emperorpenguin
Mongoose
crucible_orc said:
oh he does..... :roll: he still hasn't read the rules either, been playing for as long as the game has been available but still clueless!
Is there any need for a crew score?
- Thread starter emperorpenguin
- Start date
oh he does..... :roll: he still hasn't read the rules either, been playing for as long as the game has been available but still clueless!
Nightmares about Minbari
Mongoose
EP; sounds like in general there's zip interest in dropping the crew scores. it seams to be a local problem which might require 'house rules' to cope with your opponant.
Was asking for clarrification in case there was more to the argument that I'd missed somewhere along the lines.
We've all played with/against players who can't handle game mechanics, so we've all shared your pain on that front at one time or another. Happy to offer my sympathy, but don't think it's an issue for the rest of us.
Happy blatting
Was asking for clarrification in case there was more to the argument that I'd missed somewhere along the lines.
We've all played with/against players who can't handle game mechanics, so we've all shared your pain on that front at one time or another. Happy to offer my sympathy, but don't think it's an issue for the rest of us.
Happy blatting
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Off the top of my head here's the things that would need rewiorked in the rules if you remove crew scores. this list is by no means complete or exhaustive, but it'll give you something to think on:
Boarding actions, and therefore troop scores
Ramming Speed Special action
The criticals chart (some parts are crew only damage with no other effects)
Campaigns (You'll need less RR if you don't have to buy crew)
Refits and other duties tables
The concept of CQ, etc.
LBH
Boarding actions, and therefore troop scores
Ramming Speed Special action
The criticals chart (some parts are crew only damage with no other effects)
Campaigns (You'll need less RR if you don't have to buy crew)
Refits and other duties tables
The concept of CQ, etc.
LBH
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Nightmares about Minbari said:
Actually support has risen 300%! :lol:
Geekybiker
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Created a few new accounts for yourself, eh?
lastbesthope
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
If it's gone from 1 to 3 then it's risen by 200%, or multiplied by 300%, but not risen by 300%.
Either way, it's still not much.
And this is one of the biggest voted on polls I've seen pon here for some time.
LBH
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Geekybiker said:emperorpenguin said:
Created a few new accounts for yourself, eh?
I'd have voted more than twice and given reasoning in that case!
I'd like to know who DID vote yes!
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
lastbesthope said:
Pedant! it's late, I'm tired!
Slightly Norse John
Mongoose
Don't you mean who voted no, that there was no reason to keep them?
In any case, one of those no's was me. There were a couple of factors, none exactly massive in themselves, but- well, the first is a simple mechanical issue. The crew results take up space in the crit table that could be used for a much better model of how a ship actually functions. Loss of maneuvring thrusters, reductions in Hull to reflect profound structural damage, comm systems affecting a ship's ability to maneuver with it's squadronmates- It drowns out tactical, mechanical factors that could be more interesting.
The other reason is that it's downright ghoulish. We don't really need to take close account of the bloody murdering side of what happens to men in a machine like a ship when it starts to break up around them, of roasting to death in a ship on fire, being crushed by flexing structure, and the slow eviscerations of decompression- that is what the crew score measures.
Personal combat is one thing, but most naval wargames treat the crew as part of the machinery of the ship, and work quite well. Keep CQ- there's no need to get rid of it, and in fact I'd like to see it stretched more, to give bonuses or penalties to the actual stats of the ship- but I don't see the point of actuarially conducting bodycount.
In any case, one of those no's was me. There were a couple of factors, none exactly massive in themselves, but- well, the first is a simple mechanical issue. The crew results take up space in the crit table that could be used for a much better model of how a ship actually functions. Loss of maneuvring thrusters, reductions in Hull to reflect profound structural damage, comm systems affecting a ship's ability to maneuver with it's squadronmates- It drowns out tactical, mechanical factors that could be more interesting.
The other reason is that it's downright ghoulish. We don't really need to take close account of the bloody murdering side of what happens to men in a machine like a ship when it starts to break up around them, of roasting to death in a ship on fire, being crushed by flexing structure, and the slow eviscerations of decompression- that is what the crew score measures.
Personal combat is one thing, but most naval wargames treat the crew as part of the machinery of the ship, and work quite well. Keep CQ- there's no need to get rid of it, and in fact I'd like to see it stretched more, to give bonuses or penalties to the actual stats of the ship- but I don't see the point of actuarially conducting bodycount.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Slightly Norse John said:
Told you I was tired! :wink:
But thank you for sharing your reasoning, glad to see I'm not alone...
Well I know I'm not cos Matt mooted the idea months ago, shame they decided not to follow through, I reckon most people are just too conservative and wouldn't currently be arguing FOR a crew score had one not existed already!
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Actually, I vote for a Crew score because none of the other space combat games I've played had one... so quite the opposite!emperorpenguin said:
Wulf
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Wulf Corbett said:
But you know there's a crew score! what I'm saying is if like BFG ACTA didn't have one I really doubt many people would actually be asking for one, some but not many.
It is human nature to resist change to things we're comfortable with
Benjamen the Wolf
Mongoose
I like tracking how much crew are left on the ship. Maybe it is a bit ghoulish, but crew are an active part of the ship. Just because the ship is gone, doesn't mean it's crew is gone with it. Also a ship could end up having no crew left, but overall, the ship is fairly intact. Oh, and the local group I'm in, refers to ships that have lost all their crew as being ghosted. Since thats all thats left to crew it, ghosts.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
emperorpenguin said:
Then we have to congratulate Matthew on his inovative game design.
True, but once we have something new, we don't usually want to go back to the way things were before. Afterall, who would want to go back to TV before VCRs? You would miss your favourite show if you went out, there were only three channels and they were only on in the evening.
locarno24 said:
But any time you break through the hull and cause signifigant damage there is going to be some harm to the crew. The poll on here has proven that the majority supports the crew score. It works well, personally I feel it is nice because it both seperates the Ancients from the rest of the galaxy, and also it puts a more realistic slant on ship design, the nova is more likely to be blown to bits before it is Ghosted, where as some ships are going to be more likely to be Ghosted instead of blown to bits.
Slightly Norse John
Mongoose
Taking the Omega as an example, once I reckoned up that, given the length of the thing and a rough estimate of how heavily built it was, it should have ballpark mass of eighty million tons.
How many crew does it take to look after X amount of ship? A couple of estimates- a WW2 warship, varies drastically, but in general somewhere from 30-50 tons of ship per man, bigger ratio in the bigger ships, some nations crewed more heavily than others. (For instance, Hood and Bismarck were within a couple of thousand tons of each other deep load, forty- eight versus fifty thousand tons, and the German ship had nine hundred and eighty more crew.)
Modern missile warships, again national variations- an Arleigh Burke is more than twice the size of a Type 42 and roughly four times the crew- depending on how undermnned the 42 is- but roughly, 10-15 tons per man.
Spaceships have to be much more heavily automated than that, or we'd be talking about drafting the population of London to crew an Omega. But they're not vastly so, we don't see anything like hypersophistication on screen, so it's not that high. One man for a thousand tons of ship- averaged out over all capacities- that seems feasible. Total blue- sky of course, but it's a round number that'll do as a basis. That still means you need eighty thousand crew for an Omega, which puts one crew factor at thirteen hundred bodies.
That really doesn't feel right, but B5's ships are so huge that we're looking at huge numbers to match for the personnel. You just can't have something that big without the consequences of it's being that big. Bump it up by another factor of ten, call it six to eight thousand- there's enough ship to go round, most of them are going to be maintenance, that gives an estimate of one hundred crew per point of Crew. Most of which are going to be running around like headless chickens trying to maintain their ten thousand tons of plumbing each.
How many crew does it take to look after X amount of ship? A couple of estimates- a WW2 warship, varies drastically, but in general somewhere from 30-50 tons of ship per man, bigger ratio in the bigger ships, some nations crewed more heavily than others. (For instance, Hood and Bismarck were within a couple of thousand tons of each other deep load, forty- eight versus fifty thousand tons, and the German ship had nine hundred and eighty more crew.)
Modern missile warships, again national variations- an Arleigh Burke is more than twice the size of a Type 42 and roughly four times the crew- depending on how undermnned the 42 is- but roughly, 10-15 tons per man.
Spaceships have to be much more heavily automated than that, or we'd be talking about drafting the population of London to crew an Omega. But they're not vastly so, we don't see anything like hypersophistication on screen, so it's not that high. One man for a thousand tons of ship- averaged out over all capacities- that seems feasible. Total blue- sky of course, but it's a round number that'll do as a basis. That still means you need eighty thousand crew for an Omega, which puts one crew factor at thirteen hundred bodies.
That really doesn't feel right, but B5's ships are so huge that we're looking at huge numbers to match for the personnel. You just can't have something that big without the consequences of it's being that big. Bump it up by another factor of ten, call it six to eight thousand- there's enough ship to go round, most of them are going to be maintenance, that gives an estimate of one hundred crew per point of Crew. Most of which are going to be running around like headless chickens trying to maintain their ten thousand tons of plumbing each.
