Knight Hawks Revised Damage Table

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
January 31, 2008 - 7:34am

Anyone in the community interested in working with me on making a new Damage Table for the Knight Hawks board-game?

To Whomever:
  • We will Meet in chat for discussion
  • Possible submission to the Star Frontiersman (with credits)
Some of my thoughts about additions.
  1. Losing crew. What effect on systems?
  2. Life boat hits
  3. Shuttle hits
  4. Extremity hits
  5. Other?



Comments:

elpotof's picture
elpotof
January 31, 2008 - 7:57am
yup, count me in. The chat room isn't working on my machine, but i'd like to help. To be honest, the board game needs a good ol' facelift too. May be a new project? getting the board game into a repackaged format, plus i don't think it would be too large a project.

apologies, i'm assuming you were refering to the boardgame, introduced with the intorductionary scenario - the second sathar war. re-reading what you've written, i'm not so sure. Hey, still want to help though!


how complicated do you want the damage system to become? Is this to enhance PC characters using KH rules, or is it to add detail to wargamers? I think this is the first thing to define.

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
January 31, 2008 - 9:31am
elpotof wrote:
yup, count me in. The chat room isn't working on my machine, but i'd like to help. To be honest, the board game needs a good ol' facelift too. May be a new project? getting the board game into a repackaged format, plus i don't think it would be too large a project.

Let's get chat working on your PC, I'll PM you.
elpotof wrote:
apologies, i'm assuming you were refering to the boardgame, introduced with the intorductionary scenario - the second sathar war. re-reading what you've written, i'm not so sure. Hey, still want to help though!

how complicated do you want the damage system to become? Is this to enhance PC characters using KH rules, or is it to add detail to wargamers? I think this is the first thing to define.


I was concentrating on the TAC - Advanced Game. Skills can come in later.
The idea is to add some more options/realism.

I hope Gilbert, Imperial, Shadow, Corjay and others can pipe in. Even if we have some ideas to post they can offer advice.
:-D


TerlObar's picture
TerlObar
January 31, 2008 - 1:50pm
If you are just talking about the boardgame rules, what else are you going to add that affects game play. Adding in damage effects to systems that aren't used as part of the board game is effectively adding "No Effect" entries.  Maybe that is what we want but it definitely slows down game play and adds a bit of frustration.  The "No Effect" is covered by the chance to hit already so if you add system hits that don't impact the game you can get situations where even though you hit, you didn't because it had no effect.  From my point of view that's an irritation and detracts from the game.

That said, it's not a bad idea to revise the table but I think this only makes sense in terms of a damage table to use when PC's are involved and the fight is part of a larger campaign.  Blowing up the shuttle craft/launch or taking out the life support system (that's one you can add to your list) has exactly no impact in a simple boardgame setting. But if the battle's over and the PC's find that they can't get any oxygen into the ship and have to live in their space suits, now that's a different story.

As for a list of other systems, check out the KH Vector rules on starfrontiers.org and look at that damage table. That has several additional systems that can be damaged (I know as I've been trying to implement them all in our Orbiter plugin Smile. It includes things such as sensor systems (radar, Energy sensors, astrogation, etc), communications (radio, subspace), life support and others that I don't remember off the top of my head.
Ad Astra Per Ardua!
Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site
Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine
Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine

Sergeant's picture
Sergeant
January 31, 2008 - 4:29pm
One of things that always kicked me in the throat was the Advanced Game Damge Modifier for "Disastorous Fire". I got the whole DCR damage with losing enignes, and negatives to attack roles...but roling for extra damage each turn with a +20% modifier. A +20% modifier gives almost no chance for the fire to damage the Hull. 
"Electrical Fire" yes, +20% each turn. I take this as the fire has not spread. I am sure that a "Disastorous Fire" has spread and should not have any damage role modifier for each following turn.
Sergeant

Sergeant's picture
Sergeant
January 31, 2008 - 5:05pm

I also think the range diffusion for LC and LB is off the mark. I think that light does not diffuse in space. And if it did the damage at that greater range would decrease along with the probability To Hit.
I have played the SSW back in 85 and after the first major fleet battle we went with range diffusion on these weapons and had alot more with the combat. Not just because we did not want to do the math. 

Sergeant

Sergeant's picture
Sergeant
January 31, 2008 - 5:09pm
Like I have said--I can not type... ... ... That is the SSW in 85 without range diffusion and had more fun with the combat.
Sergeant

Sergeant's picture
Sergeant
January 31, 2008 - 5:12pm
Yes w00t-- I your idea. The chance of hitting external shuttles and stuff in combat is high if the hit vessel is carring them.
Sergeant

Gilbert's picture
Gilbert
January 31, 2008 - 5:32pm
  This reflects the continuing damage to the electrical systems. Remember there is no air in space so it is hard for the hull to burn, But , the electrical systems are burning and shorting as it goes along the electrical path causing more shorts thus the reason for the +20 to the damage modifier.

Gilbert's picture
Gilbert
January 31, 2008 - 5:34pm
Sergeant wrote:

I also think the range diffusion for LC and LB is off the mark. I think that light does not diffuse in space. And if it did the damage at that greater range would decrease along with the probability To Hit.
I have played the SSW back in 85 and after the first major fleet battle we went with range diffusion on these weapons and had alot more with the combat. Not just because we did not want to do the math. 



  The diffusion does take place the beam will widen therefore the damage would be less at a long range. Not the to hit but it is affected by the size of the target.

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
February 4, 2008 - 11:31pm
I have not given up on this. :-D

...just digesting the ideas presented.

I'm thinking of adding "crew" to each ship in the advanced game. The revised damage table could include crew hits which effect systems. ya...ya... the DTM says you hit the PB, but what if you hit the PB Gunner crew? Smile
same diff?
well, ok. But what if you hit the showers? huh?
no showers.
crew dies of BO !

ok, silly.

I'm just having fun. Smile

In other news I'm working on a Robot Malfunction Table.
Here is a sample: (90-99 is my favorite)
ROBOT MALFUNCTION TABLE
1Drop his weapon. 1 Turn to recover. If mounted weapon, weapon is damaged for 1 turn and can not fire.
2
All shots from the bot go wide to the right or left. There is a chance the attack will hit something else in an adjacent hex.
3
Normal STA Damage
4
Knee, Track hit on one side. Can only move in wide circles.
5
Does nothing but sing the White Light National anthem for 2 turns.
6
Sensor hit, Eyes, Night Vision, Motion..etc
7
External hit to any one weapon (or weapon system)
8
Logic circuit hit. Bot cowers in fear
90-99
Lubranct leak, equivalent to "Pee his pants". In 2d10 turns the bot will not beable to move tracks, legs. In 4d10 turns bot will not be able to move at all.
00
Head, receptors, sensor hit. Pretty much a useless tin can although bot will attempt melee by swinging arms wildely.
War, combat, sentry, assasian bots have a -30 modifier on this table. Cleaning bots, servant bots have a +30 modifier.


Suggestions are welcome! (Sorry Shadow Shack, I lost the notes in chat. Cry Stupid chat client can't copy and paste)

(if you are reading this you have been woot'en IZED)

Zeram's picture
Zeram
February 8, 2008 - 8:42am
There was an article from the Aug 1988 issue of Dragon Magazine called "Damage control - report!" that did a revision of the damage control table with the majority of what you are looking at adding.  I'm not saying it's perfect by any means but it could be a helpful reference.

Anonymous's picture
w00t (not verified)
February 8, 2008 - 11:55am
Zeram wrote:
There was an article from the Aug 1988 issue of Dragon Magazine called "Damage control - report!" that did a revision of the damage control table with the majority of what you are looking at adding. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means but it could be a helpful reference.


TY. I just went to sf.com/rules and read it.
Neato!

We might consider incorporating Damage to ramming as well since in another thread we were talking about breaching pods and such.