CT+ ship combat

[mike wightman]

Some initial thoughts.

I think CT+ ship combat should be based on...

the range band system from CT Starter Edition.

Ships are either trying to close distance, open distance, or maintain distance, with evasive maneouvers possible in all three cases.

To which I would add rules so that everyone on board a ship with relevant skills gets to use them - maintaining player interest.

Sensors should have a part to play.

Lasers and particle beams for close range, missiles for long range.

Sandcasters and armour for defence.

Damage control parties.

 

[far-trader]

As much as the vector system was fun I agree we want to avoid it but is this too simplified? What about a simple hex based and G-rated movement system. Something table top playable. The basic range system is (to me) too boring and lacking of what space combat should be somehow.

I'd take a stab at it if I had some time. What about adapting Brilliant Lances or something?

 

[flykiller]

you'll have to decide whether you want ship combat to be a wargame, or simply an add-on to an rpg.

if you really must have a wargame then why not mayday?

if it's an rpg add-on then perhaps the best approach is freeform informed by some basic rules.

 

[jappel]

I'd take a cue from whichever game it is (and there are probably several) that include both a "realistic" and "cinematic" combat system - include a simplified system as Sigg suggests as well as a more detailed, miniatures-friendly version (ooh, an opportunity to hawk the forthcoming ship minis!). The two don't even necessarily have to yield identical or even really close results, though you don't want too much divergence.

Hey, we're in blue sky, wish-list mode at the moment, so why not?

- John

 

[jappel]

BTW, Sigg, your small-ship ideas from a couple of years ago need to be included - the heavy turrets, etc. They really allowed for differentiation between military and non-military ships at the small scale under essentially Book 2 rules. Those have to be the single best enhancement to Traveller starship rules since High Guard, IMHO.

- John

 

[mike wightman]

I'd keep the wargame as a separate add on.

For the basic game you need a quick way to resolve the sorts of situations that a role playing group will find themselves in.

Hence the suggestion of basing it on CT Starter, although MT is pretty similar to this idea as well.

A sheet of file paper is all you need to track relative movement and range, the drama comes from getting all the players involved.

 

[far-trader]

Well I still think "The Role-Playing Space Combat System"* put out as a free pdf for T4 was a great way to go. Unfortunately I can't seem to find current sources for it as a download. Maybe my google-fu is weak, no time to try harder at the moment

Maybe I'll have time later to look at my copy and propose an abbreviated version for this.

* Copyright 1996 by Joseph E. Walsh. Collaboration by Eris Reddoch, Guy "Wildstar" Garnett (who did the great QSDS), and Allen Shock.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by jappel:
BTW, Sigg, your small-ship ideas from a couple of years ago need to be included - the heavy turrets, etc. They really allowed for differentiation between military and non-military ships at the small scale under essentially Book 2 rules. Those have to be the single best enhancement to Traveller starship rules since High Guard, IMHO.

- John

Thanks

I would like to include a greater range of turret/barbette options, and armour is a must.

But I'd like it as simple as possible...

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Well I still think "The Role-Playing Space Combat System"* put out as a free pdf for T4 was a great way to go. Unfortunately I can't seem to find current sources for it as a download. Maybe my google-fu is weak, no time to try harder at the moment

Maybe I'll have time later to look at my copy and propose an abbreviated version for this.

* Copyright 1996 by Joseph E. Walsh. Collaboration by Eris Reddoch, Guy "Wildstar" Garnett (who did the great QSDS), and Allen Shock.

It's in the BITS archives here.

25 pages long and too complicated for basic CT+ methinks

 

[flykiller]

is there any reason this couldn't be a computer program?

 

[far-trader]

Several

What OS and not everyone having a computer at the gaming table to name the biggest two.

Tried a computer for running some bookeeping drudgery at the gaming table a couple times and it just slowed things down and distracted everybody from the role-playing.

I'm with the KISS crowd on this. In fact I'd love to make this diceless, but that is a whole other set of challenges

 

[far-trader]

Oh, thanks for the update on BITS Sigg. My bookmarks are still being slowly recovered manually

This is one more done.

 

[flykiller]

I'm with the KISS crowd on this.

well, good luck with that. the subject matter is not simple. agility vs maneuver, atmospheres, missile flight times, sand deployment, gravity wells, sensors, ecm, charge times ....

there's already book 2, high guard, and mayday. seems to me the problem is already solved as good as it's ever going to be solved, short of a graphics program.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Well I still think "The Role-Playing Space Combat System"* put out as a free pdf for T4 was a great way to go. Unfortunately I can't seem to find current sources for it as a download.

There's a reason there's such a faint web presence for the RPSCS.

Even the authors didn't use it. Ah, T4's demise didn't help, but Eris never used it.

And although QSDS was comprehensive, well-formatted, and had straightforward table lookups, it doesn't feel quick, and doesn't look quick. It feels and looks like a gearhead product, a cross between a electronics catalog and logarithm tables.

It is not powerful enough to satisfy gearheads, who could simply use Andy Akins' FFS2 spreadsheet.

 

[mike wightman]

Two of my favourite sets of ship combat rules for use in an rpg are the ones from the Cyberpunk space supplements and White Wolf's Trinity.

 

[far-trader]

Well T4 is the reason our group didn't use it but still I gave it a good read and a couple quick test runs back then and it seemed good to me. I seem to recall seeing before that Eris didn't use it. Do you know what the main problem points were?

I'll have to look at it again, it's been a while, and maybe this read will put it in a different light for me.

As for simplifying, well it'd be nice to keep it fast moving and easy and I think there are ways to do it. As you say CT had a few ways that weren't too bad. It'd be nice if it scaled well up and down to be able to handle vehicle combat in the same format and go beyond a few ships to fleet ops. Even if it was just the way MT handled the combat scaling (again, not actually used but looked at).

 

[Berg]

Maybe when someone does each of the deckplans they can include a damage table on the side so each ship has there own.

Tom

 

[far-trader]

Not a bad idea. But it doesn't even have to be based on (or wait for) deckplans. Each ship design, included or home built should have it's own damage table included in the writeup.

 

[Berg]

When we figure out starship combat, we design a standard table that each ship uses. By standard I mean 2d6, 3d6, etc.

Tom

 

[Jame]

I never really understood, or even looked at in depth, the space combat system, but I did enjoy T4's take on the assigning of damage...