Ship Design Question:

[HG_B]

You say that like it would be a bad thing?
.

Not at all, could be fun. But running two different ones is really bad though.

 

[Murdoc]

You say that like it would be a bad thing?
Heck, just replace the starship movement with Car Wars complete with a funky little turning template.
That was a fun combat game.

Ah, if only I could do a bootlegger-reverse in space... (come to think of it, you could do funky stuff like that in Star Fleet Battles...:rofl

As for the lack of fun of vector movement, yes, we've all grown up with airplane-style dogfights like Star Wars, but I think Babylon 5 did an ok job balancing vector movement with fun. Sure it makes it less romantic, but I'm ok with that. I prefer the idea of combat being horrifying rather than glorious. Just my preference.

 

[pendragonman]

Ah, if only I could do a bootlegger-reverse in space... (come to think of it, you could do funky stuff like that in Star Fleet Battles...:rofl

Yes. Yes you could. Except with a B-10. Then you got to tumble.

 

[Sigmund]

There's a long-standing compensation limit of TL-9 G's. T5 may not have explicitly included it, but unless it explicitly excludes it, it's probably still part of Marc's rationale. By the way: 6G is tolerable for only several hours in a suitable couch...

Ok, given a compensation limit of 9G's, a human pilot could then tolerate sudden Gs of up to 14Gs on average, perhaps one or two more for exceptional individuals, and that's before any other considerations such as "G-force compensation drugs" or special flight suits or augments etc. Maybe even genetic engineering. If heavy worlders can be created, high G pilots can too. Actually, the RPing potential of that is kinda cool. I can envision an "elite" cadre of high G pilots, like real world pilots times ten in attitude, arrogance, and recklessness Cool.

 

[atpollard]

Ah, if only I could do a bootlegger-reverse in space... (come to think of it, you could do funky stuff like that in Star Fleet Battles...:rofl

As for the lack of fun of vector movement, yes, we've all grown up with airplane-style dogfights like Star Wars, but I think Babylon 5 did an ok job balancing vector movement with fun. Sure it makes it less romantic, but I'm ok with that. I prefer the idea of combat being horrifying rather than glorious. Just my preference.

Babylon 5 the show or Babylon 5 the game?
I think that I agree with you on this.
(I liked the show and I am unfamiliar with the game).

For me, the lack of fun goes WAY beyond the loss of some cinematic excitement ... I hardly gave that a thought.
A better illustration was my very first vector combat with CT:

"Both ships were aching to fight (because we really wanted to try out these swell new rules). Combat started at maximum detection range and both ships headed towards the other at maximum acceleration. Tracking missiles turn after turn was a P.I.T.A. and closing to beam range took forever ... during which time we built up very impressive vectors. I think we managed one shot approaching and one shot departing. Then hours of decelerating to a stop to turn around and try that a little differently."

We eventually figured out vector combat a little better, but it always seemed to take forever and feel sort of clunky and non-intuitive.
It never felt fun and was generally abandoned for one of the more abstract systems (with range bands) whenever possible.

It is the memory of these sort of experiences that leaves me a little more kindly disposed to WW2 style dogfights in space (or even a bootlegger reverse).

Beyond that, I suspect that the battlefield assumptions of most vector combat poorly represents reality. Virtually everything that I see moving around in space is all about travelling in a circle around something. Satellites orbit worlds, worlds orbit stars, stars orbit galaxies ... I don't know what galaxies orbit, but I bet they orbit something. So space movement is usually more about conservation of momentum and accelerating to a higher orbit or decelerating to a lower orbit, circularizing elliptical transfer orbits, transitioning from a solar orbit to a planetary orbit ... the sort of stuff ignored in most vector movement where you start at zero velocity, accelerate and maneuver and end up back at zero velocity. What about decelerating to a lower orbit to gain position relative to a ship in a higher orbit, then accelerating to close range ... unless he accelerates to a higher orbit to slow his forward movement relative to your ship to keep you in front of and below him?

So for all of the trouble of vector movement, it doesn't really do a particularly good job at reflecting the real tactical decisions and movements except for few simple 'chase' or 'converge' paths that are just as well represented by abstract range bands.

Since I'm heading somewhat far afield of the original topic (and I don't have T5 yet) A more ON TOPIC ending:
Does T5 offer anything new to vector movement and combat beyond the mechanics first presented in Classic Traveller?
Or is it basically the same old thing with a shiny new wrapper?

 

[Sigmund]

Not really intertialess. That would imply mass-less. Anti grav (also inertial comp) simply implies creation of a grav field. For moving a ship this would be creating a grav field right outside the ship so that the ship free falls into it (this would mean that the people in the ship wouldn't feel the thrust). Inert comp would be grav field created inside the ship 'pulling' in the opposite direction of an externally caused movement vector (hitting a planets atmosphere).

So, in this case, moving the ship would involve changing the position of the created grav field. With a 3G Grav drive the ship would 'fall' with an accel of ~30 m/s/s one direction and then change the grav field and 'fall' in another direction.

When you look at the Travel formulas for normal space movement you see that one accelerates for x amount of time then reverses 'thrust' direction for an equal amount of time. That is because you have inertia and the drives don't make you inertialless. So, the type of movement has been baked into the rules from the earliest by specifying vector movement using Newtonian physical laws.

True enough... I was just looking at that again. I was thinking I would "explain" that by saying the grav drives used for "cruising" are much more powerful and can accelerate the craft to a much higher speed for in-system transit, but once a "dogfight" breaks out, the changes in vector induced by maneuvering drives are much quicker, but are incapable of the top speeds of the main "cruising" drive. Eh, whatever sounds good

 

[Sigmund]

Yeah, within the CT game mechanics, Newtonian movement is clearly the rule ... but having played several versions of vector movement combat mechanics, FUN is not a word that I would use to describe any of those sessions.

I completely agree with the 'combat sucks' view of vector movement and physics being what is written into the DNA of Traveller (with the caviat that some flavors DO apply Pilot Skill modifiers) ... I simply suggest a reapplication of existing handwaves from other areas of the game to justify a more 'cinematic' [and unofficial] version of starship combat.

Given the beating thermodynamics and conservation of momentum have already taken in the official rules [for completely understandable reasons of fun and playability], Starships banking like aircraft to dodge incoming laser fire really doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. [shrug]

To each his own.

This is where I am too. I envision my Trav "dogfighting" much more like what was displayed in Babylon 5 than Star Wars, but still it's gotta be fun, otherwise why do it? On the other hand, I can totally see playing games of Trav that much more Alistair Reynolds or Larry Niven than George Lucas. In that case, the PCs would probably not ever be pilots, and I would probably not even bother to include fighter-type craft designed for use anywhere outside of gravity-wells/atmospheres.

 

[Sigmund]

Then you'll have to ditch the current rules of normal space movement. Unless you want to two sets of physical laws running for the same aspect of the game. Now, THAT would be REALLY strange.

For me it's not that there's two sets of physical laws. It's more that there are two sets of technological systems in use. One stresses top speed over maneuverability, the other maneuverability over top speed. It seems to work for us. Kinda like the way jet fighters work versus combat helicopters.

 

[Sigmund]

Babylon 5 the show or Babylon 5 the game?
I think that I agree with you on this.
(I liked the show and I am unfamiliar with the game).

For me, the lack of fun goes WAY beyond the loss of some cinematic excitement ... I hardly gave that a thought.
A better illustration was my very first vector combat with CT:


We eventually figured out vector combat a little better, but it always seemed to take forever and feel sort of clunky and non-intuitive.
It never felt fun and was generally abandoned for one of the more abstract systems (with range bands) whenever possible.

It is the memory of these sort of experiences that leaves me a little more kindly disposed to WW2 style dogfights in space (or even a bootlegger reverse).

Beyond that, I suspect that the battlefield assumptions of most vector combat poorly represents reality. Virtually everything that I see moving around in space is all about travelling in a circle around something. Satellites orbit worlds, worlds orbit stars, stars orbit galaxies ... I don't know what galaxies orbit, but I bet they orbit something. So space movement is usually more about conservation of momentum and accelerating to a higher orbit or decelerating to a lower orbit, circularizing elliptical transfer orbits, transitioning from a solar orbit to a planetary orbit ... the sort of stuff ignored in most vector movement where you start at zero velocity, accelerate and maneuver and end up back at zero velocity. What about decelerating to a lower orbit to gain position relative to a ship in a higher orbit, then accelerating to close range ... unless he accelerates to a higher orbit to slow his forward movement relative to your ship to keep you in front of and below him?

So for all of the trouble of vector movement, it doesn't really do a particularly good job at reflecting the real tactical decisions and movements except for few simple 'chase' or 'converge' paths that are just as well represented by abstract range bands.

Since I'm heading somewhat far afield of the original topic (and I don't have T5 yet) A more ON TOPIC ending:
Does T5 offer anything new to vector movement and combat beyond the mechanics first presented in Classic Traveller?
Or is it basically the same old thing with a shiny new wrapper?

I remember something vaguely similar, but none of the details. Our campaigns were much more about exploration and on-world stuff than space combat, and what I have run most is sci-fi espionage. I totally agree about orbits being more common, and IMO make much more sense since it seems to me most combat would occur over trying to take or defend resources such as planets/stations, moons, belts, etc... If I were to use vector combat more exclusively, I would only include fighter-style craft that are designed to be used in atmosphere and/or gravity wells up to high orbit. In more open space it would be all small to medium all the way up to capital ships, much more like wet navy combat in concept.

 

[Vladika]

Ok, given a compensation limit of 9G's, a human pilot could then tolerate sudden Gs of up to 14Gs on average, perhaps one or two more for exceptional individuals, and that's before any other considerations such as "G-force compensation drugs" or special flight suits or augments etc. Maybe even genetic engineering. If heavy worlders can be created, high G pilots can too. Actually, the RPing potential of that is kinda cool. I can envision an "elite" cadre of high G pilots, like real world pilots times ten in attitude, arrogance, and recklessness Cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Human_tolerance_of_g-force


>>> A typical person can handle about 5 g (49 m/s²) before losing consciousness, but through the combination of special g-suits and efforts to strain muscles—both of which act to force blood back into the brain—modern pilots can typically handle a sustained 9 g (88 m/s²) <<<

 

[HG_B]

For me it's not that there's two sets of physical laws. It's more that there are two sets of technological systems in use. One stresses top speed over maneuverability, the other maneuverability over top speed. It seems to work for us. Kinda like the way jet fighters work versus combat helicopters.

It would require two sets of physical laws. Whether you realize it or not. But, play what is fun for you. That is what gaming is about.

 

[BytePro]

Quote..."Both ships were aching to fight (because we really wanted to try out these swell new rules). Combat started at maximum detection range and both ships headed towards the other at maximum acceleration. Tracking missiles turn after turn was a P.I.T.A. and closing to beam range took forever ... during which time we built up very impressive vectors. I think we managed one shot approaching and one shot departing. Then hours of decelerating to a stop to turn around and try that a little differently."

CT 'space combat' could go by a number of sources.

For instance, LBB2 edition 2 Space Combat - i.e. the roleplaying combat in CT, not the wargaming/boardgame variants - had no 'beam range', that I recall, just 1,500 to 6,000mm detection ranges and the 2,500/5,000 range penalty DMs. Laser hits were imposed 'immediately' - i.e. same turn. So, combat could begin with detection as long as energy weps were available.

Regardless, it sounds like acceleration was not done correctly in the case quoted.

Given the 1,500 mm civilian detection range - and assumed similar starting speeds and head-on directions - two 1G vessels closing at full thrust (ignoring gravity and possibility of skill boosted Gs) would:
Turn 1 - move 200mm together - i.e. be 1,300mm apart on second,
Turn 2 - move 400mm closer - i.e. close to 900mm,
Turn 3 - move 600mm closer - i.e. close to 300mm,
Turn 4 - pass each other... (500 apart)

With proper deceleration and turning, assuming one isn't trying to break off, they should be passing each other every 2-3 turns or just circling each other. None of which precludes discharging weapons the entire time.

Note that the examples in the body text explicitly include partial 1G accelerations.

LBB2, without the special missile supplement was rather abstract (or incomplete). (The missile supplement was a bit too fiddly for my tastes - quite at odds with the level of detail in CT LBB1-3.) No explicit acceleration and duration was until 'destroyed by the target's defenses' or exploding' and doing damage (if the vessel was already destroyed, guess it would be a matter of 'target that explosion!'). Without acceleration, a launching vessel would have to stop thrusting or change direction to avoid hitting its own ordnance. So I always presumed missiles had much higher than starship acceleration and house ruled them limited to 3 attacks and assumed impact in 2 game turns. After, they simply kept going (generally with warhead disarmed, but still a kinetic threat - it was a good manners to remote detonate so at least the threat was lowered). Vacc suits did 1G for 21 turns, so 6 turns for the higher acceleration/lower mass missiles seemed reasonable...

...Virtually everything that I see moving around in space is all about travelling in a circle around something.

Yes - curves - attributable to gravity.

Curves, such as orbits, are readily handled by the vector rules - its just a change in direction (with net zero scalar change of the vector). Bear in mind the vector is a 'snapshot' of turn end change in speed and direction - so its a crude system - and thus subject to low resolution curves (i.e. visible line segments that don't match distance measured on a curve very accurately).

LBB2 explicitly handled gravity vectors in all the vector combat. Mind, just like with curves, the 'resolution' was poor. But the concept and usable execution was there.

Starter Traveller changed to 1D vectors using range bands. It also put missiles at 6G. I didn't care for either - preferring a more abstract system vs. the belief breaking these oversimplifications have. Personally, the biggest mistake with LBB2 vector rules was the choice of scales. For orbital combat, the 100mm=1G worked fine. For interplanetary combat, 10mm=1G would have been much better (1mm:1,000km - i.e. 1 to 1 billion). While I enjoyed using props, compasses, protractors and rulers - most of my players could care less after about 3 turns and few tried to take it up themselves (leaving me to do the 'maneuvering').

Most people simply don't understand vectors, velocity nor acceleration, so abstract long/short ranges ala HG plays better in general for pen and paper RPGs (i.e. not using computers...).

 

[Sigmund]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Human_tolerance_of_g-force


>>> A typical person can handle about 5 g (49 m/s²) before losing consciousness, but through the combination of special g-suits and efforts to strain muscles—both of which act to force blood back into the brain—modern pilots can typically handle a sustained 9 g (88 m/s²) <<<

Ok, and there is apparently 9Gs of inertial compensation available, so sustained 18g would feel like 9g to an unmodified human from today with today's equipment. Even better than I thought. With the advanced tech of the Imperium, and genetic engineering, and advanced pharms, I'd think pilots in the Third Imperium could easily handle the stress of space dogfighting using grav-based drives.

 

[SanDragon]

Yes. Yes you could. Except with a B-10. Then you got to tumble.

Or a high-energy turn in your Starfleet vessel, resulting in our nacelle pylons twisting about and swinging your engines into the backside of your primary saucer...

 

[BytePro]

Gimbal-ed acceleration booths, liquid encasement and breathing (ala hydrofluorocarbons), along with implanted micro pumps/traps and bio-feedback/nerve/mental controls, could all help maintain consciousness and survival during higher instantaneous and sustained G forces.

 

[aramis]

Ok, given a compensation limit of 9G's, a human pilot could then tolerate sudden Gs of up to 14Gs on average, perhaps one or two more for exceptional individuals, and that's before any other considerations such as "G-force compensation drugs" or special flight suits or augments etc. Maybe even genetic engineering. If heavy worlders can be created, high G pilots can too. Actually, the RPing potential of that is kinda cool. I can envision an "elite" cadre of high G pilots, like real world pilots times ten in attitude, arrogance, and recklessness Cool.

That would be TL 18 compensation.Not TL=9, but subtract 9 from the tech level to find the G's compensated.