The effect of critical hits

[Chernobyl]

my system used the same tables as now, but instad of a 6+ indicating a hit...
you need a second roll against the hull to "confirm" a critical. Precise adds to both rolls.

against hull 6:
normal: 6 gets a chance, 6 confirms - 1/36 or about 3%
precise: 5 gets a chance, 5 confirms - 1/9 or about 11%
against hull 5:
normal: 6 gets a chance, 5 confirms - 1/18 or about 6-7%
precise: 5 gets a chance, 4 confirms - 1/6 or about 18%
against hull 4:
normal: 6 gets a chance, 4 confirms - 1/12 or about 8%
precise: 5 gets a chance, 3 confirms - 2/9 or about 22%

it cuts the number of criticals probably by a third to a half, making them less common. Precise weapons are much more likely to get criticals than regular weapons.

I had also put together a fighter-specific critical table (which eliminated several criticals that fighters could cause.) roll on a 2D6 and got several options.

Chern

 

[animus]

Interesting table. Interesting idea. However,i think it rewards high hull more than it should. We need crits for the high hull ships more than for the low hull ones. You're just making the Warlock tougher and the Scouts weaker.

 

[Geekybiker]

Interesting table. Interesting idea. However,i think it rewards high hull more than it should. We need crits for the high hull ships more than for the low hull ones. You're just making the Warlock tougher and the Scouts weaker.

big +1 there. The only thing making hull 6 not as painful as it could be is the relative frequency of crits. (still think they should happen less) Making the hull 6 stronger and the hull 4 weaker isnt the solution.

Id be more in favor of a second threshold. Something like you roll 2d6 for the crit.
2-4 bulkhead
5-10 normal
11-12 crit

Precise and below half your damage value are both +1.

More to represent once more armor is knocked off you're more likely to hit something vital. I just really really really hate having a host of ships having taken minor fire the first turns are all almost useless through crits. Its a warship for god's sake, not a civilian pleasure ships. Its designed to take a few hits without falling apart.

I also like the idea of 2d6 rolls on the crit type to have bell curve to make the type and especially severity most less random.

 

[Reaverman]

Crits are fine - they make precise weapons exciting!

I agree with Zod, I mean Hash. But I still think his Avatar is camp as helll, with his knee high boots, and his frilly black shirt and open collar :twisted:

 

[Pauly_D]

Crits are fine - they make precise weapons exciting!

no they make precise weapons a little too exciting
precise weapons should have a little better chance of a critical but i think that 1/3 chance is a little too much

 

[Tibour]

I believe the the crits are just fine as is. I have seen games where they have had little effect and games that were won due to them. The Golden bebe is alive and well

 

[Fin-man]

Actually, we've found in our group that critical hits decide the winner in 80% of the games we had played for the first six months. Now, we're all for the critical hits, but just not with such frequency. We came up with our own house rule to address the critical hit issue:

If you roll a '6' (or '5-6' if you have precise), take seperate dice (one for each critical hit) and roll those dice again. On a 5-6 you score a critical as normal. On a 1-4, there is no critical hit but the dice are added to the total number of hits. (Double and triple damage as normal)

This way, the criticals came up less often, and you still received bonus damage even if you did not get a 5-6 on the additional critical roll. Overall, it worked out very well and the whole group was pleased with the results.

Fin-man

 

[animus]

I think Fin-man is on to something.

 

[Chernobyl]

most criticals don't cause that much damage though. a 5-6 result would cause more damage than before (on average) but have less "effects"

Chern

 

[Fin-man]

Yes, that's how it's worked out for us. It keeps criticals from being so common, but does not penalize players who would have 'normally' scored a critical.

Fin-man

most criticals don't cause that much damage though. a 5-6 result would cause more damage than before (on average) but have less "effects"Chern

 

[Geekybiker]

Yes, that's how it's worked out for us. It keeps criticals from being so common, but does not penalize players who would have 'normally' scored a critical.

Fin-man

most criticals don't cause that much damage though. a 5-6 result would cause more damage than before (on average) but have less "effects"Chern

And you know I would be perfectly okay with that. Little extra damage Im not worried about. Its the "effects" that are really crippling.

 

[CZuschlag]

Keep strongly in mind that if you mess with the criticals and their probabilities , you mess with the Dilgar, who strongly leverage Masters of Destruction --- which only occur on criticals. Make 'em too rare or weak, and you strongly cripple the Dilgar ... make 'em to common or too strong, and the MoD becomes overwhelmingly hideous.

 

[animus]

We played 2 games last night. EA vs. Minbari, 5 point Tournament Liist Raid.

First game was over on turn 1 when the Tinashi failed to cripple a Sagitarrius with 4 crits (all -2 speed). The boresight on the Omega saw through the stealth and blew up the Tinashi with wicked beams and a single 6/6 critical. Minbari fled. Game 2 the stealth worked as advertised and the crits were less pronounceed. Slight Minbo victory.

What struck me, in light of this thread, is how important the presence or absence of the criticals were on the game. Don't get me wrong, I think they're totally necessary for the game. It gives the game the spice it needs, sets up the David/Goliath thing, is truer (IMO) of naval warfare. Howewver, most often, the games are decided by critical rolls more than on strategy.

The critical rules could use tweaking somehow. I don't know what the fix is, but I know there's room for improvement.

 

[TrueCentauri]

I think that in general, if you play enough games, the effect of criticals cancel. It is just like a soccer referee, sometimes you get a penalty for nothing, and sometimes you get beaten to death - and nothing, just continue playing... (4 criticals which only damage the coffeemachine, while his single critical blows your ship apart). It was worse with the 5/6 6/6 critical blow ups, but SFOS repaired that.

Concerning naval warfare, apart from the Hood and the Bismarck, the number of examples of critical hits deciding battles is slim (okay, the hit to the radio room of the scharnhorst). Mostly because more ships were involved in other naval battles. In far more occasions, the decisions of their commanders were far mor decisive. (Like the loss of the Prince of Wales).

If your fleet consists of just a few ships, it is bound that you can loose heavily by a single critical. Most unfortunate, but that was also the risk you took by using a single ship with a high PL versus the multiple ships with lower PL.

So, if you hate the effect of criticals, use a fleet with a large number of ships, and the effect is cancelled out. Your opponent throws a 6/6 crit on one of them, tough luck but who cares, there are enough left to make him miserable. Play a race that have good small ships.

Despite some usefull ideas on the critical hit table, messing with the table means rebalancing the ship list AGAIN .

I think this game is slowly killed by continuously updated ship lists....
:roll:

 

[Fin-man]

Actually, it doesn't hurt them in the least. How we have the rule setup, is any dice that are re-rolled for the Dilgar's 'master of destruction' rules are double or triple damage - this applies whether they crit or not.

Our group has found that the house rule we use keeps the game from becoming a 'critical lottery' and relies more on tactics and manuver, but, that's us. If you wish to use it in your group, we welcome you to do so. Try it for a few battles - I think you'll end up finding it makes the game more enjoyable for all invloved.

Fin-man

Keep strongly in mind that if you mess with the criticals and their probabilities , you mess with the Dilgar, who strongly leverage Masters of Destruction --- which only occur on criticals. Make 'em too rare or weak, and you strongly cripple the Dilgar ... make 'em to common or too strong, and the MoD becomes overwhelmingly hideous.

 

[animus]

So, Fin-Man, when you get a critical, you roll again. 5-6 usual critical table rolls. On a 1-4, the ship takes additional 1-4 hull & crew (to be doubled or trippled). Right?

Also, what's the Masters of Destruction rule. I don't have the Dilgar book.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

Also, what's the Masters of Destruction rule. I don't have the Dilgar book.

Bolters are normally Double Damage, but count as Triple Damage for any critical hit. Likewise, pulsars are normally don't have a damage multiplier, but count as Double Damage when scoring a critical hit.

 

[CZuschlag]

Ah, now I get it, Fin-man.

Not on the table, it 1-4 : 1-4? That makes it an average of 2.5 : 2.5 .... how does that track to the critical tables averages?

I get an average of (33+7d6)/36 : (48+7d6) / 36 for (if average of d6 is held to 3.5) 1.597 : 2.014, so the Dilgar get an additional margin of 0.903 : 0.486, and only when a critical doesn't go to the table; (x2/3) --> 0.602 : 0.324 per MoD critical. Very liveable.

To maintain the ship damage : crew damage ratio in the criticals table, you may want to boost the crew damage by one when you don't get a true hit, Fin-man (1-4:2-5), but otherwise, that's doesn't seem horribly unreasonable from a MoD standpoint.

OTOH, does it make Battle and War hulls too survivable? Can't answer this one yet.

Interesting rule to analyze..

 

[Mmurphy]

I play in Fin-mans group and the doubling of hull and crew actually works better for the larger ships than the smaller ones.

My Gquan has too many hull points and crew to be taken out by normal damage, so crits are the only way to do so. What I have found though is I will never take one in the current crit system (by the rule book) because taking lots of smaller ships means I can swarm. I have had several games were the GQuan was taken out of the game because of a single crit that I could not fix. I have had several weapons may only fire on a 4+ or weapons may not fire at all. Also, I have lost because the GQuan is a close range ship (weapons are short range except the e-mines and bore sight weapon) and slowing the ship down means it takes too long to get into combat.

Now what happens is the GQuan gets into combat but has allot of damage and is easier to destroy by removing hull and crew instead of requiring crits to disable.

 

[Fin-man]

Animus,
Close. We don't take the number on the additional die roll as the number of damage/ crew hits, but it is an interesting variation.

Here's how the rule works:
1) Note all of the dice that are rolling for damage that roll a 6.
2)Pick up additional dice that equal the number of 6's rolled, and roll these additional dice again.
3) If these additional dice score a 5-6, then it is a critical hit as normal. Pleace those dice to the side on their own.
4) If these additional dice score a 1-4, then add those dice to the original pile of damage.
5) Take the [new] total of dice, and score the damage. This normally does 1 damage and 1 crew per hit, doubled or tripled as per the rules.

I'm hoping that makes sense - it's actually fairly easy in practice. I'm really glad that this is generating some notice as the effects of criticals are what is unbalancing the game IMO. I'm all for the lucky hit that knocks out a key ship, but should this really happen on a 1 in 6 chance? (Or worse, a 1 in 3 chance for precise weapons.)

Fin-man

So, Fin-Man, when you get a critical, you roll again. 5-6 usual critical table rolls. On a 1-4, the ship takes additional 1-4 hull & crew (to be doubled or trippled). Right?