CT+ ship combat
- Thread starter mike wightman
- Start date
http://www.gzg.com | enter store | downloads | download Full Thrust 2, More Thrust, Fleet Books 1&2. That and Traveller are what PP is based on, with FB1's rules additions fairly close to PP basics. I'll try to type more later tonight but the main thing is PP works and is easy to learn, FT even more so.
It does suffer from one problem. Your average PC ship will vanish after one good solid hit more than likely. So some sort of pc level version would need to be adapted. There's been some though on that on CotI.
is a basic system going to be anything other than simplistic?
so far all that has been discussed is hit locations and possible damage rates. wait 'til we get to sensors and sensor ranges, weapon's ranges, gunnery skill, sand, etc. not to mention maneuver and playing area.
seems to me we have three choices.
1) a simplistic system such as book 2 and book 5 and mayday
2) one of the existing expanded systems
3) a full-on wargame cobbled together from houserules and other systems
1 already exists, and one can ask if 3 has any reasonable advantage over 2 in a ct+ setting.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Here are a couple of past posts on the subject:
and
There are probably a couple more...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Nope.
I think we went off the deep end on that one a little
We should be approaching this from the "how do we include a simple model for ship combat for role playing purposes" rather than "let's make another boardgame" IMHO.
I vote for the simplest form of LBB2.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
How about we come at this from the rpg direction.
What do we want each character on board the ship to do during ship combat?
What tasks will they have, how difficult will they be etc.?
This is why I suggested Starter in the first place, keep it simple and concentrate on what the characters do.
What do we want each character on board the ship to do during ship combat?
What tasks will they have, how difficult will they be etc.?
This is why I suggested Starter in the first place, keep it simple and concentrate on what the characters do.
rpg, rpg, rpg ....
pilot: task system checks for maneuver (in range bands). transit to jump point, evade, withdraw, close distance (in range bands), successful use of agility. modified by skill, available ship agility.
navigator: task system checks for detection, evasion of detection. modified by skill, sensor sizes, enemy ship sizes, own ship size, distances (in range bands).
gunner: task system checks for target lock and weapon strikes. modified by skill, weapons factors, distance (in range bands), enemy ship sizes.
engineer: ? task system checks for maneuver overloading, switchover times from maneuver to jump, extra energy available for laser shots, engineering space damage control and restoration. modified by skill, tech level of plant.
you know, keeping this at a player character's point of view would enable a mostly verbal system. the problem might be if someone wants to know how wide a range-band is.
pilot: task system checks for maneuver (in range bands). transit to jump point, evade, withdraw, close distance (in range bands), successful use of agility. modified by skill, available ship agility.
navigator: task system checks for detection, evasion of detection. modified by skill, sensor sizes, enemy ship sizes, own ship size, distances (in range bands).
gunner: task system checks for target lock and weapon strikes. modified by skill, weapons factors, distance (in range bands), enemy ship sizes.
engineer: ? task system checks for maneuver overloading, switchover times from maneuver to jump, extra energy available for laser shots, engineering space damage control and restoration. modified by skill, tech level of plant.
you know, keeping this at a player character's point of view would enable a mostly verbal system. the problem might be if someone wants to know how wide a range-band is.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That would depend on the scale of the engagement.
If playing hide'n seek then a range band can be quite a long way.
If it's combat then the distance can be quite a lot closer
If playing hide'n seek then a range band can be quite a long way.
If it's combat then the distance can be quite a lot closer
My main problem with CT book 2 ship combat was no armor (that and the sequences and the wording).</font>[/QUOTE]Armor could be retrofitted; see Sigg Oddra's thread about this. I didn't see the sequence as THAT problematic, but I agree with you about the lack of information regarding sandcasters, missiles and a few more details. But we could create house rules for this, right?
My main problem with the LBB2 system is the vector motion system; not too difficult, but a bit too much work for a causual encounter with pirates (Arrrg!) and reminds me of college physics too much. If a replacement motion system would be devised (can't find a good place to buy Mayday from), I think I'll stick with my modified version of LBB2.
Oh, and good, streamlined sensor rules will add alot - go for it, Sigg (just re-write your old sensor rules in a clearer format
Want to keep it really simple? Adapt the TNE aircombat system.
Take the ships agility or thrust whole numbers 1-6. Add the pilots task roll result easy success = 1. average = 2 difficult = 3 etc. Ship with highest combined total is "Advantaged"
Might add ships tactics result too like the pilot roll.
Advantaged ship sets the range but must be within range of one of the disadvantaged ships weapons unless breaking off.
Firing tasks based on range but advantaged ship fires at one level lower difficulty.
Easy.
Roll to see who is advantaged, advantaged determines range, resolve fire. Repeat untill one side breaks contact or is disabled/destroyed.
Take the ships agility or thrust whole numbers 1-6. Add the pilots task roll result easy success = 1. average = 2 difficult = 3 etc. Ship with highest combined total is "Advantaged"
Might add ships tactics result too like the pilot roll.
Advantaged ship sets the range but must be within range of one of the disadvantaged ships weapons unless breaking off.
Firing tasks based on range but advantaged ship fires at one level lower difficulty.
Easy.
Roll to see who is advantaged, advantaged determines range, resolve fire. Repeat untill one side breaks contact or is disabled/destroyed.
Yeah, deckplans are great, but labor intensive, as you say. Also larger ships may run to several sheets which can get complicated on the table, especially if several ships are involved.
Chung's system seems pretty good but it's simpler to use than to explain; it's just two dice and a chart. Re-drawing it on a more open grid might make it easier to use as well as allowing the ship to have a more easily-recognized shape.
@Sigg: The simplest form of LBB2 combat ... like the Traveller Book? How would this differ from High Guard?
How about different skills coming into play at different acts in the combat scenario. Rather than every player deciding on one or two task rolls and then taking them in order to resolve each round of combat.
We do want fast and simple, right?
Phase I: detection. This is the sensor ops' and astrogator's game. It's sub-hunt to determine who finds out what the other guy is first, and then who gets the initiative.
Phase II: combat. The pilot makes fancy maneuvers while the gunners fire. The sensor op could be seen as an 'information weapon', firing intrusion or ECM attempts at the opponent's computer. Remaining crew, led by the engineer perhaps, would be ready to conduct on-the-spot repair.
Phase III: escape. When combat is done, or when the ship is fleeing, the engineer an astrogator may be called on to do something drastic to get the ship out of there.
personally I would prefer natural.
I see the phases you describe, but it seems like all the listed parties would have a role in each phase.
absent vector movement and graphical depiction of the playing area I see range bands as the next best option. the relationship between multiple actors would have to be worked out, but perhaps it's doable. this would enable the game to procede on a you're-getting-closer / you're maintaining station / you're-pulling-away verbal description basis suitable for a verbal rpg.
maybe:
1) determine initiative
2) first ship determines relative maneuver - "towards the planet", "away from the enemy"
3) subsequent ships responding to this maneuver must adopt and compete with its range band vector
example off the top of my head.
maneuver round
from a mutual stand-still an m2 merchant runs from an m4 sdb. the merchant gains initiative and maneuvers at m2 away from the sdb (running). this moves it two range bands away from the sdb and leaves it with agility 0 relative to the sdb. the sdb in turn maneuvers at m3 towards the merchant (chasing). thus the sdb closes on the merchant by one range band and retains agility 1 relative to the merchant.
firing round
determine initiative. determine range band distances, first ship fires. apply damage to target ship. after this damage is applied, second ship then fires.
repeat.
this seems able to sustain a strictly verbal rpg.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The Traveller Book still has full vector movement. The simplified range band form is found in Starter Edition only - although MT is similar.
It differs from High Guard in that there are a lot more range bands, and ships "maneuver" relative to each other rather than completely abstractly as they do in HG.
To use flykiller's m2 Merchant and m4 SDB. Say they start twenty range bands apart, with the merchant running from the SDB.
On the first turn the Merchant moves 2 away from the SDB, while the SDB moves 4 towards the Merchant.
Separation is now 18.
Next turn the Merchant adds another 2, and so moves 4 away, but the SDB again moves 4 for a total of 8.
Separation is now 14.
Next turn the Merchant adds another 2 and moves 6 away, but the SDB pours on 4 more and moves 12, separation is now down to 8.
I would have beam weapon damage vary with range.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yep, no vector movement in MT.
daltoncalford
SOC-12
Hi All,
I was just made aware of this thread. I have been involved in a very intensive ship design/playtest for our own home traveller rules.
Our system uses alot of what you guys are saying but is different on alot of levels.
If there is interest, I can post a 10000' overview of the system to explain what we did and why we did it.
best regards
Dalton
I was just made aware of this thread. I have been involved in a very intensive ship design/playtest for our own home traveller rules.
Our system uses alot of what you guys are saying but is different on alot of levels.
If there is interest, I can post a 10000' overview of the system to explain what we did and why we did it.
best regards
Dalton
