 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:
|
 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. |
January 31, 2008 - 9:31am | 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. 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 |
 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  . 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! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
 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 |
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. 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 |
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 |
 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. |
January 31, 2008 - 5:34pm | 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. 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. |
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? 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. In other news I'm working on a Robot Malfunction Table. Here is a sample: (90-99 is my favorite)
Suggestions are welcome! (Sorry Shadow Shack, I lost the notes in chat.  Stupid chat client can't copy and paste)(if you are reading this you have been woot'en IZED) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
 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. |
February 8, 2008 - 11:55am | 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. |
