Fires on Ships - Your Opinion Needed!

Do you want to see fires on ships in CTA?

  • Yes, bring on the flaming wrecks!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, I like me games simple!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
I vote No.
A fire is quite simple to 'repair' : vacuum. It's note only simple to 'repair', but also quick. (small sad tought for crew 'repaired')
So I don't think it worth the book-keeping.
And hulk in flame are already present in game : ships running adrift.
 
Voted yes because it would hypocritical if i didn't since we already have these crits in modded crit chart, some do crew dam some hull dam. Not hard to book keep as you only take the dam in the end of DC phase. You have write all crits down anyway so it's not actually any extra book keeping at all. We also have a crew save SA but can't do DC so it's best to try fix instead of save the crew. Also our All Hands to deck allows us to fix crits done that round. Bring on the flames.
 
ncie idea but to much paper work and too much faff. in all of the games I have played where fire on board ships is used it becomes a nightmare tracking it
 
Right Hand of God said:
ncie idea but to much paper work and too much faff. in all of the games I have played where fire on board ships is used it becomes a nightmare tracking it
To be fair, even in the initial playtest version, it's no job at all to keep track of. It's just one more number. You add to it when the crit table says so, and (hopefully :shock: ) reduce it in the End Phase (or else reduce Damage and/or Crew). Really easy. The problem is not bookkeeping, it's whether you want yet another way to lose a ship...

Oh, and Matt? Who gets XP for a ship lost to fires? Which ship gets the credit for the kill?

Wulf
 
I voted no.

Simple reason already stated.

Vacuum is a good solution for ANY fire. Watch BSG (the new one) first episode (or was it the pilot even?). Huge fire, vent everything into space. Fire put out, extra crew loss, problem solved. It is a hard decision, but basically it is one you have to do. Risk a huge explosion or damn a part of your crew to death and save the rest. Would you risk an ammo explosion or sacrifice 5 good men?

Id be in favor of just giving fires extra crew and damage, makign the crew table more interesting.

Yes it is seen on show, but on pretty much dead ships anyway. Factor in how quikcly stuff blows up on show, and you might be able to count em all as crippled. Now that might be a reason to have fires. But crippled ships mostly go boom anyway....
 
Nope. Fire rules aren't needed. They're simple rules, not a whole lot of bookeeping, but (presumably)23rd century spaceships would have very good suppression systems.
 
I voted no, only for the reason that putting vacuum to the place on fire would rob the fire of one of the 3 elements it needs to burn, Oxygen. Submaries will flood a space, even with crew in it, if it means saving the sub over the lives of the crew. So a major file that would need to be controlled could easily be extinquished by removing the air from the space.

I would also think that most ships would run in vacum during combat anyway, to keep the exposive decompressions down.

CCotD'
 
Cerebral Cortex of the Da said:
I voted no, only for the reason that putting vacuum to the place on fire would rob the fire of one of the 3 elements it needs to burn, Oxygen. Submaries will flood a space, even with crew in it, if it means saving the sub over the lives of the crew. So a major file that would need to be controlled could easily be extinquished by removing the air from the space.

I would also think that most ships would run in vacum during combat anyway, to keep the exposive decompressions down.

CCotD'

Actually all you would need to do, is seal off the bulkheads. That would starve the fire, bear in mind that if the fuel has oxygen in it, then it still will not go out.
 
Reaverman said:
Actually all you would need to do, is seal off the bulkheads. That would starve the fire, bear in mind that if the fuel has oxygen in it, then it still will not go out.
Yes, I think a lot of people are forgetting hat there would be one HELL of a lot of oxygen on any spacecraft, whether for use by the crew or the engines (assuming fuel-burning engines). If the fire is in a LOX tank, you'll need a lot of vacuum to put it out...

Wulf
 
I voted no. I've always felt that the crit damage already reflects the severity of fires on board the ships, and while the addition of an extra item to track is negligible, when added to the greater scope of the game (and additional add-on rules that will surely follow), it will inevitably slow the game down too much.

I have no objection to it being added as an "official" optional rule, but I wouldn't want to see it in league or tournament play.

Just my .02 credits.

Regards,
Larry
 
I've voted no, but if it does ge put in, then I thoink that the close Blast doors SA should have some effect in nullifying the fires.

LBH
 
lastbesthope said:
I've voted no, but if it does ge put in, then I thoink that the close Blast doors SA should have some effect in nullifying the fires.
CBD! already affects fires by preventing the damage that causes them. All Hands on Deck! will also be useful if fires go in.

Wulf
 
I like the idea, but I'm afraid it would become too much of a ship-killer. Right now it's too difficult to actually repair a Crit under most circumstances, which means the crew/damage loss could potentially kill many ships outright.

If you do work it out, consider renaming it to "Life Support Failure" and making it strictly crew loss.
 
I voted no.

Vacuum and inert-gas fire suppression on a warship should be able to put any fire out rather rapidly. While the series' SFX guys really liked the image of burning spaceships, I'd tend to put that in the same place as the micro Olympus in ITB, and crews going into battle in shirtsleeves rather than pressure suits.

Given the lack of huge propellant and oxidant tanks, I'd suggest whatever powers B5 ships, it's not chemical rockets.

Basically, there's a lot of things I'd rather see in the game before this - a definitive fighter fix, atmospheric ships, a Battle-level Nova, a Cruasde-era EA Skirmish ship that's younger than her crew or ships pivoting off boresight (an SA that replaces turning, over two game turns).

I think the crit table work fine as it is - Si nihil confectus est, noli recifiat!
 
Actually any O2 tank for making sure the crew is able to breath would rather go boom rather fast than burn......or any high enough concentration of oxygen. The only exception to that would be a leaking oxygen tank.

And then you get a few races immune to fire, but that is rare in B5.

thx. for the info Shadow Queen :D.

Oh yeah and nothing against the SFX guys, ships that are close to being destroyed lose the ability to supreess fires effectively, but a working ship? I dunno.....

And CBD does not save you against the hurt of fires. Crew dies anyway.
 
Nomad said:
Vacuum and inert-gas fire suppression on a warship should be able to put any fire out rather rapidly. While the series' SFX guys really liked the image of burning spaceships, I'd tend to put that in the same place as the micro Olympus in ITB, and crews going into battle in shirtsleeves rather than pressure suits.
You mean, you put them completely in theme, and necessary for accurate depiction of the subject material?

Wulf
 
Actually any O2 tank for making sure the crew is able to breathe

If you relied on a tanked supply of O2 for the crew to breathe, you'd need a very big tank for a six month patrol.

Carrying plants to break CO2 back down to O2 - and give the crew some fresh fruit and veg occaisionally - or chemical air scrubbers similar to those used on present day submarines and manned spacecraft might be preferable.
 
yeah dont think they use o2 tanks in that day and age, lifesupport does it all for you, changing unbreathable gasses back into breathable :D dont ask how but cant imagine these big o2 tanks, except maybe on earth force bricks. the most advanced ship the brivoki the crew all live off music anyway, hence the huge speaker on the back.
 
Back
Top