MT Space Combat rules

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

In order to proceed with my MT space combat software I would like to request for comments regarding some rules stuff.
As its really "just" a rules question I placed this topic here and not in "Software Solutions".

As You might have noticed I lately had (and still have) the problem with interpreting the "Visual Range/Critical hits" rule, as this rule might offer a kind of battleship killer possibility for even a well designed fighter.
So how do other MT referees handle this part ?

One thing in the software, which I still have to implement is the interrupt system.
Right now I use a workaround by resolving a kind of initiative task to get the side which has its turn first.
As the handling of interrupts is quite important factor for the combat procedure, I would like to know how other gamers handle this.
In a one on one combat the side which takes its turn first could be interupted by the other one.
As this could be tried again and again, it seems not to be a question if the interupt succeeds, but just a question when.

Another related question is about the attack sequence.
Right now, I first resolve ALL "to hit tasks" in order to get the number of actual hits.
Having this number I am able to allocate appropriate defenses by the attacked ship.
Then I resolve the "to pen" tasks for all of these hits.
In the last step I resolve and apply the rsulting hit damage...

This would be more difficult if each single attack is resolved in an individual way or if an interupt happens in the middle on an attack sequence, as I will not know how many total hits there will be and how many defensive batteries are necessary.

So, whats your practice here....

I would be quite happy to receive some useful comments on this stuff, so I could finish the
program

Best regards,

Mert

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

In order to proceed with my MT space combat software I would like to request for comments regarding some rules stuff.
As its really "just" a rules question I placed this topic here and not in "Software Solutions".

As You might have noticed I lately had (and still have) the problem with interpreting the "Visual Range/Critical hits" rule, as this rule might offer a kind of battleship killer possibility for even a well designed fighter.
So how do other MT referees handle this part ?

One thing in the software, which I still have to implement is the interrupt system.
Right now I use a workaround by resolving a kind of initiative task to get the side which has its turn first.
As the handling of interrupts is quite important factor for the combat procedure, I would like to know how other gamers handle this.
In a one on one combat the side which takes its turn first could be interupted by the other one.
As this could be tried again and again, it seems not to be a question if the interupt succeeds, but just a question when.

Another related question is about the attack sequence.
Right now, I first resolve ALL "to hit tasks" in order to get the number of actual hits.
Having this number I am able to allocate appropriate defenses by the attacked ship.
Then I resolve the "to pen" tasks for all of these hits.
In the last step I resolve and apply the rsulting hit damage...

This would be more difficult if each single attack is resolved in an individual way or if an interupt happens in the middle on an attack sequence, as I will not know how many total hits there will be and how many defensive batteries are necessary.

So, whats your practice here....

I would be quite happy to receive some useful comments on this stuff, so I could finish the
program

Best regards,

Mert

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

In order to proceed with my MT space combat software I would like to request for comments regarding some rules stuff.
As its really "just" a rules question I placed this topic here and not in "Software Solutions".

As You might have noticed I lately had (and still have) the problem with interpreting the "Visual Range/Critical hits" rule, as this rule might offer a kind of battleship killer possibility for even a well designed fighter.
So how do other MT referees handle this part ?

One thing in the software, which I still have to implement is the interrupt system.
Right now I use a workaround by resolving a kind of initiative task to get the side which has its turn first.
As the handling of interrupts is quite important factor for the combat procedure, I would like to know how other gamers handle this.
In a one on one combat the side which takes its turn first could be interupted by the other one.
As this could be tried again and again, it seems not to be a question if the interupt succeeds, but just a question when.

Another related question is about the attack sequence.
Right now, I first resolve ALL "to hit tasks" in order to get the number of actual hits.
Having this number I am able to allocate appropriate defenses by the attacked ship.
Then I resolve the "to pen" tasks for all of these hits.
In the last step I resolve and apply the rsulting hit damage...

This would be more difficult if each single attack is resolved in an individual way or if an interupt happens in the middle on an attack sequence, as I will not know how many total hits there will be and how many defensive batteries are necessary.

So, whats your practice here....

I would be quite happy to receive some useful comments on this stuff, so I could finish the
program

Best regards,

Mert

 

[s-feige]

Well, I'll give it a try...

Visual Range/Critical Hits :
I'm not familiar with the mentioned problem interpreting visual range and critical hits, but because even in my worst nightmares I'm not able to imagine a fighter configuration that would be able to "critical hit" a decent armoured battleship, I assume you're refering to the "Pinpoint Location-Rule".
IMHO, despite scoring a "hit", or "critical hit" the attack still must
a. penetrate the starships (active and passive) defenses and
b. is prone to be reduced by the ships armour.
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your average TL-15 Dreadnought...)

Interrupts :
We've never been able to figure out the exact interrupt rules for MT-combat - especially considering the erratic MT-rulebooks. Here is our own interpretation (perhaps not too far away from the truth).
- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by taking it's own action. - If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at, pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent. Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.
- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.
- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)

Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).

Hope I could be helpful. MT needs lots of moulding here and there...

Which language are you coding in?

Have a nice day,
Aldan Romar

 

[s-feige]

Well, I'll give it a try...

Visual Range/Critical Hits :
I'm not familiar with the mentioned problem interpreting visual range and critical hits, but because even in my worst nightmares I'm not able to imagine a fighter configuration that would be able to "critical hit" a decent armoured battleship, I assume you're refering to the "Pinpoint Location-Rule".
IMHO, despite scoring a "hit", or "critical hit" the attack still must
a. penetrate the starships (active and passive) defenses and
b. is prone to be reduced by the ships armour.
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your average TL-15 Dreadnought...)

Interrupts :
We've never been able to figure out the exact interrupt rules for MT-combat - especially considering the erratic MT-rulebooks. Here is our own interpretation (perhaps not too far away from the truth).
- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by taking it's own action. - If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at, pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent. Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.
- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.
- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)

Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).

Hope I could be helpful. MT needs lots of moulding here and there...

Which language are you coding in?

Have a nice day,
Aldan Romar

 

[s-feige]

Well, I'll give it a try...

Visual Range/Critical Hits :
I'm not familiar with the mentioned problem interpreting visual range and critical hits, but because even in my worst nightmares I'm not able to imagine a fighter configuration that would be able to "critical hit" a decent armoured battleship, I assume you're refering to the "Pinpoint Location-Rule".
IMHO, despite scoring a "hit", or "critical hit" the attack still must
a. penetrate the starships (active and passive) defenses and
b. is prone to be reduced by the ships armour.
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your average TL-15 Dreadnought...)

Interrupts :
We've never been able to figure out the exact interrupt rules for MT-combat - especially considering the erratic MT-rulebooks. Here is our own interpretation (perhaps not too far away from the truth).
- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by taking it's own action. - If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at, pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent. Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.
- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.
- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)

Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).

Hope I could be helpful. MT needs lots of moulding here and there...

Which language are you coding in?

Have a nice day,
Aldan Romar

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Aldan Romar:
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your average TL-15 Dreadnought...)

This would match my interpretation to a T and for the same reasons.

- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by taking it's own action.
- If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at, pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent. Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.

This is a bit over-harsh, methinks. In that getting shot at or pushed away might not preclude the action the unit was taking. It might require (depending on the case) either a determination roll or the like (to avoid being distracted). If insufficient damage is done (say I do 1 point of damage with my shot...) to cause any serious impact, other than maybe a determination check, I wouldn't bother applying this, because we don't apply a restriction to actions not yet started that is similar.

So, only if the interrupt does something sufficient to preclude (or seriously influence) the interrupted action from completion would I consider the action aborted/unsuccessful without at least letting the player make some kind of test.

- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.

The way my games tend to go, the players are as likely to fire at one another (we play with a lot of intrigue) as at some particular 'other side' - thus combats tend to have N sides, where N is the number of participants. This can lead to interesting interrupt chaining.

- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)

Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).

Concur wholeheartedly with everything you just said.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Aldan Romar:
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your average TL-15 Dreadnought...)

This would match my interpretation to a T and for the same reasons.

- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by taking it's own action.
- If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at, pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent. Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.

This is a bit over-harsh, methinks. In that getting shot at or pushed away might not preclude the action the unit was taking. It might require (depending on the case) either a determination roll or the like (to avoid being distracted). If insufficient damage is done (say I do 1 point of damage with my shot...) to cause any serious impact, other than maybe a determination check, I wouldn't bother applying this, because we don't apply a restriction to actions not yet started that is similar.

So, only if the interrupt does something sufficient to preclude (or seriously influence) the interrupted action from completion would I consider the action aborted/unsuccessful without at least letting the player make some kind of test.

- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.

The way my games tend to go, the players are as likely to fire at one another (we play with a lot of intrigue) as at some particular 'other side' - thus combats tend to have N sides, where N is the number of participants. This can lead to interesting interrupt chaining.

- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)

Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).

Concur wholeheartedly with everything you just said.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Aldan Romar:
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your average TL-15 Dreadnought...)

This would match my interpretation to a T and for the same reasons.

- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by taking it's own action.
- If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at, pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent. Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.

This is a bit over-harsh, methinks. In that getting shot at or pushed away might not preclude the action the unit was taking. It might require (depending on the case) either a determination roll or the like (to avoid being distracted). If insufficient damage is done (say I do 1 point of damage with my shot...) to cause any serious impact, other than maybe a determination check, I wouldn't bother applying this, because we don't apply a restriction to actions not yet started that is similar.

So, only if the interrupt does something sufficient to preclude (or seriously influence) the interrupted action from completion would I consider the action aborted/unsuccessful without at least letting the player make some kind of test.

- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.

The way my games tend to go, the players are as likely to fire at one another (we play with a lot of intrigue) as at some particular 'other side' - thus combats tend to have N sides, where N is the number of participants. This can lead to interesting interrupt chaining.

- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)

Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).

Concur wholeheartedly with everything you just said.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi Aldan, hi Kaladorn (You got a real name, too ?)

thank You for instant reply.
Well, there seem to be "common" problems with our MT ruleset

<QUOTE Aldan>
Visual Range/Critical Hits :
I'm not familiar with the mentioned problem interpreting visual range and critical hits, but

because even in my worst nightmares I'm not able to imagine a fighter configuration that

would be able to "critical hit" a decent armoured battleship, I assume you're refering to

the "Pinpoint Location-Rule".
IMHO, despite scoring a "hit", or "critical hit" the attack still must
a. penetrate the starships (active and passive) defenses and
b. is prone to be reduced by the ships armour.
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound

a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your

average TL-15 Dreadnought...)
</QUOTE>

As an example take the TL15 space fighter presented in the "Fighting Ships of the shattered
Imperium". This thing with its factor 9 computer is able to "crack" the normal defenses of several bigger ships and also cruisers with lower omputer factors...
At least this fighter or a hoverboard has no chance to score a successful hit against a TL 15 Dreadnougth.
But for my concern I have problems with b. because I do not find any hint about the effect
of armor on a penetration visual range pinpoint critical hit (lets call it PVRPCH

, hmmmm, sounds like Zhodani language).
The ruleset only presents ways of reducing the number of critical hits inflicted by spinal mount or high factor weapons.

In some way, I could imagine that also a highly armored battleship has some small but vulnerable outer areas as you cannot hide everything beyond a huge layer of armor (thruster plates, jump grid connectors, sensors, weapon and spinal outlet, hatches).
So, at least there is some chance to score a hit that really hurts.
This might also add some spice into space combat, because one should care about keeping
away dangerous fighters from vulnerable battle or support ships.
The funny thing with these fighters is, that they normally cannot hit themself in a dogfight because of the fabulous +17 def DM

. So, what else are they good for.....

As I discussed with Kaladorn, I will implement that stuff as a optional behaviour.....

<QUOTE Aldan>
Interrupts :
We've never been able to figure out the exact interrupt rules for MT-combat - especially considering the erratic MT-rulebooks. Here is our own interpretation (perhaps not too far away from the truth).
- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by
taking it's own action. - If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at,
pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent.
Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.
- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.
- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)
</QUOTE Aldan>

Thats quite the way I would handle it.
Concerning the second point I would like to know, if you allow several tries of unit 1 to interrupt unit 2 in unit 2´s turn. (Each square of movement, each sensors scan...).
Just regarding the last point I am not sure, because I guess the rules describe, that one unit
may perform an interupt only if it has not already taken its turn.

<QUOTE Aldan>
Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).
Hope I could be helpful. MT needs lots of moulding here and there...

Which language are you coding in?
</QUOTE Aldan>

Viewing the whole attack sequence as one action sounds quite well.
(And is better to implement, too !)

It really helps to get a reply to that topic, since I already made several queries e.g. in the TML, but alwasy without substancial echo.

The coding is done in VB 6.0 so far (still one of the best for RAD and yes, I could have done it in Java, Delphi or Kylix, too) but I will migrate to Java as soon as possible in order to enable others to help in development and using "free" development environments.

So far...will start with coding again....


Bye

Mert

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi Aldan, hi Kaladorn (You got a real name, too ?)

thank You for instant reply.
Well, there seem to be "common" problems with our MT ruleset

<QUOTE Aldan>
Visual Range/Critical Hits :
I'm not familiar with the mentioned problem interpreting visual range and critical hits, but

because even in my worst nightmares I'm not able to imagine a fighter configuration that

would be able to "critical hit" a decent armoured battleship, I assume you're refering to

the "Pinpoint Location-Rule".
IMHO, despite scoring a "hit", or "critical hit" the attack still must
a. penetrate the starships (active and passive) defenses and
b. is prone to be reduced by the ships armour.
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound

a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your

average TL-15 Dreadnought...)
</QUOTE>

As an example take the TL15 space fighter presented in the "Fighting Ships of the shattered
Imperium". This thing with its factor 9 computer is able to "crack" the normal defenses of several bigger ships and also cruisers with lower omputer factors...
At least this fighter or a hoverboard has no chance to score a successful hit against a TL 15 Dreadnougth.
But for my concern I have problems with b. because I do not find any hint about the effect
of armor on a penetration visual range pinpoint critical hit (lets call it PVRPCH

, hmmmm, sounds like Zhodani language).
The ruleset only presents ways of reducing the number of critical hits inflicted by spinal mount or high factor weapons.

In some way, I could imagine that also a highly armored battleship has some small but vulnerable outer areas as you cannot hide everything beyond a huge layer of armor (thruster plates, jump grid connectors, sensors, weapon and spinal outlet, hatches).
So, at least there is some chance to score a hit that really hurts.
This might also add some spice into space combat, because one should care about keeping
away dangerous fighters from vulnerable battle or support ships.
The funny thing with these fighters is, that they normally cannot hit themself in a dogfight because of the fabulous +17 def DM

. So, what else are they good for.....

As I discussed with Kaladorn, I will implement that stuff as a optional behaviour.....

<QUOTE Aldan>
Interrupts :
We've never been able to figure out the exact interrupt rules for MT-combat - especially considering the erratic MT-rulebooks. Here is our own interpretation (perhaps not too far away from the truth).
- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by
taking it's own action. - If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at,
pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent.
Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.
- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.
- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)
</QUOTE Aldan>

Thats quite the way I would handle it.
Concerning the second point I would like to know, if you allow several tries of unit 1 to interrupt unit 2 in unit 2´s turn. (Each square of movement, each sensors scan...).
Just regarding the last point I am not sure, because I guess the rules describe, that one unit
may perform an interupt only if it has not already taken its turn.

<QUOTE Aldan>
Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).
Hope I could be helpful. MT needs lots of moulding here and there...

Which language are you coding in?
</QUOTE Aldan>

Viewing the whole attack sequence as one action sounds quite well.
(And is better to implement, too !)

It really helps to get a reply to that topic, since I already made several queries e.g. in the TML, but alwasy without substancial echo.

The coding is done in VB 6.0 so far (still one of the best for RAD and yes, I could have done it in Java, Delphi or Kylix, too) but I will migrate to Java as soon as possible in order to enable others to help in development and using "free" development environments.

So far...will start with coding again....


Bye

Mert

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi Aldan, hi Kaladorn (You got a real name, too ?)

thank You for instant reply.
Well, there seem to be "common" problems with our MT ruleset

<QUOTE Aldan>
Visual Range/Critical Hits :
I'm not familiar with the mentioned problem interpreting visual range and critical hits, but

because even in my worst nightmares I'm not able to imagine a fighter configuration that

would be able to "critical hit" a decent armoured battleship, I assume you're refering to

the "Pinpoint Location-Rule".
IMHO, despite scoring a "hit", or "critical hit" the attack still must
a. penetrate the starships (active and passive) defenses and
b. is prone to be reduced by the ships armour.
Only if the attack beats these two obstacles, the distinct location is affected (might sound

a bit harsh, but otherwise a hoverboard with a single laser really could take out your

average TL-15 Dreadnought...)
</QUOTE>

As an example take the TL15 space fighter presented in the "Fighting Ships of the shattered
Imperium". This thing with its factor 9 computer is able to "crack" the normal defenses of several bigger ships and also cruisers with lower omputer factors...
At least this fighter or a hoverboard has no chance to score a successful hit against a TL 15 Dreadnougth.
But for my concern I have problems with b. because I do not find any hint about the effect
of armor on a penetration visual range pinpoint critical hit (lets call it PVRPCH

, hmmmm, sounds like Zhodani language).
The ruleset only presents ways of reducing the number of critical hits inflicted by spinal mount or high factor weapons.

In some way, I could imagine that also a highly armored battleship has some small but vulnerable outer areas as you cannot hide everything beyond a huge layer of armor (thruster plates, jump grid connectors, sensors, weapon and spinal outlet, hatches).
So, at least there is some chance to score a hit that really hurts.
This might also add some spice into space combat, because one should care about keeping
away dangerous fighters from vulnerable battle or support ships.
The funny thing with these fighters is, that they normally cannot hit themself in a dogfight because of the fabulous +17 def DM

. So, what else are they good for.....

As I discussed with Kaladorn, I will implement that stuff as a optional behaviour.....

<QUOTE Aldan>
Interrupts :
We've never been able to figure out the exact interrupt rules for MT-combat - especially considering the erratic MT-rulebooks. Here is our own interpretation (perhaps not too far away from the truth).
- Any unit that hasn't taken it's turn yet is allowed to interrupt an enemy units action by
taking it's own action. - If the interrupt-task suceeds, the action may be taken.
- If the interrupted unit is somehow affected by the interrupting action (e.g. shot at,
pushed away, knocked out of comission...) the interrupted units turn is considered spent.
Otherwise it may continue with it's action afterwards.
- An interrupting-action is considered a normal action, so it can be interrupted itself. To prevent an endless row of interupts, only one interrupt per side per combat round is permitted.
- In an one-on-one combat the units are allowed to interrupt each other (enabling the first interrupted unit to counter the interrupt and proceed with it's action)
</QUOTE Aldan>

Thats quite the way I would handle it.
Concerning the second point I would like to know, if you allow several tries of unit 1 to interrupt unit 2 in unit 2´s turn. (Each square of movement, each sensors scan...).
Just regarding the last point I am not sure, because I guess the rules describe, that one unit
may perform an interupt only if it has not already taken its turn.

<QUOTE Aldan>
Attack Sequence (Interrupts) :
As you said
1. resolve all to-hit tasks
2. allocation of defensive fire
3. resolve all to-pen tasks (active and passive)
4. determine damage
IMHO all batteries are fired simultaneously in one action. Also all the following rolls (if any) are part of this actions resolution and thus can't be interrupted. The moment for an interrupt would be before point 1. (or at the declaration of point 1.).
Hope I could be helpful. MT needs lots of moulding here and there...

Which language are you coding in?
</QUOTE Aldan>

Viewing the whole attack sequence as one action sounds quite well.
(And is better to implement, too !)

It really helps to get a reply to that topic, since I already made several queries e.g. in the TML, but alwasy without substancial echo.

The coding is done in VB 6.0 so far (still one of the best for RAD and yes, I could have done it in Java, Delphi or Kylix, too) but I will migrate to Java as soon as possible in order to enable others to help in development and using "free" development environments.

So far...will start with coding again....


Bye

Mert

 

[s-feige]

Hello fellow Travellers!

Nothing lika a nice sunny morning delving into one's MT rulebooks...

and trying to make some sense out of them!

(just have to remind myself and others that MT is my favourite version of Traveller ... pause ...)

Kaladorn :
This is a bit over-harsh, methinks. In that getting shot at or pushed away might not preclude the action the unit was taking. It might require (depending on the case) either a determination roll or the like (to avoid being distracted). If insufficient damage is done (say I do 1 point of damage with my shot...) to cause any serious impact, other than maybe a determination check, I wouldn't bother applying this, because we don't apply a restriction to actions not yet started that is similar.

So, only if the interrupt does something sufficient to preclude (or seriously influence) the interrupted action from completion would I consider the action aborted/unsuccessful without at least letting the player make some kind of test.

See what your pointing at. Given the point that interrupts are achieved quite easyly (7+ on sD6 with a bonus), the impact of the action should be made more difficult(?) We had some arguing about this point in our group. Direct, blatant interpretation of the rules would make it too easy("...The interrupted unit's turn is considered spent..."), as in "I interrupt your attack down the road by sneezing into my handkerchief...". On the other hand (in personal combat) there is this example stating "...if Aybee can put the NPC out of action before ... the NPC will be unable to...". So what? My interrupt has to take out the other combatant to be of any use? Or is he refering (and adding silently "...in the future...") to another combat round? We settled the argument with the "cover-fire" variant. To make cover-fire of any use, you can counter an opponents action an enemy by being in SOME WAY disturbing to him (causing him to duck or whatever). Common sense is asked here - no one in a Battledress would duck because someone fires a Body Pistol at him. We usually leave it to a GM's call...

TheEngineer :
But for my concern I have problems with b. because I do not find any hint about the effect
of armor on a penetration visual range pinpoint critical hit (lets call it PVRPCH

, hmmmm, sounds like Zhodani language).
The ruleset only presents ways of reducing the number of critical hits inflicted by spinal mount or high factor weapons.

I do not agree with you here. Let me point you to the MT Referee's Manual pg. 93 The part about Critical Hits is IMHO not connected to the part about Spinal Mounts and clarifies resolution of all critical hits (scored because Weapons UCP is that much higher than Ship's Displacement) The only type of critical hit which would'nt fall under either the Spinal Mount- or the Critical Hits-Rule (and thus would not be reduced by the ship's armour) is a critical hit taken through immense internal damage from the Starship Damage Tables (scoring in the 16-18 ranges).

That's for the rules as I understand them.

And now for some interpretation.

IMHO MT Starship Combat is divided into two scales : a scale going up to, say 800dt, perhaps 1000dt, and everything bigger. The fact that both are set into one range of numbers is IMHO a mere politeness... When we were experimenting with Starship Combat, we quickly found out, that taking on a bigger combat ship (e.g. from MT Figthing Ships of the Empire) with a "standard commuters vessel" (e.g. from the MT Imperial Encyclopedia) was a nogo. Everything that big blasts erverything that small out of the sky in no time. Perhaps a 100.000dt low armored cargoship could be demolished by a well armed Corsair - given some time... (no critical hits, just surface damage...).

So our interpretation was that Space Combat should only be conducted on a personal scale OR a warship scale, and so long we stuck with it...

Now to the problem of fighters (gets a bit tricky here...). Of course there are figthers, to be precise enormous numbers of them (600 on a large carrier) and I allways wondered what they were good for. Several answers
a. for scouting (600?!) - given the range of high-tech sensors, throwing out a sensor screen using fighters doesn't make that much sense
b. for engaging smaller (personal scale) ships, because a battleships spinal mount could only fire once a combat round and wouldn't want to waste that shot on a Subsidized Merchant
c. for ground assault (bombing and covering fire)

Another problem thrown up by these immense number of fighters would be the above mentioned Pinpoint Location-Rules. Don't use the armour-reduction *BOOM* - show me the combat round which wouldn't deliver at least 10 critical hits out of 600 separate trys. Use the armour-reduction *HMM* - at least 600 attacks a combat round could batter a heavy battleship toothless (if they're lucky they might even score a fuel-1 hit instead of the more likely weapon-1 hits) - no wonder fighters should be carrying pulse-lasers...

That's a bridge I still didn't have to cross...

btw. The idea of a single fighter being able to destroy a huge battle-station by hitting a ventilation-shaft with a well-placed shot thus causing the stations reactor to overload, is quite - intriguing...

TheEngineer :
Thats quite the way I would handle it.
Concerning the second point I would like to know, if you allow several tries of unit 1 to interrupt unit 2 in unit 2´s turn. (Each square of movement, each sensors scan...).
Just regarding the last point I am not sure, because I guess the rules describe, that one unit
may perform an interupt only if it has not already taken its turn.

Concerning the second point, I only allow one try, using the sentence "Only one active interrupt is allowed is permitted per side", adding "...per combat round", just you can precisely choose WHEN to interrupt (letting the enemy come...).
Regarding the last point, I just found out it was a misinterpretation on my side. I took this from the MT-Errata from the interrupt-rules regarding hand-to-hand combat and missed a sublety of englisch grammar upon first reading it...
The whole idea stretching out this point to ranged personal and space combat was, that interpreting the rules merciless (see above) the initiative winner in a one-on-one battle would be at a constant disatvantage because the defender would be able to interrupt him but not the other way round... I'll have to rethink this one day...

MT can be a PITA sometimes.

Just my thoughts.

Have a nice day,
Aldan Romar

 

[s-feige]

Hello fellow Travellers!

Nothing lika a nice sunny morning delving into one's MT rulebooks...

and trying to make some sense out of them!

(just have to remind myself and others that MT is my favourite version of Traveller ... pause ...)

Kaladorn :
This is a bit over-harsh, methinks. In that getting shot at or pushed away might not preclude the action the unit was taking. It might require (depending on the case) either a determination roll or the like (to avoid being distracted). If insufficient damage is done (say I do 1 point of damage with my shot...) to cause any serious impact, other than maybe a determination check, I wouldn't bother applying this, because we don't apply a restriction to actions not yet started that is similar.

So, only if the interrupt does something sufficient to preclude (or seriously influence) the interrupted action from completion would I consider the action aborted/unsuccessful without at least letting the player make some kind of test.

See what your pointing at. Given the point that interrupts are achieved quite easyly (7+ on sD6 with a bonus), the impact of the action should be made more difficult(?) We had some arguing about this point in our group. Direct, blatant interpretation of the rules would make it too easy("...The interrupted unit's turn is considered spent..."), as in "I interrupt your attack down the road by sneezing into my handkerchief...". On the other hand (in personal combat) there is this example stating "...if Aybee can put the NPC out of action before ... the NPC will be unable to...". So what? My interrupt has to take out the other combatant to be of any use? Or is he refering (and adding silently "...in the future...") to another combat round? We settled the argument with the "cover-fire" variant. To make cover-fire of any use, you can counter an opponents action an enemy by being in SOME WAY disturbing to him (causing him to duck or whatever). Common sense is asked here - no one in a Battledress would duck because someone fires a Body Pistol at him. We usually leave it to a GM's call...

TheEngineer :
But for my concern I have problems with b. because I do not find any hint about the effect
of armor on a penetration visual range pinpoint critical hit (lets call it PVRPCH

, hmmmm, sounds like Zhodani language).
The ruleset only presents ways of reducing the number of critical hits inflicted by spinal mount or high factor weapons.

I do not agree with you here. Let me point you to the MT Referee's Manual pg. 93 The part about Critical Hits is IMHO not connected to the part about Spinal Mounts and clarifies resolution of all critical hits (scored because Weapons UCP is that much higher than Ship's Displacement) The only type of critical hit which would'nt fall under either the Spinal Mount- or the Critical Hits-Rule (and thus would not be reduced by the ship's armour) is a critical hit taken through immense internal damage from the Starship Damage Tables (scoring in the 16-18 ranges).

That's for the rules as I understand them.

And now for some interpretation.

IMHO MT Starship Combat is divided into two scales : a scale going up to, say 800dt, perhaps 1000dt, and everything bigger. The fact that both are set into one range of numbers is IMHO a mere politeness... When we were experimenting with Starship Combat, we quickly found out, that taking on a bigger combat ship (e.g. from MT Figthing Ships of the Empire) with a "standard commuters vessel" (e.g. from the MT Imperial Encyclopedia) was a nogo. Everything that big blasts erverything that small out of the sky in no time. Perhaps a 100.000dt low armored cargoship could be demolished by a well armed Corsair - given some time... (no critical hits, just surface damage...).

So our interpretation was that Space Combat should only be conducted on a personal scale OR a warship scale, and so long we stuck with it...

Now to the problem of fighters (gets a bit tricky here...). Of course there are figthers, to be precise enormous numbers of them (600 on a large carrier) and I allways wondered what they were good for. Several answers
a. for scouting (600?!) - given the range of high-tech sensors, throwing out a sensor screen using fighters doesn't make that much sense
b. for engaging smaller (personal scale) ships, because a battleships spinal mount could only fire once a combat round and wouldn't want to waste that shot on a Subsidized Merchant
c. for ground assault (bombing and covering fire)

Another problem thrown up by these immense number of fighters would be the above mentioned Pinpoint Location-Rules. Don't use the armour-reduction *BOOM* - show me the combat round which wouldn't deliver at least 10 critical hits out of 600 separate trys. Use the armour-reduction *HMM* - at least 600 attacks a combat round could batter a heavy battleship toothless (if they're lucky they might even score a fuel-1 hit instead of the more likely weapon-1 hits) - no wonder fighters should be carrying pulse-lasers...

That's a bridge I still didn't have to cross...

btw. The idea of a single fighter being able to destroy a huge battle-station by hitting a ventilation-shaft with a well-placed shot thus causing the stations reactor to overload, is quite - intriguing...

TheEngineer :
Thats quite the way I would handle it.
Concerning the second point I would like to know, if you allow several tries of unit 1 to interrupt unit 2 in unit 2´s turn. (Each square of movement, each sensors scan...).
Just regarding the last point I am not sure, because I guess the rules describe, that one unit
may perform an interupt only if it has not already taken its turn.

Concerning the second point, I only allow one try, using the sentence "Only one active interrupt is allowed is permitted per side", adding "...per combat round", just you can precisely choose WHEN to interrupt (letting the enemy come...).
Regarding the last point, I just found out it was a misinterpretation on my side. I took this from the MT-Errata from the interrupt-rules regarding hand-to-hand combat and missed a sublety of englisch grammar upon first reading it...
The whole idea stretching out this point to ranged personal and space combat was, that interpreting the rules merciless (see above) the initiative winner in a one-on-one battle would be at a constant disatvantage because the defender would be able to interrupt him but not the other way round... I'll have to rethink this one day...

MT can be a PITA sometimes.

Just my thoughts.

Have a nice day,
Aldan Romar

 

[s-feige]

Hello fellow Travellers!

Nothing lika a nice sunny morning delving into one's MT rulebooks...

and trying to make some sense out of them!

(just have to remind myself and others that MT is my favourite version of Traveller ... pause ...)

Kaladorn :
This is a bit over-harsh, methinks. In that getting shot at or pushed away might not preclude the action the unit was taking. It might require (depending on the case) either a determination roll or the like (to avoid being distracted). If insufficient damage is done (say I do 1 point of damage with my shot...) to cause any serious impact, other than maybe a determination check, I wouldn't bother applying this, because we don't apply a restriction to actions not yet started that is similar.

So, only if the interrupt does something sufficient to preclude (or seriously influence) the interrupted action from completion would I consider the action aborted/unsuccessful without at least letting the player make some kind of test.

See what your pointing at. Given the point that interrupts are achieved quite easyly (7+ on sD6 with a bonus), the impact of the action should be made more difficult(?) We had some arguing about this point in our group. Direct, blatant interpretation of the rules would make it too easy("...The interrupted unit's turn is considered spent..."), as in "I interrupt your attack down the road by sneezing into my handkerchief...". On the other hand (in personal combat) there is this example stating "...if Aybee can put the NPC out of action before ... the NPC will be unable to...". So what? My interrupt has to take out the other combatant to be of any use? Or is he refering (and adding silently "...in the future...") to another combat round? We settled the argument with the "cover-fire" variant. To make cover-fire of any use, you can counter an opponents action an enemy by being in SOME WAY disturbing to him (causing him to duck or whatever). Common sense is asked here - no one in a Battledress would duck because someone fires a Body Pistol at him. We usually leave it to a GM's call...

TheEngineer :
But for my concern I have problems with b. because I do not find any hint about the effect
of armor on a penetration visual range pinpoint critical hit (lets call it PVRPCH

, hmmmm, sounds like Zhodani language).
The ruleset only presents ways of reducing the number of critical hits inflicted by spinal mount or high factor weapons.

I do not agree with you here. Let me point you to the MT Referee's Manual pg. 93 The part about Critical Hits is IMHO not connected to the part about Spinal Mounts and clarifies resolution of all critical hits (scored because Weapons UCP is that much higher than Ship's Displacement) The only type of critical hit which would'nt fall under either the Spinal Mount- or the Critical Hits-Rule (and thus would not be reduced by the ship's armour) is a critical hit taken through immense internal damage from the Starship Damage Tables (scoring in the 16-18 ranges).

That's for the rules as I understand them.

And now for some interpretation.

IMHO MT Starship Combat is divided into two scales : a scale going up to, say 800dt, perhaps 1000dt, and everything bigger. The fact that both are set into one range of numbers is IMHO a mere politeness... When we were experimenting with Starship Combat, we quickly found out, that taking on a bigger combat ship (e.g. from MT Figthing Ships of the Empire) with a "standard commuters vessel" (e.g. from the MT Imperial Encyclopedia) was a nogo. Everything that big blasts erverything that small out of the sky in no time. Perhaps a 100.000dt low armored cargoship could be demolished by a well armed Corsair - given some time... (no critical hits, just surface damage...).

So our interpretation was that Space Combat should only be conducted on a personal scale OR a warship scale, and so long we stuck with it...

Now to the problem of fighters (gets a bit tricky here...). Of course there are figthers, to be precise enormous numbers of them (600 on a large carrier) and I allways wondered what they were good for. Several answers
a. for scouting (600?!) - given the range of high-tech sensors, throwing out a sensor screen using fighters doesn't make that much sense
b. for engaging smaller (personal scale) ships, because a battleships spinal mount could only fire once a combat round and wouldn't want to waste that shot on a Subsidized Merchant
c. for ground assault (bombing and covering fire)

Another problem thrown up by these immense number of fighters would be the above mentioned Pinpoint Location-Rules. Don't use the armour-reduction *BOOM* - show me the combat round which wouldn't deliver at least 10 critical hits out of 600 separate trys. Use the armour-reduction *HMM* - at least 600 attacks a combat round could batter a heavy battleship toothless (if they're lucky they might even score a fuel-1 hit instead of the more likely weapon-1 hits) - no wonder fighters should be carrying pulse-lasers...

That's a bridge I still didn't have to cross...

btw. The idea of a single fighter being able to destroy a huge battle-station by hitting a ventilation-shaft with a well-placed shot thus causing the stations reactor to overload, is quite - intriguing...

TheEngineer :
Thats quite the way I would handle it.
Concerning the second point I would like to know, if you allow several tries of unit 1 to interrupt unit 2 in unit 2´s turn. (Each square of movement, each sensors scan...).
Just regarding the last point I am not sure, because I guess the rules describe, that one unit
may perform an interupt only if it has not already taken its turn.

Concerning the second point, I only allow one try, using the sentence "Only one active interrupt is allowed is permitted per side", adding "...per combat round", just you can precisely choose WHEN to interrupt (letting the enemy come...).
Regarding the last point, I just found out it was a misinterpretation on my side. I took this from the MT-Errata from the interrupt-rules regarding hand-to-hand combat and missed a sublety of englisch grammar upon first reading it...
The whole idea stretching out this point to ranged personal and space combat was, that interpreting the rules merciless (see above) the initiative winner in a one-on-one battle would be at a constant disatvantage because the defender would be able to interrupt him but not the other way round... I'll have to rethink this one day...

MT can be a PITA sometimes.

Just my thoughts.

Have a nice day,
Aldan Romar

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi there,

next turn.

We really have some beautyful weather here in Germany right now, opening the to a nice blue heaven and the space beyond.
The right time to talk about space combat.

I will stop quoting all the stuff ...

Regarding the famous interrupt system:
Perhaps this magic sentence ("...The interrupted unit's turn is considered spent...") has to
be supplemented with ("..concerning its ability to perform an interrupt.").
So the interrupt just enables a unit to take its turn somewhere in the middle off the other units turn.
Concerning space combat this might lead to the tactic to let the opponent take his turn first in order to prevent him from doing any interupts and take the chance to intercept him at the right time. Thats maybe the reason why the side with the largest tactical skill pool has the choice of going first or not.


The Visual range pinpoint critical hit damage resolution:
(For the last time, I swear...)
In which way would you use the armor factor to reduce those critical hits as I would like to code it?
Say if You have got 5 VRPCHs in a combat round and a armor level of 52.
Would You subtract 4 criticals ?


Mixed scale space combat:
I would not differ between several scales of combat.
Its just that increased firepower has an intense effect on weaker or smaller opponents.
In the space combat rules this is largely related to ships weapon factor and the targets tonnage resulting in devasting criticals.
When running simulations in my software I experienced that its very difficult to find ships
of same "strength", there combat takes a while. Mostly there is a tight borderline between
"they do not hurt each other" and "instantly blast to hell".
Here the ruleset is quite brutal but for me its ok as it just represents the power of superior equipment.


The fighter question:
What are they good for ? Still a question ?
Regarding the VRPCH problem I would like to mention again, that even a few squadrons of TL 15 fighters would not be a problem for an appropriate opponent.
Normally they will not be able to achieve a critical hit and penetrate defenses because of high def DMs.
Just in large amounts they might be able to harm this ship because some of them might hit
the target at a critical level and even fewer will be able to run through active and passive defenses.

If you want, I could provide a snapshot of my simulation software, so you can give it a try and don't have to roll dice until your fingers bleed.

But I guess thinks getting clearer now but there are surely other questions comming along.
Perhaps one could approach a state of deeper enlightment when dealing with MT rules in an intensive way.


Schöne Grüsse nach Hannover
and greetings to Canada

Mert

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi there,

next turn.

We really have some beautyful weather here in Germany right now, opening the to a nice blue heaven and the space beyond.
The right time to talk about space combat.

I will stop quoting all the stuff ...

Regarding the famous interrupt system:
Perhaps this magic sentence ("...The interrupted unit's turn is considered spent...") has to
be supplemented with ("..concerning its ability to perform an interrupt.").
So the interrupt just enables a unit to take its turn somewhere in the middle off the other units turn.
Concerning space combat this might lead to the tactic to let the opponent take his turn first in order to prevent him from doing any interupts and take the chance to intercept him at the right time. Thats maybe the reason why the side with the largest tactical skill pool has the choice of going first or not.


The Visual range pinpoint critical hit damage resolution:
(For the last time, I swear...)
In which way would you use the armor factor to reduce those critical hits as I would like to code it?
Say if You have got 5 VRPCHs in a combat round and a armor level of 52.
Would You subtract 4 criticals ?


Mixed scale space combat:
I would not differ between several scales of combat.
Its just that increased firepower has an intense effect on weaker or smaller opponents.
In the space combat rules this is largely related to ships weapon factor and the targets tonnage resulting in devasting criticals.
When running simulations in my software I experienced that its very difficult to find ships
of same "strength", there combat takes a while. Mostly there is a tight borderline between
"they do not hurt each other" and "instantly blast to hell".
Here the ruleset is quite brutal but for me its ok as it just represents the power of superior equipment.


The fighter question:
What are they good for ? Still a question ?
Regarding the VRPCH problem I would like to mention again, that even a few squadrons of TL 15 fighters would not be a problem for an appropriate opponent.
Normally they will not be able to achieve a critical hit and penetrate defenses because of high def DMs.
Just in large amounts they might be able to harm this ship because some of them might hit
the target at a critical level and even fewer will be able to run through active and passive defenses.

If you want, I could provide a snapshot of my simulation software, so you can give it a try and don't have to roll dice until your fingers bleed.

But I guess thinks getting clearer now but there are surely other questions comming along.
Perhaps one could approach a state of deeper enlightment when dealing with MT rules in an intensive way.


Schöne Grüsse nach Hannover
and greetings to Canada

Mert

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi there,

next turn.

We really have some beautyful weather here in Germany right now, opening the to a nice blue heaven and the space beyond.
The right time to talk about space combat.

I will stop quoting all the stuff ...

Regarding the famous interrupt system:
Perhaps this magic sentence ("...The interrupted unit's turn is considered spent...") has to
be supplemented with ("..concerning its ability to perform an interrupt.").
So the interrupt just enables a unit to take its turn somewhere in the middle off the other units turn.
Concerning space combat this might lead to the tactic to let the opponent take his turn first in order to prevent him from doing any interupts and take the chance to intercept him at the right time. Thats maybe the reason why the side with the largest tactical skill pool has the choice of going first or not.


The Visual range pinpoint critical hit damage resolution:
(For the last time, I swear...)
In which way would you use the armor factor to reduce those critical hits as I would like to code it?
Say if You have got 5 VRPCHs in a combat round and a armor level of 52.
Would You subtract 4 criticals ?


Mixed scale space combat:
I would not differ between several scales of combat.
Its just that increased firepower has an intense effect on weaker or smaller opponents.
In the space combat rules this is largely related to ships weapon factor and the targets tonnage resulting in devasting criticals.
When running simulations in my software I experienced that its very difficult to find ships
of same "strength", there combat takes a while. Mostly there is a tight borderline between
"they do not hurt each other" and "instantly blast to hell".
Here the ruleset is quite brutal but for me its ok as it just represents the power of superior equipment.


The fighter question:
What are they good for ? Still a question ?
Regarding the VRPCH problem I would like to mention again, that even a few squadrons of TL 15 fighters would not be a problem for an appropriate opponent.
Normally they will not be able to achieve a critical hit and penetrate defenses because of high def DMs.
Just in large amounts they might be able to harm this ship because some of them might hit
the target at a critical level and even fewer will be able to run through active and passive defenses.

If you want, I could provide a snapshot of my simulation software, so you can give it a try and don't have to roll dice until your fingers bleed.

But I guess thinks getting clearer now but there are surely other questions comming along.
Perhaps one could approach a state of deeper enlightment when dealing with MT rules in an intensive way.


Schöne Grüsse nach Hannover
and greetings to Canada

Mert