Using skills instead of computer programs in ship combat

[mike wightman]

I disagree - CT offers a toolkit and I prefer to use those tools or adapt them rather than just re-write the game.

Using the ship's boat description of combat and adding these features for other skills gives a ship combat experience that sticks to the rules but allows for greater player involvement, without a complete re-write.

 

[McPerth]

The idea is you can use computer programs or character skill - using skill instead of a program does not mean dumping the programs rules.

Then I see few situations (aside from having little in form of software) where the skill would be used. Let's imagine the player has Gunnery 2 (a good gunner in CT). he may use the Gunner interact and have a +2 , or he can roll as your tables, and getting as I understand your tables) a DM of 0 on a 5-, +1 on 6-7, +2 on 8-9 and +3 on 10+. Do you really he will risk to have an extra +1 on a 10+ by risking a lower DM on 7-?

The advantage is it gives players playing the game something to do during ship combat.

And while I applaud and share your intent, I'm not sure this will achieve it ,as the players rolling for it are the same ones that are involved in ship combat (except the engineers doing damage control, that will be involved but not use this rule). The ship's Doctor, to give you an example, unless he's also a gunner, will stay equally iddle unless there are casualties, and if so he will be involved regardless if you use this house rule or not.

At best the Navigator will be involved while he was not (unless he's the same person as the Pilot ,as i've often seen)

See above, to which I will add many of the PC scale ships have a model 2 computer max

Do you consider the Gazelle or thetype T Patrol Cruiser PC scale ships (I myself do)? I ask because they need at least a model 5 and 3 respectivelly for jump...

I guess we run very different games.

Probably, but I guess almost everyone finds at times a character or two uninvolved with the current situation (probably they will be the protagonists in other scenes, if the referee is worth his salt).

 

[Spinward Flow]

At best the Navigator will be involved while he was not (unless he's the same person as the Pilot ,as i've often seen)

Navigator skill applies to interpreting data from long range sensors (as per LBB1).
Granted, "long range sensors" don't mean much during combat ... unless you take a LBB5 approach of short/long range as being within weapons range and the reserve being beyond weapons range. In such a simplification, it would be the job of the Navigator to monitor the long range sensor tracking ships in the reserve (and beyond?) ... while ships at short/long (weapons) ranges would be the pilot's responsibility on the short range sensors.

Not that much of a stretch (so long as you're using the LBB5 combat paradigm instead of the LBB2 combat paradigm) and it gives Navigators "something to do" while Pilots are busy being a helmsman and flying the ship in combat.

A Pilot/Navigator would be responsible for both roles simultaneously, increasing workload at the expense of skill throughput for either crew role due to multitasking.

 

[McPerth]

Navigator skill applies to interpreting data from long range sensors (as per LBB1).
Granted, "long range sensors" don't mean much during combat ... unless you take a LBB5 approach of short/long range as being within weapons range and the reserve being beyond weapons range. In such a simplification, it would be the job of the Navigator to monitor the long range sensor tracking ships in the reserve (and beyond?) ... while ships at short/long (weapons) ranges would be the pilot's responsibility on the short range sensors.

I just talked about the navigator because Mike did he would act insteadn of the program prediction X

Not that much of a stretch (so long as you're using the LBB5 combat paradigm instead of the LBB2 combat paradigm) and it gives Navigators "something to do" while Pilots are busy being a helmsman and flying the ship in combat.

All I've said assumes LBB2/mayday paradigm, as HG does not use programs (and I guess its ships are too large and crew to mumerous to use individual skills as suggested)

A Pilot/Navigator would be responsible for both roles simultaneously, increasing workload at the expense of skill throughput for either crew role due to multitasking.

Pilot/Navigator is one of the combinations that in my gaming group we don't use to penaliza with the usual -1, assuming the navigation plans are done before the pilot begins to implement them, and the minor corrections that can be done even benefit from the increased coordination o a single user.

Nonetheless, in combat situations, things would be different, and they will sure come in force if he attempts to do both at once (in standard rules the Navigator does not act as such in combat, so we had not this problem).

As an aside, see that in MT, where sensors apply, Navigator serves as sensors ops (at -1), so the navigator has a crucial role in combat

 

[infojunky]

I use the simplified computer rules from MayDay and High Guard, with specific actions I.e. skill rolls covering the bases. Agility is a pilot roll with the number of Gs thrust added as Dm with the amount of effect being that turns agility. And so on.