How so? 2000 crew is factor 5 in the table I proposed.
And, I wasn't even hexadecimal (up to "G"), so there's more granularity to be had if you just spread the lower values a bit.
CT Errata HG - Crew Sections
- Thread starter Matt123
- Start date
How so? 2000 crew is factor 5 in the table I proposed.
And, I wasn't even hexadecimal (up to "G"), so there's more granularity to be had if you just spread the lower values a bit.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
A random thought, not having followed closely enough to know if it has been suggested, but what about treating crew similar to the weapon factor using two lines, the weapon factor and batteries/bearing being translated to crew factor and sections/frozen watch.
So the crew factor can actually be used to measure something, like combat effectiveness, while damage reduces sections (batteries) before impacting factor and frozen watches are subtracted first (like non-bearing batteries). A ship could be allowed something like an action (battery attack, specific defense, maneuver, etc.) or damage control action per crew section. Crippled (reduced sections) ships would be restricted in total actions, and when reduced to a single section as the factor is further reduced the remaining action suffers further from less effectiveness.
...or is that less errata/minor addition and more in the realm of (perhaps needed) a larger rules rewrite
So the crew factor can actually be used to measure something, like combat effectiveness, while damage reduces sections (batteries) before impacting factor and frozen watches are subtracted first (like non-bearing batteries). A ship could be allowed something like an action (battery attack, specific defense, maneuver, etc.) or damage control action per crew section. Crippled (reduced sections) ships would be restricted in total actions, and when reduced to a single section as the factor is further reduced the remaining action suffers further from less effectiveness.
...or is that less errata/minor addition and more in the realm of (perhaps needed) a larger rules rewrite
Perhaps that example is still too course. Its a balancing act that needs more discussion.
The only certain thing we have is that the existing rules sufficed for 30 years and that the most recent errata has gone way too far in the other direction, to the point any ship greater than say 5-10 kton is effectively immune to normal crew-1 damage results.
I'd like to see more options for crew factors put forward by other players.
A random thought, not having followed closely enough to know if it has been suggested, but what about treating crew similar to the weapon factor using two lines, the weapon factor and batteries/bearing being translated to crew factor and sections/frozen watch.
So the crew factor can actually be used to measure something, like combat effectiveness, while damage reduces sections (batteries) before impacting factor and frozen watches are subtracted first (like non-bearing batteries). A ship could be allowed something like an action (battery attack, specific defense, maneuver, etc.) or damage control action per crew section. Crippled (reduced sections) ships would be restricted in total actions, and when reduced to a single section as the factor is further reduced the remaining action suffers further from less effectiveness.
...or is that less errata/minor addition and more in the realm of (perhaps needed) a larger rules rewrite
more of a larger re-write, which isn't needed. The bit you are missing is that to use a Frozen Watch requires a turn (2?) in the Reserve to wake them up & shepard them to their stations. They probably also need 10 minutes to clean away the remains of their predecessor...So its not just a matter of checking off how many Frozen Watches you have left.
More granular...
So maybe modify it a bit, like this:
Perhaps scale back the top side there.... At code "A" go to 1000 crew increments.
So maybe modify it a bit, like this:
Code:
Code Min Max
0 0 0
1 1 1
2 2 10
3 11 16
4 17 27
5 28 48
6 49 89
7 90 170
8 171 331
9 332 652
A 653 1293
B 1294 2574
C 2575 5135
D 5136 10256
F 10257 20497
G 20498 40978Perhaps scale back the top side there.... At code "A" go to 1000 crew increments.
After reading your reply above Dean, I'm still supportive of your original table.
In essence
Only ships of 10 crew or less are mission killed on a Crew-1 result.
Between 11 & 1000 crew takes two Crew-1 results to mission kill
Over 1001 crew takes 3 or more Crew-1 results to mission kill
(mission kill is 50% or better crew casualties)
This is huge leaps better that the first Crew-1 result mission kills the ships as written originally. And it keeps the numbers needed within the realms you can possibly achieve in the damage results.
Deans original Crew USP/Factor table
In essence
Only ships of 10 crew or less are mission killed on a Crew-1 result.
Between 11 & 1000 crew takes two Crew-1 results to mission kill
Over 1001 crew takes 3 or more Crew-1 results to mission kill
(mission kill is 50% or better crew casualties)
This is huge leaps better that the first Crew-1 result mission kills the ships as written originally. And it keeps the numbers needed within the realms you can possibly achieve in the damage results.
Deans original Crew USP/Factor table
Code:
[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 1. 1 crew
USP 2. 2-10 crew
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 3. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]11-100 crew
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 4. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]101-1000 crew
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 5. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]1001-2000 crew
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 6. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]2001-3000 crew
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 7. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2] 3001-4000 crew
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 8. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]4001-5000 crew
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]USP 9. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=2]5001+[/SIZE][/FONT]Yep we need something that is easy to calculate and balanced so that cruisers can take a few hits and battleships quite a few but not so many they're irrelevant. We also need to keep in mind this will have an effect on the whole BR vs BB issue by making BR's significantly more fragile (IMHO a good thing).
Maybe something based on a rough Logn scale?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
t
I would debate that
Another bit that needs a rewrite. Any time I've played it by the RAW having a frozen watch is pointless* since if you can retreat to the reserve to waste the time to revive them the battle is over anyway. You might as well jump out back to base for proper repairs and crewing. The time factor is also too long imo. And clumsily handled. Replacements should be popping out as needed on a demand basis. Not waiting until a full section needs replacing. Well, the way I'd do it anyway. Thaw the replacement, send them off to their station with briefing on the way by headset, drop the replaced dead/dying (if available and not simply gone) in the vacated berth to freeze for later attention. Repeat as needed.
* I generally include them as a matter of principal anyway
...in any case it was a random thought, and bit of a sidetrack, carry on
I would debate that
Another bit that needs a rewrite. Any time I've played it by the RAW having a frozen watch is pointless* since if you can retreat to the reserve to waste the time to revive them the battle is over anyway. You might as well jump out back to base for proper repairs and crewing. The time factor is also too long imo. And clumsily handled. Replacements should be popping out as needed on a demand basis. Not waiting until a full section needs replacing. Well, the way I'd do it anyway. Thaw the replacement, send them off to their station with briefing on the way by headset, drop the replaced dead/dying (if available and not simply gone) in the vacated berth to freeze for later attention. Repeat as needed.
* I generally include them as a matter of principal anyway
...in any case it was a random thought, and bit of a sidetrack, carry on
Last edited:
You bring to mind an interesting point.
The existing frequency of "normal" (as opposed to Critical) Crew-1 results on Fighting Ships is low.
If you accept that virtually all front line fighting ships of significance have armor of at least 6+, usually more. They are immune to Crew-1 hits on the Radiation table. Leaving the only other result coming from the Interior Explosion Table, usually used only by Meson Spinals, on a 10 result (3 in 36 chance or 8.3%). Note that non-spinal Meson Guns cannot get a 10 result due to a -6 modifier.
The errata on Crew Critical Hits (from the Critical hit table) already makes that result now Crew-50% (number of crew sections or factors are irrelevant, half are toast).
Sooo, Crew USP/Sections/Factors don't impact on Critical hit results.
Crew Factors are lost due to Meson spinal hits 8.3% of the time (assuming they hit and penetrate screens and hull configuration...).
Its just not a common occurrence. I agree with the idea its a bit grim to lose a ship after just one hit, but giving ships the ability to survive tens or worse, hundreds of these results is over-kill.
The existing frequency of "normal" (as opposed to Critical) Crew-1 results on Fighting Ships is low.
If you accept that virtually all front line fighting ships of significance have armor of at least 6+, usually more. They are immune to Crew-1 hits on the Radiation table. Leaving the only other result coming from the Interior Explosion Table, usually used only by Meson Spinals, on a 10 result (3 in 36 chance or 8.3%). Note that non-spinal Meson Guns cannot get a 10 result due to a -6 modifier.
The errata on Crew Critical Hits (from the Critical hit table) already makes that result now Crew-50% (number of crew sections or factors are irrelevant, half are toast).
Sooo, Crew USP/Sections/Factors don't impact on Critical hit results.
Crew Factors are lost due to Meson spinal hits 8.3% of the time (assuming they hit and penetrate screens and hull configuration...).
Its just not a common occurrence. I agree with the idea its a bit grim to lose a ship after just one hit, but giving ships the ability to survive tens or worse, hundreds of these results is over-kill.
I think the first steps are to a) determine just how frequent Crew-1 is and b) work out how many crew hits a destroyer/cruiser/battleship etc should be able to take.
Taking a look at a bigger picture here, there may be an opportunity to go some way to shortening the BR vs BB odds here that we may not wish to pass up.
Okay so looking at the damage charts, 1 in 3 meson gun radiation damage hits are Crew-1. Interior explosions give us 1 in 12.
So your J meson (with 10 rolls radiation and 10 rolls interior) is inflicting Crew-4.17 every hit. The T meson (19 rolls) gets Crew-7.92. So a bit of resistance in the crew factors may not be a bad thing.
Assuming we want a cruiser/rider to take two or three rounds of damage and battleship to take somewhere between three and four rounds. Plugging these into the J gun for cruisers we need crew factors in the 20's to 30's. Plugging it into the T for the battleship we want crew factors around to 60's to 80's
Just food for thought.
Taking a look at a bigger picture here, there may be an opportunity to go some way to shortening the BR vs BB odds here that we may not wish to pass up.
Okay so looking at the damage charts, 1 in 3 meson gun radiation damage hits are Crew-1. Interior explosions give us 1 in 12.
So your J meson (with 10 rolls radiation and 10 rolls interior) is inflicting Crew-4.17 every hit. The T meson (19 rolls) gets Crew-7.92. So a bit of resistance in the crew factors may not be a bad thing.
Assuming we want a cruiser/rider to take two or three rounds of damage and battleship to take somewhere between three and four rounds. Plugging these into the J gun for cruisers we need crew factors in the 20's to 30's. Plugging it into the T for the battleship we want crew factors around to 60's to 80's
Just food for thought.
Last edited:
High Guard pp48 "1. Apply armor of the defending ship as a +DM against all weapons on the surface explosions table and all but meson guns on the radiation damage tables."
1 in 3 meson radiation rolls results in Crew-1. For a J gun this gives Crew-3 every time it hits, and for a T gun Crew-6. And that's not taking into account the interior explosions table (which gives either another 1 in 12 or 7 in 36 depending on where FTS is put). Crew hits from spinal mesons are quite common in fact.
Even the non-spinal meson gets 1 in 12 crew hits on the interior explosions table (Roll 4 DM+6 = 10). Oddly enough, on the interior explosions table both spinal and non-spinal have a 1 in 12 chance of getting a Crew-1
Last edited:
You can find my first (somewhat inelegant) solution for this issue at
http://www.downport.com/amv/software/hgs.html
Go to the test build.
http://www.downport.com/amv/software/hgs.html
Go to the test build.
That assumes every game is played at TL15, obviously not a given. My experience has been numerous games at TL12/13, none at TL15.
It also assumes that hitting & penetrating defenses is frequent, which it isn't. Meson T against a same tech, very large, high agility opponent, will hit & penetrate roughly one turn in three.
Now that hit, roughly every third turn, will be lethal, but thats what I would expect from a Meson T. It is after all, the largest, nastiest, highest tech bit of weaponry in the game.
And if you allow a capital ship to take "three or four rounds of damage" from Meson spinals, that really means taking up to 12 turns (4 game hours) to achieve a result.
Looking at TL12, we have at best a Meson K. Costing 10 times a Meson T and needing a power plant 2.5 times the size of a TL15 Meson T power plant. This makes the Meson K in a TL12 fleet rarer than a Meson T in a TL15 fleet. It hits & penetrates slightly less often and "only" inflicts 3 or 4 Crew-1 hits when it does. And again it is the biggest nastiest weapon around at TL12, I would expect it to be lethal.
I see your argument. Personally I still prefer that BB's taking a few rounds of crew damage. However I think I may have a solution that meets your needs. I'm at work at the moment so can't fully write it up.
Basically use a vague LogN scale of the crew itself to determine the number of crew sections. It ends up with the Tigress having crew-13 and Plankwells et al Crew-12 (enough to survive a J gun but not a T gun). Will write it up and code it as an alternative in HGS when I finish tonight.
Basically use a vague LogN scale of the crew itself to determine the number of crew sections. It ends up with the Tigress having crew-13 and Plankwells et al Crew-12 (enough to survive a J gun but not a T gun). Will write it up and code it as an alternative in HGS when I finish tonight.
try this.
Code:
CalcNumCrewSections: Integer
begin
if (GetTotalCrew = 0) then
begin
Result := 0;
end
else
begin
case (GetTotalCrew) of
0: Result := 0;
1..2: Result := 1;
3..4: Result := 2;
5..8: Result := 3;
9..16: Result := 4;
17..32: Result := 5;
33..64: Result :=6;
65..125: Result := 7;
126..250: Result := 8;
251..500: Result := 9;
501..1000: Result := 10;
1001..2000: Result := 11;
2001.4000: Result := 12;
4001..8000: Result := 13;
8001..16000: Result := 14;
else Result := 15;
end;
end;
end;It will distort things at the low end, but it might work as a starting point.
Essentially increase the code when crew doubles, i.e. 100% increase required to make a difference regarding combat mechanics. Sounds a little too drastic.
Be more inclined to see a difference at around +50%. Hmmm.. an alternating +1/3 to +1/2 should produce human friendly numbers, I think, with a few small tweaks.
To make that work, including the low end, the code would need to exceed F, but that is already common for the USP.
I think mayhap I need to code some kind of rough combat simulator into HGS for things like this. Will see what I can do.
Personally I still like my Tonnage / (Size Code * 100) idea, but as has been pointed out, that may still make the crew factors too large.
