BCS Combat and Design

[Ulsyus]

Has the BCS system been developed to a point where it needs people to help test it yet? I was going to put together a new design spreadsheet for CT High Guard, but thought it'd be better putting the effort into something for T5.

Any news on that?

 

[Ulsyus]

Gosh, so much to read here!!

Well, for a while I was playing Starmada Nova edition - far superior to their earlier versions, and I used a movement system that pillaged from both Battle Rider and the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator.

I modified their build rules to produce something a little more Traveller-ish, but was primarily designing ships for my own setting.

I'm working on a HG sheet now, but in the meantime here's an example I was using for my Starmada ships.

The Design Philosophy component at the top was something I adopted from Full Thrust - I found it a great idea to enable me to differentiate between starnations so that the different vessels had all had a different feel, but that vessels from one maker weren't just a random collection of bits that seemed to work.

View attachment NovaDesignSheet Ma'ev CL 2.2.xls

 

[Ulsyus]

Preceding this simple and straightforward design and play system, I'd been mucking around with Battle Rider for a while. While I didn't like the card system it used, it was a good wargame, an evolutionary step forward from High Guard (sorry guys).

Movement was painful in BR though. I had played a lot of the WWI dogfight game Canvas Eagles (it may still be a free download off the web) which had an excellent mechanic for simultaneous movement, which I started trying out with BR but ended up adopting with Starmada.

So, in order to simplify things a little, I used TNE FF&S to build a design sheet for BR, though when I was doing this it was for a setting of my own so i was playing around with an alternate FTL system. Because the dTons changed as a result of the different drive systems, I struck a problem where a spinal mount could be longer than the vessel, so had some painful maths (well, painful for the maths equivalent of a cuttlefish dragging an orca struggling up a sand dune) trying to work out hull volumes for ships with big spinal mount pokey bits sticking out the front.

Had some fun with it, but never quite for the FTL sorted out. Let me know what you think...

View attachment Old Colonial CC.System 2.0.xls

 

[robject]

I agree that Battle Rider was a step forward, and yet I think it has fallen behind newer systems - even humble ones such as A Sky Full Of Ships.

BCS Combat comes first. Then, BCS Design follows. Once you have a tactically and strategically interesting combat game, then ship design nearly writes itself... especially when all the existing design rules have shown us how Traveller builds ships in general.

Theory. If I understand correctly, space combat is a variant of naval combat. Like modern naval warfare, it is supposed to have layers, corresponding to the functions of escorts, zones of control, power projection, what-have-you. Penetrating those layers is apparently the key to meeting objectives, which are defined by victory conditions. "Strategy" could be as simple as limiting the number of losses you are allowed to take and still be able to declare a victory.

Tangible. The numero uno mechanic which seems to make all people happy is moving pieces on a table or a game board. Thus movement should be the most important part of the game. Movement potentially makes possible "visceral" tactics such as flanking, screening, pincer movements, covering retreats, positioning for assault, and so on. And of course firing offensive weapons is the second most important mechanic (and yes, arc of fire can be useful here).

Less Tangible. Given that a typical dining table and battle mat is around 3' x 4', I would expect to control up to two dozen-plus units on a side -- say, perhaps four battleships, four cruisers, eight escort groups, and eight wings of fighters. Or maybe eight Tigresses, eight cruisers, and eight escort groups. Or 14 Nolikians, 10 Sloans, and maybe 4 fighter wings (and 2 Lurentis parked out of the theatre). Whatever. I suspect that full High-Guard levels of detail are not needed nor desired for such games, unless there is a lot of spare time to play -- and I suspect the average length of games played is in the one to two hour range. Playing a full fleet battle in one hour's time that is intellectually satisfying, interesting for the casual gamer, and also canonically valid, requires a sane balance of detail with game rules.

 

[Hemdian]

I'm rather partial to PowerProjection. Until we get BCS Combat, PP is my goto system for large ship combat.

 

[Ulsyus]

Theory. If I understand correctly, space combat is a variant of naval combat. Like modern naval warfare, it is supposed to have layers, corresponding to the functions of escorts, zones of control, power projection, what-have-you. Penetrating those layers is apparently the key to meeting objectives, which are defined by victory conditions. "Strategy" could be as simple as limiting the number of losses you are allowed to take and still be able to declare a victory.

Are you talking about grand tactical stuff, escort engagements and the like, or something more connected to the games you'd like to play and see played?

Tangible. The numero uno mechanic which seems to make all people happy is moving pieces on a table or a game board. Thus movement should be the most important part of the game. Movement potentially makes possible "visceral" tactics such as flanking, screening, pincer movements, covering retreats, positioning for assault, and so on. And of course firing offensive weapons is the second most important mechanic.

One of the fun elements I find of a number of space combat games are the elements of manoeuvring and battery arc of fire. That element is a lot of fun, being able to move into an area awkward for an opponent to fire into, or get out of a conundrum I've found myself in.

Less Tangible. Given that a typical dining table and battle mat is around 3' x 4', I would expect to control up to two dozen-plus units on a side -- say, perhaps four battleships, four cruisers, eight escort groups, and eight wings of fighters. Or maybe eight Tigresses, eight cruisers, and eight escort groups. Or 14 Nolikians, 10 Sloans, and maybe 4 fighter wings (and 2 Lurentis parked out of the theatre). Whatever. I suspect that full High-Guard levels of detail are not needed nor desired for such games, unless there is a lot of spare time to play -- and I suspect the average length of games played is in the one to two hour range. Playing a full fleet battle in one hour's time that is intellectually satisfying, interesting for the casual gamer, and also canonically valid, requires a sane balance of detail with game rules.

SITS was no good for this level of game. FT PP was pretty limited here too. BR was pretty good with this level of engagement. Starfire was great at this, but at the cost of the mechanics it used. Starmada, and it's offspin Fleet Ops, was particularly good at this level of game. That seemed to come down to how vessels were portrayed and games run, hence my combination of Mayday style movement with a few SITS mechanics, Canvas Eagles recording processes, and the ship data sheet off the attachment above.

If I can't play a game that's got tempo but still makes me think, all the while having minimal book-keeping, then I think it's got to go back for work.

 

[robject]

If I can't play a game that's got tempo but still makes me think, all the while having minimal book-keeping, then I think it's got to go back for work.

I tend to agree with all three of those criteria.

 

[mike wightman]

I've had a lot of fun using FFW/IE/I/DN counters in the Mayfair Games Company War tactical combat game with the FFW/IE/I/DN combat matrices.

 

[Ulsyus]

I tried out the HGS software, but must be doing something a bit wrong, so will persist with the HG spreadsheet I've started on. At the very least it'll get me back into the swing of things in anticipation of BCS.

Thinking back to some of what was written above, one of the elements I was enjoying with Starmada was our introduction of simultaneous movement. It wasn't difficult to do. Just have a turn to turn table, and in each turn list the movement vector carried over from last turn and the direction you're thusting in. If not thrusting, list the vessel's heading. The hex-sides were nominated as A to F, so thrust was recorded as A1 for one g of thrust in dir A. Do that in the second turn and your vector for the start of the third turn was 2A. Add in a g of thrust in dir B, and the next turn you start iwth 2A1B. This way everyone could write down their movt intentions on the ship data sheet, and we all moved at the same time. This led at times to some pretty interesting reactions from players, but also meant that it was possible to either end up in a crappy situation, or suddenly find oneself in a great position where another ship's batteries couldn't maximise their fire arcs.

It's won me as a fan of simultaneous movement!

 

[robject]

The rule I've adopted lately is that you figure out first how you want combat to work, and only then do you design the design system.

Recently I've started threads on High Guard dreadnoughts and cruisers, because you guys have spent a long time thinking about Imperial fleets and those of their adversaries. You know where the errata are in Supplement 9 and The Spinward Marches Campaign. And we can extract hints of fleet doctrine from their designs despite their errors -- and despite whether or not that doctrine works well or poorly in High Guard.


Fleet Doctrine

I want to take another step and think about how Imperial fleet doctrine should affect fleet combat, rather than how it works in High Guard.



There are ALSO facets which are in tension that I want to talk about.

Lots of Ships

The Trillion Credit Squadron was identified early on to encourage interesting mixes of ship types. This allows some creativity in composing a squadron and also allows significant engagements to be played.

Differentiable Ships

High Guard gave us a degree of freedom in designing ships. Based on the game setting and the design rules themselves, what "shook out" was a number of designs which differed from each other in key ways (key optima, often).

This differentiation also includes the idea that weapons and defenses are similarly differentiable. We have armor, but we also have nuclear dampers, meson screens, and black globes, for instance. There are ways of getting this which don't involve numbers, but finding just enough detail to satisfy Traveller is the goal.

Tactical Movement

As mentioned earlier, moving little ships on a table is fun. Flanking, screening, chasing, and so on. Movement is defined by a ship's maneuver plus the sorts of moves that limits the opponent's choices -- opening up your options and limiting your adversary.

Short Games

In contrast to all of these is the length of a game. While a Mayday scenario can be played out within two hours, a Mayday scenario involving 24 ships is unthinkable.

Thus, "Lots" of "Differentiable" ships involving "Tactical Movement" is going to have more constraints and simplifications than (for example) the Mayday rules. For example:

Vectors could be thrown out.
Some ship details could be ignored.
Movement could be limited to a subset of ships per turn, based on any number of things.
We could even think about ship movement in terms more like chess and less like Mayday.

 

[robject]

One of the fun elements I find of a number of space combat games are the elements of manoeuvring and battery arc of fire. That element is a lot of fun, being able to move into an area awkward for an opponent to fire into, or get out of a conundrum I've found myself in.

Until I played them, I didn't realize how interesting even one simple Firing Arc (e.g. "the spine bears forward 180 degrees") can make a game. I had only seen that it increases the fiddliness of a game. But I think that limiting battery fire in known ways (which is what firing arcs are for) is about 50% of the importance of movement.

[Full Thrust/Power Projection] was pretty limited here too. [Battle Rider] was pretty good with this level of engagement. Starfire was great at this, but at the cost of the mechanics it used. Starmada, and it's offspin Fleet Ops, was particularly good at this level of game. That seemed to come down to how vessels were portrayed and games run, hence my combination of Mayday style movement with a few SITS mechanics, Canvas Eagles recording processes, and the ship data sheet off the attachment above.

I'll have to skim Starfire's rules. Ah, it looks like about the same level of detail as in the Traveller universe. Yeah, that can be tough to write fast/playable rules for. Looking further, I see that I would never want to play Starfire.

I'm skimming thru Canvas Eagles. It looks like a good model for simultaneous movement. It also has some other neat ideas -- for example, aircraft Stability, novice pilot restrictions, the really neat and fun "open damage" types, friendly fire (for assault situations). I see the damage system is essentially the same sort as Sky Full of Ships.

Something I found similar between Starmada and Mongoose's Victory At Sea rules (itself an ACTA variant) is the way ship weapon batteries are itemized. As much as I dislike even that much detail, the Traveller setting implies that different batteries have different ranges and effects, and ships have more than one attack type.

Something I liked from FASA's Leviathan game was that larger ships spanned more than one hex. It's an elegant way to encapsulate an element of the game rules.

 

[robject]

Very High Level

Okay, I'm going to try to ignore analysis, and think of Traveller squadron combat on a 3' x 4' hexmat with a couple dozen units on a side, played to completion in an hour's time.

I think:

There would be about twenty turns. Turns phase as follows:

(1) The players choose the units to order, and choose an order for each of those units.

(2) The choice of units and the order for each unit is then revealed.

(3) Order resolution is not simultaneous: initiative decides which unit acts first. Actions of the phasing unit may block the actions of later units -- for example, if your cruiser goes first and its PA spine destroys my dreadnought, then that dreadnought does not execute its orders.


No Really, What is Combat Like?

Ok, all of that pussyfooting above is just me stalling because figuring out how actual batteries fire on targets, and how the defender defends himself, and how damage is inflicted, and how damage is tracked, intimidates me.

Assume two players: Ixtalpox the droyne and Oukloe the vargr.

Ixtalpox may give two orders. He orders forward his dreadnought and a "group unit" of four escorts (perhaps specifically formed into a group in a previous move, or perhaps a characteristic inherent to escorts) in an attempt to seize control of the center of the mat, prime real estate and a threat to the mainworld, which is in the center of the eastern third of the map. The escorts are by default in "screen" mode specifically around the dreadnought. His other dreadnoughts each have their own team of four escorts, by default also operating in "screen" mode.

Meanwhile, Oukloe may give three orders. She has directed three of her "silent" "suicide" monitors, stationed behind the invading fleet, to strike behind the rearmost dreadnought, where its spine cannot be brought to bear against them.

The monitors have an exceedingly high initiative, so their attack happens before Ixtalpox moves his units. Their spinal weapons attack at long range, but are powerful, and the spinal attacks score strafing hits. The dreadnought's defenses then kick in, and the first line of defense is the escort group unit which is "screening" the dreadnought. The strafing hit from Monitor No. 1 annihilates Escort No. 1, continues on and tactically kills Escort No. 2. The strafing hit from Monitor No. 2 is a glance and fails to damage Escort No. 3. The strafing hit from Monitor No. 3. tactically kills Escort No. 4.

Ixtalpox' dreadnought and escort screen then takes the center of the map with no resistance.

The turn ends with Ixtalpox in nominal control of the center of the map, and his rearmost dreadnought threatened by three of Oukloe's "suicide monitors".



Initiative Helps You How?

1. The player with initiative attacks first.
2. Then the other guy attacks.
3. Then the other guy moves.
4. Then the player with initiative moves.

This ASSUMES:

1. If your attack kills a unit, it then cannot attack or move, starting immediately.
2. You have some degree of freedom to choose how to move a unit, i.e. ordering a unit to move may not imply a route.



So Many Units, So Little Time

With two dozen units, you can't just order around two units at a time (for example). It would take forever to build a formation or stage an assault. But more than four orders per turn becomes unwieldy.

One way to handle this is to allow units to form into a Task Force. Each side could then make grander moves when they need to move the squadron, and then settle into surgical moves and attacks when in position. Escort-class vessels, whose primary function is screening, may have the special ability to form into their own Task Force without expending an Order.

So in the scenario above, Ixtalpox may instead issue one order to form a "Task Force" of his entire squadron, then issue a second order to "move forward", i.e. the attempt to possess the center of the mat. If he did this, Oukloe's monitors would still attack, having initiative and getting to fire first, but then the entire squadron would pick up and move away from them, dulling their future usefulness.

 

[mike wightman]

I still can not for the life of me work out why MgT has not adapted ActA to Traveller or better yet VaS to Traveller.

They have re-drafted ActA how many times now to model fleet combat inn how many different universes? But still no Traveller adaptation.

There is something about VaS that makes mer feel that it should be the rules system adapted to Traveller, can't work out why though

 

[robject]

I still can not for the life of me work out why MgT has not adapted ActA to Traveller or better yet VaS to Traveller.

I've asked Matt directly about that. One consideration is that ACTA is already the Sci-Fi combat engine for two Mongoose games, and adding another at this time is not something they want to do. But, he knows it is doable.

Probably then it's a matter of timing, resources available, and priority?

 

[robject]

Ixtalpox and Oukloe Slug it Out

At some point, Ixtalpox and Oukloe find their squadrons in a slug-fest near the mainworld. Call it three dreadnoughts, six cruisers, and twelve escorts, facing one another with the option to run or fight.

Ixtalpox' cruisers are intermixed with the dreadnoughts, and the escorts are in groups of four, screening the dreadnoughts.

Oukloe's units are split into two groups: the main group protects the mainworld, with two dreadnoughts, two cruisers, and eight of the escorts, while the secondary group, grouped as a Task Force, is trying to execute a flanking maneuver. It has one fast dreadnought, four escorts, and four cruisers.

Orders

Ixtalpox gets two orders, but unbeknownst to Oukloe has an "extra order" that he uses this turn. His first order is to group his cruisers into a single Task Force, his second order has them rushing forward, and the third order has them focusing their fire on one of Oukloe's dreadnoughts.

Oukloe, meanwhile, has three orders, and predictably orders her Flanking Force forward, and then to attack one of Ixtalpox' dreadnoughts. Her third order is to have the task force retreat close to the main group.

Turn

Ixtalpox' cruisers have the highest initiative, so they move last and attack first.

Both first orders are moves, so Oukloe's units move in, then Ixtalpox' units move forward.

Now Ixtalpox' cruisers attack the nearest dreadnought. Of course four escorts screen it. Attacking as one Task Force means the attack is coordinated into one attempt, and damage is additive. The result is Severity 2, which is fairly show-stopping. Sev 1 would be annihilation-worthy.

The Sev 2 hit tears through ... what?

Does it completely wipe the four escorts off the map, then proceed to ignite the dreadnought into a tiny temporary sun? Certainly four PF Sloans shouldn't be able to stop a massed spine attack. And a meson attack completely bypasses those Escorts. If something could precipitate a meson attack early, like meson screens in the path of attack, then it would render meson guns largely useless.

And what's more, escorts can't position themselves so that their screens are guaranteed to be in the path of a meson attack. I don't even know if it's possible to cover a fraction of the paths between an attacker and the target.


Boredom

At this point I'm bored, which means I need to stop, go over this a bit more, and really think about what moves would be fun for two squadrons to make, and how trading attacks with each other is interesting.


Task Forces

I am liking the Task Force trope. It allows mass attacks on single targets, and lets me move large numbers of units. It solves the limitation of only being able to make a few orders per turn.

 

[mike wightman]

Some thoughts.

Main weapon is your spinal - that's your attack factor.
Secondary batteries can be split between offensive use - weapon and fuel scrubbing - and defensive use - reducing the scrubbing.
Screens can defend against main weapon attack and secondary batteries.
Armour defends against scrubbing.

Maneuver rating is agility in HG - I still think a model for splitting your agility between movement and defence is the way to go.

Dreadnaught - high in everything.
BBs - high in most but something has to be reduced.
Cruisers - high in one, everything else medium unless you reduce them to small to make something else big
Escorts - no spinal but can have high ratings everywhere else.

Thoughts/comments?

 

[robject]

Rewind, Try Again

Okay, let me re-imagine the scenario I had set up above.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Ixtalpox' cruisers have the highest initiative, so they move last and attack first.

Both first orders are moves, so Oukloe's units move in, then Ixtalpox' units move forward.

Now Ixtalpox' cruisers attack the nearest dreadnought. Four escorts are screening it. Attacking as one Task Force means the attack is coordinated into one attempt, and damage is additive. So instead of six Rating 5 hits, we have one big honking dramatic hit: a Disruptive and Overwhelming Critical Meson Strafe, or something.


The Trick

The result takes out the escorts and the dreadnought. It is probably based on how the damage is applied, how many times and how severe its effects are.

The escorts are acting as auxiliary screens for the dreadnought, probably with distinct advantages and disadvantages to the dreadnought's own meson screens, but the trick is to treat them as a single target. The mass attack targets the dreadnought. The escorts acting as screens are drawn into that target as the first line of defense.

The second part of the trick is in not having to roll for every damage effect. Some of these effects will simply trump the escorts and apply themselves full-bore to the dreadnought. Other effects simply overwhelm and wipe out the escorts.

So why not always attack en masse? I think this would be ideal if all you have to do is kill one thing. It also might work reductio ad absurdum -- where an entire squadron is somehow treated as one single target, and the other side simply blasts away at it and sees what's left afterwards. That's also potentially a way to play a fast version of the game that's more like High Guard -- slug away until one side wins.
[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

[robject]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Descriptive Damage

The massed meson hit used descriptives which, somehow, tell us how the attack damages the composite target. That implies a possible scale or rating system for hits.

Meson Hit. Bypasses armor.
[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Critical. [FONT=arial,helvetica]Destroys components. Kills escorts. Spines cause these.[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]Strafe. Multiple areas damaged. Perhaps this is for the more powerful spines.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica]Critical Strafe[FONT=arial,helvetica] kills 1D escorts. [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]Overwhelming. Damages the central target.
Disruptive. Not sure.

An Overwhelming Critical Strafe will eliminate escorts AND damage the central target. A Meson Spine attack is going to inflict a Critical Meson Hit. Assume there is a 1 in 6 chance that it will inflict Strafe. Roll 1 on 1D. Assume there is a 1 in 6 chance that it will inflict Overwhelm.

A massed attack of five meson spines inflicts a Critical Meson Hit. Roll for Strafe, 5 chances because we're using 5 guns: 1, 1, 5, 3, 4. We have Strafe. Roll for Overwhelm, 5 times: 3, 3, 5, 1, 6. We have Overwhelm. Thus, this is an Overwhelming Critical Meson Strafe.



Simplified

The above rules are absurd. Here's an alternative:

Massed attacks inflict one hit per spine. Five spines = five hits. The escort screens have to be dealt with first. Typically, one hit from a spine will kill an escort. Thus roll five attacks, and if the escorts are all toasted before the fifth roll, then the fifth roll attacks the dreadnought.

The odds of killing a dreadnought with one spine hit should be low.


If five big dreadnoughts were doing a massed attack, perhaps their spines are Strafe spines, inflicting 1D hits per spine, for an average of 17 or 18 hits. That is quite likely to kill a single dreadnought.

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[robject]

Dreadnoughts Take a Pounding

They shouldn't be sissies, and I want to de-emphasize the one-hit-one-kill rule for dreadnoughts. In short, I want damage tracking, which tends to bore me to death. And yet, I think it needs to be here. So I have to dig up some fun ways to represent damage.

Smoking. A "smoking hull" is so cliche and so unreal that it makes my eyes roll. And yet, when I see hulls on fire, I have an almost visceral reaction. It is obvious that something is going wrong. When my car is smoking, it's also losing power. Thus "Smoking" could be a visual metaphor for a downgrade in maneuver capability.

Hull Breach. The defenses have been compromised. The ship is easier to damage, and more likely to be killed next hit. Sounds like a smoking hull to me, though. If there's no useful metaphor to represent this, then I'll do something else instead.

Loss of Control. Hulls with damage may be harder to control. In game terms, this equates to a random drift (1 hex per turn, roll 1D for direction) for the ship in each term. And at this point we can introduce collision. Ramming is fairly ridiculous, and the odds of one dreadnought occupying the same space as another when the scale is tens of thousands of cubic kilometers per hex, well it is absurd. And yet, this might be a fun side effect of wounded hulls.

Scrubbed. Not quite a tactical kill, but a dreadnought whose spine has been turned into slag is still marginally useful.

 

[Ulsyus]

Just a couple of quick comments - can't read everything yet...

Something I liked from FASA's Leviathan game was that larger ships spanned more than one hex. It's an elegant way to encapsulate an element of the game rules.

Not really possible in space if your movement units or hexes represent 30000km (30Mm?)

Initiative Helps You How?

With simultaneous movement, the player with the initiative gets to reorder one call-sign's movement (which occurs before firing)

With two dozen units, you can't just order around two units at a time (for example). It would take forever to build a formation or stage an assault. But more than four orders per turn becomes unwieldy.

One way to handle this is to allow units to form into a Task Force. Each side could then make grander moves when they need to move the squadron, and then settle into surgical moves and attacks when in position. Escort-class vessels, whose primary function is screening, may have the special ability to form into their own Task Force without expending an Order.

Exactly: BR did a great job a promulgating the idea of call-signs (C/S) being task forces made up of however many of whatever type of vessels!