Leviathan advance plotting - Engine hit?

[Lord Cameron]

What is the best way to handle a move if a ship takes an engine hit?

Should a ship offer a conditional plot "If my engine is hit?" when the ship is taking fire in the rear?
Should the move just be cut off?

Or should a turn be:

1.) Plot fire & move
2.) Firing
3.) Ships move
4.) Damage takes effect
5. GM posts firing results & new map

[blackbrunswicker]

Hm. I'm fine either way. It's difficult to say which would be more realistic. I suppose it depends on how long it would take the bridge to react after taking an engine hit, and how far a ship would move along the previous course while the captain decided on a new course of action.

[Worktroll]

GIven this is an adaptation of the basic rules, I'd say you've slightly mis-represented the sequence of events. For PBE games it should really be:

1.) Plot move
2.) Ships move
3.) GM posts new map
3.) Plot fire
4.) Resolve firing; damage takes effect
5.) GM posts firing results

Otherwise you'll hit the problem you're encountering now. Given the game's in progress, and you might not want to change rules in mid-air (as it were), I'd suggest just moving the ship as far along the plotted course as its remaining engines allow.

W.

[Lord Cameron]

Correct, but Tonbo decided last game to combine the two phases to speed the game up, and it was a good idea too.

One might also suppose that a Leviathan moving at full speed would take a minute or two to slow down after the loss of power, perhaps the lower MP  should take effect the turn AFTER.

[pianobar]

I'd suggest just moving the ship as far along the plotted course as its remaining engines allow.

I also like this suggestion. I think this way all players would need to plan their movement "knowing" that they might not be able to make it the whole distance. If re-plotting is allowed based on engine damage, that could give the re-plotted ship an unfair advantage as they might try to alter their original plan based on the firing results, which no other players would be able to do.

[Lord Cameron]

I also like this suggestion. I think this way all players would need to plan their movement "knowing" that they might not be able to make it the whole distance. If re-plotting is allowed based on engine damage, that could give the re-plotted ship an unfair advantage as they might try to alter their original plan based on the firing results, which no other players would be able to do.

Perhaps the ship dropped from 9 MP to 6 MP the player should have the option to specify either the first six or the last six MP represent the ships move?
For example, if a player plotted "Forward 8, Turn Port", the shortened move could be "Forward 5, Turn Port" instead of "Forward six"?

[pianobar]

That would allow for the same movement profile, allowing for either cutting overall distance due to the ship not moving as far as the bridge planned it to or assuming the bridge can notice the damage and cuts turns sooner than originally expected.

[Lord Cameron]

That would allow for the same movement profile, allowing for either cutting overall distance due to the ship not moving as far as the bridge planned it to or assuming the bridge can notice the damage and cuts turns sooner than originally expected.

That's the idea.
Also with engine damage the manoever thrusters wouldn't be damaged, so the ship should still complete planned turns, just not move as far

[Worktroll]

I'm going to disagree there on a few counts ...the engines play a large role in turning, much like tank treads. The 'fins' and suchlike on ordinary levs are there more for stability than maneuverability ... the "steering gear" slots (coming soon!) represent expanded fin areas, or additional fins, for that extra maneuverability.  So losing engines does limit turning capacity.

The other reason is that it adds a layer of complexity to what's otherwise a flowing game to have to have that additional step each turn, just in case. The image of the Captain saying "Full steam ahead - take us around'em, Helmsman", then having the mighty throbbing of the engines interrupted by a loud bang and loss of speed (possibly accompanies by steam whooshing out madly) works for me.

Just my 2 cents worth - in this circumstance I'm just a bystander

W.

[pianobar]

The image of the Captain saying "Full steam ahead - take us around'em, Helmsman", then having the mighty throbbing of the engines interrupted by a loud bang and loss of speed (possibly accompanies by steam whooshing out madly) works for me.

That's the same way I envision it...it's a surprise. But as this is already venturing deep into home-rules territory, so I'm up for whatever is the rule of the table.

[Lord Cameron]

I'm going to disagree there on a few counts ...the engines play a large role in turning, much like tank treads. The 'fins' and suchlike on ordinary levs are there more for stability than maneuverability ... the "steering gear" slots (coming soon!) represent expanded fin areas, or additional fins, for that extra maneuverability.  So losing engines does limit turning capacity.

Wouldn't the steering gear have to consist of BOTH fins & side thrusters? (I just read Randall's post about it) Because if a ship with ANY MP can swing arounf in place, it would have to be thrusters, not fins, correct? But fins would be needed to turn a large ship at full speed

The other reason is that it adds a layer of complexity to what's otherwise a flowing game to have to have that additional step each turn, just in case.

Although it really shouldn't add that much complexity would it?
It would ONLY be for a ship taking rear fire (which has happenend twice in 6 turns for 4 ships, and the player would have the option of saying subtract the lost MP from the beginning or end of move, and only if they remember to specify that.

Something to think about anyways.

[Lord Cameron]

That's the same way I envision it...it's a surprise. But as this is already venturing deep into home-rules territory, so I'm up for whatever is the rule of the table.

Indeed, it would be up to the GM to specify the rule for the game.

I could also see the lost MP only occuring for the next turn.
Assuming that the turns are about a minute, an engine hit (blown boiler or steam lines) might result in a gradual loss of steam pressure, over the next 30 - 40 seconds

[Tonbo Karasu]

For the record, this is precisely one of the effects that I had anticipated.

I would have ruled that the vessel tries to carry out the orders as given and then stops when it runs out of MP.

Of course, this not only confuses the captain of the damaged ship, but potentially others as well.
 

[Lord Cameron]

For the record, this is precisely one of the effects that I had anticipated.
I would have ruled that the vessel tries to carry out the orders as given.

Suppose the orders are "travel in a straight line as far as possible before making a left turn" - Would that be legal?

and then stops when it runs out of MP.

But that wouldn't really make sense either would it?
A ship travelling at 60mph (in a two minute turn) that takes an engine hit doesnt drive at 60mph for 80 seconds and then stop dead (leaving the captain surprised), it would travel at 40mph for the full two minutes.
So if the captains intent was to tavel for 1.5 min then turn, the ship should still complete the turn, just travel less in the 1.5 min

[Tonbo Karasu]

Except, in my opinion, captains don't give the order "travel for 2 minutes then turn," they give orders like "turn to port when we reach that headland."

If they don't, in fact, reach the headland as quickly as they expected, they don't suddenly turn ahead of time until they realise that there's a problem.  And the break point for realising that is the turn break.  Then, you have the option of continuing to complete what you failed to, or doing something else.

Of course the other factor is to do with gameplay.  It's much easier for a GM to interpret orders in a strictly regimented way that everyone understands ahead of time than to try to figure out which conditionals to use.  IMHO a good set of rules that isn't FTF could be run automatically, by a mail Daemon perhaps (I remember years ago playing Diplomacy by e-mail where there was no human intervention in running it at all), leaving as little room for interpretation by the GM as possible.