Counterstrike

[The Oz]

Henry is right that in straight HG combat smaller ships (as long as they are big enough to carry an effective meson gun) are at an advantage vs. larger ships, since any decent meson gun hit will kill any ship, no matter the size of the victim, and smaller ships are harder to hit.

However, if Henry is referring to the FFW/HG conversion system that Sigg and I worked out, the reason that smaller ships have smaller Defense values is that the Defense value is used for more than just space-to-space combat between meson-gun-armed ships.

In FFW, the Defense value is also used for combat between SDBs and regular fleet units which is =not= combat using meson guns, and in such combat smaller ships are at a distinct disadvantage despite the "to-hit" bonus for shooting at larger ships.

Since FFW has SDB-to-ship combat as common as ship-to-ship combat, I set up the conversion system to balance those two different types of combat.

A final consideration was wanting a system that produced values that looked similar to the existing counter mix in FFW.

 

[hcobb]

Originally posted by The Oz:
In FFW, the Defense value is also used for combat between SDBs and regular fleet units which is =not= combat using meson guns, and in such combat smaller ships are at a distinct disadvantage despite the "to-hit" bonus for shooting at larger ships.

What sort of weapons are SDBs using that don't use the "to-hit" bonus?

Below TL15 the "to-hit" roll is the most important part of missile combat.

TL14, 19 kdton battlerider vs missile boats:
To hit: 41.7%
Sand: 83.3%
Damp: 58.3%

Doubling the size of the target doubles the number of missiles that will be sent against it and the "to-hit" bonus means that it will be struck by 2.8 times as many missiles while having only twice as many batteries to soak up the hits so it lasts only 71% of the time on the line.

BTW: Why aren't some of the SDB the same design as the meson battleriders? (With a mix of jumpless missile boats with extreme armor levels.)

-HJC

 

[PBI]

I've now had time to fully digest the draft comments on the website, and my initial impression is that, taken as a whole, this thing will be unplayable. The proposed ship damage system, while faithful to Traveller, is simply unworkable due to scale. Otherwise, it's rather nice. Consider trying to go through a combat round with 30-40 squadrons per side and the thing breaks down, just like trying to do the same thing using HG rules would; a friend and I have been attemtping to make something like that work and we realized that it would take days to fight even a small fleet action.

Having the game be broken down into a series of modules is very attractive. I do have one question, though, just for clarity. As I read the comments, each module could stand alone or they all could be integrated into one big game, yes? If so, then my comments about unplayable combat resolution (as an example) would come into play, I think, but when broken down into the more managable chunks the modules provide, the detailed combat then should work. I think what needs to happen is for combat and production at the strategic level has to be different from the more tactical versions. This would, of course, require damage conversion rules, which can be as simple or as complex as desired.

 

[ChaserCaffey]

Originally posted by PBI:
I've now had time to fully digest the draft comments on the website, and my initial impression is that, taken as a whole, this thing will be unplayable. The proposed ship damage system, while faithful to Traveller, is simply unworkable due to scale. Otherwise, it's rather nice. Consider trying to go through a combat round with 30-40 squadrons per side and the thing breaks down, just like trying to do the same thing using HG rules would; a friend and I have been attemtping to make something like that work and we realized that it would take days to fight even a small fleet action.

Scaling between the different modules is definately a problem, and I have to say that I think any rules to translate between them might turn out to be unworkable. Having said that:

1) I would be very, very, very happy if I were to be proven wrong, because a finished Counterstrike game would be amazing.

2) The Tradewar stuff looks like it would be a really fun game on its own, even if some other objectives don't end up being workable. Really, it looks a lot like Brilliant Lances to me, in that it would be both a good tool to learn how starship freight works, and an entertaining game in its own right. Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy right now, or I'd be chipping in, but please continue to post on this.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Henry J Cobb:
What sort of weapons are SDBs using that don't use the "to-hit" bonus?

You mean this to hit bonus?

Originally posted by The Oz:
smaller ships are at a distinct disadvantage despite the "to-hit" bonus for shooting at larger ships

BTW: Why aren't some of the SDB the same design as the meson battleriders? (With a mix of jumpless missile boats with extreme armor levels.)

-HJC

A question I have often asked myself. The only answers I can think of are:
the GDW designers never thought it through that far;
or,
the Imperium doesn't build them.

I reckon the first is correct

At TL15 you can build a maximum armour meson armed buffered planetoid monitor that takes no damage at all even from spinal PAWs.

These sort of things aren't represented by the SDB factors of the worlds in FFW though IMHO.

YMMV

 

[mike wightman]

Squadron vs squadron using FFW like counters should be resolved using the FFW/IE combat charts.

I don't think there is need to multiply the numbers by eight for squadron vs squadron combat.

At that level I would have the squadron counters moving around a tactical system map, like in the Mayfair games Company War game.

 

[The Oz]

Sigg is right: the system he and I worked out is intended to be used with the FFW/IE space combat system.

 

[PBI]

One thing to consider about SDB designs is the restrictions imposed by local resources. Some worlds simply may not have the capacity to build battle rider-class monitors and it might be more cost effective to leave systems to their own devices.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by PBI:
I've now had time to fully digest the draft comments on the website, and my initial impression is that, taken as a whole, this thing will be unplayable. The proposed ship damage system, while faithful to Traveller, is simply unworkable due to scale. Otherwise, it's rather nice. Consider trying to go through a combat round with 30-40 squadrons per side and the thing breaks down, just like trying to do the same thing using HG rules would; a friend and I have been attemtping to make something like that work and we realized that it would take days to fight even a small fleet action.

So then, it sounds like you may have an improvement to suggest? Such as, Fleet level conglomeration rules. Fleet counters (which would have an ID number but probably no ratings, unless they were historical) would be interesting; I could simulate the Black War over Zarushagar easily.

Having the game be broken down into a series of modules is very attractive. I do have one question, though, just for clarity. As I read the comments, each module could stand alone or they all could be integrated into one big game, yes? If so, then my comments about unplayable combat resolution (as an example) would come into play, I think, but when broken down into the more managable chunks the modules provide, the detailed combat then should work. I think what needs to happen is for combat and production at the strategic level has to be different from the more tactical versions. This would, of course, require damage conversion rules, which can be as simple or as complex as desired.

Those are good points, and I'd be very interested in hearing brainstorms concerning elegant solutions to them.

 

[hcobb]

Originally posted by just robject:
Those are good points, and I'd be very interested in hearing brainstorms concerning elegant solutions to them.

It looks to me like you've settled on the answer, and in this case it isn't 42, without a good grasp on the question.

So let me start with a question. "What will the final result of the project be?"

And my answer to that is that it will be a game framework system rather than a game. Nobody will be expected to use all of the modules in any one game, but the system will allow them to design a game played out over all of charted space or a different game that covers just a small ground combat.

So you turn the crank and get something on the scale of Mayday and if you adjust the knobs another way you get FFW.

Does that sound about right?

-HJC

 

[robject]

I think your first conclusin is more correct than your second: I've got 42 but don't know the question.

 

[PBI]

Originally posted by just robject:

So then, it sounds like you may have an improvement to suggest? Such as, Fleet level conglomeration rules. Fleet counters (which would have an ID number but probably no ratings, unless they were historical) would be interesting; I could simulate the Black War over Zarushagar easily.[/quote]

This is exam week, so let me think on this for a few days

 

[Jeffr0]

"What will the final result of the project be?"

Let's say that any new games come out of this that have the depth and accessibility of Ogre. That would be (at the very least) a tactical victory for the 'project.'

Let's say that several games come out of this and any of them integrate well. That would be a decisive victory.

Let's say that the ultimate 'Frankenstein' monster game did in fact come out of the 'project.' Nobody would want to play it because it would be too huge and there would be several caveats pointing out how the model was not realistic in the following 37 areas-- BUT it could work in theory.... That would be a major victory.


If robject could come up with a playable Stategic Trade game, if I made progress on on my planetary production game, and if Robert Prior finishes his Traveller-Ogre game for JTAS... THEN I for one, would be happy.

Beyond that... if we had a one hour Strategic war game that integrated with a one hour Economic trade game... and that provided options for playing out some of the tactical level engagements... I would be even happier!

 

[robject]

Add to this my thought that tactical combat has been done already with Mayday. Is there a reason Mayday can't be run with conglomerate units and abstracted combat rules? The laws of 'physics' stay the same: conglomerate units travel at the rate of their slowest unit, but beyond that they'd move just like a single unit counter, right?

If so, then Mayday, Book 2 and/or RPSCS have got space combat covered.

 

[Jeffr0]

Robject, have you seen Tom Bont's Trillion Credit Squadron in JTAS?

"Trillion Credit Wars is a spaceship miniatures combat system designed for the GURPS Traveller universe (other settings are possible, but that is left as an exercise for the reader). Most of all, it is designed for extremely fast play. Entire fleets are handled with the same ease and speed as single ships. There is no limit to the number of ships this system can handle.

"In order to get the speed needed, a great deal of detail was left out of the combat and the ship design systems. It should be understood that this game is not really designed for PC ships. It is a stand-alone game in its own right, with rules for one-on-one ship combats, squadron combat, fleet actions, and logistics."

http://jtas.sjgames.com/login/article.cgi?487

Robert Prior made some terrain counters for it:

http://jtas.sjgames.com/login/article.cgi?698

They also have a scenario the first battle of the IW (including stats and counters for the ships!):

http://jtas.sjgames.com/login/article.cgi?552

So... if you work from here, you have a streamlined version of Mayday for fleet combat, you have the classic Imperium for the strategic game, and you have an example of how to bridge the gap.

 

[hcobb]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
Robject, have you seen Tom Bont's Trillion Credit [Wars] in JTAS?

Too many G3e-isms that have been fixed in G4e and don't apply to HG at all.

-HJC

 

[mike wightman]

Adding a past-present-future vector movement system (Mayday/Battle Rider/Power Pojection) to High Guard, MT, or even FFW/IE counters is an easy enough task.

Using MT the conglomerate unit rules could be used as is, but the numbers become somewhat huge

 

[robject]

Unfortunately, Jeff, I don't have a subscription.

Sigg, that's basically my take, which is why I tried to use the Book 4 combat charts for conglomerate units: bonuses or penalties to apply when attacking something smaller or larger. Therefore ATT represents a scaled value, and I can keep it between 0 and, say, 12 or something.

 

[mike wightman]

You know, I forgot about the Mercenary combat system - I'll have to go and read up on it again

 

[robject]

Oh aye; beautifully elegant it is. A fire team can attack a brigade

My combat system is derived straight from Book 4. I had to play with the numbers some. I wanted to equate space combat elements with Book 4 infantry elements, but the separation between auxiliaries and ships with a spine wasn't great enough.