After re-reading the posts on combat in this topic a few times, I've decided to work on a compromise that uses bits from both Sigg and Employee's suggestions.
Logarithmic Weapon Scale
Instead of using Sigg's attack strength table, I was thinking of using design as a way to simplify combat. Since we want bay weapons, then I think Employee is right in wanting a logarithmic attack scale.
In other words, having a few classes of weapons (gun, turret battery, small bay, large bay, spine) allows us to design ships with purpose in mind. Plus we might not need statistical combat tables.
That's what Battery Factors are in High Guard, more or less.
Roll for Damage
At the same time, I also think that Sigg is right in departing from CT and rolling for damage. In fact, if starship combat were more like personal combat then we've only got one combat model, instead of two. What's more, with one combat model we could impose combat scale, allowing infantry, vehicles, and starships to be involved in the same combat actions.
That's a win-win-win.
Just wild guesstimating, here. Needs a lot of work:
</font>
- Single weapon: factor-1</font>
- Triple turret: factor-2</font>
- 50t bay: factor-3</font>
- 100t bay: factor-4</font>
- Spine: factor-5</font>
Perhaps the battery factor is the number of dice of damage to roll.
In T4, you rolled for damage, but armor absorbed part of that damage. That would work well for starship combat: certain types of armor absorbs certain types of damage.
Hull armor absorbs some kinetic & energy damage.
Reflec armor absorbs some laser damage.
Dampers absorb some radiation damage.
Screens absorb some meson energy.
Black Globes absorb some % of all damage, and fail when their absorbed energy exceeds some number.
Damage which does leak through can be applied randomly to the exposed ship systems in a manner similar to personal combat.
