Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > General Traveller Discussions > In My Traveller Universe

In My Traveller Universe Detail what parts of Traveller you do (or don't) use in your campaign.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 19th, 2005, 10:17 PM
far-trader far-trader is offline
Noble
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Regina Subsector aka SK, Canada ;-)
Posts: 13,724
Gallery : 12
Visit far-trader's Blog
far-trader Citizen
Post

That sounds very good to me. One thing I've been meaning to hunt up in all this is the scale of the ships. Is the general consensus for a small ship universe (max 5Kton hulls), small ship plus universe (max 25Kton hulls iirc, from the expanded book 2 hull rules), or a large ship universe (1Mton hulls and more)?

The page of damage grids could get pretty big if we tried to do a Tigress [img]smile.gif[/img] Or would it work to just use extra hash marks in place of some of the extra tables? A 2/6/6 ship (200tons) would use a 6 x 6 table but require 2 lines per box to fill it in. A 3/6/6 ship (400tons) would use a 6 x 6 table but require 3 lines per box to fill it in. And so on.
__________________
Dan "far-trader" Burns

Original material in this post may be employed for personal non-profit use with the origin noted. Any other use is subject to permission from the author. Contact me through the private message feature of this board.

Fund Rare Bard Rants - Donate your unused rants today!

Musings of an old Trader... (my CotI Travellog) updated - May 3 2012
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old August 19th, 2005, 10:31 PM
flykiller's Avatar
flykiller flykiller is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: desert
Posts: 6,887
Gallery : 114
flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++
Post

Quote:
The page of damage grids could get pretty big if we tried to do a Tigress
the best way to handle the larger ships is to notice that virtually all of them use factor 9 exclusively, thus the absolute damage base unit can be scaled up accordingly. once you get to big spinal mounts the factor 9's become sideshows and the absolute damage base unit goes up greatly again.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old August 20th, 2005, 03:04 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is online now
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,984
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

I like this matrix idea. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Could you link the extra matrix blocks to the number of compartments the ship is constructed with?

As for ship scale, once you get much above 2kt the big boys are throwing bay weapons at each other, so things can rescale for those, and for the spinal mount monsters things can scale up again.
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old August 20th, 2005, 03:07 AM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is online now
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,984
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 flykiller:
using the above also allows a dirt-simple implementation of armor. each square must be hit by a certain number of weapons factors per armor unit before the armor is eventually penetrated and damage accrues. thus, a factor 1 weapon can ping all day long on a large armored ship and might not get anywhere until it hits the same areas twice. meanwhile a factor 9 weapon might hit an armored scout and take off half the bow. which also is the way it should be.
I like this idea too [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old August 20th, 2005, 06:08 AM
Piper Piper is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 729
Gallery : 2
Piper Citizen
Post

Sorry for intruding, but here's a couple of kibbitzes you might chew on:

Have you considered stacking the matrices deeper than 6 rows? That way, instead of the die roll giving you a row number, it gives you a number of rows to count down, bypassing destroyed systems and allowing a gradual deepening of damage to occur.
The effect would be similar to Starfire (actually, I think their "Primary Beam" works that way).

Similarly, if you end up with a hex-based movement system, you might tie the column indexing roll to the ship facing so that fire coming in over the bow hexside is biased towards certain columns of the damage matrix.

Creating the matrix based on volume is good, but you might consider having different systems handle damage differently. For example, if a laser does 3 "tons" of damage to a structure, it might do 10 "tons" of damage to a fuel tank per hit. This would also allow differences between civilian and military ships where mil-spec ships would be tougher, i.e. having more boxes for an equal fuel tankage or for life support.

Tuppence spent. Carry on with the good works, gentlemen.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old August 20th, 2005, 02:35 PM
flykiller's Avatar
flykiller flykiller is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: desert
Posts: 6,887
Gallery : 114
flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++
Post

Quote:
instead of the die roll giving you a row number, it gives you a number of rows to count down, bypassing destroyed systems
sorry, don't quite get this. but anyway, since a random weapon hit may strike a previously engaged area then areas already destroyed shouldn't be bypassed. the matrix system isn't a damage counter, it's a hit locator.
Quote:
might tie the column indexing roll to the ship facing so that fire coming in over the bow hexside is biased towards certain columns of the damage matrix.
(smile) yes, aspects.

one can set up a matrix hit table not only for the ship as a whole, but also one for each of its various aspects. this introduces ship tactics, weapons orientation, and ship layout design, all easily implemented.
Quote:
Creating the matrix based on volume is good, but you might consider having different systems handle damage differently.
the tweaking is limitless. for example, pulse lasers can do three squares of damage. etc.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old August 20th, 2005, 02:49 PM
flykiller's Avatar
flykiller flykiller is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: desert
Posts: 6,887
Gallery : 114
flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++
Post

Quote:
Could you link the extra matrix blocks to the number of compartments the ship is constructed with?
sure. you can specify individual staterooms if you want. "hey, remember all that money you had in your stateoom? it's gone."
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old August 20th, 2005, 03:54 PM
mike wightman's Avatar
mike wightman mike wightman is online now
Noble
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 16,984
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

I was thinking of something that came up on another thread with regards to modelling the greater damage capacity of navy ships due to their armour and compartmentalisation.

This one in fact
__________________
The beauty of CT LBB1-3 is that the ref is free to make such decisions for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old August 20th, 2005, 05:37 PM
Piper Piper is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 729
Gallery : 2
Piper Citizen
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />instead of the die roll giving you a row number, it gives you a number of rows to count down, bypassing destroyed systems
sorry, don't quite get this.</font>[/QUOTE]This link describes the kind of thing I was suggesting. Look about 2/3 of the way down the page under "Damage Allocation".
Combining your hit location chart and ship damage sheet might be a useful simplification.

Edit (clarification): You can avoid the hex paper issue by using columns and rows as described here earlier; just make the number of rows greater.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old August 20th, 2005, 07:20 PM
flykiller's Avatar
flykiller flykiller is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: desert
Posts: 6,887
Gallery : 114
flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++
Post

Quote:
I was thinking of something that came up on another thread with regards to modelling the greater damage capacity of navy ships due to their armour and compartmentalisation.
the system presented here assumes all armor is external. the way I do it is I first determine all the external components. the remainder are internal, not affected by surface fire until the external components above them are destroyed. hadn't thought about internal armor. it can be simulated by assuming a half-value armor factor over internal compoents that must also be penetrated, after the overlaying externals are destroyed, before damage to internals can accrue.

compartmentalization can be simulated by specifying specific areas in any given zone. engineering for example could be divided into (say) jump drive, starboard maneuver drive, port maneuver drive, forward power plant, aft power plant, and fuel purifier. this will have no bearing on external hits but will have an effect on internal explosions and continuing damage such as fire and venting (air or fuel).
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 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.