• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

AHL combat system for CT

D

Doctor Rob

SOC-6
I'm currently thinking of using the Azhanti High Lightning (AHL) combat system for a forthcoming CT campaign. I'd appreciate some advice on three issues:

First: Is the AHL combat system appropriate for CT roleplaying sessions (i.e. is it a bit too simplistic or deadly)?

Second: Has anyone modified the Striker melee and heavy weapons tables to be more compatible with AHL?

Third: If anyone uses the AHL approach, how do you accommodate animal encounters?

Any help most appreciated.
Cheers,
Rob
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor Rob:
I'm currently thinking of using the Azhanti High Lightning (AHL) combat system for a forthcoming CT campaign. I'd appreciate some advice on three issues:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm currently working on my adaptation of Striker to the role playing environment so I'll try to help. One question though have you seen MegaTraveller? The MT combat system is mostly Striker/AHL so it might be what your looking for. (Alas it does damage in almost exactly the wrong way for me so I'm forced to kludge.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First: Is the AHL combat system appropriate for CT roleplaying sessions (i.e. is it a bit too simplistic or deadly)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both of those are features rather than bugs.

Combat in the far future should be deadly. And after a few fire fights using Striker/AHL players will learn to wear lots of armor and/or to avoid combat as much as possible. The only problem I have is that it doesn't involve the statistics of the charecter as writen. A definite minus in my book (those Strength and Endurance numbers should mean something.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second: Has anyone modified the Striker melee and heavy weapons tables to be more compatible with AHL?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the heavy weapons probably the easiest aproach is to examine the higest end weapons from AHL with their Striker counterparts to determine a factor to divide the Striker weapons PV by. As for melee I am stongly leaning toward a book 1 with modifications system of resolution. If you wish to use the chart from AHL though I think you could just substitute the appropriate weapon skill for brawling in the melee stat and perhaps give a +1 or +2 to the character with the longer weapon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Third: If anyone uses the AHL approach, how do you accommodate animal encounters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't gotten this far in my own scheme yet but I don't really think they should be too hard to integrate. Perhaps a +1 armor value for each doubling of mass from 100kg (with of course -1 to armor for each halving of mass) And of course size to hit modifiers will need to be worked out.

------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.

David Shayne

[This message has been edited by DaveShayne (edited 03 March 2002).]
 
AHL is IMHO a nice adaptation of the CT system for larger-scale combat. It flows faster than Snapshot, but reduces detail for damage and other aspects. So, I personally find AHL a little too abstract compared to Snapshot (though better as a stand-alone wargame for large battles for those very abstractions) and favor Snapshot with AHL rules adapted for it as a combat system (2 AHL AP's = 1 SS AP).

You have a good point about animal encounters presenting problems in AHL, at least when it comes to damage. AHL's Traveller damage conversion is designed for human-sized beings. It might be best to keep Book 1/Snapshot damage rules when it comes to animals. Resolving their attacks is more tricky, since they don't have penetration values assigned in AHL. Perhaps evaluate the B1/SS animal "weapons" and just use the nearest weapon equivalents in AHL?

For me, AHL has several nifty additions to SS (1.5 AP's for diagonal movement just to name one), but I'm not really fond of its damage system. That's why I tend to adapt its rules into Snapshot instead (except for penetration - haven't yet figured a good way to adapt that, but I like it).
 
When Murph and I were playing CT (back around 1980) we used AHL/Striker rules, which used nearly identicle tables. I still say these (except the original Twilight 2000 rules) are the only firearms combat rules ever written that "feel" like combat. (I have had this confirmed by veterans) Contrawise, I thought the original CT damage rules were badly broken, and only good compared to AD&D
In melee combat you used the appropriate melee skill, longer weapon got +1. Frankly, after studying fencing, western swordsmanship, and a couple of martial arts I have given up on a more detailed melee system.

We did make a couple of changes:
1) After you subtracted armor, and were rolling for wound, the + from penetration couldn't be more then the number of CT damage dice.
2) Likewise, for animals, the damage target numbers go up by 1 for 8-9 die critters, by 2 for 10-11, etc.
3) When firing at 1/10 short range, roll 6+. I don't like this one anymore.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 04 March 2002).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doctor Rob:
I'm currently thinking of using the Azhanti High Lightning (AHL) combat system for a forthcoming CT campaign. I'd appreciate some advice on three issues:

First: Is the AHL combat system appropriate for CT roleplaying sessions (i.e. is it a bit too simplistic or deadly)?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
appropriate? kind of. I used each 2 points of excess pen = 1d damage (CT scale), and that worked OK, especially if the damage modifier adjusts dice per two points (a -1 weapon does 1d per 3 points; a +1 weapon does 2d per 3 points, and so on).

MT's penetrations are the same in almost all cases as striker/ahl pen's; MT was DGP's house blend of Striker/AHL, HG, and CT...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Second: Has anyone modified the Striker melee and heavy weapons tables to be more compatible with AHL?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
DGP, for MT.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Third: If anyone uses the AHL approach, how do you accommodate animal encounters?

Any help most appreciated.
Cheers,
Rob<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, best bet is converting to dice of damage.

here is a sample table set
2d+pen - armor
<=4: 0d
5-6: 1d
7-8: 2d
9-10:3d
11-12: 4d
13-14: 5d
15-16: 6d
17-18: 7d
etc...


[This message has been edited by aramis (edited 04 March 2002).]
 
Dude....did it all up already for my game. Have a ZIP file if you want it. Need you to send me an E-mail...

Gats'
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gatsby:
Dude....did it all up already for my game. Have a ZIP file if you want it. Need you to send me an E-mail...
Gats'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Gatsby,
That would be really helpful - thanks. My email is...

R.P.Lowe@swansea.ac.uk

Cheers,
Rob
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gatsby:
Dude....did it all up already for my game. Have a ZIP file if you want it. Need you to send me an E-mail...

Gats'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Gats,

Another "me too please" to
paul dt bendall at saab dott com

------------------
Paul
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gatsby:
Dude....did it all up already for my game. Have a ZIP file if you want it. Need you to send me an E-mail...

Gats'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would greatly appreciate a copy sent to ronaldo@ronaldo.com
thanks
 
As a Legions of Steel fanatic, it was the discovery snapshot and AHL in the "classic games" reprint that got me re-interested in classic traveller.

There are two main problems I have with AHL in comparison to Snapshot. The first is the oft-mentioned characteristic problem. I don't mind wounding being uninfluenced, but I really like the snapshot dex + end = action points. So my solution is simply to multiply snapshot action points by two and divide by five and round up. This is the number of action points *characters* have per AHL turn. In big battles npc's should stick to 6.

The other problem is point-blank range. If you look at the snapshot (and classic traveller) weapons tables, firearms specifically designed for close-quarters combat are given their due. Submachineguns and even handguns still have a chance versus battle dress at "short" range, a better chance than auto-rifles at those same ranges. If you're hiding behind a corner with a snub pistol and someone walks by with a PGMP, you actually have an advantage if you jump out within three meters. This is part of what makes operations in built-up areas so scary for high-tech, high-firepower armies. It's part of what nailed the Germans in Stalingrad. This "short" range is completely eliminated in AHL, despite the fact that point-blank ambushes *definitely* occur in that game system. For Striker it makes sense getting rid of that, but for boarding actions? I don't think so.

As for snapshot vs. AZL damage, isn't everyone pretty much knocked unconscious on the first damage roll of snapshot, anyway? Maybe I'm reading the damage rules wrong...but that's been my usual experience (considering most weapons do 3D damage and you only roll 2D for characteristics). I agree the penetration vs. armor makes a lot more sense, though.

The lack of melee weapons rules in AZL is a major bummer, especially considering this would otherwise be the *perfect* system to use for Aliens movie battles, or for conversions of Kryomek.

Lastly, this leads me to a comment about starship combat. I've read a few complaints about Mayday and High Guard damage tables. I actually like those tables more than the book 2 tables because they avoid that whole decompression thing. Since my games are mostly an excuse to get into a snapshot/ahl battle I want to keep the crews alive and force boarding actions!
 
I forgot to mention the other thing that re-attracted me to classic traveller:

Book 1 -> Snapshot -> Book 4 -> AHL -> Striker = a perfect game system for integrating role-playing with a miniatures campaign game. Something FASA tried to do with Battletech and failed miserably.

Book 2 -> Mayday -> Book 5 -> 5th Frontier War does basically the same thing for starship combat.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SgtHulka:
I really like the snapshot dex + end = action points. So my solution is simply to multiply snapshot action points by two and divide by five and round up. This is the number of action points *characters* have per AHL turn. In big battles npc's should stick to 6.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I cobbled together my AHL-esque combat rules I considered doing something like this, but if you follow the AP costs in AHL characters with less than 6 AP are royally screwed, so I compromised by keeping 6 as the baseline but allowing +1 AP for Dex 10+ and +2 AP for Dex 15 (in line with the MT task system).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The other problem is point-blank range. <snip><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suppose this is a problem (which I'd never noticed before). Care to offer up a (preferably simple) solution?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The lack of melee weapons rules in AZL is a major bummer, especially considering this would otherwise be the *perfect* system to use for Aliens movie battles, or for conversions of Kryomek.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I use the melee rules from Striker which are fully compatible and seem to work pretty well. Do you not like those?
 
D'oh! I didn't even remember that melee weapons were part of Striker! And I've had that one for twenty years! I'll look those up promptly. Yep! And they've even got animal weapon statistics -- problem solved, thanks. Heh heh...colonial marines meet aliens...

I kind of like some characters being stuck with fewer than 6 action points. They can't conduct aimed fire, which is great for guys who aren't really combat-trained. And I really like the fact that endurance is as important as dex for action points -- you get tired fast when you're stressed, and nothing's more stressful than a firefight.

As for the "close" range problem, I think the solution is to simply allow some weapons an increased penetration at "point blank" range, point blank being defined as a range of two squares (the same as "close" in snapshot IIRC).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SgtHulka:
As for the "close" range problem, I think the solution is to simply allow some weapons an increased penetration at "point blank" range, point blank being defined as a range of two squares (the same as "close" in snapshot IIRC). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that penetration is the main problem here. The problem is that close quarters fighting is about bringing weapons to bear on a target.
I've not got AZH or Striker in front of me, but how about defining one square as being Melee Range. Shorts (pistols and SMGs) are unaffected. Longs (rifles and the like) are at -2 (or even -4?)to hit.

------------------
Paul
 
I don't have my books in front of me at the moment either, but how about combining the two approaches...

1--Most weapons enjoy increased penetration at "point-blank" range.

AND

2--The more unwieldy weapons suffer a penalty to hit at this range.
 
Takei, you're right, but there's a penetration issue as well. Take a shotgun, for example. You load a 12-gauge with slugs instead of buckshot, and that's got tremendous penetration at point blank range. But the un-aerodynamic shape of the bullet causes its velocity and therefore penetration to drop precipitiously very quickly.

But, more importantly, different weapons with different ideal ranges simply make the game more interesting. During boarding actions most combat is going to be between 5 and 10 squares. In those ranges only snub pistols really change range (with an effective range out to 6). As a result there's no real incentive to close range. When you have someone armed with a weapon most effective at larger ranges, and someone armed with a weapon more effective at short ranges, you have a much more fluid, mobile and interesting tactical situation. Othwerwise, you end up with people just sniping at each other.

That being said, it seems as if Miller and Chadwick intentionally tried to dissuade close combat with AHL. You can't even get into melee combat without becoming the recipient of free snapfire attacks.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takei:
I don't think that penetration is the main problem here. The problem is that close quarters fighting is about bringing weapons to bear on a target.
I've not got AZH or Striker in front of me, but how about defining one square as being Melee Range. Shorts (pistols and SMGs) are unaffected. Longs (rifles and the like) are at -2 (or even -4?)to hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ISTR a rule in AHL (or possibly Striker) that pistols (and SMGs?) are the only firearms that can be used against an opponent in the same 1.5 m square -- only problem is getting into the square in one piece ('cause your opponent gets a free snapshot as you enter).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SgtHulka:
I kind of like some characters being stuck with fewer than 6 action points. They can't conduct aimed fire, which is great for guys who aren't really combat-trained. And I really like the fact that endurance is as important as dex for action points -- you get tired fast when you're stressed, and nothing's more stressful than a firefight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're using AHL primarily as a boardgame that's fine, but I can already hear the bitching when some player finds out that his character cannot -- and never will be able to -- conduct aimed fire (or throw a grenade, or fire a high-recoil weapon). Remember, in Traveller character stats can and do go down, but except in very rare instances once char-gen is over they almost never go up.

I've toyed around with (but never implemented) adding an 'Initiative' characteristic that would determine how many Action Phases a character can operate before needing to spend an inactive Action Phase resting/mentally regrouping (someone suggested something similar not long ago on the TML, but alas I didn't save the message and don't remember who it was). This value would also be used for a Task whenever the character tries to deliberately expose himself to enemy fire. I'm thinking perhaps (End + Int + [terms of military service])/2, but that's just a WAG -- anyone have any statistical or anecdotal RL data for how such a number should be determined, or if its realistic/desirable to include such a value at all?

Anyway, my point was that I like Dex alone determining how fast/efficiently a person acts (# of AP), with End affecting how long they can keep that pace up.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by me:
[Initiative] would also be used for a Task whenever the character tries to deliberately expose himself to enemy fire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just came up with this sample task. Any thoughts? Is it realistic? Too harsh or lenient? My RL experience with this kind of activity is essentially nil.

To deliberately expose oneself to enemy fire:
Routine, Initiative, Tactics.
Referee: If any friendly units within visual range have been wounded/killed, increase difficulty one level. If 2 or more friendly units within visual range have succeeded at this task and not been wounded/killed, decrease difficulty one level. If a recognized authority figure within visual range ordered the action, decrease difficulty one level.

Thus, experienced (high initiative, tactically-minded) units will generally be unconcerned unless their side is taking heavy casualties, but green units will tend to stay put under cover unless specifically ordered to move out (note that the task is NOT Unskilled OK, and will default to Difficult for characters with no Tactics skill). Accordingly, I'd also tend to grant automatic Tactics-0 to any character who has served at least year in a combat-ready unit (including in-game activity).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SgtHulka:
Takei, you're right, but there's a penetration issue as well. Take a shotgun, for example. You load a 12-gauge with slugs instead of buckshot, and that's got tremendous penetration at point blank range. But the un-aerodynamic shape of the bullet causes its velocity and therefore penetration to drop precipitiously very quickly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that the drop in penetration was already factored into the range/pen table? If we're talking about really close quarters fighting (no more than 1.5m?) then I'm sure that penetration wouldn't change notably.

I've not read AHL in ages and had forgotten about the free snapshot attack.

------------------
Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
BeastMaker and Personal Combat - some analysis
Replies
0
Views
1K
OjnoTheRed
O
C
CT House Rules for Skills and Combat
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
creativehum
C
G
Which CT Combat System to Use?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
8K
spinwardpirate
spinwardpirate
Olschoolgamer
Classic Traveller combat
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Pickles
P
T
House Rules for Combat
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Rover
R
Back
Top