CT+ ship combat

[flykiller]

This link describes the kind of thing I was suggesting.

huh. C.O.V.A.R.T. on hex paper. I like it.

but I don't know about calling it ct+. do we want to start listing penetration factors? and what about scaleability?

thinking further this system is by itself a hit location system. the hit matrix system discussed earlier would play no role in this.

sigg, what do you think?

 

[mike wightman]

Isn't it a bit like a matrix but in the shape of the ship?

 

[flykiller]

no, it's not a matrix. it's a crude graphic of the ship and you draw weapons' paths through it to see what you hit. has potential.

one major problem with it is that it can't deal with multi-deck vessels. the ship components must be vertically constant throughout all decks. another is the bow, flanks, and fantail are always exposed to fire, but the dorsal and ventral sides never are.

 

[mike wightman]

Ahh, I think I understand now.

A graphic method could be really interesting.

 

[Piper]

Actually, it is a matrix, just in graphical form.
If we go back to Dan's Scout matrix:

Originally posted by far-trader:

1 Jump Drive 10%/3 = 3 boxes
2 Maneuver Drive 1%/3 = 1 box
3 Power Plant 4%/3 = 1 box
4 Fuel 40%/3 = 13 boxes
5 Bridge 20%/3 = 6 boxes
6 Computer 1%/3 = 1 box
7 Quarters 16%/3 = 5 boxes
8 Turret 1%/3 = 1 box
9 Air/Raft 4%/3 = 1 box
A Cargo Hold 3%/3 = 1 box

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1 1 1 2 3 4

2 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 4 4 4 4 4 4

4 5 5 5 5 5 5

5 6 7 7 7 7 7

6 8 9 A B B B</pre>

[/quote]We can put it into the hex format as shown here: You can assign the sections based on target aspect, d6 roll, deck layout, or any other method that gives 6 choices. Scaling can be achieved by assigning hit numbers to each hex and a running tally can be marked right in the hex. Internal armor can be shown by a heavy border around armored hexes. Successive penetration and blow-through can be simulated by having damage run along the hex grain. Calculating penetration isn't needed as the hits are scored by damage points.

Just as easily, you can put it back into a table format by simply adding more rows to your table.

Two things to consider; even with scaling this is going to get cumbersome with large ships and, as it stands now, this is a lot deadlier than CT combat because there aren't any "free" hull hits. You might want to consider adding some "no damage" or "hull stucture" hits to the matrix.

 

[flykiller]

the way you have it described here makes it no different from the matrix system proposed earlier. note that the ship's turret is accessible only from the 6 hextant.

the previous graphical layout automatically takes into account aspect and penetration, which seems to me to be its major feature. a major drawback is that the dorsal and ventral sides of the ship then become inaccessible to any combat engagement, least not without a whole new chart. also multi-deck ships, when hit, will confine damage to that deck. scale would also be a major issue.

I'd like to see a 100 dton scout and a 400 dton merchant with two decks laid out side by side in the graphical format shown earlier.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Piper:

Two things to consider; even with scaling this is going to get cumbersome with large ships and, as it stands now, this is a lot deadlier than CT combat because there aren't any "free" hull hits. You might want to consider adding some "no damage" or "hull stucture" hits to the matrix.

Point one is still bugging me some. How to better scale it while keeping it short and simple.

Point two I think is less of a problem. By it being a hit matrix there is a chance that successive hits will impact the same box(es) causing less cumulative damage. Except in the case of single box entries this means the damage effect is reduced somewhat, i.e. no damage is a possibility, actually a growing one as more boxes are hit, which does seem a bit wrong. Hmm, perhaps a seperate side track of boxes for hits that score no damage to represent structural weakening, when those are full the ship tears apart? This could be used to simulate military ships (more boxes = more structure/compartmentlization).

Also my suggestion of a different damage definition was meant to further limit this. A hit on the Maneuver for example no longer (per my suggestion only) reduces the ship's rating, until all the boxes associated with Maneuver are blacked out, and then the Maneuver is out of action entirely. This seems more realistic to me than a slow reduction of ability.

YMMV and this is still (to my mind) very much in the discussion stage

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by flykiller:
the way you have it described here makes it no different from the matrix system proposed earlier. note that the ship's turret is accessible only from the 6 hextant.

Yes, it was done deliberately that way to show that this method is a matrix and can provide the same hit locations.

the previous graphical layout automatically takes into account aspect and penetration, which seems to me to be its major feature. a major drawback is that the dorsal and ventral sides of the ship then become inaccessible to any combat engagement, least not without a whole new chart. also multi-deck ships, when hit, will confine damage to that deck. scale would also be a major issue.

Idea: consider the six hexsides to represent the 6 faces of a cube containing the target vessel rather than the hexside crossed on the 2-dimensional layout of a map. In the example chart, area 6 would could be considered the dorsal surface. The pilot could then decide whether to present the dorsal or ventral surface to the target, or roll the ship.
Also, fire travels along the hex grain, so other aspects can be hit and, as systems along the grain are destroyed, they expose other systems to damage.
All aspects are covered and the number of decks becomes unimportant.

This system would only be worth the effort involved if penetrating damage, blow-through, and target aspect are features you want for ship combat. If there is a consensus that these features are wanted, I'll try tinkering up a Type-S sheet.
If this is going in the wrong direction, for CT+, then the table format is probably the way to go.

 

[mike wightman]

I like the way this is going, but will it be simple in play?

 

[Piper]

If it works the way I think it will, it should be a pair of die rolls and some tick marks on the ship sheet during play. The sheets can be photocopied or laminated for use with a grease pencil.

Design will be a bit more tricky than CT. Designers will have to calculate hit values for each system. Nothing more complicated than basic division and rounding, but still some extra work. This is what Dan did for the Type-S and the cruiser.

Placement of systems in the grid will become part of the design and will require careful thought to get the best results.

Also, large ships are going to be ugly with this level of detail. It would be relatively simple to assign hits to "life support" but trying to track individual staterooms on a multi-kiloton ship would be going too far for ease of design and play. I'd really like to keep everything on a single sheet, if possible.

Give me a day or two to chew over the system and see how a Type-S shapes up. I'll post the result and we'll see how it looks. If it works, I'll incorporate any suggestions and try it on Dan's cruiser.

 

[flykiller]

if it goes the way piper says, it will be great. unfortunately if I understand him correctly he's describing two different systems that cannot be usefully meshed.

like to see a 100 dton scout and a 400 dton merchant side by side.

 

[mike wightman]

I'd like to see how to make the system model the damage to a 10t fighter or a 1000t merchant.

 

[Piper]

Here's the first cut at it. The colored numbers are one axis of the matrix. This can be a d6 roll, an aspect, or a combination of the two.
The color sections indicate segments and the colored numbers indicate the hex row to follow. Roll one die (in this example) for segment and another for row number.

Let's assign the blue numbers to a roll of one. If you roll a one on the segment select die and a 2 on the hex row die you move down the grain until you hit the first filled hex. This is a B indicating a bridge hit. Apply damage to this box, either marking it out or adding a tick mark if your boxes take more than one hit to destroy. If this box is marked out, a subsequent hit will penetrate thru the destroyed hex to the Q hex directly below.

This is way rough yet, and this design is not optimized, but it should give a feel for what I have in mind. It would be more elegant with a 10 or 20-sided die, but d6 works well enough for this example.

Ship size doesn't matter. Any ship you can model on a 6 by 6 grid as Dan did will fit in this matrix. The only difference would be the damage value of the individual hexes. A large ship would require several hits to destroy a hex, a small one might have several hexes destroyed by a single hit.

As I said, it's rough, but if there is interest in this, I'd be happy to work with anyone interested in refining it.

 

[flykiller]

what really caught my attention regarding this was the possibility of hex-modeling a recognizable ship shape and graphically depicting and following the damage against it. but I have to say that I don't see that here. the system seems merely an abstract hex matrix instead of an abstract square matrix.

Ship size doesn't matter. Any ship you can model on a 6 by 6 grid as Dan did will fit in this matrix. The only difference would be the damage value of the individual hexes. A large ship would require several hits to destroy a hex, a small one might have several hexes destroyed by a single hit.

personally I don't like that aspect of it.

 

[Piper]

It is an abstract representation; just not a random one.
Compare the port/bow aspect (the green numbered section) to a Type-S deckplan. Of the 6 possible hits, 3 will hit fuel tankage, 2 will hit bridge space and 1 will hit the turret. Continued penetration will begin to hit staterooms, cargo space and the computer.

The resolution of this diagram is 1 hit per hex. You could increase the resolution, producing a more recognizeable shape but it would require a larger diagram and more, (or higher valued) dice.

It seems as though this isn't going to be useful, and I apologize for interrupting the thread.

 

[mike wightman]

I wouldn't give up on it just yet.

Have a look at the last two posts here.

 

[Piper]

Yes, I remember that thread.
The main difference is that your diagram is using a different damage standard. Take fuel; Dan's breakdown was by volume resulting in 13 boxes for fuel. Your fuel is 4 hits. Increasing the amount of damage per box is fine, but it will cost some resolution.

Take Dan's figures and fit it into your format.
Then try and cover it with a 6 by 6 matrix.
You see the problem? The two easiest ways around it are to either increase the damage per box (as you did) or increase the number of boxes in the matrix by using more or higher-numbered dice.

 

[mike wightman]

Or having one matrix per deck per compartment? Would that work?

Then there's the problem of hull hits...

 

[Piper]

A separate matrix for each deck or compartment would certainly work; the only issues I can see would be multiple sheets for each ship and some fussiness when damage penetrates from one deck to another as when a ship is engaged dorsally.

If we used a 10 by 10 matrix we would have 100 possible hit locations. This would resolve damage down to 1 ton per block on a Scout and 50 tons per block on a 5kt'er. The current 6 by 6 matrix gives 36 hit locations; 2.8 tons per block on a scout, 139 tons on a 5kt hull.

With that degree of resolution and depending on the damage per hit, 100 locations should be enough to provide fairly detailed damage assignment while retaining single-sheet playability.

Regarding hull hits: we've discussed this before and I think adding some sort of hull structure value is a good idea. It could be added as a separate set of blocks or related to the total number of hits received.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I like the way this is going, but will it be simple in play?

My main problem with CT book 2 ship combat was no armor (that and the sequences and the wording). All this at the mo is interesting but too much tracking for me for a basic system.

Grease pencils, a separate matrix/sheet for each deck or compartment, 100 possible hit locations...(shrugs) cool but very wargamey. Which isn't a problem for advanced/advanced advanced. I mean I don't want static battlship lines in space but this seems a bit much to me. Maybe a two-tier space combat with basic being range band/roleplay and advanced being more tactical/vector/detailed damage tracking? Problem is I'd like the two to integrate well.

Oh and I do like ship stats/damage tracking ala Starfire and some naval games I've seen (similar to the other thread). Very good for bigger ships esp.

Ideally I'd like a PC ship level version of Power Projection. PP works as is at the larger levels and ships from most versions of Traveller can be ported as is.