) benefits.
> 
[Bri] Seems overly complicated compared to vertical damage.

> dave
-----End Original Message-----
-----Original Message-----
From:	agoodall@canada.com [SMTP:agoodall@canada.com]
Sent:	Thursday, August 03, 2000 9:55 AM
To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject:	Re: Vertical Damage

[snip]
If you REALLY want to simulate weapons that punch deep holes without
doing
THAT much hull damage, you have to go back and re-think the weapon
system.
What is it, and what does it do? Is it a B5 Shadow-style huge cutting
beam?
Is it a big rock fired at hyper velocity? Is it a big pulse of energy
fired
from a HUGE spinal mount weapon? Consider what it's supposed to be, and
what
the damage is supposed to do. Small hole that goes all the way through
the
ship? BIG hole that goes all the way through the ship? What does it do
to
the hull and what does it do to the systems in front of it? 

[Bri] The idea is to have a weaon that punches or more properly cuts a
hole
through the ship. This provides a chance to damage/disrupt systems
before
bringing the whole integrety of the ship to 1/4, 1/2...  Also, since
much of
the energy passes out the other side of the ship, the damage should be
fairly large but limited.

One option: a needle beam like weapon that can target a specific ship
system
for a threshold check, but also does hull damage on the way through.

[Bri] Needle beams already do 1 point of damge on a hit.

Another option: a system that does a fair bit of damage, but due to it
being
localized maybe on the first 1D6 systems check for thresholds if a
threshold
check is called for. 

[Bri] What do you mean by "is called for"? If you mean the end of a hull
row, why limit the checks? I could see a vertical damage weapon stop
doing
threshold checks after the first loss of a system to a threshold check
caused by a vertical damage weapon, but then you would have to provide
an
order for the checks (most massive to least massive?) or the player
would
check the least valuable systems first.

A third option: come up with a weapon that does HORRIBLE amounts of
damage,
like perhaps a class 6 beam weapon, but requires a certain recharge
level.
Or fires a big rock that could be avoided.

[Bri] We already have something like this (wave gun)

But personally, I think "vertical damage" goes against the design of the
game system.

Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
-----End Original Message-----

My comments marked by [Bri]

One last comment: If a verticle damage system is used I would suggest
that
the threshold checks are made at 6 (that is system is lost only on a 6).
This would temper the weapon somewhat.

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/ft
---