Book 2 v5

[Scott Martin]

Just because *most* ships in the LBB-2 universe will be unarmoured doesn't mean that you will not have armoured LBB-2 sized combatants: if a 400 dT SDB has enough armour to shrug off most LBB-2 scale weapons it is a frightening threat to LBB-2 ships. The fact that the main weapons from a kiloton-range Destroyer excort can go through it (armour and all) end-to end do not change the fact that this class of vessel will rule the small ship universe (biggest fish in a small pond as it were)

That said (and I now have some feedback in this "Fleet" topic ) the "biased" group that uses starships the most (and thus can be bothered to post in the fleet) remains concentrated in the low to moderate rules end of the spectrum, with low to moderate starship combat.

Almost everyone who does lots of ship combat (other than in the TCS "mini game") uses variant rules (up to and including Star Fleet Battles instead of *any* traveller system)

I propose that we put together a draft "Small ship" system and see if we can build something "close enough" to be interesting for players and GM's to make ships out of, and *then* worry about a starship combat system.

The only real question then becomes "how big are the hardpoints?" (1 dT CT hardpoints, 3 dT TNE hardpoints?, 6 dT TNE Barbettes?)

My vote is 1 dT hardpoints for compatibility with CT, which should not include the gunners station. The Gunners station for pretty much every CT ship can easily be subsumed in that massive "bridge" and "computer" tonnage.

This will be "tight" for missile turrets, and you're just not going to get 3 laser weapons into it, but it gives us a much cleaner "CT" upgrade path than any other option.

Or to put this another way, If I put together a draft LBB-2 like system using FF&S style modular components, can I count on a few people to actually try and build some civilian / non-military starships with this system?

Scott Martin

 

[Jeffr0]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
So this is a thread about LBB-2 not HG right?

Why has this topic wandered into fleet actions? I believe that there is a HG thread already started by robject on this very board...

I think the thing that got me going off on a tangent was complaints about the number die rolls involved in combats-- even with a small number of ships. As ideas got tossed around... talk of combining fire from multiple ships arose which further derailed us.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott Martin:
So this is a thread about LBB-2 not HG right?

Why has this topic wandered into fleet actions? I believe that there is a HG thread already started by robject on this very board...

I think the thing that got me going off on a tangent was complaints about the number die rolls involved in combats-- even with a small number of ships. As ideas got tossed around... talk of combining fire from multiple ships arose which further derailed us. </font>[/QUOTE]Deviation from topic is the norm, and in fact can be useful, though it does add confusion at the same time.

 

[Jeffr0]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
I propose that we put together a draft "Small ship" system and see if we can build something "close enough" to be interesting for players and GM's to make ships out of, and *then* worry about a starship combat system.

That's traditional Traveller methodology. Let's generate a bunch of information and... then see if we can figure out what to do with it later.

Most other tactical games start with a core idea. In Star Fleet Battles it's power allocation (and the Fed CA and Klingon D7 designs.) In Battletech its got (oddly enough) the heat scale. Car Wars is really built around its phased movement system and handling track/crash table system.

Traveller space combat is tricky. Maneuver is the most fun aspect in tactical combat... and yet there's not a lot you can do within a Newtonian movement system. Traveller's analog to the other games' power/heat/handling systems is the old computer rules... which have pretty much been abandoned.

So what is the central unifying concept of revised LBB2 combat?

 

[parmasson]

^If I had to choose I would say that everything grows from number of turrets allowed.

Second is acceleration.

If it existed in LBB2 armor would be 3rd

My reasoning:
My players want to know the hull size of their opponent's ship because they know that you get one turret for every 100 tons. Armor and acceleration all come as secondary questions.

Size= Firepower in Book 2.

 

[parmasson]

That's traditional Traveller methodology. Let's generate a bunch of information and... then see if we can figure out what to do with it later.

I don't fully understand your point. What do suggest as the way to proceed?

 

[mike wightman]

Vector movement - hex based or plotted - is too complicated to play out a ship to ship engagement with most of the role playing groups I've been part of over the years.

I've had great fun with running Mayday etc. as wargames for an evening's entertainment.

I would still look to the range band pseudo-vector system that Starter Traveller gives us for the movement system.

Have a three tiered resolution scale:
very distant for the sub-hunt bit, hour long turns perhaps
medium range for maneuver to combat, for the chase element, ten to twenty minute turns
short range for weapns fire, minute long turns

Weapons should do dice of damage
light laser 1d6
medium laser 2d6
heavy laser 3d6

pulse laser +1 damage per die

etc.... I've posted this before and can dig it up again.

 

[robject]

I think Kurt and Sigg have good points.

The fundamental, defining Book 2 combat scenario is the Scout or Free Trader versus the pirate. Two ships; actually, two crew pitted against each other, each with strengths and weaknesses that contribute to their chances for success, failure, stalemate, or escape. [*1]

In Book 2, the two major factors in combat are (1) what threat each brings to the encounter, and (2) who dictates the combat distance. [*2] As a first approximation, that's firepower and acceleration. [*3]

And as far as the playing field goes, the fundamental unit of measurement is "combat distance"; i.e. the range. If turn length is held constant with respect to range, it is then easy to extrapolate a hex-based or a vector-based system of movement. Therefore, it seems that a range-band-like system is probably the best bet.


footnote 1 In involving most or all players in every combat round, it seems that role-playing should be at about the same level of involvement in Book 2 ship combat as it is in any other endeavour.

footnote 2 A minor factor could be the deckplan, since the wargaming element merges with the roleplaying element when boarding actions occur. Not to mention that Marc wants to integrate both design and combat with deckplans...

footnote 3 Frankly, firepower and acceleration are also the major factors in High Guard, as well. Range can be, too, but HG2 simplifies this to "line" and "reserve", doesn't it? The major difference I see is that High Guard is a wargaming system, whereas "Book 2" is meant to involve the players.

 

[Jeffr0]

The core scenario would be PC ship vs corsair... but I think representing a patrol ship vs a smuggler slipping through and an SDB vs a bigger ship should be possible as well.

And the central unifying concept would be that the actions and decisions of the pilot, gunners, engineers, and electronics (ew) ops all impact the game. That's what will set the system apart.

Maybe each turn, the players will seperately allocate action points. Some allocations will require skill rolls or contests.... And the outcomes add modifiers to the more traditional combat die rolls for to-hit and damage.

Breaking down the engagement into opening, middle, and endgame as sigg suggests will further differentiate the system.

The design system and components should come last... all built around adding additional flavor to this system.

 

[robject]

In response to a good, clarifying email from Marc, I'm referring the Book2v5 and HGv5 topics over to Traveller5.com, where I've created a forum entirely for starship discussion topics, and created an initial "first things first" topic with his email as the first post.

http://traveller5.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=16

 

[aramis]

The more I read, the more Marc seems to be aiming for "Unplayable but artistic" approaches.

I get a strong feeling that Marc is in dire need of finding time to actually PLAY a game of anything.

 

[Scott Martin]

I'd go with "Unrealistic but Artistic" actually.

Of course that means that T5 would get to compete directly with Firefly...

I'm currently pondering scaled engagement levels: Imperial Starfire did a nice job of strategic / intercept / tactical scaling with reduced turn and segment lengths as the action got "closer". I note that detection was automatic until "MagicTech" was achieved and cloaking devices came into common use.

Scott Martin

 

[parmasson]

Unrealistic? What don’t you gentlemen like?

 

[Scott Martin]

First off the top of my head would be the T5 small craft, where it was well-nigh impossible to recreate any of the CT small craft, and lower tech (Below Tl-13 or so) small craft were *very* sluggish.

There also seems to be an idea that we should "design by deckplan" and I keep getting hints of SFB-like starship combat where you cross off deckplan pieces.

Other issues like lack of realism in starship missile drives (CT 50 Kg Missiles just won't work in any other system) and sensor rules. Current Real World (TM) sensor systems could pick up a 100 MW thermal emission from say, Pluto: I'll let you do the reseacch to figure out how far away you can be from a military starship and have efectively no chance of being detected. I'll give you the hint that it isn't "Mars"

The "Everything must be between -5 and +5" is also getting a bit annoying.

I *do* like some of the discussions on skills and knowledge areas though: I'm waiting with bated breath to see if some folks can put together a demo of this so I don't have to do it myself

I also like the feeling that T5 will not be released until "it's ready". I bought T4 from DTRPG and was *very* glad I didn't pay full price for it. Blech.

It's also nice that the "LBB lobby" seems to be very much in evidence, so this may steer nicely: MT's task system was very well done, and I'm hoping that it (or something like it) comes back in T5. Simple but very powerful. I shouldn't need a dice bag to play Traveller, I should be able to cannibalize a game of Risk and get all the dice I need.

Scott Martin

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
The only real question then becomes "how big are the hardpoints?" (1 dT CT hardpoints, 3 dT TNE hardpoints?, 6 dT TNE Barbettes?)

D) All of the above.

TNE provided several alternate uses for the modular cans, so civilian designs should have the option. Para-mil and military designs should *definitely* have the option, and if this design system is meant to support a more generic Traveller (ie. not necessarily the 3I), then a "small ship" universe will need ways to differentiate between military and "armed civilian". A little blister turret with triple lasers is still a defensive weapon, militarily speaking. A 6-ton can with a 3m emitter lens is quite a different matter...

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The more I read, the more Marc seems to be aiming for "Unplayable but artistic" approaches.

Edit His approach is parabolic, to be sure.

I get a strong feeling that Marc is in dire need of finding time to actually PLAY a game of anything.

I agree. Though Marc has played Traveller in the last few months, I don't think he's played one of the standard adventures or similar for a decade or two.

Hopefully when T5 gets around to true playtesting, he'll meet Kurega and another local or two for beer and Traveller for one night every couple weeks. I'd say the latest time to profitably start that would be January 2007.

 

[parmasson]

I would stand ready should he need players to run a face to face game. B/N is not that far away.

That would be kinda cool.


Have dice, will travel . . .

 

[aramis]

I said play, and MEANT play, not run.

When testing my own game system, the most productive playtest was having someone else run the game and I played in it. It told me quite quickly where and how I needed to change the wordings, tables, and rules.

And no, 2007 is FAR too late.

 

[robject]

I guess that depends on whether T5 needs to be completely rewritten or not. Not being a game designer, I don't know much about these sorts of things.

I said play, and MEANT play, not run.

Yep.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Kurega could do a good job of it, since I know he's got the plot hooks to spare.

Now if we could get Boomslang flown up there to join in, that would be worth having someone cut a DVD of the session for the rest of us.

 

[parmasson]

I said play, and MEANT play, not run.

When testing my own game system, the most productive playtest was having someone else run the game and I played in it. It told me quite quickly where and how I needed to change the wordings, tables, and rules

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Kurega could do a good job of it, since I know he's got the plot hooks to spare.

Now if we could get Boomslang flown up there to join in, that would be worth having someone cut a DVD of the session for the rest of us.