Classic Traveller Sensor Rules

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
I've yet to catch up, but wouldn't using passive sensors only be better represented by just cutting the range? After all, active sensors use the same detectors they just send out a signal that can be "bounced" back.

There are those who argue that Active sensors have half the range of Passives. Then, there are those who argue the other way around.

What I did, with the rules, was this--

Range is the same for every sensor. I just added a modifier if certain sensors are used.

See, a Passive scan is made at the numbers shown in the sensor listing: 2+ / 4+ / 6+ / 8+.

If a scan is attempted with Active sensors (Radar, for example), then I left the range alone, but I added a -2DM to Active scans.

So, in effect, the range of the Active sensor is shorter because it's harder to achieve. Active scan throws are, effectively: 4+ / 6+ / 8+ / 10+

Keep that in mind and look at Very Long range. At VL range, a -1DM is applied for each hex.

Let's say you've got a Class I sensor, and an object is at 19 hexes. The Passive sensor would detect this object on a roll of 12+, but an Active sensor would detect that bogey on a roll of 14+.

Since it's unlikely that the 14+ will be rolled (a good sensor operator might be able to pull this off), the Active sensors really do have shorter range than the Passives.


Consider the Targeting throws too.

Since Active sensors are better at targeting than passives, Actives get a number of targeting attempts equal to the ship's computer model number before the -6DM kicks in.

A Type T Patrol Cruiser could attempt 3 targeting throws to lock three different bogies in a single round using Active sensors. If it attempted a lock on a 4th bogey during that same round, that active sensor lock attempt would be thrown with the -6DM modifier (this is a time/equipment thing).

But, ALL passive locks are attempted with the -6DM...because passive sensors just ain't that good at locking onto targets.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
I've yet to catch up, but wouldn't using passive sensors only be better represented by just cutting the range? After all, active sensors use the same detectors they just send out a signal that can be "bounced" back.

There are those who argue that Active sensors have half the range of Passives. Then, there are those who argue the other way around.

What I did, with the rules, was this--

Range is the same for every sensor. I just added a modifier if certain sensors are used.

See, a Passive scan is made at the numbers shown in the sensor listing: 2+ / 4+ / 6+ / 8+.

If a scan is attempted with Active sensors (Radar, for example), then I left the range alone, but I added a -2DM to Active scans.

So, in effect, the range of the Active sensor is shorter because it's harder to achieve. Active scan throws are, effectively: 4+ / 6+ / 8+ / 10+

Keep that in mind and look at Very Long range. At VL range, a -1DM is applied for each hex.

Let's say you've got a Class I sensor, and an object is at 19 hexes. The Passive sensor would detect this object on a roll of 12+, but an Active sensor would detect that bogey on a roll of 14+.

Since it's unlikely that the 14+ will be rolled (a good sensor operator might be able to pull this off), the Active sensors really do have shorter range than the Passives.


Consider the Targeting throws too.

Since Active sensors are better at targeting than passives, Actives get a number of targeting attempts equal to the ship's computer model number before the -6DM kicks in.

A Type T Patrol Cruiser could attempt 3 targeting throws to lock three different bogies in a single round using Active sensors. If it attempted a lock on a 4th bogey during that same round, that active sensor lock attempt would be thrown with the -6DM modifier (this is a time/equipment thing).

But, ALL passive locks are attempted with the -6DM...because passive sensors just ain't that good at locking onto targets.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
From a color point of view, how many sensor bogies would you include in a standard sensor sweep?

Couple of things about the rules--

-- Only one scan (Detection Task) is allowed per round, whether active (radar) or passive (passive ems).

-- Any number of sensor locks (Targeting Tasks) can be attempted during a single round provided that a lock is attempted on each bogey once. Locks can only be attempted on previously detected bogies, but it's OK to attempt a lock on a bogey that was detected in the same round. Also, targeting locks are subject to a massive -6DM, but a number of Active lock attempts are exempt from this penalty equal to the model number of the ship's computer (i.e. a ship with a model 2bis can attempt two active sensor locks without the penalty each round, but all other lock attempts are made with the -6DM.).


So, given your question: How many bogies can be detected by the single sensor scan allowed each round?

My answer--

Every bogey that the roll detects.


In the example I posted, the Type AH Herc attempts its sensor scan on Round 1. The GM knows that there are two potential objects that can be detected: The missile that was just launched and the ship it was launched from.

The Herc's sensor scan roll resulted in a 6...which was good enough to detect the ship but one point shy of detecting the missile.

So, the ship was detected but the missile wasn't.

Had the Herc's sensor operator rolled a 5 (instead of a 4), then the modified roll would have been a 7, which would have been good enough to detect both the ship and the missile.

The short answer to your question is: All objects that can be detected by a ship's sensor scan are detected.

If a ship stumbles upong a squadron of fighters, all of them flying in tight formation, then the ship's single sensor scan, if good enough to detect one of them, will detect all of them.

"Oh my God! I count 22 fighters 12 degrees and 70,000 km off the starboard bow!"

For example, a ship comes out of Hyperspace at 120 Planetary Diameters and does a passive scan. Assuming no ships, how many bogies would you throw at them? How much rock or satellites or debris would you have floating around a given planet?

Oh, I gotcha.

I don't know the answer to that. In my game, I think I will skip that sort of thing most of the time (assuming it happens).

But, I think a GM would be in for an incredible game the night he starts to screw with the players when describing the bogies that way.

"Why did draw our attention to that comet? He never mentions that sort of thing during a game...unless...unless....yeah, I bet there's a corsair hiding in its tail. BATTLESTATIONS!"

As a GM, I would just look upon this sort of thing to keep the game interesting (and the players on their toes.)

Some of the best games come out of stuff like this.

You know what I'm talking about. The players go off, half-cocked, towards the comet's tail. Sensors report nothing but the comet, but they're convinced something's there because YOU mentioned it.

So, they pile into the ship's turrets and fire a few loads of bright light into the comet's tail just to be safe.

And you...thinking off the top of your head, swing a customs boat off around the local moon, hailing the players' ship, "Prepare to be boarded in the name of Emperor Strephon!"

It goes on from there, and you and your players have the best time--just makin' stuff up as you go along.

Some of those games are the best.

That's what role playing is all about.

I can tell from your example you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
From a color point of view, how many sensor bogies would you include in a standard sensor sweep?

Couple of things about the rules--

-- Only one scan (Detection Task) is allowed per round, whether active (radar) or passive (passive ems).

-- Any number of sensor locks (Targeting Tasks) can be attempted during a single round provided that a lock is attempted on each bogey once. Locks can only be attempted on previously detected bogies, but it's OK to attempt a lock on a bogey that was detected in the same round. Also, targeting locks are subject to a massive -6DM, but a number of Active lock attempts are exempt from this penalty equal to the model number of the ship's computer (i.e. a ship with a model 2bis can attempt two active sensor locks without the penalty each round, but all other lock attempts are made with the -6DM.).


So, given your question: How many bogies can be detected by the single sensor scan allowed each round?

My answer--

Every bogey that the roll detects.


In the example I posted, the Type AH Herc attempts its sensor scan on Round 1. The GM knows that there are two potential objects that can be detected: The missile that was just launched and the ship it was launched from.

The Herc's sensor scan roll resulted in a 6...which was good enough to detect the ship but one point shy of detecting the missile.

So, the ship was detected but the missile wasn't.

Had the Herc's sensor operator rolled a 5 (instead of a 4), then the modified roll would have been a 7, which would have been good enough to detect both the ship and the missile.

The short answer to your question is: All objects that can be detected by a ship's sensor scan are detected.

If a ship stumbles upong a squadron of fighters, all of them flying in tight formation, then the ship's single sensor scan, if good enough to detect one of them, will detect all of them.

"Oh my God! I count 22 fighters 12 degrees and 70,000 km off the starboard bow!"

For example, a ship comes out of Hyperspace at 120 Planetary Diameters and does a passive scan. Assuming no ships, how many bogies would you throw at them? How much rock or satellites or debris would you have floating around a given planet?

Oh, I gotcha.

I don't know the answer to that. In my game, I think I will skip that sort of thing most of the time (assuming it happens).

But, I think a GM would be in for an incredible game the night he starts to screw with the players when describing the bogies that way.

"Why did draw our attention to that comet? He never mentions that sort of thing during a game...unless...unless....yeah, I bet there's a corsair hiding in its tail. BATTLESTATIONS!"

As a GM, I would just look upon this sort of thing to keep the game interesting (and the players on their toes.)

Some of the best games come out of stuff like this.

You know what I'm talking about. The players go off, half-cocked, towards the comet's tail. Sensors report nothing but the comet, but they're convinced something's there because YOU mentioned it.

So, they pile into the ship's turrets and fire a few loads of bright light into the comet's tail just to be safe.

And you...thinking off the top of your head, swing a customs boat off around the local moon, hailing the players' ship, "Prepare to be boarded in the name of Emperor Strephon!"

It goes on from there, and you and your players have the best time--just makin' stuff up as you go along.

Some of those games are the best.

That's what role playing is all about.

I can tell from your example you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:

Originally posted by Ptah:
[qb]
Class I, II, part of the computer package.
Class III +2 tons.
Class IV +4 tons.

I'd make the Class II be 1 ton, myself. I also would propose that the Class I targeting systems not be part of this. Targeting systems should be separate, except for self-guiding weapons.

Instead, that would be the 1 ton of fire control that LBB2 1st ed requires for each turret, or at least the Class I FCS with a lesser scale of tonnage for increasing suites, perhaps.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by WJP:

Originally posted by Ptah:
[qb]
Class I, II, part of the computer package.
Class III +2 tons.
Class IV +4 tons.

I'd make the Class II be 1 ton, myself. I also would propose that the Class I targeting systems not be part of this. Targeting systems should be separate, except for self-guiding weapons.

Instead, that would be the 1 ton of fire control that LBB2 1st ed requires for each turret, or at least the Class I FCS with a lesser scale of tonnage for increasing suites, perhaps.

 

[Plankowner]

WJP, you answered my questions about how many objects would be detected very completely, thank you. I didn't understand how the Herc could have detected the ship but not the missile with only one sensor roll. I get it now, very elegant.

The reason I asked about how many normal bogeys would you throw out there originally came from your example of being in the asteroid belt.

I would think that the asteroid that the Surveyor was hiding behind would have ALREADY been detected by the Herc during one of the previous rounds. After all, you said they were expecting something. My thought was that you would have told them there were 1d6 asteroids on in sensor range, the players could decide if they wanted to try for a sensor lock, probably not. THEN they detect that one of their quiet little asteroids that they had been sort of watching lit up like a Christmas Tree, so they would not have needed to roll again once the Surveyor went active, but WOULD have needed to roll for the missile launch. Either way, with 4 rolled, they would have failed to detect it, so in the end it wouldn't affect the game flow.

Yes, I used to mess with the players minds occasionally just to keep them on their toes and the comet scenario does indeed sound like something that would have happened in one of my games. Off the cuff gaming can be a LOT of fun, when used in moderation.

Regarding the sensor cost and mass, yes, the costs were in MCr, sorry I didn't explicitly state that. I originally assumed that ALL classes of sensors could be assumed into the Bridge mass, but I think I am leaning towards a percentage of bridge size for upgrades. After all, a larger ship will need more sensor arrays to cover the entire hull, so tying it to bridge size addresses that.

I agree that Class III and IV sensors should be restricted somehow.

What do you think about the "double sensor range" vs "90 Hex) limit for tracking?

 

[Plankowner]

WJP, you answered my questions about how many objects would be detected very completely, thank you. I didn't understand how the Herc could have detected the ship but not the missile with only one sensor roll. I get it now, very elegant.

The reason I asked about how many normal bogeys would you throw out there originally came from your example of being in the asteroid belt.

I would think that the asteroid that the Surveyor was hiding behind would have ALREADY been detected by the Herc during one of the previous rounds. After all, you said they were expecting something. My thought was that you would have told them there were 1d6 asteroids on in sensor range, the players could decide if they wanted to try for a sensor lock, probably not. THEN they detect that one of their quiet little asteroids that they had been sort of watching lit up like a Christmas Tree, so they would not have needed to roll again once the Surveyor went active, but WOULD have needed to roll for the missile launch. Either way, with 4 rolled, they would have failed to detect it, so in the end it wouldn't affect the game flow.

Yes, I used to mess with the players minds occasionally just to keep them on their toes and the comet scenario does indeed sound like something that would have happened in one of my games. Off the cuff gaming can be a LOT of fun, when used in moderation.

Regarding the sensor cost and mass, yes, the costs were in MCr, sorry I didn't explicitly state that. I originally assumed that ALL classes of sensors could be assumed into the Bridge mass, but I think I am leaning towards a percentage of bridge size for upgrades. After all, a larger ship will need more sensor arrays to cover the entire hull, so tying it to bridge size addresses that.

I agree that Class III and IV sensors should be restricted somehow.

What do you think about the "double sensor range" vs "90 Hex) limit for tracking?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
I also would propose that the Class I targeting systems not be part of this.

You know...we could break the sensor classes into two parts. We could have the standard sensor classes:

CLASS I
CLASS II
CLASS III
CLASS IV

But then, we could add a rule that says, in effect, that a savings can be obtained by purchasing stripped down versions of the four sensor classes.

So, if you're on a budget, trying to save every credit you can, when building your ship, you could purchase your Class I sensors without the targeting sensors.

These Class I sensors would still include some flavor of active and passive sensor arrays, but the entire sensor package would be geared towards Detection tasks rather than Targeting tasks (probably heavier on the passive sensors and missing the more expensive active units).

(Why am I thinking of the Celeron processor as I write this?)

So, what I'm saying is: We could implement a rule where a cheaper version of the Class I sensor package could be purchased, but if that version of Class I's is used, then only Detection tasks are allowed during space combat (no targeting allowed).

So, any type of ship that is not fitted with weapons (and never will be) might want to consider this cost saving method.

The one problem I have with this type of thing is this: Sensor Locks (Targeting Tasks) aren't just used for space combat. A sensor lock is required in order for weapons to be fired. But, sensor locks are also useful for a wide variety of other things as well.

Remember, the Detection task only gives vague information about a bogey. There are a number of reasons why a ship might want exact information about a target.

Some type of sensor lock is probably required for two ships to dock in space (maybe a passive sensor lock can be obtained, at close range, even with the -6DM to passive locks). Lining up two airlock hatches so that an umbilical can be stretched between the two is exacting work.

Any time detailed information is needed about a target, a lock is required (and the lock can be obtained with either active or passive sensors--it's just that active sensors are much more suited to obtaining sensor locks).

Given that restriction, I'm not sure how many starship captains would make use of a rule that strips sensors of their targeting capability--but a company might find some use for this type of thing...but I'm at a loss right now for an example.

It seems to me that even a system tug would need to be able to attempt a sensor lock when it grapples with whatever it's towing.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
I also would propose that the Class I targeting systems not be part of this.

You know...we could break the sensor classes into two parts. We could have the standard sensor classes:

CLASS I
CLASS II
CLASS III
CLASS IV

But then, we could add a rule that says, in effect, that a savings can be obtained by purchasing stripped down versions of the four sensor classes.

So, if you're on a budget, trying to save every credit you can, when building your ship, you could purchase your Class I sensors without the targeting sensors.

These Class I sensors would still include some flavor of active and passive sensor arrays, but the entire sensor package would be geared towards Detection tasks rather than Targeting tasks (probably heavier on the passive sensors and missing the more expensive active units).

(Why am I thinking of the Celeron processor as I write this?)

So, what I'm saying is: We could implement a rule where a cheaper version of the Class I sensor package could be purchased, but if that version of Class I's is used, then only Detection tasks are allowed during space combat (no targeting allowed).

So, any type of ship that is not fitted with weapons (and never will be) might want to consider this cost saving method.

The one problem I have with this type of thing is this: Sensor Locks (Targeting Tasks) aren't just used for space combat. A sensor lock is required in order for weapons to be fired. But, sensor locks are also useful for a wide variety of other things as well.

Remember, the Detection task only gives vague information about a bogey. There are a number of reasons why a ship might want exact information about a target.

Some type of sensor lock is probably required for two ships to dock in space (maybe a passive sensor lock can be obtained, at close range, even with the -6DM to passive locks). Lining up two airlock hatches so that an umbilical can be stretched between the two is exacting work.

Any time detailed information is needed about a target, a lock is required (and the lock can be obtained with either active or passive sensors--it's just that active sensors are much more suited to obtaining sensor locks).

Given that restriction, I'm not sure how many starship captains would make use of a rule that strips sensors of their targeting capability--but a company might find some use for this type of thing...but I'm at a loss right now for an example.

It seems to me that even a system tug would need to be able to attempt a sensor lock when it grapples with whatever it's towing.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
WJP, you answered my questions about how many objects would be detected very completely, thank you. I didn't understand how the Herc could have detected the ship but not the missile with only one sensor roll. I get it now, very elegant.

Consider this--

You've got an X-Boat tender docking with an X-Bout out at medium range. Also out there is a stealthed ship, that has been rigged with an EM Mask, and is coasting.

Your ship will detect bogies on a 6+ at medium range.

Once all the DMs are worked out (sensor ops skill, target size...etc), let's say you've got a +2 on the roll not counting the DMs for the EM Mask and coasting on the stealthed ship. All other mods are accounted for.

You'll make one sensor scan roll using passive sensors.

If your one roll is 2-3, you won't detect anything.

If your one roll is 4-8, you'll detect both the X-Boat Tender and the X-Boat.

If your one roll is 9+, you'll detect both of those vessels AND the stealthed ship (the EM Mask provides a -3DM, and coasting provides a -2DM).

A side benefit to playing this way: When you only roll one detection roll instead of one roll for each bogey, players will not know how many bogies to expect.

For example, if the GM had rolled three detection rolls in the above example, making two of them, then the players might catch on that there's a third bogey out there that they didn't detect. They'll be looking for it.

Also, doing the detection roll the way I have it set up (with just one roll) both (A) simulates better how real sensors work, and (B) eliminates those wierd situations that occur when the sensor operator bricks the roll to detect the X-Boat but makes the roll on the X-Boat Tender. "Where is that Tender going?"

More than likely, both ships would show up on sensors--especially if they've both gone active, locking each other in preperation for the dock.

I would think that the asteroid that the Surveyor was hiding behind would have ALREADY been detected by the Herc during one of the previous rounds.

It probably would have.

What you're seeing is a game situation that came about in my real game BEFORE I implemented these sensor rules.

In fact, this encounter is why I decided that CT needed some sensor rules--and why I set about to create some.

Classic Traveller, without sensor rules, allows the GM to come up with this kind of situation. "Well, the Herc is travelling through the asteroid belt when..."

If using these sensor rules, that particular scenario probably wouldn't have gone down, in my RL game, the way it did. Now that we are using these sensor rules in my game, I'll be more studious, as a GM, to consider when two sides of an encounter detect each other.

I had been toying with a set of sensor rules before this, but they were kinda bulky in play. I knew I needed something simpler...thus, you see the result.

That encounter started with the range between the Herc and the Surveyor at 15 hexes.

In the game, both ships had been in the area for two days (waiting for a third ship--the players' ship--to arrive at the jump point).

As a GM, I'm reasoning this out by saying that the Herc DID detect the Surveyor during those two days. But, the Herc also detected some other traffic. Normal traffic.

The detection wasn't out of the ordinary. "Oh, it's just an asteroid surveyor going about its business." Or, "Oh, it's just a shuttle shuttling supplies between miners."

I started the scenario in the example where I did for a couple of reasons: (1) that's where the encounter starts in my real game; (2) I didn't want to write pages and pages for an example that would be too long for someone reading these rules to get through--the example is supposed to highlight how these sensor rules work.

YOU COULD, if you wanted to, back the scenario up a few combat rounds. What will happen, if you do that, is, more than likely, the Herc will detect the Surveyor and just consider it a miner going about his business on an asteroid.

The difference would be that the Herc would start the example with detection of the Surveyor, and, in all probability, have a lock on the Surveyor for some rounds before the Surveyor launches its missile.

This might change the entire scenario. If the Surveyor knows that the Herc has a lock on it (from it's own lock on the Herc), then the Surveyor probably wouldn't launch the missile--knowing that the chance is real high that the Herc is going to blast the heck out of it with those 8 mean beam lasers.

The short answer to your question is: The Herc didn't have a lock because it suited my needs as an example, showing how these sensor rules work in a game situation.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
WJP, you answered my questions about how many objects would be detected very completely, thank you. I didn't understand how the Herc could have detected the ship but not the missile with only one sensor roll. I get it now, very elegant.

Consider this--

You've got an X-Boat tender docking with an X-Bout out at medium range. Also out there is a stealthed ship, that has been rigged with an EM Mask, and is coasting.

Your ship will detect bogies on a 6+ at medium range.

Once all the DMs are worked out (sensor ops skill, target size...etc), let's say you've got a +2 on the roll not counting the DMs for the EM Mask and coasting on the stealthed ship. All other mods are accounted for.

You'll make one sensor scan roll using passive sensors.

If your one roll is 2-3, you won't detect anything.

If your one roll is 4-8, you'll detect both the X-Boat Tender and the X-Boat.

If your one roll is 9+, you'll detect both of those vessels AND the stealthed ship (the EM Mask provides a -3DM, and coasting provides a -2DM).

A side benefit to playing this way: When you only roll one detection roll instead of one roll for each bogey, players will not know how many bogies to expect.

For example, if the GM had rolled three detection rolls in the above example, making two of them, then the players might catch on that there's a third bogey out there that they didn't detect. They'll be looking for it.

Also, doing the detection roll the way I have it set up (with just one roll) both (A) simulates better how real sensors work, and (B) eliminates those wierd situations that occur when the sensor operator bricks the roll to detect the X-Boat but makes the roll on the X-Boat Tender. "Where is that Tender going?"

More than likely, both ships would show up on sensors--especially if they've both gone active, locking each other in preperation for the dock.

I would think that the asteroid that the Surveyor was hiding behind would have ALREADY been detected by the Herc during one of the previous rounds.

It probably would have.

What you're seeing is a game situation that came about in my real game BEFORE I implemented these sensor rules.

In fact, this encounter is why I decided that CT needed some sensor rules--and why I set about to create some.

Classic Traveller, without sensor rules, allows the GM to come up with this kind of situation. "Well, the Herc is travelling through the asteroid belt when..."

If using these sensor rules, that particular scenario probably wouldn't have gone down, in my RL game, the way it did. Now that we are using these sensor rules in my game, I'll be more studious, as a GM, to consider when two sides of an encounter detect each other.

I had been toying with a set of sensor rules before this, but they were kinda bulky in play. I knew I needed something simpler...thus, you see the result.

That encounter started with the range between the Herc and the Surveyor at 15 hexes.

In the game, both ships had been in the area for two days (waiting for a third ship--the players' ship--to arrive at the jump point).

As a GM, I'm reasoning this out by saying that the Herc DID detect the Surveyor during those two days. But, the Herc also detected some other traffic. Normal traffic.

The detection wasn't out of the ordinary. "Oh, it's just an asteroid surveyor going about its business." Or, "Oh, it's just a shuttle shuttling supplies between miners."

I started the scenario in the example where I did for a couple of reasons: (1) that's where the encounter starts in my real game; (2) I didn't want to write pages and pages for an example that would be too long for someone reading these rules to get through--the example is supposed to highlight how these sensor rules work.

YOU COULD, if you wanted to, back the scenario up a few combat rounds. What will happen, if you do that, is, more than likely, the Herc will detect the Surveyor and just consider it a miner going about his business on an asteroid.

The difference would be that the Herc would start the example with detection of the Surveyor, and, in all probability, have a lock on the Surveyor for some rounds before the Surveyor launches its missile.

This might change the entire scenario. If the Surveyor knows that the Herc has a lock on it (from it's own lock on the Herc), then the Surveyor probably wouldn't launch the missile--knowing that the chance is real high that the Herc is going to blast the heck out of it with those 8 mean beam lasers.

The short answer to your question is: The Herc didn't have a lock because it suited my needs as an example, showing how these sensor rules work in a game situation.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
What do you think about the "double sensor range" vs "90 Hex) limit for tracking?

I went with the 90 Hex limit because that's what it said in CT--the same place I got the various sensor ranges for the four classes of sensors (albeit I interpolated the ranges for Class II and Class III sensors).

I try not to break canon unless absolutley necessary.

I also think the 90 hex limit is easier for game play.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a Class I sensor, with a range of 15 hexes, could track a bogey already detected out to 90 hexes.

If we go with the double range idea, this will cut tracking down on the Class I's by a light second.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
What do you think about the "double sensor range" vs "90 Hex) limit for tracking?

I went with the 90 Hex limit because that's what it said in CT--the same place I got the various sensor ranges for the four classes of sensors (albeit I interpolated the ranges for Class II and Class III sensors).

I try not to break canon unless absolutley necessary.

I also think the 90 hex limit is easier for game play.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a Class I sensor, with a range of 15 hexes, could track a bogey already detected out to 90 hexes.

If we go with the double range idea, this will cut tracking down on the Class I's by a light second.

 

[Supplement Four]

TEST PLAY

I just ran a space combat scenario using the sensor rules. Book 2 space combat rules with Range Band movement on a hex board, Mayday-style.

Freakin' fun.

I played with one of the players in our campaign. He used the players' ship, the ADROIT PURSUIT. I used the MARCH HARRIER from The Traveller Adventure.

We started the scenario with the PURSUIT dropping into normal space from jump. He immediately did a passive scan and picked up a bogey at extreme range.

Little did he know that I, as GM of the encounter, had two ships out there. The one he picked up was another merchant vessel going about its business. The other one, the one that was too far out for his scan to pick up, was the HARRIER, his opponent for this little scenario.

The PURSUIT immediately went active, locking onto the bogey he had dectected. I started the encounter without any of the three ships having contacts. When the PURSUIT went active, this gave the HARRIER a +6DM on that ship's passive scan.

Well, the PURSUIT followed the other merchant vessel for a while, thinking that it was my ship.

During this couple of rounds, though, I kept the HARRIER a good distance away--something like 25 hexes plus. Class I sensors can't detect too much past 15 hexes. There's no way he was going to pick me up with his passive scans that far out.

And, since he had gone active so early, I had him. I had him.

I didn't lock onto him, because I didn't want to go active myself. I maneuvered around him as he chased the innocent merchant ship.

This scenario was set up as strickly a learning session--I just wanted to show one of my players the new sensor rules.

And, I thought I'd show him the importance of not going active so early and revealing himself.

When I had the positioning I wanted, I went active myself, locking sensors. The twin beam lasers from one of the HARRIER's turrets opened up.

Two streaks of brilliant white light slammed into the hull of the PURSUIT (I only used one of the HARRIERs two turrets--playing the ship as if it only had one gunner).

Two hits.

I shook up his computer system and nearly knocked out his M-Drive.

After this, we were off to the races.

Ship's can take quite a beating in Book 2 space combat. It was something like 3+ hours (in-game time) that the HARRIER finally took him.

There was one moment, in the middle of the scenario, where it looked like he would get the best of the HARRIER. I got cold with the HARRIER's gunner, and the PURSUIT's sinlge pulse laser nearly took out the HARRIER's power plant.

Luckily, I go it reparied.

But, in the end, the two ship's being fairly matched (both ships are 400 toners, with the HARRIER using a single turret of dual beam lasers, and the PURSUIT sporting a single pulse laser that is -1DM to hit but gets two damage rolls when it does hit), it was that first set of damage that the HARRIER rolled that put the PURSUIT on the defensive from the beginning of the scenario.

The entire encounter, the PURSUIT was racing to repair its damage and try to get a leg up over the HARRIER (which was never damaged as bad as the PURSUIT).

In the end, my player agreed, it was the fact that he went active first, allowing the HARRIER to pick and choose his moment of attack, that doomed the ship.

I ended up hitting the PURSUIT with both lasers, in the last round we played, rolling a critical, knocking out the PURSUIT's computer system.

God, what a cool combat game. I love Book 2 starship combat. Mesh that sucker with Mayday-style Range Band movement (eliminated the need to measure mm), and it's one damn cool, damn fun way to spend an evening.

I was very happy with the sensor rules as well. They did their job--putting the feel of sensors into a Classic Trav combat scenario.

This wasn't fast-n-furious Star Wars style combat. This was more like submarine warfare...or two 18th century naval vessels trying to find each other in the fog.

I liked, too, that after all combatants are locked, the sensor rules take a back seat to the combat and fun of the game.

After all ships have gone active, and all in the scenario are locked on each other, then the game reverts to Book 2 combat how it is written--without regard to sensors.

I'm pretty pleased with these rules. They're fitting the game like they were supposed to.

 

[Supplement Four]

TEST PLAY

I just ran a space combat scenario using the sensor rules. Book 2 space combat rules with Range Band movement on a hex board, Mayday-style.

Freakin' fun.

I played with one of the players in our campaign. He used the players' ship, the ADROIT PURSUIT. I used the MARCH HARRIER from The Traveller Adventure.

We started the scenario with the PURSUIT dropping into normal space from jump. He immediately did a passive scan and picked up a bogey at extreme range.

Little did he know that I, as GM of the encounter, had two ships out there. The one he picked up was another merchant vessel going about its business. The other one, the one that was too far out for his scan to pick up, was the HARRIER, his opponent for this little scenario.

The PURSUIT immediately went active, locking onto the bogey he had dectected. I started the encounter without any of the three ships having contacts. When the PURSUIT went active, this gave the HARRIER a +6DM on that ship's passive scan.

Well, the PURSUIT followed the other merchant vessel for a while, thinking that it was my ship.

During this couple of rounds, though, I kept the HARRIER a good distance away--something like 25 hexes plus. Class I sensors can't detect too much past 15 hexes. There's no way he was going to pick me up with his passive scans that far out.

And, since he had gone active so early, I had him. I had him.

I didn't lock onto him, because I didn't want to go active myself. I maneuvered around him as he chased the innocent merchant ship.

This scenario was set up as strickly a learning session--I just wanted to show one of my players the new sensor rules.

And, I thought I'd show him the importance of not going active so early and revealing himself.

When I had the positioning I wanted, I went active myself, locking sensors. The twin beam lasers from one of the HARRIER's turrets opened up.

Two streaks of brilliant white light slammed into the hull of the PURSUIT (I only used one of the HARRIERs two turrets--playing the ship as if it only had one gunner).

Two hits.

I shook up his computer system and nearly knocked out his M-Drive.

After this, we were off to the races.

Ship's can take quite a beating in Book 2 space combat. It was something like 3+ hours (in-game time) that the HARRIER finally took him.

There was one moment, in the middle of the scenario, where it looked like he would get the best of the HARRIER. I got cold with the HARRIER's gunner, and the PURSUIT's sinlge pulse laser nearly took out the HARRIER's power plant.

Luckily, I go it reparied.

But, in the end, the two ship's being fairly matched (both ships are 400 toners, with the HARRIER using a single turret of dual beam lasers, and the PURSUIT sporting a single pulse laser that is -1DM to hit but gets two damage rolls when it does hit), it was that first set of damage that the HARRIER rolled that put the PURSUIT on the defensive from the beginning of the scenario.

The entire encounter, the PURSUIT was racing to repair its damage and try to get a leg up over the HARRIER (which was never damaged as bad as the PURSUIT).

In the end, my player agreed, it was the fact that he went active first, allowing the HARRIER to pick and choose his moment of attack, that doomed the ship.

I ended up hitting the PURSUIT with both lasers, in the last round we played, rolling a critical, knocking out the PURSUIT's computer system.

God, what a cool combat game. I love Book 2 starship combat. Mesh that sucker with Mayday-style Range Band movement (eliminated the need to measure mm), and it's one damn cool, damn fun way to spend an evening.

I was very happy with the sensor rules as well. They did their job--putting the feel of sensors into a Classic Trav combat scenario.

This wasn't fast-n-furious Star Wars style combat. This was more like submarine warfare...or two 18th century naval vessels trying to find each other in the fog.

I liked, too, that after all combatants are locked, the sensor rules take a back seat to the combat and fun of the game.

After all ships have gone active, and all in the scenario are locked on each other, then the game reverts to Book 2 combat how it is written--without regard to sensors.

I'm pretty pleased with these rules. They're fitting the game like they were supposed to.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
We started the scenario with the PURSUIT dropping into normal space from jump.

Question...

Should a ship entering the system from jump be easier to detect?

Do you think a ship, entering N-Space from jump, is akin to that ship "going active" to an observer already in the system?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by WJP:
We started the scenario with the PURSUIT dropping into normal space from jump.

Question...

Should a ship entering the system from jump be easier to detect?

Do you think a ship, entering N-Space from jump, is akin to that ship "going active" to an observer already in the system?

 

[mike wightman]

If you have a jump emergence flash IYTU then yes, treat as going active.

I know the board members are split on this one.

Some argue for a lot of noise when a ship emerges from jump, others have it stealthy.

My personal view at the moment is that jump emergence is barely noticable - otherwise jumping into a system with black globes already up wouldn't give the navy the advantage that it is supposed to.

I do have quite a large jump flash when a ship enters jump - enough to damage nearby small craft if they aren't careful.

 

[mike wightman]

If you have a jump emergence flash IYTU then yes, treat as going active.

I know the board members are split on this one.

Some argue for a lot of noise when a ship emerges from jump, others have it stealthy.

My personal view at the moment is that jump emergence is barely noticable - otherwise jumping into a system with black globes already up wouldn't give the navy the advantage that it is supposed to.

I do have quite a large jump flash when a ship enters jump - enough to damage nearby small craft if they aren't careful.