BCS Combat and Design

[David Johansen]

I wonder, has anyone here ever played Metagaming's Holy War?

The reason I ask is that the map had smaller hexes stacked inside the large hexes to produce a three dimensional map. True, you get way fewer hexes on a map that way but I wonder if it would work for something more along the lines of High Guard or the currently abstract T5 system.

Just a passing notion.

The big problem with Starfire is that the Jump Points turn just about every campaign battle in to a warp point attrition fight. The next problem is that the more recent editions have become too complete and hard to learn. It was a simple little minigame.

Of course, many of Traveller's assumptions are bad according to modern science. At the very least ships would generally be pretty easy to detect on infrared. So I'm less worried about realism than staying true to the setting.

 

[robject]

[Counters longer than 1 hex are] Not really possible in space if your movement units or hexes represent 30000km (30Mm?)

Unit scale isn't the same as hex scale already, and FASA knew it and exploited that fact to bury a useful mechanic, as well as a shorthand reminder of the relative sizing of ships, in a physical attribute.

The way it's done is to note that the unit's hex for movement purposes is the rearmost hex, but for combat purposes, its reach extends from any hex it occupies. It's also a "larger" target as well -- it can be "reached" to any hex it occupies.

When you have two-hex and three-hex units, it's clear where the cruisers and dreadnoughts are -- and they even have a bit of a psychological effect.

To some degree, you get the same sort of thing when you play without a grid, just using a ruler for ranges. The larger ships are typically physically larger, though not to a pure scale, for subtle range effects but also for psychological effects.

 

[Ulsyus]

All valid points Rob if that effect is something the game designers wanted to achieve.

I do remember seeing some Full Thrust games years ago with rather massive ship models, and it seemed a little unrealistic at the time. Not that I'd want everything to be on the small scale that the Star Blazers ship models were done in. Striking the balance, I have found, has been difficult.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

My two CrImps.

1. I dislike the ship counter spanning more than one hex. I see no need for a ship counter to be sized to a ship type, that is what Factors are for, well them and the Type Indicator. When I see BB on a counter I know it is a Capital Ship and when I see DE on the counter then I know it is a small ship.

2. Movement is very important. The lack of maneuver in High Guard is one its many and biggest flaws after the arcane, long ass digit strings. I want to be able to flank my opponent and make him/her chose which side to protect.

3. While I know some folks want the unrealistic stealth in space, I have been converted to the TINSIS (There Is No Stealth In Space) crowd. Worse yet, I think it makes things more interesting not less. About the only way to conceal (Traveller realistic) your entrance by Jump into a system is either lazy detectors (Sophonts, not computer who in reality would be doing the watching since they don't get lazy or tired) or by masking your entrance by Jumping into the system into the shadow of the local gas giant where its mass will mask the sudden gravity waves appearing and of course your Jump Flash from EM dectectors. Folks use the Age of Sail for having Nobles and Communication at the speed of Jump, but for some reason don't want another facet of that age, knowing that another ship, squadron or fleet is looking to engage you. Me, I like that concept so want to keep it, then it becomes a game of lies "Are they Dutch, Spanish, French or English ships coming at us?"

4. It is not "Smoking", it is Outgassing and it only should last one turn provided you have a good DC (Damage Control) factor since the smoking hull is really just venting its atmosphere and will only burn while it has fuel to burn. Remember the best way to stop fires in spacecraft is to vent the area to space. Fire needs to breathe just like Sophonts, you know since it alive (no really read a Fire Science textbook, they lay it out, fire needs to breathe, it eats and reproduces).

5. I am going to waste your suicide Monitors becuase I like having a Spinal pointing to my rear firing arc. Keeps those pursuers on their toes. Why only have one Spinal when two makes me twice as combat effective and as I said keeps bad guys off my butt while I flee, totally worth the extra PP. :devil:

6. To hell with Initiative, I favor simultaneous moves as the enemy doesn't know when I am moving and to where till I start maneuvering and vice versa. But if we must have Initative, I say go with the Personal Combat meme of First Attacker gives everyone else a +1 Mod to hit them. Moving first shoud be risky. Also, all orders should happen on the players turn, move, shoot, escape, whatever should all happen on your turn.

7. If Meson Screens can't disrupt a Meson attack by being in the way of the Meson Beams target, why even have them. If a Meson Screen is in the line of fire of a Meson Beam then it stops the Beam, that is the whole reason for having Escorts, to be in the way of Meson Attacks and use their Screens to protect my Captial ships. Sure they probably will be Overwhelmed and Destroyed or Mission Killed, but hey that is their job, be expendable fodder. Harsh, but true.

8. [An Edit] Ramming and Collisions are cool kids and the enemy rarely expects it. I know because in the first ever Traveller game I played in we took an enemy ship by ramming them and then boarding, which is also a nifty Age of Sail meme. Difficult, yes, but also effective if you are already at knife fighting range like the range in which Beam Weapons become useful for something other than killing incoming missiles.

9. [A second Edit] Oh and Disruption is just that, Rob, it disrupts you Task Force into a bunch of Squadrons or individual ships. It causes a loss of Command and Control, a case of every Skipper for themselves.

I may have more later, but that is it for now.

 

[pendragonman]

Mags, there is just as much possibility of stealth in space as there is stealth under water or stealth on aircraft.

Masking emissions is the definition of stealth. There are ways to mask emissions now, why would there no longer be ways to mask emissions in the far future?

Computers are how things are located now and they can be spoofed. CF the F 117 that looks like a seagull on radar. No seagulls in space you say? There are various comm sats, there are loose asteroids, there is the detritus of Humaniti's journey to the stars. Can ships not manage to reduce their emissions to appear like a comm repeater sat? Can ships not hide in asteroid belts? Why is it just a GG that would mask the jump flash? Why not a moon?

Even in the Age of Sail there was stealth. Using a squall to close unobserved was standard. Using the night to close or escape. There was changing the silhouette to appear as a different type of ship. It wasn't just "Are they Dutch, French, or Spaniards?"

While I agree that for large fleets there is very little that can be done to hide the fleet, there is still the far outer system areas that make sensor work challenging. There is hiding a squadron or two in the atmosphere of GGs or asteroid belt. There is tight station keeping to hide numbers or appear as a different hull size. For single ships there are many ways to hide or disguise them.

And, those computer controlled sensors are still only as good as the operator. Otherwise, why are we playing this game? The computer detects you, the computer fires a barrage of missiles and vectors them on to you. No sophont required and thus no game.

Lastly, stealth is an age old standard of the science fiction trope. It needs to be in a sci fi game.

On the other hand, take a page (or tens of pages) from SFB. Make stealth part of an EW package. Give sensor packages a maximum offensive and defensive, active and passive EW rating and a few rules on how to manage those ratings, how skills can add to the EW rating, how coatings add to the defensive rating. How adding EP make active EW work. Etc. Then we have a system to manage stealth and manage Sensor warfare in general.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

My responses.

Mags, there is just as much possibility of stealth in space as there is stealth under water or stealth on aircraft.

Somewhat, as I have said before I do agree with reality and Douglas Adams, space is big, really big. That is about the only way it works to the Intruder's advantage. Well, that and the system's defenses TL, it is much easier to sneak about in a TL-8 or 9 system than a TL-E or F system.

Masking emissions is the definition of stealth. There are ways to mask emissions now, why would there no longer be ways to mask emissions in the far future?

Never said there weren't Emissions Control, but some things just can not be masked or controlled, gravity comes to mind, then there are neutrinos. Basic EM radiation sure, that you can control by not blabbing on the comms and not using Active sensors.

Computers are how things are located now and they can be spoofed. CF the F 117 that looks like a seagull on radar. No seagulls in space you say? There are various comm sats, there are loose asteroids, there is the detritus of Humaniti's journey to the stars. Can ships not manage to reduce their emissions to appear like a comm repeater sat? Can ships not hide in asteroid belts? Why is it just a GG that would mask the jump flash? Why not a moon?

In order: CommSat, maybe. Asteroid Belts, doubtful, they aren't that tight and we have mapped ours to the point that we fly spacecraft through them all the time. Because the size and mass of the GG is so large your Battle Group's mass is an insignificant increase and damned difficult to seperate out. A moon, maybe depends on the size, Luna probably, Phobos doubtful, Regina likely.

Even in the Age of Sail there was stealth. Using a squall to close unobserved was standard. Using the night to close or escape. There was changing the silhouette to appear as a different type of ship. It wasn't just "Are they Dutch, French, or Spaniards?"

Funny thing about space, not a lot of weather, though now that you mention it, a mass coronal ejection might do the trick, but that is pretty much the end of weather effects in space (that I am aware of).

While I agree that for large fleets there is very little that can be done to hide the fleet, there is still the far outer system areas that make sensor work challenging. There is hiding a squadron or two in the atmosphere of GGs or asteroid belt. There is tight station keeping to hide numbers or appear as a different hull size. For single ships there are many ways to hide or disguise them.

Yeah, see above.

And, those computer controlled sensors are still only as good as the operator. Otherwise, why are we playing this game? The computer detects you, the computer fires a barrage of missiles and vectors them on to you. No sophont required and thus no game.

I often wonder about it myself, sure space combat are fun (since they fake, I suspect the real deal will suck as much as real wars do now), but as you point out even computers can be spoofed.

Lastly, stealth is an age old standard of the science fiction trope. It needs to be in a sci fi game.

No it doesn't, not all tropes are created equal, some make more sense than others.

On the other hand, take a page (or tens of pages) from SFB. Make stealth part of an EW package. Give sensor packages a maximum offensive and defensive, active and passive EW rating and a few rules on how to manage those ratings, how skills can add to the EW rating, how coatings add to the defensive rating. How adding EP make active EW work. Etc. Then we have a system to manage stealth and manage Sensor warfare in general.

Never read, played or really cared for Star Fleet Battles, but then Trek is full of damned Commies so not a favorite of mine, I like pockets and owning stuff, never trust a society without pockets is my motto. :devil: Still, I think that there are still chances as I have laid out above for players to be sneaky, but it requies more than the lame trope of "cloaking/invisibility" fields. Hell, even Black Globes are detectable with a bit of thought, just look for the occulusions of stars, where there is a big black spot where you can't see stars when you normally should and you have the location of a Black Globed ship.

So in summation, it isn't outright impossible, just one the most difficult tasks to face a space admiral. Best be sneaky and cunning in my book, that or just damn the torpedoes and blast them to space hell as we dive toward our target.

Well, off to cook dinner and them off to work, I will try and get back later to respond to any additional comments.

 

[aramis]

More importantly, you cannot mask your blackbody radiation.

If you're above 3°K, you are visible in the IR.

You may be shielded by something in between, you may place yourself in front of something the same temp, but you radiate in the IR at a frequency and energy directly based upon your temperature. And that temperature, because of the fusion plant, is quite hot (even tho' the cabin might not be).

 

[pendragonman]

Never said there weren't Emissions Control, but some things just can not be masked or controlled, gravity comes to mind, then there are neutrinos. Basic EM radiation sure, that you can control by not blabbing on the comms and not using Active sensors.

If there is gravatic drives, floaters, and grav belts do you really, truly think there would be no way to control gravatic emissions? Really? We can shield already for the Muons, how much longer before we can shield from basic neutrinos? And shielding is masking.

In order: CommSat, maybe. Asteroid Belts, doubtful, they aren't that tight and we have mapped ours to the point that we fly spacecraft through them all the time. Because the size and mass of the GG is so large your Battle Group's mass is an insignificant increase and damned difficult to seperate out. A moon, maybe depends on the size, Luna probably, Phobos doubtful, Regina likely.

Yep, and every war ever fought has always been where BOTH sides have had complete and utter understanding and intelligence on the terrain they will be fighting on. Every rock, tree and hole has been well mapped beforehand and thus terrain based surprise is impossible.

Just because we have mapped our asteroid belt completely and monitor it for changes doesn't mean that every battle fought in a system with one will have that mapping intelligence available to both sides.

Funny thing about space, not a lot of weather, though now that you mention it, a mass coronal ejection might do the trick, but that is pretty much the end of weather effects in space (that I am aware of).

My point was that you boiled down the age of sail stealth to "what nation are they?" and I was showing that even that was fallacious. On the other hand, there are solar flares and such that constitute "weather" in space.

I often wonder about it myself, sure space combat are fun (since they fake, I suspect the real deal will suck as much as real wars do now), but as you point out even computers can be spoofed.

And you would play a game where one automated system is spoofing another automated system and so there is no more human interaction other than moving the chits the distance the automated system said to move it?

No it doesn't, not all tropes are created equal, some make more sense than others.

Please elaborate. What (besides stealth) is a sci fi trope you believe is not worth doing?

Never read, played or really cared for Star Fleet Battles, but then Trek is full of damned Commies so not a favorite of mine, I like pockets and owning stuff, never trust a society without pockets is my motto. :devil:

1) That is why I play Klingons. No Commies there.
2) ADB is hardly a bunch of Commies. In many ways they are as rapaciously capitalistic as Greedy Workshop.

So in summation, it isn't outright impossible, just one the most difficult tasks to face a space admiral. Best be sneaky and cunning in my book, that or just damn the torpedoes and blast them to space hell as we dive toward our target.

That is quite different than saying that There Is No Stealth In Space. Stealth has always required engaging the Sneaks, the Cunning, the Clever. As end users, but more so in the design and development of the stealth tools.

I agree that invisibility fields are cheap and flimsy Hollywood affects, but as part of an EW system that would allow for a superior sensor suite to still locate the cloaked vessel I say why not? Or is it the book keeping that an EW system would likely require that gives you the itches?

 

[pendragonman]

More importantly, you cannot mask your blackbody radiation.

If you're above 3°K, you are visible in the IR.

You may be shielded by something in between, you may place yourself in front of something the same temp, but you radiate in the IR at a frequency and energy directly based upon your temperature. And that temperature, because of the fusion plant, is quite hot (even tho' the cabin might not be).

And in the Far Future they will not have found a way to mask it, to directionally vent it or otherwise disperse it so that it cannot be detected. Yep, the Far Future will not be any better at hiding IR radiation than we are now. Since the Future will be no better at it than now, why bother?

Really? Someone clever won't invent a technology to mask this? Really?

Same thinking going on here as in the forties when they thought no one will ever be able to hide their plane or ship from Radar. No submarine will be able to hide from Sonar. And yet, here we are. Low radar cross section planes that are easily mistaken for birds on radar and ships with such low radar cross sections that they are virtually invisible on the scope, anechoic coatings that absorb Sonar and not reflect it back making subs virtually invisible.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

War is not a game.

Honestly pendragonman what my thoughts on space warfare (and warfare in general) is that it should be what it really is, not fun, not cool, but brutal, horrifying, dangerous, hard, and chock full of pain and suffering. War should be some thing that you don't want to do, but must do. Not some BS heroic myth, but the nasty truth so that informs my thoughts on what it should be.

Oh and yes, I would play a game as computers moving chits about, in fact I play a lot of those types of games, but I tend to sit and generate lots and lots of superior tech and numbers, sadly I am Hooker, not Grant. I might even feel better about getting my butt kicked and less like a failure who let his troops get dead and maimed. Not to say I don't enjoy my war games (hell Battlefield is awesome, but that is because I have infinite robot bodies). If my life is on the line I would never be so brave or foolish as I am when I play war, I would revert to my true cowardice.

That said I think that once it is decided to go to war, then you go all in, spend lives and money, with the emphasis on lives. If you aren't willing to spend your Citizens' lives then you should not go to war. Nothing of true value comes for free and that includes victory.

 

[robject]

Gentlemen,

Discussing stealth is fine. Playing it is another thing. It all comes down to how the game plays. If the game needs it, it will have it. Stealth can always be reserved for when one side is technologically superior.

And in that vein, since movement is the No. 1 thing, that's what I want to concentrate on. And right now, I'm thinking about turning radius.

How many G's of maneuver can be traded for one 60 degree turn? How can we use ship design tradeoffs to modify this?

Example 1. Craig's "Death Dealer" BB wants to turn. It's a Maneuver 6 ship. Say we can trade one maneuver point for one hex face change. His BB could spin in a complete circle if need be. In general, it can make any combination of single-point turns and forward moves.

Example 2. Pendragon's "Lumbering Fortress" BB wants to turn. It's Maneuver 6, but something about the ship dictates that it must move forward at least one hex for each point turn. Since we all agree that design tradeoff is the interesting thing about ships in Traveller, there could be a structural design tradeoff in BCS. Or something else.


Why Turning Radius? Why should it be difficult to turn? I think the reason wargames have this is to allow interesting tactics through movement, and turning radius is a naval concept already. That's the same reason they like firing arcs. They restrict how you can act.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I love me!

Gentlemen,

Discussing stealth is fine. Playing it is another thing. It all comes down to how the game plays. If the game needs it, it will have it. Stealth can always be reserved for when one side is technologically superior.

And in that vein, since movement is the No. 1 thing, that's what I want to concentrate on. And right now, I'm thinking about turning radius.

How many G's of maneuver can be traded for one 60 degree turn? How can we use ship design tradeoffs to modify this?

Example 1. Craig's "Death Dealer" BB wants to turn. It's a Maneuver 6 ship. Say we can trade one maneuver point for one hex face change. His BB could spin in a complete circle if need be. In general, it can make any combination of single-point turns and forward moves.

Example 2. Pendragon's "Lumbering Fortress" BB wants to turn. It's Maneuver 6, but something about the ship dictates that it must move forward at least one hex for each point turn. Since we all agree that design tradeoff is the interesting thing about ships in Traveller, there could be a structural design tradeoff in BCS. Or something else.


Why Turning Radius? Why should it be difficult to turn? I think the reason wargames have this is to allow interesting tactics through movement, and turning radius is a naval concept already. That's the same reason they like firing arcs. They restrict how you can act.

I favor the first method and not just because it has my name on it, but actually because space is not an ocean or atmosphere there is nothing preventing me from spinning in place to a new facing.

EDIT: Another reason I favor the first method is that from what I gather those Hexes are pretty large scale so I should be able to do a 360 inside 30,000 Km (which I seem to recall having been mentioned up thread as the scale of Traveller wargame hexes).

 

[robject]

I favor the first method and not just because it has my name on it, but actually because space is not an ocean or atmosphere there is nothing preventing me from spinning in place to a new facing.

EDIT: Another reason I favor the first method is that from what I gather those Hexes are pretty large scale so I should be able to do a 360 inside 30,000 Km (which I seem to recall having been mentioned up thread as the scale of Traveller wargame hexes).

Hexes are indeed in the tens of thousands of km.

So what we need are rules that make it interesting to move ships on a surface. To justify playing on a surface, versus High Guard.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Hey now.

Hexes are indeed in the tens of thousands of km.

So what we need are rules that make it interesting to move ships on a surface. To justify playing on a surface, versus High Guard.

Yeah, but to do that 360 I have to spend all my Maneuver so I don't see me doing except for when I need to do the Death Bloosom.

I agree and I do like limiting the Maneuvers by the G-rating of the M-Drive, or some other movement point system. Using the M Factor works nicely and keeps that bookkeeping you hate to a bare minimum. See we can both be happy here, now we have to see what Pendragonman has to say.

Also, push come to shove I don't hate the second method either, I just like the first one more.

 

[robject]

Yeah, yeah, okay.

What I need to do is play it out on my floor, see what sorts of maneuvers it forces.

 

[pendragonman]

Rob, I would steal turn radii almost straight from SFB, using instead of size class use perhaps:

>500 Ktons must move forward 3 to make one 60 degree facing change (alternately must expend 4 MP to make one facing change)
>100 Ktons-500 Ktons must move forward 2 to make one 60 degree facing change (alternately must expend 3 MP to make one facing change)
>10 ktons-100 Ktons must move forward 1 to make one 60 degree facing change (alternately must expend 2 MP to make one facing change)

10 ktons> change face at will (alternately must expend 1 MP to make one facing change)

maybe make dispersed structure/cluster add one MP/hex move to change face and S/A/L subtract one?

 

[mike wightman]

You want to move away from any form of semi-realistic movement system then?

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Ickness.

Rob, I would steal turn radii almost straight from SFB, using instead of size class use perhaps:

>500 Ktons must move forward 3 to make one 60 degree facing change (alternately must expend 4 MP to make one facing change)
>100 Ktons-500 Ktons must move forward 2 to make one 60 degree facing change (alternately must expend 3 MP to make one facing change)
>10 ktons-100 Ktons must move forward 1 to make one 60 degree facing change (alternately must expend 2 MP to make one facing change)

10 ktons> change face at will (alternately must expend 1 MP to make one facing change)

maybe make dispersed structure/cluster add one MP/hex move to change face and S/A/L subtract one?

Well aside from stealing being bad, I don't see why there should be any forward movement linked to turning or facing changes. Seriously with the system you outlined it becomes ocean/atmo style movement which is well annoying as hell. One of the things I like about Traveller as opposed to Star Trek/Wars is tends not to treat spacecraft as water or atmo craft, which is good since they aren't.

If we are gonna start making ships travel like world based craft I say skip it and go back to vector movement. If I want to play Harpoon I will just dig that out and play that, not a space game.

And yeah I am a bit contrary here, but I blame Atomic Rockets, Rocketpunk Manifesto and folks like Aramis. They all converted me to treating spacecraft as spacecraft and not water or aircraft. Yea for blame shifting! :devil:

 

[pendragonman]

You want to move away from any form of semi-realistic movement system then?

AND

Well aside from stealing being bad, I don't see why there should be any forward movement linked to turning or facing changes. Seriously with the system you outlined it becomes ocean/atmo style movement which is well annoying as hell. One of the things I like about Traveller as opposed to Star Trek/Wars is tends not to treat spacecraft as water or atmo craft, which is good since they aren't.

If we are gonna start making ships travel like world based craft I say skip it and go back to vector movement. If I want to play Harpoon I will just dig that out and play that, not a space game.

And yeah I am a bit contrary here, but I blame Atomic Rockets, Rocketpunk Manifesto and folks like Aramis. They all converted me to treating spacecraft as spacecraft and not water or aircraft. Yea for blame shifting! :devil:

Well, if the majority doesn't like turn modes then we should go back to vector movement.

And by vector movement I mean real vector movement since you two are being recalcitrant. Continuously adding vectors each turn you use thrust of any nature, otherwise you continue on in your current vector direction at the speed of the accumulated vectors.

That is, if you guys are good with having to do vector addition every turn.

Otherwise, propose your own method. Then prove to me it is any more "real" than what I proposed, because the only thing that will be actually true spacial movement is continuous vector addition.

Oh, wait. We can't really do proper vector movement because WE ARE DOING A 3D SIMULATION ON A 2D MAP and so nothing we do will properly model movement. Which is probably why High Guard didn't have movement. Because there are rocks out there that are of the mind "If I can't model reality perfectly then I don't want to do it."

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Hey, congrats you discovered that I am high maintance.

AND

Well, if the majority doesn't like turn modes then we should go back to vector movement.

And by vector movement I mean real vector movement since you two are being recalcitrant. Continuously adding vectors each turn you use thrust of any nature, otherwise you continue on in your current vector direction at the speed of the accumulated vectors.

That is, if you guys are good with having to do vector addition every turn.

Otherwise, propose your own method. Then prove to me it is any more "real" than what I proposed, because the only thing that will be actually true spacial movement is continuous vector addition.

Oh, wait. We can't really do proper vector movement because WE ARE DOING A 3D SIMULATION ON A 2D MAP and so nothing we do will properly model movement. Which is probably why High Guard didn't have movement. Because there are rocks out there that are of the mind "If I can't model reality perfectly then I don't want to do it."

Actually I am cool with vector movement as it is the most properly spacecraft movement.

However, I like the basic G-rating = Manuever points. Manuever points can be expended to either move, change facing or both. It is simple and effective, low bookkeeping and sort of models actual spacecraft movement. Sort of.

As to the 3d v. 2D we could add height sticks. :devil:

Look, I may be annoying the crap out you with my views, but damn I just want them to spacecraft, not ships, not airplanes and making a spaceship have to turn like them destroys the cool factor of fighting a spaceship. Besides I like the spinning in my hex to face my enemies.

And I somewhat apologize for being all adamant and stuff, but since I suck at physical combat, I do tend to stick to the verbal/written form where I can hang with the professionals. Also, know I still dig you Pen, even when we fight, much like I like Hans even when I think he is being pontificating pain.