Close Blast Doors

[skavendan]

This is a pole you have something to add please post it. All options are rounded down of course.

 

[Target]

Would rather have the damage roll go to 1-2 bulkheads & 6 for crit, precise hits bulkheads on 1 & crits on 6 than 5+ save. Less rolling, which makes the game faster. 1/2 AD is better for big ships & 1 weapon system suits liitle ships far more.
No Damage Control should be possible for that turn. Can't fix it if it's on the other side of the Blastdoor.
Went 1-2 for bulkhead hit rather 1-3 as it probably a wee bit good.
It is automatic after all.

 

[stepan.razin]

Would rather have the damage roll go to 1-2 bulkheads & 6 for crit, precise hits bulkheads on 1 & crits on 6 than 5+ save. Less rolling, which makes the game faster. 1/2 AD is better for big ships & 1 weapon system suits liitle ships far more.
No Damage Control should be possible for that turn. Can't fix it if it's on the other side of the Blastdoor.
Went 1-2 for bulkhead hit rather 1-3 as it probably a wee bit good.
It is automatic after all.

I like it.

 

[Tolwyn]

I voted for to 2, but my point of view is that CBD is one of the SA that slow down the game considerably and that should be ereased completly or changed dramatically.

 

[Banichi]

I tend to think this SA should be completely ditched.

 

[silashand]

Having played a lot of BFG before coming to ACtA, I think CBD needs to exist, however, I'm not fond of the way it works here. I like rolling lots of dice for a save so that's not the issue. IMO the above option #2 seems best rather than drop down to a single weapon. After all, it's not like all the ship's personnel drop everything to run to the new location just to man the one active weapon system (or at least I don't picture it that way anyway).

Cheers, Gary

 

[Triggy]

Target's wording beats any of the options in the poll for me. You could even make it bulkhead on a 1-3 if necessary. Balancing would be required of course

 

[silashand]

I have to confess, Target's idea seems pretty workable to me, though I would keep it at bulkheading on a 1-2 myself.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Foxmeister]

In my experience, the big ships seldom go onto CBD because:

a) They want to fire more than 1 weapon system
b) It's not the damage that kills big ships, it's the crits. Big ships tend to end up adrift hulks long before they lose all their DPs.

I rather like Targets solution, as it only adjust rolls that are already being made, but it doesn't do anything about crits. I would probably amend it so that

CBD         1-2 Bulkhead 6 Potential Crit (4+ to convert to actual crit)
CBD Precise 1   Bulkhead 6 Crit

Essentially for both normal and precise weapons, the chance to get a crit is halfed when on CBD.

Assuming a Narn variant was still required, it could be:

CBD         1-3 Bulkhead 6 Potential Crit (4+ to convert to actual crit)
CBD Precise 1-2 Bulkhead 6 Crit

Regards,

Dave

 

[Methos5000]

Its a good idea but it still needs to account for Masters of Destruction...maybe MoD would still do Triple Damage for Bolters on a 6 but still need to confirm it for the extra damage and effects or something like that.

 

[Foxmeister]

Its a good idea but it still needs to account for Masters of Destruction...maybe MoD would still do Triple Damage for Bolters on a 6 but still need to confirm it for the extra damage and effects or something like that.

I'd be happy for MoD to get triple damage on a 6+, but still need to convert the crit as per any other 6+ and MoD doesn't make crits more likely.

Regards,

Dave

 

[noobdelux]

I tend to think this SA should be completely ditched.

totaly agreed or toned down

 

[mollari_uk]

I love the increased bulkhead threshold version, I hate how CBD slows the game. However as I've already discussed on another thread I think 1/2 AD is also needed (as Target suggested).

The no damage control makes sense too!

TBH I'd also not mind if it was ditched.

 

[CZuschlag]

Balance fails. While Precise works out very, very well:

Damage of Precise-Single Damage: (1+1+1+1+(1+1.6)+(1+1.6)
---------------------------------------- == ------------------------------------
Damage of Single Damage: (0+1+1+1+1+(1+1.6))


== 9.2/6.6 = 1.393

Under CBD:

Damage of Precise-Single Damage: (0+1+1+1+1+(1+1.6))
---------------------------------------- == ------------------------------------
Damage of Single Damage: (0+0+1+1+1+(1+0.5*1.6))

== 6.6/4.8 = 1.375

1.375/1.393 = 0.987 of previous value (damage value of Precise holds in both)

-------------------------------------------------------

Value of MoD:

Damage of MoD-Single Damage: (0+1+1+1+2*(1+1.6))
---------------------------------------- == ------------------------------------
Damage of Single Damage: (0+1+1+1+1+(1+1.6))

== 9.2/6.6 == 1.393

Under CBD:
Damage of MoD-Single Damage: (0+0+1+1+0.5*2*(1+1.6))
---------------------------------------- == ------------------------------------
Damage of Single Damage: (0+0+1+1+1+0.5*(1+1.6))

== 5.6/4.8 == 1.161

1.161/1.393 = 0.8334

MoD doesn't; this is a 17% downgrade for the Dilgar fleet, mostly across the board (Disruption Torps are the exception). You'll need a different solution for that.

17% degradation in the Dilgar fleet propogates to:

(0.8334)^2
-------------------- = 0.409 Adjusted Winning Percentage (vs. expected 0.50)
(1^2 + 0.8334^2)

Dilgar winning percentages would drop approximately 18.2%.

 

[Methos5000]

Does it include factoring in my idea? The one where they still get the damage increase on a 6 but still need to confirm the crit. Because I know I'm not as good at math as many on here but your MoD calculation looks like it is taking the entire '6' roll and giving it a 50% chance of doing extra damage.

 

[Target]

If you leave a 6 bein a crit it doesn't modify MoD at all. Probably a benefit as no 5+ save vs the crit damage.
It hurts precise more instead of 5-6 crit it's 6. You could even leave 5-6 a crit for precise if you went 1-2 bulkhead 3-4 normal & 5-6 crit instead of the lesser bulkhead roll option.

 

[skavendan]

bump