I didn't think so either, but I haven't dug out my rules to check.

More amusingly, the fluff text is *very* silly:

"Like all shard weapons, the shard carbine explodes into metallic fragments on contact."

Now who wants a gun that explodes into metallic shards when you touch it? 

Rich

Interesting AAR, sounds like the Greek Primaries were rolling hot while their Torps were nearly worthless.  Given the damage multipliers involved, I'm not surprised that cost them the game.  Doesn't take very many x5 Torp strikes to ruin your day. 

Sleipnir is Odin's eight-legged horse, given to him as a gift from Loki.  Also (like many critters in Norse myth) an offspring of Loki, who could give Zeus a run for his money in the "Deities That Sleep Around A Lot" category.  Must be something about being able to shapechange that makes you randy.  The eight legs symbolize a variety of things depending on who you listen to, including compass directions and a coffin being carried by four pallbearers.

Interesting ships.  That carrier's dirt cheap for what it brings to the table, although the FACs will add a lot of cost, won't they?

Rich

Oh, I'm sure the Turks would have some reason or another.  Smuggling (what, exactly?) or suspicion of piracy, something like that.  They were always good at finding excuses for being SOBs.

Rich

Fair enough.  Not that cool an idea anyway.

Thought of more, in a related theme:

Built By Low-Bid Contractor - Increases damage chart "spread" of Hull hits by 50%.  Dan only knows what that does to your DR.

Poor Engine Shielding - Increases damage chart "spread" for Engine hits by 50%.  Same comment applies.

and an alternate idea for Vulnerable Gun Mounts that requires less math - Increases damage chart "spread" for Primary Batteries by 50%.  Changes OR, probably?  Probably not appropriate for Secondaries or Light Guns, since it would actually help shield your Hull quite a bit for very little.

Alternately (and more simply) you could just have any damage to a "vulnerable" location double (or triple?), but you'd have to stick in restrictions so that (for ex) one-hull ships can't claim a discount for taking double hull damage.  No cheese need apply.

Say, should we start a new thread for this, and leave the poor Burmese...err, Thais in peace? 

Rich

I'd go with them as "chosen by the designer" rather than as an innate aspect of certain combos of weapons and hull size.  That way you can differentiate between a more advanced power that *can* build (for ex) a heavily-gunned ship that works properly, and a second-rate navy that just slaps on the biggest guns it can get without allowing for the side effects.

The numbers you cited sound good to me, but I'm not a pro game designer so what do I know?    Doesn't sound like any of them should produce huge changes in cost, which is as it should be.

You really think restricting torp launch rate is a non-factor?  Our torpedo boats/destroyers always seem to empty their tubes all at once around here, on the assumption that they won't live long enough to get two chances at a good salvo.  Maybe that's just our play style, though.

Rich

Something like that would make a neat addition to the ship design system.  Allow players to take flawed designs with built-in drawbacks in exchange for a reduction in cost.  I can think of examples, but what the cost (well, rebate) would be I'm not sure:

Overgunned - Every time the ship fires a Keel Bombard or more than 1/2 of its Primaries in one turn, it suffers a x1 damage roll (d20) as it shakes itself to pieces.  Reduce OR contribution of Keel Bombards and Primaries by ?

Clumsy - Ship makes turns as though it were the next size category larger.  Not available for VL hulls.  Reduce DR by ?

Poor Turret Layout - Ship can never fire more than 1/2 of its Primaries at a single target.  Reduce OR contribution of Primaries by ?

Poor Tube Layout - Ship can fire only 1/2 or its Torpedoes in a single turn.  Reduce OR contribution of Torpedoes by ?

Vulnerable Gun Mounts - Some or all of the ship's guns are vulnerable to magazine flashbacks.  Any damage scored against an affected gun wrecks that mount *and* triggers another (d20) damage roll...which can destroy another Vulnerable gun and trigger another damage roll, ad infinitum.  Reduces DR by ?  Or maybe OR contribution of the chosen gun(s)?

Good way to add a little more character, and to reflect the often-shoddy nature of experimental naval architecture.

Rich

You'd hate playing with my guys, then.  We mark momentum with counters on the tabletop, and there are usually rather a lot of minefields on the board by turn two or so.  Admittedly, my nice homemade mine templates aren't "little" chits, but still... 

Rich

Re: the "contact marker versus removed from the board" thing, past experience in other games tells me that anything involving secret/hidden movement is probably a Bad Idea, as it adds a lot of complexity in most cases, especially on a gridless playing field.

OTOH you don't really need to replace the sub mini with a contact marker...just make some "submerged" chits to indicate which subs are under.  Maybe use anonymous contact markers at the start of a scenario, until the sub in question surfaces, which would conceal exactly what you're facing at first.  Or are subs not going to be able to loiter while "submerged" for any extended period of time?

Rich

Thanks for the reminder, I always forget to vote on these things.

You're literally the only game even worth looking at in the minis category this year.  Confrontation?  Bleah...

Mind you, they'll probably still win, but that doesn't mean they don't suck.

Rich

Note that the rough ideas for rules that I posted would work just as well for an inviso-power sub as for a sub-ether diver.  The tech fluff is largely irrelevant to the game mechanics in this case.  A true "stealth" sub (whether disguised as a rock, or just painted fancy) would probably require different rules, though, with more of an emphasis on spotting ranges and the like.

For me, a sub that can't perform the equivalent of "diving" (ie becoming hard to hit without special weapons, and having restricted attack options) or "surfacing" isn't really a sub.  Part of that requirement should include some kind of time limit on how long you can stay under...maybe the inviso-cloak overheats rapidly, or the sub-ether is just plain dangerous to loiter in, or whatever...but you should have to surface or face damage at some point.

Rich