| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:48 pm Post subject: Alternate Ship Damage Rule |
 |
|
Here is an idea for a revision of ship damage. The goal is to make larger ships more durable without making them undamageable and without having to introduce new vessel scales.
Per the RAW, a ship can be lightly damaged any number of times. Therefore, light damage does not increase the severity of other types of damage e.g. heavy or severe damage (this is a change) also an additional heavy damage result does not cause a severely damage ship to be destroyed.
According to the RAW two heavy damage results = severe damage, and two severe damage results = Destroyed.
Here is the key change. Larger vessels take multiple heavy or severe damage results to move to the next damage step. Each size of ship requires its Damage Level in heavy damage results before moving to severely damaged and similarly it requires its damage level in severely damaged results to move to Destroyed (though a particular result on the severe damage result could cause premature destruction).
I have a nice table Excel table which is easy to read, but I can't figure out how to easily recreate it in the post so bear with this exposition.
Starfighter scale vessels have three different damage levels.
For small vessels (about 15-20m or less in length e.g. an X-wing) the Damage Level is 2 (note this is how the RAW currently works).
For transports (about the size of a YT-1300) the Damage Level is 3.
For medium transports (about 80m in length) the Damage level is 4.
Note: since it takes Damage Level (DL) heavy hits to equal 1 Severely damaged results and DL Severely damaged results to equal Destroyed it takes up to DLxDL heavy damage hits to Destroy a vessel.
For capital scale vessels we have the following categories.
For Corvettes (<250m) DL=2 e.g. Blockade Runners, Gunships, Corvettes, light cruisers
For Cruisers (750m) DL=3 e.g. Interdictor Cruisers, Dreadnaughts, Rebel Assault Frigates
For Battleships (1000m) DL=4 e.g. Victory SD, Venator SD, MonCal MC80
For true Star Destroyers (1500m) DL=6 e.g. Imperial I and II, and possibly MonCal MC90
For Super Star Destroyers (big) DL=8 e.g. Executor
Example
(1) A Corvette is hit for 2 heavy damage results. The Corvette is DL=2 so it is now severely damaged. If hit for severe damage a second time (2 times total) it will be destroyed. Note that two more heavy damage results will equal another severely damaged result.
(2) A Victory SD is hit for heavy damage 4 times. The Victory is DL=4. The VSD is now severely damaged.
(3) An Imperial SD is DL=6. Therefore it takes 6 heavy damage results on an Imperial SD to increase severity to Severely Damaged and a total of 36 heavy damage results equates to 6 severe damge results, which will destroy the ISD.
I have used a simplified version of this in a couple of fleet battles, including one large battle for the Battle for Kidron, but I have not fully playtested this version.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I usually just dont accumulate the damage levels at all.
If a ship is hit twice for heavy damage I just roll to results and apply the results. However, if the same heavy damage result is rolled against a ship twice, I use the the more severe table instead. For example, if a ship suffers heavy damage and a 1 is rolled for the result. The next time the ship is heavily damaged and a 1 is rolled, the damage is increased to severe.
This does not apply to light damage.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like it.
As I was reading it, another thought occurred to me: crew casualties. I know in Battlefleet Gothic, a ship's hit points are almost entirely based on the ship's crew complement, with system damage purely a result of critical hits. I'd be interested in seeing a damage system that also took into account how many crewmembers on a ship were taken out of action by the attack. That'd make the skeleton crew listing a more important component of the game, because a ship can be disabled and still be relatively intact if its crew is reduced below a certain level.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very nice. I don't know I'll end up using it, but it is good work regardless.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | I usually just dont accumulate the damage levels at all.
If a ship is hit twice for heavy damage I just roll to results and apply the results. However, if the same heavy damage result is rolled against a ship twice, I use the the more severe table instead. For example, if a ship suffers heavy damage and a 1 is rolled for the result. The next time the ship is heavily damaged and a 1 is rolled, the damage is increased to severe.
This does not apply to light damage. |
Nice. I like this better than the RAW which automatically moves to the next damage step and this is very simple.  What it misses that I was trying to include is a differentiation between the ability of ships within a scale step to endure damage.
While I am pleased some folks like this, it is a bit unusual for garhkal, crmcneil, and I to agree on something. It makes me worried (that the world may be about to end  ) that I am misssing some negatives. Does anyone see any concerns or potential problems with this rules mod? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | [Does anyone see any concerns or potential problems with this rules mod? |
Thanks for the invite! 
I am a little corncerned about about DLs "dropping" when shifting from lage starship scale to small Capitol Ship scale. I don:t think a medium transport should be able to soak more H and s*** than a Small Capitol ship.
I could see some situations where a starfighter scale ship with a high hull code could end up functionally tougher than a captail ship with a low hull code, due to the DLs.
I think it would be better if the Dl scale just kept increasing, with small capital ships (Corvettes) starting off at DL 4 or 5, and keeping the progression from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
While I am pleased some folks like this, it is a bit unusual for garhkal, crmcneil, and I to agree on something. It makes me worried (that the world may be about to end ) that I am misssing some negatives. Does anyone see any concerns or potential problems with this rules mod? |
Well, I don't think garhkal and crmcneil are exactly drawn to negatives like moths to the flame, so I'd say you're safe on that front...
The only unintended consequence for this I can think of is it would probably make ion cannons far more valuable in relation to turbolasers... Maybe you could work out an application of this idea to the ion damage system?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | [Does anyone see any concerns or potential problems with this rules mod? |
Thanks for the invite!
I am a little corncerned about about DLs "dropping" when shifting from lage starship scale to small Capitol Ship scale. I don:t think a medium transport should be able to soak more H and s*** than a Small Capitol ship.
I could see some situations where a starfighter scale ship with a high hull code could end up functionally tougher than a captail ship with a low hull code, due to the DLs.
I think it would be better if the Dl scale just kept increasing, with small capital ships (Corvettes) starting off at DL 4 or 5, and keeping the progression from there. |
You raise a good point. And in fact the RAW already has such a ship in the Blast Boat, the stats of which basically violate the scaling rules in a more or less unclear fashion. But I digress...
Here is why I think the proposed DL may be OK as is. The scale difference between starfighter and capital scale is 6D. The vast majority of starfighter scale vessels have hull of 6D or less. Almost all capital scale vessels have hull > 2D. So the small capital scale vessels will have a lower damage level than an 80m transport, but they will likely have 2D or more stronger hull and thus when shot for the same damage, the capital ship should have a damage result one stage or more lower than the large SF scale vessel. This should balance out the difference in DL.
Which brings up a two points that I may not have made clear. (1) this proposal assumes one retains the RAW scale rules. Creating intermediate scales between starfighter and capital scale will excacerbate the problem atgxtg pointed out. If you use intermediate scales, then you may be better off making a modification similiar to what atgxtg proposed. (I haven't tested what he proposes, so I'm not certain if that is better.) It is also possible that the propsed DL's are not quite correct. As I mentioned, I've not playtested this a lot, so right now these are mostly guesses based on some mental what ifs and a gut feel.
Part of the rationale behind my alternate system is to deal with differences in ship sized, e.g. between a Corellian Corvette and an ISD using the DL rather than by creating intermediate scales as some have suggested elsewhere.
And the other point (2) is that I envision the sizes as guidelines for the DL. I don't think DL should be quite that hard and fast. A 700m state of the art, heavily armored warship might arguably be DL=4 rather than DL=3, while an 1100m passenger liner or cargo vessel might only be DL=3 even though it is > 1000m long.
Thanks atgxtg for pointing up what can be a problem in the system. We are not currently doing any space combat in our group (actually we aren't doing much lately  ), so it may be a while before I can playtest this further. If anyone else does so, I'd be very interested in your observations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | The only unintended consequence for this I can think of is it would probably make ion cannons far more valuable in relation to turbolasers... Maybe you could work out an application of this idea to the ion damage system? |
Yeah, that's a very good point. Off the top of my head, I think you are right about this increasing the impact of controls ionized. I don't really like the way ionization works in the RAW. I may have to think about this. We tend to mostly treat ion damage as being the ship equivalent of stun settings for anti personal weapons. So we allow shields to block ion cannons. Mostly when we have played the ion cannons are used when opponents want to disable and capture a vessel. I haven't figured out a method I like that makes them act as a different quality of weapon without being overpowered. But then, we let shields block missiles and protorps too. Hmmmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | The only unintended consequence for this I can think of is it would probably make ion cannons far more valuable in relation to turbolasers... Maybe you could work out an application of this idea to the ion damage system? |
Yeah, that's a very good point. Off the top of my head, I think you are right about this increasing the impact of controls ionized. I don't really like the way ionization works in the RAW. I may have to think about this. We tend to mostly treat ion damage as being the ship equivalent of stun settings for anti personal weapons. So we allow shields to block ion cannons. Mostly when we have played the ion cannons are used when opponents want to disable and capture a vessel. I haven't figured out a method I like that makes them act as a different quality of weapon without being overpowered. But then, we let shields block missiles and protorps too. Hmmmm... |
A quick fix would be to require more Controls Ionized hits to get the incresed peanlties. DL/2 seems like a good value. That way most ships would stay the same, andthe big ships could take 2 or even 3 hits per D.
The biggest drawback that I see would be the same one I raised eariler. That is big starfighter scale ships will be more resilient that small captial ship scale vessels.
And I still dislike the idea than a big starfighter scale ship can take more minor hits than a small captial ship scale vessel. Even if the hll values work out with scaling.
Hmm, you know, if the DL was the scaling factor too, this might even work better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
While I am pleased some folks like this, it is a bit unusual for garhkal, crmcneil, and I to agree on something. It makes me worried (that the world may be about to end ) that I am misssing some negatives. Does anyone see any concerns or potential problems with this rules mod? |
THere are other times we have all agreed.. BUT i do agree it is rare.
Perhaps go with how Axis and allies ran Battleships..
A battle ship due to it's cost (24 IPCs) took 2 hits to destroy it. 1st hit renders its attack capacity out, but it can still defend, and has to spend 1 full turn in a sea zone next to a complex to repair..
So say For your 2 hit corvettes, 1st hit renders their offensive capacity null and void.. but they can still defend (cap ship weapons go off line, but sf scale ones stay to swat incomming fighters and missiles...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | And I still dislike the idea than a big starfighter scale ship can take more minor hits than a small captial ship scale vessel. Even if the hll values work out with scaling. |
It can't. All ships can already take any number of light damage results (that's already in the RAW). It is only the heavy damage and above results that are affected by the DL. But your point is valid for heavy damage hits. But I think that is where the scale factor bonus of +6D equals out the difference. Let's look at a few ships. We have the following.
X-wing fighter 12.5m Hull 4D, DL=2
YT-1300 light freighter 27m Hull 4D, DL=3
HT-2200 medium freighter 55m Hull 5D, DL=4
Corellian Corvette 150m Hull 4D (10D starfighter scale), DL=2 (note turbolasers do 10D+2 starfigher scale)
I think this works OK. An average hit by the corvette on any of the starfighter scale hulls does on average 37 pts while the Hulls on average soak 14 pts or 18 pts. Any hit on average destroys the smaller vessel and the DL is irrelevant. Similarly the corvette soaks on average 35 points which tends to absorb even a 9D proton torpedo from the X-wing or at most gets a controls ionized result or maybe light damage. The fact that the corvette has only DL=2 is irrelevant since the starfighters can't really damage it.
Most the time the DL only matters within scale. That is exactly the effect that I think I want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, a Bren/garhkal/crmcneill agreement is a trifecta of rarity. :D
Another possible option would be to have each type of damage inflicted count as a penalty against the target's future damage rolls. Light damage = -1, Heavy damage = -2, Severe damage = -1D, and it's all cumulative, so the more damaging hits the target takes, the greater the penalties it suffers on subsequent soak rolls, and the more likely it is that the damaged ship will take higher damage.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Another possible option would be to have each type of damage inflicted count as a penalty against the target's future damage rolls. Light damage = -1, Heavy damage = -2, Severe damage = -1D, and it's all cumulative, so the more damaging hits the target takes, the greater the penalties it suffers on subsequent soak rolls, and the more likely it is that the damaged ship will take higher damage. |
This is a bit like how wounds effect characters so I can see the logic of that, but it is a different direction than I am trying to go. What I want is (within a given scale) for large ships to have more staying power than small ships, but without making the large ships invulnerable to damage. I want the big ships to take some damage, I just want to make it harder to blow up a large war ship with only a few heavy damage shots. I'm fine with a superlaser blowing up a Mon Cal battleship in a single shot, but I don't want three turbolaser cannon hits to destroy ships of that size (which happens in the RAW with 1 heavy damage, followed by 1 light damage, followed by 1 light damage). I do want the ship to still take the effects of light damage or heavy damage shots, I just don't want anything other than many heavy damage shots or a catastrophic hit to kill a ship.
A system like this would, in theory, allow a swarm of X-wings and Y-wings to help disable a Star Destroyer, doing possibly a series of light damage hits, but they could never (or very rarely) destroy it since they couldn't do enough heavy damage or greater results to cause destruction. Intuitively this makes sense to me and it also appears to align with Imperial practice - Tarkin scoffs at the ability of starfighters to destroy the Death Star makes sense if most Imperial officials know that Star Destroyers can be damaged, eventually maybe even crippled, but never really destroyed by starfigher attacks. Intuitively it seems that starfighters would need some capital scale ships to finish off even a nearly helpless large capital ship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
