BCS Assumptions

[robject]

Here are some basic assumptions about warships. Vote 'em up where you agree. I'll add more if you suggest 'em.

 

[aramis]

I'd hate to see battleships handled by the Battlestations rules...
Even BL was too much detail for serious big ship universe ships.
I think t20 got it right...

 

[flykiller]

that fighter swarms are direct threats to battleships, period!

et al

when you start with where you want to go, and try to write rules to get there, the difficulties and roadblocks are endless. it's much easier just to say, "this is movement, these are weapons, they work in thus and such a manner. now. what have we created?"

 

[mike wightman]

T20 got it right?
A meson bay could kill anything. :devil:
The use of 3E crit rules seriously unbalanced the effect of meson weapons - so no, T20 did not get it right, it got it almost right
There were quite a few threads about this back in the day.

If you mean the interpretation of thee USP, then yes, it was a useful level of detail.

 

[mike wightman]

et al

when you start with where you want to go, and try to write rules to get there, the difficulties and roadblocks are endless. it's much easier just to say, "this is movement, these are weapons, they work in thus and such a manner. now. what have we created?"

I completely agree.
And as I keep stating - I have yet to see a better set of rules than HG2 for modelling ship combat across the TL7-15 range.
There are flaws that need fixing, but why reinvent he wheel?

People get fixated on TL15, but that is not what HG2 was designed for.

The nature of fleet combat changes as you advance through the TLs:
at a certain TL the missile alpha strike is decisive, at others it is useless
at certain TLs fighters are a threat, at others they are useless
at certain TLs PA spinals are decisive, at others they are countered by armour advances
etc.
You can not have a defined trope that works at every TL and too many of these threads miss this point

the nature of capital ship combat and fleet vs fleet engagements changes as you advance in TLs, so your assumptions are TL dependant.

 

[mike wightman]

I would add that the second major flaw with HG1 (the main one being the weapon factor derivation) was that there is not enough distinction between TLs, HG2 did a much better job with this - although there are oddities that could be solved with expanding the design tables.

 

[Timerover51]

You do not have a "Do Not Worry About Warships" line in the poll. That might be interesting to see how many forum members really worry about warships.

 

[flykiller]

That might be interesting to see how many forum members really worry about warships.

there already was a poll to that effect: how often do you include starship combat in your games? or some such. never, once or twice, sometimes, often, all the time, or some such. mean and mode where heavily into once or twice, a good many said never, one said all the time.

understandable. no player wants to lose a character in such a cataclysmic event as a serious hit on a ship, and no referee wants his adventure plans disrupted by the loss of the players' ship.

 

[aramis]

et al

when you start with where you want to go, and try to write rules to get there, the difficulties and roadblocks are endless. it's much easier just to say, "this is movement, these are weapons, they work in thus and such a manner. now. what have we created?"

Not really any easier... in both cases, iteration is requisite, as is testing (both theoretical and experiential).

By theoretical, that is to say, doing the math. EG: working out whether or not a TL15 maximized fighter is able to hurt a battleship at all.

By practical, it means putting it in front of players and seeing what they do with it, and if they can find loopholes that do absurd things.

Case in point: the spinal rules and the size rules don't seem a bad fit, until a computer optimized them to the Nth degree... and the 19999Td spinal destroyer became the winning thing. The human experiential lead a few to there, but probably 99% of the player base didn't even think about that optimization, and some of those simply moved it down a notch, to 10 KTd, where you can still get some factor N mesons. (2000Td weapon, 1000 Td PP, 1000 Td for standard fuel load, plus the ship's need for power ...)

_ 10000 hull TL15
___ 200 bridge
__ 2000 Meson N
__ 1612 Battle PP16
__ 1700 M6
___ 312 Cruise PP3
___ 162 Battle fuel 2.8 days
___ 312 Cruise fuel 28 days
__ 3000 Fuel J3
___ 400 JD3
___ 182 Crew Berths (10 SO, 71 DO)
____ 26 Model 9/fib
____ 94 defenses (No Armor, maybe some screens)

Crew
_ 10 command crew
_ 21 gunners
_ 40 engineers
_ 10 service

Note: any defenses need to up the battle PP and its fuel...
It's HG legal, since the combat PP16 isn't used at the same time as the cruise. It's ugly, fragile, but it packs a nifty whollup.

 

[McPerth]

I don't know about T5, except what I've read in this board, but let me dare to make some generic comments about the poll and some of the answers:

That might be interesting to see how many forum members really worry about warships.

there already was a poll to that effect: how often do you include starship combat in your games? or some such. never, once or twice, sometimes, often, all the time, or some such. mean and mode where heavily into once or twice, a good many said never, one said all the time.

understandable. no player wants to lose a character in such a cataclysmic event as a serious hit on a ship, and no referee wants his adventure plans disrupted by the loss of the players' ship.

I think they are not the same question.

One can like ship combat, but not among battleships, but as part of role-playing, where the combat is more likely to be among a few small (adventure class, so to say) ships, while battleship combat is an enterely different thing.

IMHO Timerover question is valid, from this POV...

And this takes us to a major question on the subject:

Are you looking for ship combat rules for a RPG (as in CT:LBB2), where a few small ships are likely to be involved, and character action/skill and detail are important; or for Space Wargame rules, where full fleet engagment is what is wanted, and induviduals and detail are less important than playability (as in CT:LBB5)?

And, if the latter, do you want a tactical game or a strategical one (be it grand strategy or semi-operational level)?

that a game has engaging tactical movement rules.

This is very nice for tactical combat or RPG rules, but if you intend to confront full fleets, it must be quite abstract or it will make for a long and hardy playable game (aside from probably requiring a large map).

• ...that battleships are worth the investment.
• ...that Battle Riders can go toe-to-toe with battleships.

I'm amazed those two points have been voted by the same people, as I see them contradictory (maybe I'm wrong in my view...).

If BRs can go toe-to-toe against BBs (as in HG2/MT, where a single meson hit is equally deadly to any of them, and both can have the needed gun), then the BBs would rarely be worth the investment, as they use to be more expensive...

If the BBs are worth its investment, it should be because they have some superiority against BRs, probably because they are able to better sustain damage (as in MgT:HG, where they can sustain more hits), or better screens/secondaries, and so BRs cannot go toe-to-toe with them...

More or less this happens with the points about missile salvos and secondaries, that I see too as contradictory, but in those cases people has voted either one or the other, not both of them (at least at the time I write this post).

You forgot something! (post below)

If you intend for a space wargame (with full squadrons/fleet engagments) I'd say:

• crew quality (crew average skill)
• command and control (Aldmira/staff skill, squadron integrity, etc)

 

[aramis]

There are a variety naval and starship detail levels in the design space...

Harpoon has 2 levels in the Captain's Edition. One is a supertactical level, where facing is implied, and gunfire is generally improbable, and the tactical level, where facing matters, counters or minis are on the table, and gunfire is likely...

Starfire, likewise, in 2nd edition and later, uses multiple scales as well, to go from 4X game to tactical game... Tho' everyone I know who plays skips the Interception level unless there's a planet in the system hex.

Damage can be several ways:

• All or nothing (typical for theater/campaign level)
• Damage Steps (Typical for 3X/4X games and some detailed theater/campaign games)
• Discrete criticals (not uncommon for minis games; CT Bk 5)
• Cumulative damage tracks, destroyed when emptied (some tactical games; CT Bk 2)
• Specific system cumulative hits (used in MegaTraveller's vehicle rules & palladium games' various mecha games)
• combined cumulation and criticals

And tactical abstraction

• presence (two ranges - In and Out-of)(Federation Space, F&E)
• Presence and target sequencing (Pacific Victory)
• linear distances (S&S, Starter Traveller, MGT 1e)
• gridded distances (Ogre)
• relative facings (Star Trek Starship Combat Duel boxed games from FASA)
• distance and facings (Starfire)
• distance, facings, and weapon mount bearing (SFBM, SFB, Star Blazers Fleet Battles

 

[aramis]

McPerth, In re BB vs BR...

If a BR of tonnage X plus tender of tonnage Y is truly equal in performance to BB of tonnage X+Y vs BB of tonnage X+Y, the rider vs BB isn't settleable. The BB gains by not needing to dock to retreat and by having the defenses by the JDrives; the BR gains by not carrying the most expensive non-weapon component into tactical rage. Each has advantages and disadvantages to keep the tactically equal but smaller rider in play as well as Battleships.

If the BR's are significantly better, the BB's will be very few in number.
If BB is significantly better, the BR's will disappear.

Only reason to have both is that it's not a done deal for either side.

 

[McPerth]

Starfire, likewise, in 2nd edition and later, uses multiple scales as well, to go from 4X game to tactical game... Tho' everyone I know who plays skips the Interception level unless there's a planet in the system hex.

This was what I was thinking when I said about tactical, semi-operational and grand strategical game.

I played starfire 1^st edition with Imperial Starfire (the part of the 4X game) back in the 90's.

While starfire is a nice game when you fight a tactical engagement (let's say up to 10 ships per side), when you play it as the tactical part of Imperial Starfire you can well find yourself fighting a battle with 50+ ships aside, and it becomes quite hard to play as a tactical engagement...

 

[cuTTer]

You do not have a "Do Not Worry About Warships" line in the poll. That might be interesting to see how many forum members really worry about warships.

Not me.

It lies firmly in the domain of 'roll a couple of dice, make sh!t up.'

As long as your sh!t is consistent, people really don't mind, in my experience.

 

[McPerth]

McPerth, In re BB vs BR...

If a BR of tonnage X plus tender of tonnage Y is truly equal in performance to BB of tonnage X+Y vs BB of tonnage X+Y, the rider vs BB isn't settleable. The BB gains by not needing to dock to retreat and by having the defenses by the JDrives; the BR gains by not carrying the most expensive non-weapon component into tactical rage.

And, probably more important, in not needing to use the volume needed for fuel in what you send to tactical range, allowing for the combat part of your force to be really all combat. And the tender does not need combat performace (armor, high agility, etc.). Also, you don't (theoretically) risk the more expensive part of your fleet (the tenders).

In costs per spinal, I guess BRs have advantage, though, as you say, the BBs have other advantages.

Each has advantages and disadvantages to keep the tactically equal but smaller rider in play as well as Battleships.

This is versión dependent. If you confront a BB against a BR of the same TL and with the same Spinal weapon:

• In CT, if spinals are MG, the first hiting with the spinal will win. If PAs, the BR will probably be harder hit (if the Spinal is large enough. Otherwise, the BB will have more secondaries (mostly missiles) to damage the BR, but the BR is likely to be more armored...
• In MT, situation is similar, but armor is likely to be more or less equal (as it does not need volume), and the BR will have agility advantage, as you cannot build an agile jump-capable ship.
• I have not really tested MgT, but my guess is that spinals are less decisive (and an all or nothing weapon, as they either hit or they don't), and the better secondaries (that are likely to produce at least some damage) and higher hit capacity of the BB are likely to really carry the day.
• I don't know enough of other versions to talk about them.

If the BR's are significantly better, the BB's will be very few in number.
If BB is significantly better, the BR's will disappear.

Only reason to have both is that it's not a done deal for either side.

As I said, what surprised me is that the same people that voted that a BR should be able to go toe-to-toe against a BB also voted that the BBs are worth the inestment, with the inferiority this will bring to them...

 

[aramis]

And, probably more important, in not needing to use the volume needed for fuel in what you send to tactical range, allowing for the combat part of your force to be really all combat. And the tender does not need combat performace (armor, high agility, etc.). Also, you don't (theoretically) risk the more expensive part of your fleet (the tenders).

In costs per spinal, I guess BRs have advantage, though, as you say, the BBs have other advantages.



This is versión dependent. If you confront a BB against a BR of the same TL and with the same Spinal weapon:

• In CT, if spinals are MG, the first hiting with the spinal will win. If PAs, the BR will probably be harder hit (if the Spinal is large enough. Otherwise, the BB will have more secondaries (mostly missiles) to damage the BR, but the BR is likely to be more armored...
• In MT, situation is similar, but armor is likely to be more or less equal (as it does not need volume), and the BR will have agility advantage, as you cannot build an agile jump-capable ship.
• I have not really tested MgT, but my guess is that spinals are less decisive (and an all or nothing weapon, as they either hit or they don't), and the better secondaries (that are likely to produce at least some damage) and higher hit capacity of the BB are likely to really carry the day.
• I don't know enough of other versions to talk about them.

As I said, what surprised me is that the same people that voted that a BR should be able to go toe-to-toe against a BB also voted that the BBs are worth the inestment, with the inferiority this will bring to them...

Under CT Bk5-80, the cost advantage is actually to the BB thanks to duplicated components (bridges, PP, Mdrive, computer). Slim but real.

 

[aramis]

T20 got it right?
A meson bay could kill anything.
The use of 3E crit rules seriously unbalanced the effect of meson weapons - so no, T20 did not get it right.
There were quite a few threads about this back in the day.

It made them match the striker listed effects. That is getting it right, and making it match the description of the weapon and its superiority in the setting texts.

 

[mike wightman]

It made them match the striker listed effects.

Which was not part of the design brief at the time, or was it? It is an justification that I have seen recently, but not at the time.

That is getting it right,

So at the time T20 was written Hunter was trying to model Striker effects in space?

and making it match the description of the weapon and its superiority in the setting texts.

Of which there is much fanon but little actual canon.

As myself and others noted, due to the peculiarities of the 3E system and the way T20 implemented them, a bay meson gun could kill just about any ship. That most certainly is not getting it right. Which is why we had all those discussions to fix the rules, and I don't recall you using the 'emulating Striker' justification at the time.

That said I think T20 made some good changes to HG2 that could be backported to HG2 - meson screens acting as armour and reducing hits has long been a suggested improvement. Hull SI as a damage track was also very useful.

 

[kilemall]

Whew.

If it's not clear before in the M:HG thread, I went through several design approaches on this issue.

Doing a strict striker to value conversion works out to VERY large spheres of total destruction by a spinal meson gun.

A bay gun can likely crit hit virtually any large major system.

So if you are looking to that as your primary reference, yes that would be a reasonable outcome.

If you are looking for a game predicated on that sort of power, I would think upping the meson screen and hull config negatives would be in order. Otherwise, the ships explode and much more so then in the era of nuclear missile swarms.

The other way to go is to assume meson bursts are like the striker versions, but a meson gun firing is more like multiple small spheres rather then one big hit or miss burst, to generate higher probabilities of hitting, like a battleship salvo firing a pattern.

 

[McPerth]

The other way to go is to assume meson bursts are like the striker versions, but a meson gun firing is more like multiple small spheres rather then one big hit or miss burst, to generate higher probabilities of hitting, like a battleship salvo firing a pattern.

You can aslo asume that the meson burst is more or less static, and thes ship just goes through it for a very small span of time (due to the very high speeds involved), instead of enduring the full effect, as do ground targets...