Sandcasters

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by flykiller:
concept question. if a ship has a 6G vector, what is its agility?

"6G" is an acceleration rate, not a vector.

Agility is limited by the vessel's max-G rating and EP available.

Agility in HG2 is an abstraction of maneuvering. Except for range-determination, there really isn't any "maneuvering" in HG2 combat. It does no good in this context to say, "A ship is using 1G of its accerlation, therefore: what Agility can it achieve," becuase ship's in HG2 combat aren't proceeding at a g-rated speed. They're all sitting there in the battle line, and have whatever their max-agility is based on max-g rating available (whether it's used or not) and EP available.

 

[flykiller]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flykiller:
concept question. if a ship has a 6G vector, what is its agility?

"6G" is an acceleration rate, not a vector.

Agility is limited by the vessel's max-G rating and EP available.

Agility in HG2 is an abstraction of maneuvering. Except for range-determination, there really isn't any "maneuvering" in HG2 combat. It does no good in this context to say, "A ship is using 1G of its accerlation, therefore: what Agility can it achieve," becuase ship's in HG2 combat aren't proceeding at a g-rated speed. They're all sitting there in the battle line, and have whatever their max-agility is based on max-g rating available (whether it's used or not) and EP available. </font>[/QUOTE]you are of course perfectly correct on all counts. I seem to be having difficulty phrasing the question in a rigorously accurate and acceptable manner. I'll try again.

leaving off HG2 range of engagement rules and just thinking of a ship in space, but retaining HG2 notions of agility combat modifiers, if a vessel is accelerating in one direction at its maximum capability, what is its agility (understood as being evasive ability, "float like a butterfly", etc) at that moment?

perhaps an example would be sufficiently clear. consider an M2 merchant fleeing at maximum acceleration to a jump point while being followed by a police boat, also M2 and also pursuing at maximum acceleration. each is firing at the other. what is the agility of each ship relative to the other?

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flykiller:
concept question. if a ship has a 6G vector, what is its agility?

"6G" is an acceleration rate, not a vector.

Agility is limited by the vessel's max-G rating and EP available.

Agility in HG2 is an abstraction of maneuvering. Except for range-determination, there really isn't any "maneuvering" in HG2 combat. It does no good in this context to say, "A ship is using 1G of its accerlation, therefore: what Agility can it achieve," becuase ship's in HG2 combat aren't proceeding at a g-rated speed. They're all sitting there in the battle line, and have whatever their max-agility is based on max-g rating available (whether it's used or not) and EP available. </font>[/QUOTE]you are of course perfectly correct on all counts. I seem to be having difficulty phrasing the question in a rigorously accurate and acceptable manner. I'll try again.

leaving off HG2 range of engagement rules and just thinking of a ship in space, but retaining HG2 notions of agility combat modifiers, if a vessel is accelerating in one direction at its maximum capability, what is its agility (understood as being evasive ability, "float like a butterfly", etc) at that moment?

perhaps an example would be sufficiently clear. consider an M2 merchant fleeing at maximum acceleration to a jump point while being followed by a police boat, also M2 and also pursuing at maximum acceleration. each is firing at the other. what is the agility of each ship relative to the other? </font>[/QUOTE]Agility is defined as the ability to execute evasive movement.
In your example, assuming the police boat had an agility of 2, it would have sufficient excess power so as to be able to make rapid small vector changes while still maintaining maximum acceleration, thus making it a more difficult target.
Assuming your trader has an agility of zero and an emergency agility of 2, it would have to stop firing beam weapons to achieve the same result.

Brilliant Lances requires ships to pay for evasion and heading changes by sacrificing forward thrust.
Since HG has no actual movement, the agility system is probably a good compromise.

 

[RainOfSteel]

I'd have to agree with Piper. In a system that actually involves movement, but still retains the concept of Gs of accerlation, I would require any craft wanting to accomplish "evasive maneuvers" to lower its accleration. Each point of "agility" the ship had would be acquired through the sacrifice of a "G" rating point.

An M2 far-trader acclerating a 2G would have no agility.

Of course, I can see no reason your average small SDB couldn't be a second[/b] small M-drive, and use the first for acceleration, and the second for agility . . . (no, both cannot be used at once to get better than 6G thrust).


Questions like these, and many other similar questions, are what have made me always dislike CT and HG2 combat (really, I've never liked them).


What I want, of course, is the "perfect" space combat game for me. And I want someone else to magically determine what that is and create it for me and serve it up on a silver plater . . .

. . . whoops, was my internal monologue malfunctioning there again?

 

[flykiller]

An M2 far-trader acclerating a 2G would have no agility.

now, coversely. if that same m2 far-trader is using agility 2 to evade incoming fire, then can it be accelerating in an overall direction?

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />An M2 far-trader acclerating a 2G would have no agility.

now, coversely. if that same m2 far-trader is using agility 2 to evade incoming fire, then can it be accelerating in an overall direction? </font>[/QUOTE]Not per Brilliant Lances. Any G's used for evasion are not available for thrust. It will still retain the vector it had before starting evasion, it just can't alter that vector.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
An M2 far-trader acclerating a 2G would have no agility.

now, coversely. if that same m2 far-trader is using agility 2 to evade incoming fire, then can it be accelerating in an overall direction? </font>[/QUOTE]Not under the imaginary system I was proposing. Gs of accleration currently used and points of Agility currently used would not exceed the M-drive rating.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Piper:
Not per Brilliant Lances. Any G's used for evasion are not available for thrust. It will still retain the vector it had before starting evasion, it just can't alter that vector.

<Grrr . . . sigh /> I don't have BL, and am not likely to be able to acquire it any time soon.

 

[flykiller]

then it would seem bl and what ros proposes are similar, and both are similar to what I do on my own.

have bl, just never read it. take it out of the box once a year or so, get lost in all the interlocking minutae, and put it back.

now getting back to sand. if a ship isn't trying to go anywhere in particular but is devoting its entire maneuver capability to agility then it is a trivial matter for the ship to keep station with it's sand and to use the sand like a shield, popping out from behind it and loosing a volley then ducking back behind it. if an opposing ship wishes to avoid the sand screen then it will have to approach, a maneuver that will reduce its available agility - possibly for many turns. it may not wish to increase its own vulnerability to do so. thus the sand shield remains useful for as many turns as it takes to disperse. if both ships launch sand then both likely are predisposed to use their sand and thus wage a defensive battle, waiting to see who gets hit first.

looked at this way sand becomes much more appropriate, and I believe the combat scenario described above would be fairly common.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by flykiller:
looked at this way sand becomes much more appropriate, and I believe the combat scenario described above would be fairly common.

If only QLI would add that to their starship combat supplement (which I continue to wish for).

That, and taking away the silly idea that a sand-cloud covers 2500 km . . .

The major problem with the above tactic is that the ship doing it is stuck in its current vector.

To be most effective, a lot of sand would be "cast" (and stacked in-place). If the enemy simply vectors away, then the casting ship must revector and recast, expending more and more sand.

 

[flykiller]

(which I continue to wish for)

sometimes we must pick our own cotton.

The major problem with the above tactic is that the ship doing it is stuck in its current vector.

that is indeed a major limitation, but it may not be the major problem. in space it's hard to run away from lasers, and a captain may decide that defense is his best or only option.

If the enemy simply vectors away, then the casting ship must revector and recast, expending more and more sand.

sand of course is not an all-inclusively perfect defense, and one may fairly say that sand would be useless when accelerating on a target i.e. aggressing. but as a defensive tool I think it would have some utility.

 

[lightsenshi]

There is one little problem with using sandcasters (and the reason that I don't bother with them). An enemy can simply "force" you to remain in your sand shield until he's ready to turn you into a radioactive pile of metal via nuclear missiles.

 

[flykiller]

An enemy can simply "force" you to remain in your sand shield until he's ready to ....

well, no ... unless he can destroy you if you move out from behind it, in which case it isn't the sand that's the problem.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Questions like these, and many other similar questions, are what have made me always dislike CT and HG2 combat (really, I've never liked them).

Mayday fills in many of the gaps in the LBB2 ship combat system, e.g. rules for sandcasters, reduction of maneuver rating for using evade as a defence etc.

What I want, of course, is the "perfect" space combat game for me. And I want someone else to magically determine what that is and create it for me and serve it up on a silver plater . . .

Ahh, the holy grail of Traveller ship fanatics...

My answer is to start with the simplest - Mayday - and then house rule to perfection , and don't be afraid to "borrow" ideas from other versions of Traveller (BL and BR are good source material), or indeed from others on these boards

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
My answer is to start with the simplest - Mayday - and then house rule to perfection , and don't be afraid to "borrow" ideas from other versions of Traveller (BL and BR are good source material), or indeed from others on these boards

What! Can you see this, gentlebeings? He suggests that I do, work! It'll be pounding clean the erasers for you, Mr. Oddra.

 

[TheEngineer]

Just use CFSCS (Complete Fake Space Combat System).

Let the players roll their dice for reasonable tasks (sensoring, firing batteries, adjusting field matrix) in a combat round style way.

As a ref take a look at the dice values of the players roles, role some dice too, use results as inspriration in ehcich direction players fate is moving and react in a way a cinematic action makes it neccessary.
Normally you know, if the players should succeed or not. If not, just make a task roll expressing the intuitve chances of the combat outcome, e.g. X-Wing vs. Death Star, Impossible, 1 min.

:=)

Honestly, Traveller Space Combat is mostly so deadly and so uncontrollable, that many Refs start "cheating" at some point anyway, in order to save the players or to kill them right away.
So just cheat consequently and make a good show.
Maybe its useful to take the pure ruleset as an inspiration and as an outline, what could happen in a fight. ^

Just one option....

Mert

 

[flykiller]

Maybe its useful to take the pure ruleset as an inspiration and as an outline, what could happen in a fight.

maybe a bit more than an inspiration. some general hard-and-fast rules are necessary so that the players know what to expect and what to do so that they have some control over the action and are not just carried along by the referee's whim. but within the outline of the general rules, yes, an action flows most naturally if the referee runs it by how it feels.

 

[TheEngineer]

Yep, flykiller. I forgot to note.
Players have to know about the effects and chances in a space combat situation. With the knowledge they mostly try to prevent combats anyway, except its a fairly safe game.

 

[Gundiwolf]

Howdy - okay, I'm boosting an old thread here. Sorry!

I've always mentally considered the sand-casters to be more the "super-shotgun-defense" than the cloud defense. Perhaps because I considered and rejected how stupid the cloud defense would be.

Here's the thing - yes, lasers are light-speed weapons and impossible to detect before they hit you. However, how long does that energy have to be on target before it really hurts you? Your detector picks up the beginning of the beam as it hits your hull, and reacts, by slamming a blast of sand at the beam path (a defensive cone, if you well) to break up the beam before it stays on you long enough to do real damage.

I don't think anyone questions that they can be used against missiles, even with bomb-pumped laser warheads.

However, it is more a reactive/automated defense than one a human gunner can really help. For those mixed turrets, you would have to choose to activate the 'caster as your gunner action, and then forgo any offensive action with the other weapons.

Gives a trader a reason to fit two turrets though - one holds 'casters and one has offensive weapons (or a laser for dual-purpose).

Figured I'd contribute that anyway.

 

[mike wightman]

The "super shotgun" is how they come across in Striker and MegaTraveller.

I like your take on laser sensors - it makes sense.