Prev: Re: [FT] Building Next: [DS] looking for a 6mm air/raft

[FT] various subsystems

From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@b...>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:37:36 -0400
Subject: [FT] various subsystems

Hi all

I was wondering if anyone had looked at the 
math (or even considered)a couple of subsystems
I was thinking of. 

The first I call (after the CarWars inspiration)
component armour. Which is to say, rather than 
general superstructure armour, particular armour
for a particular subsystem. 

I see two ways to implement such a system. Either can be
represented by surrounding the system on the SSD with
a set of concentric boxes (ie basically a double border)
which has a number beside it indicating the level. 

In the 1st method, the number written beside the box
indicates how many "extra hits" that system can take 
before going out of operation. 

In the 2nd method, the number represents a concept akin
to screen mechanics. For each level of armour, a 
threshold roll is modified by -1 to the die roll. This
means that if the ship is thresholding on a six, the 
1 lvl component armoured system doesn't need to check. 
If the ship is making the 5+ threshold, the system 
checks on a six.

Probably in either case you'd need to stick a max level
like 2 or 3 on a system. But this could harden key systems
against attack. One might also declare exclusions like
(for example) drives, firecons, whatever... 

Any comments? Is such a system viable in either variant?
How badly does it distort the game? How expensive should
either variant be and why prefer one over the other?

On another note:
Someone (Admiral Iceberg?) suggested using varying MU values
to denote tech differences. This seems an awesome idea. It is
generic, not limited to one system or another, and affects
all ships systems in a related way. What gradations would one
suggest? I might imagine 0.5 inch, 0.75 inch, 1 inch, 1.25
inch and 1.5 inch would give you a spread to cover everything
up to and including quite advanced tech. Typically, you wouldn't
likely see more than 1 TL difference in most scenarios... but
once in a blue moon it might be fun to take a bunch of museum
pieces out against a modern fleet. They'd have better everything,
but you'd still be able to give a fight if you showed up with

Another idea: 
If it is possible to build a decoy ship to suck
up SMs, is it possible to create a decoy-launcher that could
launch an SM decoying drone (or ten...) when the ship comes
under SM attack?

I might suggest something like this:

SM Launcher, Mass ?, Cost ?, Ammo ?. <Real useful so far, right?>
Arc: 360 like PDS. 
Action: When a ship is going to be the target of any Salvo Missile
attacks (that is, movement has been resolved and the ship is within
at least 1 SM radius), before the salvo missile attack is resolved,
the ship may opt to engage its SM launchers. (I'd make the ammo a fair
size, like SMs themselves, to prohibit abuse) For each SM launcher
fired against an SM strike, roll 1D6-1 (min 0). Subtract the result
from the SM attack - these represent decoyed missiles. For any remaining
missiles, apply their attack to the ship. 
Note: Part of the decoy system working is the ship electing NOT to fire
PDS because that would kind of "give away" the real target. 

At all sensible? Something anyone might want? I think if I could get
a system that offered a reasonably good defence against an SM, it'd be
worth some mass on the fronts where I expected to see SMs employed.

Anyway, my latest food for thought. I have another project in the works
(an idea that came to me this weekend) which will see draft publication
on the web shortly... Organized Crime in the 2180s. After all, haven't
you always wondered what the Tongs, Triads, La Familia, the gangbangers,
and the other large scale criminal organizations were doing in the
GZGverse? And for that matter, who was chasing them? I'll post the URL
when the article is ready for review (and I've donned my Nomex


Prev: Re: [FT] Building Next: [DS] looking for a 6mm air/raft