VBAM Games Forums

As currently written, only two breakpoints exist in the CSCR for reducing a unit's combat effectiveness: uncrippled and crippled. Before a ship is crippled, combat factors are at full strength, and once crippled they are halved (round down). Combat factors include AS, AF, BC (Basing Capacity), and all special unit ability functions.

After a post by Sean Martinez on the YahooGroup on the subject, I got to thinking: would there be merit to creating two additional breakpoints to allow for more gradual degradation of abilities?

This entirely experimentational concept is to keep the two existing breakpoints, but add additional breakpoints based on the amount of attrition damage a unit has received.

* If a unit is uncrippled but has accrued attrition damage equal to or greater than half its DV, then the ship takes a damage level and its combat factors are reduced to 75% of normal (round up).

* When crippled the normal effects occur, but round fractional remainders up instead of down.

* If a unit is crippled but has accrued attrition damage equal to or greater than half its DV, then the ship takes a damage level and its combat factors are reduced to 25% of normal (round up).

* When the ship is destroyed, it is removed from play.

Because most ships are either crippled/destroyed in a single turn by damage, this distinction won't matter much; however, in small battles with fewer combatants, it could allow for better parity to be achieved between forces.

For example, take a hypothetical Heavy Cruiser (CA) with DV 7, AS 7, AF 2, BC 2, LR 5, and Shields (3) [Not: This hypothetical cruiser likes warp speed, Mr. Sulu]. At each break point, it would have:

1) (Uncrippled, 4-6 Attrition): AS 6, AF 2, BC 2, LR 4, Shields (3)
2) (Crippled): AS 4, AF 1, BC 1, LR 3, Shields (X)
3) (Crippled, 4-6 Attrition): AS 2, AF 1, BC 1, LR 2, Shields (X)

[Note: Shields no longer function once a unit is crippled; if it had been another ability it would have went 3 => 2 => 1]

This has the effect of making ships slowly but surely lose combat effectiveness, so if you *do* manage to score a decent enough of attrition damage to a target it will actually make a difference.

I haven't had a chance to really playtest this in a "live fire" scenario, but I will probably give it a try before too long to see if the idea is sound or not.

On the surface it creates an additional hassle when playing out a battle, but on the other hand it does provide a benefit to game balance.

Thoughts?

I like it more detail for those that like that (raises hand) and gives larger ships some "staying power" based on their DV (size related) so it looks worth trying out and added as an optional rule at least in the 2.0 rules.

I like the idea, but like you say, some playtesting might be needed to see if it is worth it. Some great ideas are just a hassle in practice (like my maintenance mods, which I like the flavor of but add little to the net game experience in practice).

Yeah, I can see some problems with the above system, but it will be interesting to see if it works out like I think it should.

One major change will be that AS/AF 1 ships will never have a reduction in abilities as a result... but then, those barely armed freighters never have a chance in hell of doing much, anyway, so allowing them to have a outside chance of plinking the enemy even when nearly dead isn't too far afield. It also makes DV 1, AS 1, AF 1 super-small frigates/gunboats a possibility, even if they will die extremely quickly when confronted with any real kind of resistance.

One othe reason for pursuing this line of thought is that the Gunship trait could then be used to allow a ship to ignore the extra breakpoints thanks to their high concentration of weaponry. Alternatively, Gunship could instead be made into a rated trait that just give a fixed bonus to AS and BP (Bombardment Points), with degradation occuring as with other combat factors.

Tyrel Lohr wrote:One othe reason for pursuing this line of thought is that the Gunship trait could then be used to allow a ship to ignore the extra breakpoints thanks to their high concentration of weaponry. Alternatively, Gunship could instead be made into a rated trait that just give a fixed bonus to AS and BP (Bombardment Points), with degradation occuring as with other combat factors.

That's a powerful feature, ignoring breakpoints. But maybe not as powerful as I am imagining. I do like bonus AS/BP though, whether as a multiplier or a fixed amount.

-Emiricol

Tyrel Lohr wrote:Yeah, I can see some problems with the above system, but it will be interesting to see if it works out like I think it should.

One major change will be that AS/AF 1 ships will never have a reduction in abilities as a result... but then, those barely armed freighters never have a chance in hell of doing much, anyway, so allowing them to have a outside chance of plinking the enemy even when nearly dead isn't too far afield. It also makes DV 1, AS 1, AF 1 super-small frigates/gunboats a possibility, even if they will die extremely quickly when confronted with any real kind of resistance.

One othe reason for pursuing this line of thought is that the Gunship trait could then be used to allow a ship to ignore the extra breakpoints thanks to their high concentration of weaponry. Alternatively, Gunship could instead be made into a rated trait that just give a fixed bonus to AS and BP (Bombardment Points), with degradation occuring as with other combat factors.

Just think WWII era PT boats: four BIG torpedoes, but anything else afloat (or in the air) could sink them handily so the DV 1, AS 1, AF 1 guys shoot and go "poof" like their historic ancestral equivalents did.

I do not like the effect that basing capacity of true carriers will be reduced after receiving even minor damage (or that it is reduced at all). If you want to go down that route, I'd rather suggest that only some of their fighters can be present in any scenario instead of destroying these flights outright (which essentially the reduction in BC does). They are still dead if their carrier is killed but usually the bottleneck with carrier operations is launch/recovery rate and not hangar space.

My first impression is that this is one those ideas that is really cool, but really only practical in a setting where there are few ships.

Where it could be most useful is in games where you are linking in with a tactical system to resolve some of the battles. The increased granularity would make it easier to translate tabletop damage back to the strategic level stats.

Rainer wrote:I do not like the effect that basing capacity of true carriers will be reduced after receiving even minor damage (or that it is reduced at all). If you want to go down that route, I'd rather suggest that only some of their fighters can be present in any scenario instead of destroying these flights outright (which essentially the reduction in BC does). They are still dead if their carrier is killed but usually the bottleneck with carrier operations is launch/recovery rate and not hangar space.

The fighters wouldn't necessarily be destroyed; as long as available Command Rating is available, their home squadron could host them at a rate of 1 CC per 4 flights. In most situation, I think that a fleet with damaged carriers would probably have the available CR to take command of the orphaned fighters.

Also, under the current rules, BC still halves (round down) when a ship is crippled, so all this adds is another opportunity for carriers to get damaged. Your point is well taken, however, and it might be better to limit the lesser breakpoints' effects to AS/AF only.

Charles Lewis wrote:My first impression is that this is one those ideas that is really cool, but really only practical in a setting where there are few ships.

It probably is only really appropriate in settings where two-squadron task forces are the norm (which tends to be most of my campaigns). If a campaign environment has players commonly fielding maxxed out task forces, then tracking this extra information would probably not be worth it.

Tyrel Lohr wrote:After a post by Sean Martinez on the YahooGroup on the subject, I got to thinking: would there be merit to creating two additional breakpoints to allow for more gradual degradation of abilities?

Glad I could be of inspiation

I will give this some thoughts and post once I finish going through the forums. So much to look at.

-Sean Martinez