MT Starship Combat
- Thread starter Jeffr0
- Start date
Jeffr0:
HG was considered state of the art by a few, maybe even many, but definitely NOT by all.
I understood the math behind it, I just found it not terribly realistic (IE, the lack of maneuver rules of note, the lack of definitions, the critical based damage system). It also never provided terribly useful data for roleplaying purposes.
MTHG is more character involved, but no more realistic. The results are nowhere near commensurate with using the vehicle combat mechanics (group batteries into a single "Unit" for firing purposes), and Mayday movement. I've always preferred that approach for MT.
SanDragon, While that's technically not allowed in MT, almost everyone houserules it in to match the CT designs. That's another good mix to try.
HG was considered state of the art by a few, maybe even many, but definitely NOT by all.
I understood the math behind it, I just found it not terribly realistic (IE, the lack of maneuver rules of note, the lack of definitions, the critical based damage system). It also never provided terribly useful data for roleplaying purposes.
MTHG is more character involved, but no more realistic. The results are nowhere near commensurate with using the vehicle combat mechanics (group batteries into a single "Unit" for firing purposes), and Mayday movement. I've always preferred that approach for MT.
SanDragon, While that's technically not allowed in MT, almost everyone houserules it in to match the CT designs. That's another good mix to try.
Jeffr0:
HG was considered state of the art by a few, maybe even many, but definitely NOT by all.
I understood the math behind it, I just found it not terribly realistic (IE, the lack of maneuver rules of note, the lack of definitions, the critical based damage system). It also never provided terribly useful data for roleplaying purposes.
MTHG is more character involved, but no more realistic. The results are nowhere near commensurate with using the vehicle combat mechanics (group batteries into a single "Unit" for firing purposes), and Mayday movement. I've always preferred that approach for MT.
SanDragon, While that's technically not allowed in MT, almost everyone houserules it in to match the CT designs. That's another good mix to try.
HG was considered state of the art by a few, maybe even many, but definitely NOT by all.
I understood the math behind it, I just found it not terribly realistic (IE, the lack of maneuver rules of note, the lack of definitions, the critical based damage system). It also never provided terribly useful data for roleplaying purposes.
MTHG is more character involved, but no more realistic. The results are nowhere near commensurate with using the vehicle combat mechanics (group batteries into a single "Unit" for firing purposes), and Mayday movement. I've always preferred that approach for MT.
SanDragon, While that's technically not allowed in MT, almost everyone houserules it in to match the CT designs. That's another good mix to try.
Jeffr0:
HG was considered state of the art by a few, maybe even many, but definitely NOT by all.
I understood the math behind it, I just found it not terribly realistic (IE, the lack of maneuver rules of note, the lack of definitions, the critical based damage system). It also never provided terribly useful data for roleplaying purposes.
MTHG is more character involved, but no more realistic. The results are nowhere near commensurate with using the vehicle combat mechanics (group batteries into a single "Unit" for firing purposes), and Mayday movement. I've always preferred that approach for MT.
SanDragon, While that's technically not allowed in MT, almost everyone houserules it in to match the CT designs. That's another good mix to try.
HG was considered state of the art by a few, maybe even many, but definitely NOT by all.
I understood the math behind it, I just found it not terribly realistic (IE, the lack of maneuver rules of note, the lack of definitions, the critical based damage system). It also never provided terribly useful data for roleplaying purposes.
MTHG is more character involved, but no more realistic. The results are nowhere near commensurate with using the vehicle combat mechanics (group batteries into a single "Unit" for firing purposes), and Mayday movement. I've always preferred that approach for MT.
SanDragon, While that's technically not allowed in MT, almost everyone houserules it in to match the CT designs. That's another good mix to try.
That is actually an official erratum. It was clarified in the Q&A question of one TTD (Or MTJ? I forget...) that you still can have mixed turrets.
I have been working on a unified combat&damage system for MT which replaces both the point-based damage for personal and vehicle combat and the HG-based space combat with a roll on the mishap table, modified by weapon penetration, target armor and target size. I would probably still use special rules for space combat (but with the same principles, and seamless integration with the other rules) because of scale considerations.
Unarmed combat or light blunt weapons: 1d mishap
Projectiles, laser weapons, blade weapons, heavy blunt weapons: 2d mishap
Energy weapons and explosive rounds: 3d mishap.
The mishap level is reduced by 1d for hard targets (vehicles, robots.)
Modifiers: +pen, - armor. Max. net modifier +/-8
Special modifier after damage: Target size.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Size DM Sophont Animals Vehicles/Robots
Tiny +4 < 1kg < 0.001 kl
ESmall +3 1 kg+ 0.001 kl+
VSmall +2 5 kg+ 0.005 kl+
Small +1 Droyne 20 kg+ 0.02 kl+
Medium +/-0 Human, Hiver, Vargr 50 kg+ 0.05 kl+
Large -1 Aslan, K'Kree 100 kg+ 0.1 kl+
VLarge -2 Virushi 1000 kg+ 1 kl+
ELarge -3 10000 kg+ 1 dton+
Giant -4 100000 kg+ 10 dtons+</pre>[/QUOTE]The inverted Target Size DM is used for to-hit tasks btw.
For starship combat, I'd use HG armor values and accordingly modified pen values for the weapons. Size VSmall would correspond to size "Giant" under the personal rules (Yeah, I should unify these, but I am bad at coming up with English synonyms for "Larger", "Even Larger", "Still larger", "Keep going" etc.)
A SUPERFICIAL mishap corresponds to cosmetic, non-function-impairing damage. A flesh wound for living beings, small hull damage for vehicles, robots and starships.
A MINOR mishap corresponds to partial damage to important systems or heavy damage to unimportant ones. A living being is hampered (negative DM) and may drop unconscious from more than one MINOR result. For vehicles or starships, a randomly rolled system hit (ad-libbed, or one could use the table from MT.)
A MAJOR mishap means that important systems cease to function. Living beings drop unconscious, and can be killed by an additional MAJOR result. Vehicles are stopped/shot down. Starships suffer the equivalent of a critical hit.
A DESTROYED mishap means complete failure of functions. All important systems cease to work. Might still be salvageable.
A TOTALLY DESTROYED* mishap means just that. The target is utterly destroyed. All systems are destroyed as well and cannot be repaired.
*19+ under my rules, only possible with DMs.
This system is naturally not yet completely worked out, but I plan on expanding it and eventually writing it down in readable form. I realize I have somwhat strayed from the original topic, but do you have any thoughts on it?
Regards,
Tobias
I have been working on a unified combat&damage system for MT which replaces both the point-based damage for personal and vehicle combat and the HG-based space combat with a roll on the mishap table, modified by weapon penetration, target armor and target size. I would probably still use special rules for space combat (but with the same principles, and seamless integration with the other rules) because of scale considerations.
Unarmed combat or light blunt weapons: 1d mishap
Projectiles, laser weapons, blade weapons, heavy blunt weapons: 2d mishap
Energy weapons and explosive rounds: 3d mishap.
The mishap level is reduced by 1d for hard targets (vehicles, robots.)
Modifiers: +pen, - armor. Max. net modifier +/-8
Special modifier after damage: Target size.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Size DM Sophont Animals Vehicles/Robots
Tiny +4 < 1kg < 0.001 kl
ESmall +3 1 kg+ 0.001 kl+
VSmall +2 5 kg+ 0.005 kl+
Small +1 Droyne 20 kg+ 0.02 kl+
Medium +/-0 Human, Hiver, Vargr 50 kg+ 0.05 kl+
Large -1 Aslan, K'Kree 100 kg+ 0.1 kl+
VLarge -2 Virushi 1000 kg+ 1 kl+
ELarge -3 10000 kg+ 1 dton+
Giant -4 100000 kg+ 10 dtons+</pre>[/QUOTE]The inverted Target Size DM is used for to-hit tasks btw.
For starship combat, I'd use HG armor values and accordingly modified pen values for the weapons. Size VSmall would correspond to size "Giant" under the personal rules (Yeah, I should unify these, but I am bad at coming up with English synonyms for "Larger", "Even Larger", "Still larger", "Keep going" etc.)
A SUPERFICIAL mishap corresponds to cosmetic, non-function-impairing damage. A flesh wound for living beings, small hull damage for vehicles, robots and starships.
A MINOR mishap corresponds to partial damage to important systems or heavy damage to unimportant ones. A living being is hampered (negative DM) and may drop unconscious from more than one MINOR result. For vehicles or starships, a randomly rolled system hit (ad-libbed, or one could use the table from MT.)
A MAJOR mishap means that important systems cease to function. Living beings drop unconscious, and can be killed by an additional MAJOR result. Vehicles are stopped/shot down. Starships suffer the equivalent of a critical hit.
A DESTROYED mishap means complete failure of functions. All important systems cease to work. Might still be salvageable.
A TOTALLY DESTROYED* mishap means just that. The target is utterly destroyed. All systems are destroyed as well and cannot be repaired.
*19+ under my rules, only possible with DMs.
This system is naturally not yet completely worked out, but I plan on expanding it and eventually writing it down in readable form. I realize I have somwhat strayed from the original topic, but do you have any thoughts on it?
Regards,
Tobias
That is actually an official erratum. It was clarified in the Q&A question of one TTD (Or MTJ? I forget...) that you still can have mixed turrets.
I have been working on a unified combat&damage system for MT which replaces both the point-based damage for personal and vehicle combat and the HG-based space combat with a roll on the mishap table, modified by weapon penetration, target armor and target size. I would probably still use special rules for space combat (but with the same principles, and seamless integration with the other rules) because of scale considerations.
Unarmed combat or light blunt weapons: 1d mishap
Projectiles, laser weapons, blade weapons, heavy blunt weapons: 2d mishap
Energy weapons and explosive rounds: 3d mishap.
The mishap level is reduced by 1d for hard targets (vehicles, robots.)
Modifiers: +pen, - armor. Max. net modifier +/-8
Special modifier after damage: Target size.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Size DM Sophont Animals Vehicles/Robots
Tiny +4 < 1kg < 0.001 kl
ESmall +3 1 kg+ 0.001 kl+
VSmall +2 5 kg+ 0.005 kl+
Small +1 Droyne 20 kg+ 0.02 kl+
Medium +/-0 Human, Hiver, Vargr 50 kg+ 0.05 kl+
Large -1 Aslan, K'Kree 100 kg+ 0.1 kl+
VLarge -2 Virushi 1000 kg+ 1 kl+
ELarge -3 10000 kg+ 1 dton+
Giant -4 100000 kg+ 10 dtons+</pre>[/QUOTE]The inverted Target Size DM is used for to-hit tasks btw.
For starship combat, I'd use HG armor values and accordingly modified pen values for the weapons. Size VSmall would correspond to size "Giant" under the personal rules (Yeah, I should unify these, but I am bad at coming up with English synonyms for "Larger", "Even Larger", "Still larger", "Keep going" etc.)
A SUPERFICIAL mishap corresponds to cosmetic, non-function-impairing damage. A flesh wound for living beings, small hull damage for vehicles, robots and starships.
A MINOR mishap corresponds to partial damage to important systems or heavy damage to unimportant ones. A living being is hampered (negative DM) and may drop unconscious from more than one MINOR result. For vehicles or starships, a randomly rolled system hit (ad-libbed, or one could use the table from MT.)
A MAJOR mishap means that important systems cease to function. Living beings drop unconscious, and can be killed by an additional MAJOR result. Vehicles are stopped/shot down. Starships suffer the equivalent of a critical hit.
A DESTROYED mishap means complete failure of functions. All important systems cease to work. Might still be salvageable.
A TOTALLY DESTROYED* mishap means just that. The target is utterly destroyed. All systems are destroyed as well and cannot be repaired.
*19+ under my rules, only possible with DMs.
This system is naturally not yet completely worked out, but I plan on expanding it and eventually writing it down in readable form. I realize I have somwhat strayed from the original topic, but do you have any thoughts on it?
Regards,
Tobias
I have been working on a unified combat&damage system for MT which replaces both the point-based damage for personal and vehicle combat and the HG-based space combat with a roll on the mishap table, modified by weapon penetration, target armor and target size. I would probably still use special rules for space combat (but with the same principles, and seamless integration with the other rules) because of scale considerations.
Unarmed combat or light blunt weapons: 1d mishap
Projectiles, laser weapons, blade weapons, heavy blunt weapons: 2d mishap
Energy weapons and explosive rounds: 3d mishap.
The mishap level is reduced by 1d for hard targets (vehicles, robots.)
Modifiers: +pen, - armor. Max. net modifier +/-8
Special modifier after damage: Target size.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Size DM Sophont Animals Vehicles/Robots
Tiny +4 < 1kg < 0.001 kl
ESmall +3 1 kg+ 0.001 kl+
VSmall +2 5 kg+ 0.005 kl+
Small +1 Droyne 20 kg+ 0.02 kl+
Medium +/-0 Human, Hiver, Vargr 50 kg+ 0.05 kl+
Large -1 Aslan, K'Kree 100 kg+ 0.1 kl+
VLarge -2 Virushi 1000 kg+ 1 kl+
ELarge -3 10000 kg+ 1 dton+
Giant -4 100000 kg+ 10 dtons+</pre>[/QUOTE]The inverted Target Size DM is used for to-hit tasks btw.
For starship combat, I'd use HG armor values and accordingly modified pen values for the weapons. Size VSmall would correspond to size "Giant" under the personal rules (Yeah, I should unify these, but I am bad at coming up with English synonyms for "Larger", "Even Larger", "Still larger", "Keep going" etc.)
A SUPERFICIAL mishap corresponds to cosmetic, non-function-impairing damage. A flesh wound for living beings, small hull damage for vehicles, robots and starships.
A MINOR mishap corresponds to partial damage to important systems or heavy damage to unimportant ones. A living being is hampered (negative DM) and may drop unconscious from more than one MINOR result. For vehicles or starships, a randomly rolled system hit (ad-libbed, or one could use the table from MT.)
A MAJOR mishap means that important systems cease to function. Living beings drop unconscious, and can be killed by an additional MAJOR result. Vehicles are stopped/shot down. Starships suffer the equivalent of a critical hit.
A DESTROYED mishap means complete failure of functions. All important systems cease to work. Might still be salvageable.
A TOTALLY DESTROYED* mishap means just that. The target is utterly destroyed. All systems are destroyed as well and cannot be repaired.
*19+ under my rules, only possible with DMs.
This system is naturally not yet completely worked out, but I plan on expanding it and eventually writing it down in readable form. I realize I have somwhat strayed from the original topic, but do you have any thoughts on it?
Regards,
Tobias
That is actually an official erratum. It was clarified in the Q&A question of one TTD (Or MTJ? I forget...) that you still can have mixed turrets.
I have been working on a unified combat&damage system for MT which replaces both the point-based damage for personal and vehicle combat and the HG-based space combat with a roll on the mishap table, modified by weapon penetration, target armor and target size. I would probably still use special rules for space combat (but with the same principles, and seamless integration with the other rules) because of scale considerations.
Unarmed combat or light blunt weapons: 1d mishap
Projectiles, laser weapons, blade weapons, heavy blunt weapons: 2d mishap
Energy weapons and explosive rounds: 3d mishap.
The mishap level is reduced by 1d for hard targets (vehicles, robots.)
Modifiers: +pen, - armor. Max. net modifier +/-8
Special modifier after damage: Target size.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Size DM Sophont Animals Vehicles/Robots
Tiny +4 < 1kg < 0.001 kl
ESmall +3 1 kg+ 0.001 kl+
VSmall +2 5 kg+ 0.005 kl+
Small +1 Droyne 20 kg+ 0.02 kl+
Medium +/-0 Human, Hiver, Vargr 50 kg+ 0.05 kl+
Large -1 Aslan, K'Kree 100 kg+ 0.1 kl+
VLarge -2 Virushi 1000 kg+ 1 kl+
ELarge -3 10000 kg+ 1 dton+
Giant -4 100000 kg+ 10 dtons+</pre>[/QUOTE]The inverted Target Size DM is used for to-hit tasks btw.
For starship combat, I'd use HG armor values and accordingly modified pen values for the weapons. Size VSmall would correspond to size "Giant" under the personal rules (Yeah, I should unify these, but I am bad at coming up with English synonyms for "Larger", "Even Larger", "Still larger", "Keep going" etc.)
A SUPERFICIAL mishap corresponds to cosmetic, non-function-impairing damage. A flesh wound for living beings, small hull damage for vehicles, robots and starships.
A MINOR mishap corresponds to partial damage to important systems or heavy damage to unimportant ones. A living being is hampered (negative DM) and may drop unconscious from more than one MINOR result. For vehicles or starships, a randomly rolled system hit (ad-libbed, or one could use the table from MT.)
A MAJOR mishap means that important systems cease to function. Living beings drop unconscious, and can be killed by an additional MAJOR result. Vehicles are stopped/shot down. Starships suffer the equivalent of a critical hit.
A DESTROYED mishap means complete failure of functions. All important systems cease to work. Might still be salvageable.
A TOTALLY DESTROYED* mishap means just that. The target is utterly destroyed. All systems are destroyed as well and cannot be repaired.
*19+ under my rules, only possible with DMs.
This system is naturally not yet completely worked out, but I plan on expanding it and eventually writing it down in readable form. I realize I have somwhat strayed from the original topic, but do you have any thoughts on it?
Regards,
Tobias
I have been working on a unified combat&damage system for MT which replaces both the point-based damage for personal and vehicle combat and the HG-based space combat with a roll on the mishap table, modified by weapon penetration, target armor and target size. I would probably still use special rules for space combat (but with the same principles, and seamless integration with the other rules) because of scale considerations.
Unarmed combat or light blunt weapons: 1d mishap
Projectiles, laser weapons, blade weapons, heavy blunt weapons: 2d mishap
Energy weapons and explosive rounds: 3d mishap.
The mishap level is reduced by 1d for hard targets (vehicles, robots.)
Modifiers: +pen, - armor. Max. net modifier +/-8
Special modifier after damage: Target size.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Size DM Sophont Animals Vehicles/Robots
Tiny +4 < 1kg < 0.001 kl
ESmall +3 1 kg+ 0.001 kl+
VSmall +2 5 kg+ 0.005 kl+
Small +1 Droyne 20 kg+ 0.02 kl+
Medium +/-0 Human, Hiver, Vargr 50 kg+ 0.05 kl+
Large -1 Aslan, K'Kree 100 kg+ 0.1 kl+
VLarge -2 Virushi 1000 kg+ 1 kl+
ELarge -3 10000 kg+ 1 dton+
Giant -4 100000 kg+ 10 dtons+</pre>[/QUOTE]The inverted Target Size DM is used for to-hit tasks btw.
For starship combat, I'd use HG armor values and accordingly modified pen values for the weapons. Size VSmall would correspond to size "Giant" under the personal rules (Yeah, I should unify these, but I am bad at coming up with English synonyms for "Larger", "Even Larger", "Still larger", "Keep going" etc.)
A SUPERFICIAL mishap corresponds to cosmetic, non-function-impairing damage. A flesh wound for living beings, small hull damage for vehicles, robots and starships.
A MINOR mishap corresponds to partial damage to important systems or heavy damage to unimportant ones. A living being is hampered (negative DM) and may drop unconscious from more than one MINOR result. For vehicles or starships, a randomly rolled system hit (ad-libbed, or one could use the table from MT.)
A MAJOR mishap means that important systems cease to function. Living beings drop unconscious, and can be killed by an additional MAJOR result. Vehicles are stopped/shot down. Starships suffer the equivalent of a critical hit.
A DESTROYED mishap means complete failure of functions. All important systems cease to work. Might still be salvageable.
A TOTALLY DESTROYED* mishap means just that. The target is utterly destroyed. All systems are destroyed as well and cannot be repaired.
*19+ under my rules, only possible with DMs.
This system is naturally not yet completely worked out, but I plan on expanding it and eventually writing it down in readable form. I realize I have somwhat strayed from the original topic, but do you have any thoughts on it?
Regards,
Tobias
Well, in my opinion the MT combat system is seriously broken, and the damage system is only part of the problem. The one-roll idea was very nifty, I'll admit, but it leads to unrealistic results in many cases, when a difficult shot cannot produce enough damage to kill or incapacitate.
Another problem are the steep break-off points for difficulty. This doesn't matter so much with non-combat tasks, since the referee usually simply picks a difficulty for a task and that's it. In combat, a shot that is nigh-impossible (say, a net 12+, for a chance of ~3%) at a distance of 6 meters is suddenly fairly easy at a distance of 4.5 meters (8+, for chance of ~42%. Players will thus (in my experience) try to play these odd break-off points to their advantage, resulting in very unrealistic behaviour of the characters. Note that with most weapons, you could not kill or incapacitate the target with one shot in the former case.
The lack of an easy, useful initiative system is the remaining major flaw of the system. There are a number of minor ones, concerning how automatic fire is handled, the sometimes tedious interrupt system and the incorporation of vehicles and starships. A lot of the concepts look great on paper, but have worked out less than well in practice for me, especially with experienced gamist players.
Regards,
Tobias
P.S.: You can't do 16x normal damage in MT, can you?
P.P.S.: If you divide the starship weapon damage by 10, a 250-Mw Beam Laser will end up doing considerably less damage than a 50-Mw Beam Laser. Not very realistic.
Another problem are the steep break-off points for difficulty. This doesn't matter so much with non-combat tasks, since the referee usually simply picks a difficulty for a task and that's it. In combat, a shot that is nigh-impossible (say, a net 12+, for a chance of ~3%) at a distance of 6 meters is suddenly fairly easy at a distance of 4.5 meters (8+, for chance of ~42%. Players will thus (in my experience) try to play these odd break-off points to their advantage, resulting in very unrealistic behaviour of the characters. Note that with most weapons, you could not kill or incapacitate the target with one shot in the former case.
The lack of an easy, useful initiative system is the remaining major flaw of the system. There are a number of minor ones, concerning how automatic fire is handled, the sometimes tedious interrupt system and the incorporation of vehicles and starships. A lot of the concepts look great on paper, but have worked out less than well in practice for me, especially with experienced gamist players.
Regards,
Tobias
P.S.: You can't do 16x normal damage in MT, can you?
P.P.S.: If you divide the starship weapon damage by 10, a 250-Mw Beam Laser will end up doing considerably less damage than a 50-Mw Beam Laser. Not very realistic.
Well, in my opinion the MT combat system is seriously broken, and the damage system is only part of the problem. The one-roll idea was very nifty, I'll admit, but it leads to unrealistic results in many cases, when a difficult shot cannot produce enough damage to kill or incapacitate.
Another problem are the steep break-off points for difficulty. This doesn't matter so much with non-combat tasks, since the referee usually simply picks a difficulty for a task and that's it. In combat, a shot that is nigh-impossible (say, a net 12+, for a chance of ~3%) at a distance of 6 meters is suddenly fairly easy at a distance of 4.5 meters (8+, for chance of ~42%. Players will thus (in my experience) try to play these odd break-off points to their advantage, resulting in very unrealistic behaviour of the characters. Note that with most weapons, you could not kill or incapacitate the target with one shot in the former case.
The lack of an easy, useful initiative system is the remaining major flaw of the system. There are a number of minor ones, concerning how automatic fire is handled, the sometimes tedious interrupt system and the incorporation of vehicles and starships. A lot of the concepts look great on paper, but have worked out less than well in practice for me, especially with experienced gamist players.
Regards,
Tobias
P.S.: You can't do 16x normal damage in MT, can you?
P.P.S.: If you divide the starship weapon damage by 10, a 250-Mw Beam Laser will end up doing considerably less damage than a 50-Mw Beam Laser. Not very realistic.
Another problem are the steep break-off points for difficulty. This doesn't matter so much with non-combat tasks, since the referee usually simply picks a difficulty for a task and that's it. In combat, a shot that is nigh-impossible (say, a net 12+, for a chance of ~3%) at a distance of 6 meters is suddenly fairly easy at a distance of 4.5 meters (8+, for chance of ~42%. Players will thus (in my experience) try to play these odd break-off points to their advantage, resulting in very unrealistic behaviour of the characters. Note that with most weapons, you could not kill or incapacitate the target with one shot in the former case.
The lack of an easy, useful initiative system is the remaining major flaw of the system. There are a number of minor ones, concerning how automatic fire is handled, the sometimes tedious interrupt system and the incorporation of vehicles and starships. A lot of the concepts look great on paper, but have worked out less than well in practice for me, especially with experienced gamist players.
Regards,
Tobias
P.S.: You can't do 16x normal damage in MT, can you?
P.P.S.: If you divide the starship weapon damage by 10, a 250-Mw Beam Laser will end up doing considerably less damage than a 50-Mw Beam Laser. Not very realistic.
Well, in my opinion the MT combat system is seriously broken, and the damage system is only part of the problem. The one-roll idea was very nifty, I'll admit, but it leads to unrealistic results in many cases, when a difficult shot cannot produce enough damage to kill or incapacitate.
Another problem are the steep break-off points for difficulty. This doesn't matter so much with non-combat tasks, since the referee usually simply picks a difficulty for a task and that's it. In combat, a shot that is nigh-impossible (say, a net 12+, for a chance of ~3%) at a distance of 6 meters is suddenly fairly easy at a distance of 4.5 meters (8+, for chance of ~42%. Players will thus (in my experience) try to play these odd break-off points to their advantage, resulting in very unrealistic behaviour of the characters. Note that with most weapons, you could not kill or incapacitate the target with one shot in the former case.
The lack of an easy, useful initiative system is the remaining major flaw of the system. There are a number of minor ones, concerning how automatic fire is handled, the sometimes tedious interrupt system and the incorporation of vehicles and starships. A lot of the concepts look great on paper, but have worked out less than well in practice for me, especially with experienced gamist players.
Regards,
Tobias
P.S.: You can't do 16x normal damage in MT, can you?
P.P.S.: If you divide the starship weapon damage by 10, a 250-Mw Beam Laser will end up doing considerably less damage than a 50-Mw Beam Laser. Not very realistic.
Another problem are the steep break-off points for difficulty. This doesn't matter so much with non-combat tasks, since the referee usually simply picks a difficulty for a task and that's it. In combat, a shot that is nigh-impossible (say, a net 12+, for a chance of ~3%) at a distance of 6 meters is suddenly fairly easy at a distance of 4.5 meters (8+, for chance of ~42%. Players will thus (in my experience) try to play these odd break-off points to their advantage, resulting in very unrealistic behaviour of the characters. Note that with most weapons, you could not kill or incapacitate the target with one shot in the former case.
The lack of an easy, useful initiative system is the remaining major flaw of the system. There are a number of minor ones, concerning how automatic fire is handled, the sometimes tedious interrupt system and the incorporation of vehicles and starships. A lot of the concepts look great on paper, but have worked out less than well in practice for me, especially with experienced gamist players.
Regards,
Tobias
P.S.: You can't do 16x normal damage in MT, can you?
P.P.S.: If you divide the starship weapon damage by 10, a 250-Mw Beam Laser will end up doing considerably less damage than a 50-Mw Beam Laser. Not very realistic.
So far, you've only pointed to one flaw not shared with all other incarnations of traveller to some degree: The lack of an initiative system.
Yes, you, in theory, can get to the x16 level, on an extremely easy shot with high skill. Total die roll of 20 (12+8). It's not in the official rules that way, but all my fellow Alaskan MT fans do run it that way.
The 50MW needs to be trimmed. Also, look at the penetration; the 50 has lower pen.
All the SS weapons in MT are over-damaged; one good hit (x2 damage) can sink a scoutship in one shot. Even with the x10 DP listed in the RGK.
MT is the right ideas, rushed out too quick.
Yes, you, in theory, can get to the x16 level, on an extremely easy shot with high skill. Total die roll of 20 (12+8). It's not in the official rules that way, but all my fellow Alaskan MT fans do run it that way.
The 50MW needs to be trimmed. Also, look at the penetration; the 50 has lower pen.
All the SS weapons in MT are over-damaged; one good hit (x2 damage) can sink a scoutship in one shot. Even with the x10 DP listed in the RGK.
MT is the right ideas, rushed out too quick.
So far, you've only pointed to one flaw not shared with all other incarnations of traveller to some degree: The lack of an initiative system.
Yes, you, in theory, can get to the x16 level, on an extremely easy shot with high skill. Total die roll of 20 (12+8). It's not in the official rules that way, but all my fellow Alaskan MT fans do run it that way.
The 50MW needs to be trimmed. Also, look at the penetration; the 50 has lower pen.
All the SS weapons in MT are over-damaged; one good hit (x2 damage) can sink a scoutship in one shot. Even with the x10 DP listed in the RGK.
MT is the right ideas, rushed out too quick.
Yes, you, in theory, can get to the x16 level, on an extremely easy shot with high skill. Total die roll of 20 (12+8). It's not in the official rules that way, but all my fellow Alaskan MT fans do run it that way.
The 50MW needs to be trimmed. Also, look at the penetration; the 50 has lower pen.
All the SS weapons in MT are over-damaged; one good hit (x2 damage) can sink a scoutship in one shot. Even with the x10 DP listed in the RGK.
MT is the right ideas, rushed out too quick.
So far, you've only pointed to one flaw not shared with all other incarnations of traveller to some degree: The lack of an initiative system.
Yes, you, in theory, can get to the x16 level, on an extremely easy shot with high skill. Total die roll of 20 (12+8). It's not in the official rules that way, but all my fellow Alaskan MT fans do run it that way.
The 50MW needs to be trimmed. Also, look at the penetration; the 50 has lower pen.
All the SS weapons in MT are over-damaged; one good hit (x2 damage) can sink a scoutship in one shot. Even with the x10 DP listed in the RGK.
MT is the right ideas, rushed out too quick.
Yes, you, in theory, can get to the x16 level, on an extremely easy shot with high skill. Total die roll of 20 (12+8). It's not in the official rules that way, but all my fellow Alaskan MT fans do run it that way.
The 50MW needs to be trimmed. Also, look at the penetration; the 50 has lower pen.
All the SS weapons in MT are over-damaged; one good hit (x2 damage) can sink a scoutship in one shot. Even with the x10 DP listed in the RGK.
MT is the right ideas, rushed out too quick.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Aramis, is this the progression you use?
2+, damage x 2 (min. 1)
4+, damage x 4 (min. 2)
8+, damage x 8 (min. 4)
16+, damage x 16 (min. 8)
2+, damage x 2 (min. 1)
4+, damage x 4 (min. 2)
8+, damage x 8 (min. 4)
16+, damage x 16 (min. 8)