Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > Traveller Wargames

Traveller Wargames Discussion of the various Traveller wargames and miniatures systems.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 9th, 2005, 08:43 AM
The Oz's Avatar
The Oz The Oz is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,310
Gallery : 0
The Oz Citizen
Post

Henry is right that in straight HG combat smaller ships (as long as they are big enough to carry an effective meson gun) are at an advantage vs. larger ships, since any decent meson gun hit will kill any ship, no matter the size of the victim, and smaller ships are harder to hit.

However, if Henry is referring to the FFW/HG conversion system that Sigg and I worked out, the reason that smaller ships have smaller Defense values is that the Defense value is used for more than just space-to-space combat between meson-gun-armed ships.

In FFW, the Defense value is also used for combat between SDBs and regular fleet units which is =not= combat using meson guns, and in such combat smaller ships are at a distinct disadvantage despite the "to-hit" bonus for shooting at larger ships.

Since FFW has SDB-to-ship combat as common as ship-to-ship combat, I set up the conversion system to balance those two different types of combat.

A final consideration was wanting a system that produced values that looked similar to the existing counter mix in FFW.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old April 9th, 2005, 01:48 PM
hcobb hcobb is offline
Citizen: SOC-11
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North American Combine, Solomani Sphere
Posts: 99
Gallery : 0
hcobb Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by The Oz:
In FFW, the Defense value is also used for combat between SDBs and regular fleet units which is =not= combat using meson guns, and in such combat smaller ships are at a distinct disadvantage despite the "to-hit" bonus for shooting at larger ships.
What sort of weapons are SDBs using that don't use the "to-hit" bonus?

Below TL15 the "to-hit" roll is the most important part of missile combat.

TL14, 19 kdton battlerider vs missile boats:
To hit: 41.7%
Sand: 83.3%
Damp: 58.3%

Doubling the size of the target doubles the number of missiles that will be sent against it and the "to-hit" bonus means that it will be struck by 2.8 times as many missiles while having only twice as many batteries to soak up the hits so it lasts only 71% of the time on the line.

BTW: Why aren't some of the SDB the same design as the meson battleriders? (With a mix of jumpless missile boats with extreme armor levels.)

-HJC
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old April 9th, 2005, 02:40 PM
PBI PBI is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 273
Gallery : 0
PBI Citizen
Post

I've now had time to fully digest the draft comments on the website, and my initial impression is that, taken as a whole, this thing will be unplayable. The proposed ship damage system, while faithful to Traveller, is simply unworkable due to scale. Otherwise, it's rather nice. Consider trying to go through a combat round with 30-40 squadrons per side and the thing breaks down, just like trying to do the same thing using HG rules would; a friend and I have been attemtping to make something like that work and we realized that it would take days to fight even a small fleet action.

Having the game be broken down into a series of modules is very attractive. I do have one question, though, just for clarity. As I read the comments, each module could stand alone or they all could be integrated into one big game, yes? If so, then my comments about unplayable combat resolution (as an example) would come into play, I think, but when broken down into the more managable chunks the modules provide, the detailed combat then should work. I think what needs to happen is for combat and production at the strategic level has to be different from the more tactical versions. This would, of course, require damage conversion rules, which can be as simple or as complex as desired.
__________________
If you can survive death, you can probably survive almost anything.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old April 9th, 2005, 04:36 PM
ChaserCaffey ChaserCaffey is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 124
Gallery : 0
ChaserCaffey Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by PBI:
I've now had time to fully digest the draft comments on the website, and my initial impression is that, taken as a whole, this thing will be unplayable. The proposed ship damage system, while faithful to Traveller, is simply unworkable due to scale. Otherwise, it's rather nice. Consider trying to go through a combat round with 30-40 squadrons per side and the thing breaks down, just like trying to do the same thing using HG rules would; a friend and I have been attemtping to make something like that work and we realized that it would take days to fight even a small fleet action.
Scaling between the different modules is definately a problem, and I have to say that I think any rules to translate between them might turn out to be unworkable. Having said that:

1) I would be very, very, very happy if I were to be proven wrong, because a finished Counterstrike game would be amazing.

2) The Tradewar stuff looks like it would be a really fun game on its own, even if some other objectives don't end up being workable. Really, it looks a lot like Brilliant Lances to me, in that it would be both a good tool to learn how starship freight works, and an entertaining game in its own right. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, or I'd be chipping in, but please continue to post on this.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old April 9th, 2005, 05:31 PM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,711
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Henry J Cobb:
What sort of weapons are SDBs using that don't use the "to-hit" bonus?
You mean this to hit bonus?
Quote:
Originally posted by The Oz:
smaller ships are at a distinct disadvantage despite the "to-hit" bonus for shooting at larger ships
Quote:
BTW: Why aren't some of the SDB the same design as the meson battleriders? (With a mix of jumpless missile boats with extreme armor levels.)

-HJC
A question I have often asked myself. The only answers I can think of are:
the GDW designers never thought it through that far;
or,
the Imperium doesn't build them.

I reckon the first is correct [img]graemlins/file_23.gif[/img]

At TL15 you can build a maximum armour meson armed buffered planetoid monitor that takes no damage at all even from spinal PAWs.

These sort of things aren't represented by the SDB factors of the worlds in FFW though IMHO.

YMMV
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old April 9th, 2005, 05:55 PM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,711
Gallery : 0
mike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizenmike wightman Respected Citizen
Post

Squadron vs squadron using FFW like counters should be resolved using the FFW/IE combat charts.

I don't think there is need to multiply the numbers by eight for squadron vs squadron combat.

At that level I would have the squadron counters moving around a tactical system map, like in the Mayfair games Company War game.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old April 9th, 2005, 11:04 PM
The Oz's Avatar
The Oz The Oz is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,310
Gallery : 0
The Oz Citizen
Post

Sigg is right: the system he and I worked out is intended to be used with the FFW/IE space combat system.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old April 10th, 2005, 12:14 AM
PBI PBI is offline
Citizen: SOC-12
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 273
Gallery : 0
PBI Citizen
Post

One thing to consider about SDB designs is the restrictions imposed by local resources. Some worlds simply may not have the capacity to build battle rider-class monitors and it might be more cost effective to leave systems to their own devices.
__________________
If you can survive death, you can probably survive almost anything.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old April 10th, 2005, 05:40 PM
robject's Avatar
robject robject is offline
Marquis
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 13,933
Gallery : 9
Visit robject's Blog
robject has disabled reputation
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by PBI:
I've now had time to fully digest the draft comments on the website, and my initial impression is that, taken as a whole, this thing will be unplayable. The proposed ship damage system, while faithful to Traveller, is simply unworkable due to scale. Otherwise, it's rather nice. Consider trying to go through a combat round with 30-40 squadrons per side and the thing breaks down, just like trying to do the same thing using HG rules would; a friend and I have been attemtping to make something like that work and we realized that it would take days to fight even a small fleet action.
So then, it sounds like you may have an improvement to suggest? Such as, Fleet level conglomeration rules. Fleet counters (which would have an ID number but probably no ratings, unless they were historical) would be interesting; I could simulate the Black War over Zarushagar easily.

Quote:

Having the game be broken down into a series of modules is very attractive. I do have one question, though, just for clarity. As I read the comments, each module could stand alone or they all could be integrated into one big game, yes? If so, then my comments about unplayable combat resolution (as an example) would come into play, I think, but when broken down into the more managable chunks the modules provide, the detailed combat then should work. I think what needs to happen is for combat and production at the strategic level has to be different from the more tactical versions. This would, of course, require damage conversion rules, which can be as simple or as complex as desired.
Those are good points, and I'd be very interested in hearing brainstorms concerning elegant solutions to them.
__________________
Imperiallines magazine
My Helpful Stuff for Traveller5
IMTU tc+ t5++ 3i(+) au ls+ / OTU 44% an+ dt+ ge- j- jf+ n- pi+ pp+ tr+ tv- uwp+ xb+
Tools Link
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old April 10th, 2005, 06:16 PM
hcobb hcobb is offline
Citizen: SOC-11
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North American Combine, Solomani Sphere
Posts: 99
Gallery : 0
hcobb Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by just robject:
Those are good points, and I'd be very interested in hearing brainstorms concerning elegant solutions to them.
It looks to me like you've settled on the answer, and in this case it isn't 42, without a good grasp on the question.

So let me start with a question. "What will the final result of the project be?"

And my answer to that is that it will be a game framework system rather than a game. Nobody will be expected to use all of the modules in any one game, but the system will allow them to design a game played out over all of charted space or a different game that covers just a small ground combat.

So you turn the crank and get something on the scale of Mayday and if you adjust the knobs another way you get FFW.

Does that sound about right?

-HJC
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.