Originally you were talking about having a set number of crew boxes based on hull size (Hull/2?)

You can mix some ideas.

Have crew-targeting weapons roll on the target's damage track, but anything other than a hull hit is ignored.

The fact that you only have half as many crew boxes as hull bits, though, means that when the shells do penetrate the hull, they hit twice as hard.

This way, VS ships would die after taking 1 to 2 crew hits (we'd be talking 1 hull/2 rounded up all the way to 3 hull/2 rounded up).  But achieving those hits would be a little harder than the way it is now. 

A small ship like the Tycho could take 3 such hits (5 Hull/2). 

The Gauntlet could take 10 crew casualties (19/2).

This way, VS ships are still killed by at most 2 crew hits, but by getting rid of the "automatic" damage previously seen in poison gas, you make it less likely to happen.  On the other end, heavier ships will have to view poison gas and other crew-targeting weapons as more of a threat.

Matt has said no because of the following reasons (all based off playing TMW's "Things to Come"):

Against Large ships -- like the Orpington or a Gauntlet class BC, it really doesn't pay to employ this kind of kit (because of the overlap) until the target is on its last legs.  IE -- If I'm targeting a BB with 20+ hull hits, if I start with weapons that inflict crew casualties, but then switch to conventional guns (I don't stick with my original strategy), all that damage I inflicted is pointless, as I have to start over.  Against sizeable vessels, weapons employing poison gas really should be used to apply the coup de grace.

Against smallish-medium ships, I think weapons like poison gas mounts are no better, or worse than conventional pieces because while poison gas has the potential to wipe out the ship very quickly, it can do nothing to eliminate guns or propulsion.  So as long as the target is still alive, it's hitting you just as hard as it was before taking any damage.  Example would be that in the scenario, Vaterland and Freiheit could bloody the Tychos pretty quick, but not quick enough to stop them from finishing their torp runs. 

Against 1 or 2 hull destroyers -- yeah -- crew casualties are a bitch (noted that in the AAR post in forum).  But I don't know how unbalanced that makes the weapon.  Most 1 or 2 hull destroyers can be taken out by a single torpedo, or a (X2) conventional gun.  Hell, FACs eat the little destroyers alive.  And as they're worth all of 7 VPs, usually, that doesn't make me blink. 

So in the one scenario I've played that features poison gas (I've played it twice, some friends of mine, once), it really hasn't felt like it's tipping the game one way or another. 

Maybe I'm wrong

I know Kevin had a few WW2 scenarios drawn up that were primarily gun duels between cruisers and destroyers (Guadalcanal and the like).  They looked awfully fun.

Holy spit, those are sharp.
:shock:

The wife's gonna kill me.

Haven't seen this happen, but looking at the rules I could see where it may pop up.

But then, I don't think it's a drastic problem.

I think it might be worth checking out the ships here before adding on any other rules.  The template can't be centered any further away than the ship's momentum, which is half its speed, right?  So the furthest ANY  capital ship currently listed in the rules as having mines could "fling" these templates is 6".  not exactly artillery

It isn't like these things are being flung across the board.   If you were saying mines were placed based off SPEED, then that would be another matter entirely.  But you're saying momentum, which is something else. 

I've been slapping these things on tables like mad lately.

Then again -- if someone were to build a Thrust 10 ship with a ton of mines, it could be a problem.

Sounds OK.  But I think that should be the last bit before we actually test it, agreed?

I think it's shaping up to be a fairly viable bit of kit.

If you have guesstimates on how that would be costed (however rough), I could introduce a ship packing boarders at the next gaming session.

Boarders, plus the Dantes we talked about before, are the only new things I was hoping to bring to the table with the Eye-talians, anyway.

Matt

Boarding actions are attrition -- pure and simple.

Not a whole lot of room for tactics or finesse  in the cramped companionways of a spacefaring vessel.

Lookit how they're portrayed in BFGs.  Basically, huge scrums with lowbrow ratings wielding axes, pipes, pistols and shotguns.  The side that wins is the side that can throw in the most men.

Step back to Age of Sail and lookit "Master and Commander."  A bunch of Brits and a Bunch of Frogs killing each other at PB range on a narrow wooden deck. 

I think the mechanic is solid for a quick play space game, which is what IS is supposed to be.  Other than Marines offering a level of defense -- which is being included -- what more would we want to cover? 

Anything about targeting specific systems is asking too much for a bunch of clumsy, metal suited guys sent through space to blast their way through an opposing ship's hull.  They're there to kill the other side's crew.

I also like the fact that hull boxes allow for defending rolls, as it makes it impractical to conduct an attack on a ship that still has a ton of integrity left.

I don't equate the game to Age of Sail.  I'm just pointing to an era where deck to deck boarding actions took place and trying to translate it over.  We're not dealing with a wet water  navy.  We're dealing with guys chugging through outer space with reverse engineered Martian Tech 

If it's just going to be a device to finish off already crippled ships (and that's fine), then I don't think it should be a weapon system, period.  Go back to making it a tactic that can be employed by any hull, and assign die types based off size.

Because if boarding only happens when your opponent is 3/4ths dead anyway, it ain't worth the point investment to buy the kit when it's only going to be used once every couple of games.

It's OK  if you don't think boarding crews are a viable addition to the game.  I'll just find something else to set the Italians apart.  It don't sound like yer in love with the idea, anyway  :wink:

But see, looking on it now I think the momentum rules are too restrictive.

I like the difference in Momentum idea.  If you're concerned about approaching ships, angles of approach and all that, then just put in a stipulation that the two vessels have to be within N inches (again, I think 3 is a good number) and on similar course and headings.

IE -- if the targeted ship is pointed NE, then the attacking ship has to swing up alongside it, meaning it's also pointed to the NE and the two vessels are presenting broadsides to each other.  Then the modifier is the difference in momentum.

Think on the pirate flicks you've seen -- the pirates don't swing across to another ship when they've crossed its T.  They've always pulled up alongside.

So how about that, the two ships are on the same heading, the difference in Momentum is the main modifier AND then use the following guidelines:

LGs and MGs able to fire through applicable arc affect roll.

Attempt is made during the End Phase.  Natural "1" is a fumble.

Damage is applied as crew casualties, with the same kind of X1, X2 or X3 multiplier you seen on other weapons.