Using the Classic Traveller combat system

[DonM]

I'm fairly sure its the players I've got, but when it comes to Traveller combat systems, my players think that T4 and MT are way too complex.

The 2d6 method in CT (ugly modifiers and all) are what we're using, basically because it only uses two dice.

Since this system's been reprinted now, I'm wondering if anyone else is using it in their games.

NOTE: The Traveller Book actually has a slightly better formatted version of the system, if you can find it, than the revised Book 1 did.

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DonM:
I'm fairly sure its the players I've got, but when it comes to Traveller combat systems, my players think that T4 and MT are way too complex.

The 2d6 method in CT (ugly modifiers and all) are what we're using, basically because it only uses two dice.

Since this system's been reprinted now, I'm wondering if anyone else is using it in their games.

NOTE: The Traveller Book actually has a slightly better formatted version of the system, if you can find it, than the revised Book 1 did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll be using Striker/AHL for my games when I get it up and running.

David Shayne

 

[Takei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DonM:
I'm fairly sure its the players I've got, but when it comes to Traveller combat systems, my players think that T4 and MT are way too complex.

The 2d6 method in CT (ugly modifiers and all) are what we're using, basically because it only uses two dice.

Since this system's been reprinted now, I'm wondering if anyone else is using it in their games.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The last few games I've run used the Striker/AHL ranges and hit system (8, 10 & 12+ at Eff,Lng & Ext ranges), with modified T4 damage.
However, the next game will be using the Striker system. I tried using it a number of years ago, using the suggested 3D/6D damage for Light/Serious wounds in the Integrating with Traveller chapter. This didn't work too well so I'll be using the the system as is. Just got to figure out how many Light Wounds characters can take before dropping!

Cheers
Paul Bendall

 

[Gatsby]

Using Striker/AHL, when the reprints come out (fudging it using snapshot 'till then). Some notes, though:

Recruits: 13 Action points
Regular: 14 AP
Veteran: 16 AP
Elite: 18 AP

Make the penetration table like this:
The dice are PC wounds, the AP loss is for any NPCs that are still active after the wound. Use this table for both Melee and all the rest, but subtract 4 from all the melee penetrations.

<1: no effect
1-3: Superficial - 1d6, -1 AP
4-8: Light Wound - 2d6, -3 AP
9-11: Serious Wound - 4d6
12+: Mortal Wound - 6d6

Remember that HE, HEAP, Lasers, Energy, and CBM rounds do +1 wound class, unless the rolled class is No effect or Superficial.

ALso: doubles on the penetration roll can make a target fall:
2 or 4 - No effect
6 or 8 - Roll 11+ (DM:+(DEX+END)/10, near)
10 or 12: Roll 15+ (DM:+DEX+END)/10, near)


And cover: Full cover hits cover; Partial cover (exposed to shoot) is: roll 1d: 1,2 = hit with Pen+2, else strikes cover.

Gats'

 

[T. Foster]

I also am using modified AHL/Striker, with difficulties changed to match DGP/MT tasks (Eff=Rout, Long=Diff, Ext=Form), and a damage system that throws out stats altogether and expresses everything in MT's Superficial/Minor/Major/Destroyed spectrum. Superficial = AHL LW but conscious, Minor = AHL LW but unconscious, Major = AHL MW, Destroyed = Dead. A character can take any number of Superficial wounds (but with cumulative -1 DMs), 2 Minor wounds = Major wound, Minor + Major (or Major + Major = Destroyed). There are a few details I'm still working out, but that's the basics.

 

[kafka47]

What about a system that armour merely absorbs the damage for a period of time for dying. This is what I got sense that MT was trying to achieve.

Combat rules ought to be designed for fast and deadly combat in as few steps as possible. I don't think it can be duplicated in a RPG system. For all that I have seen don't do so well.

Why not abolish armour, period? Just as in life you would not really be packing an automatic rifle. Why would you neccessarily do so in the future. Law enforcement and military notwithstanding how many times can one walk down the street with M-16? The same ought to hold true for Traveller with all players desire for something greater than an auto pistol.

 

[T. Foster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kafka47:
Just as in life you would not really be packing an automatic rifle. Why would you neccessarily do so in the future. Law enforcement and military notwithstanding how many times can one walk down the street with M-16? The same ought to hold true for Traveller with all players desire for something greater than an auto pistol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is that mercenary/paramilitary operations are explicitly a part of Traveller, and have been since the earliest days. Thus, we need a combat system that works equally well for both the 'low-level' brawls and such that you'll see in a Merchant campaign and the 'high-level' armed combat of a Merc campaign. However, there's nothing to say that we can't use different sets of options/ levels of detail between the two...

 

[N.I.C.E. Labs]

I'm mainly a CT person. In past campaigns I've used Striker (I dig the AV/Pen ratings). This current campaign I'm running, however I'm using stock CT rules for everything. Sort of feels good to get back to basics and also my players, while are fully capable with the more advanced stuff, aren't as familiar with Traveller as I am. It's working well

 

[WendellM]

CT/Snapshot for small, player-based actions (the fire/damage system is the same, just stated differently, but Snapshot has a proper action/movement rather than CT's less-than-great range bands). I use AHL's special rules on an ad hoc basis for unusual situations, but prefer the simplicity of Snapshot overall. Striker is good for larger, military actions. I've looked over MT's and T4's combat systems but don't care for them myself.

 

[autochthonic]

how many times can one walk down the street with M-16?

Earth is a big (and balkanised) planet. There are places you can do exactly that.

I agree, the MT combat is a bit unwieldy. I'm sticking with CT.

 

[bobbycondo]

When you guys state that you are using Striker, are you referring to the original (boxed set), or the second version?

Can anyone briefly outline the differences between these two?

Thank You

 

[GypsyComet]

Striker I (the CT-era boxed set) was top-to-bottom complete, requiring only bucket-loads of time to design your forces. The scale of that design was such that the design system also dropped into CT fairly well.

Striker II (the TNE book) was strictly large-scale warfare, depended on conversion of RP-scale designs, and only dovetailed with role-playing (in terms of usefulness) in terms of giving a Ref tools to describe big action the players might have gotten dragged into. Very minimal as an RP tool in general, however...

 

[GypsyComet]

As for combat systems in Traveller, I really don't like most of them. I found the MT and TNE representations of weaponry among the best, but the mechanics to actually *use* those weapons were cumbersome in both cases.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by bobbycondo:
When you guys state that you are using Striker, are you referring to the original (boxed set), or the second version?

Can anyone briefly outline the differences between these two?

Thank You

The original.

Striker II was very disapointing to me. They tried to kludge TNE weapon stats into Combined Arms and wound up with a game that just didn't work. The scales of numbers are all wrong for each other so weapon stats wound up dwarfing the die roll in fire resolution and the combat reults were the same abstract kill/retreat/miss that works for a Platoon level game but makes no sense on the scale of individual vehicles.

Lots of TO&Es though. Which can be helpfull in Merc. based campaigns even if you don't use the game for much.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by DaveShayne:
They tried to kludge TNE weapon stats into Combined Arms

Doh! That should be Command Decision. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[bobbycondo]

Doh! That should be Command Decision. Sorry for the confusion.

I knew what you meant...thanks for the reply.

Can everyone please weigh in with the type of miniatures (scale and brand) you use for Striker and/or Traveller?

 

[vegascat]

I use 25MM minatures from where ever I can find them. The Star wars minatures are OK in some cases. The old Traveller boxed sets are still the best thing around, if you can find them. Ral Partha produced some 15MM backin the early 80s, good for Mayday scale. Havn't kept up with anything recent though.

------------------------------
In the end, Murphy will rule

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

I never got a chance to play striker with any of my friends. (though I think I still have the boxed set (CT era) lying around somewhere) Actually never used or saw much need for minatures until I got hooked on warhammer 40k.
For the few combats I did run using T4, if I threw minatures on the map they were usually only vaguely appropriate warhammer 40k ones. Though... since I feild Imperial Gaurd at least they were all human.

I'm tempted. should I end up running a merc campaign to use homebrew Modified Warhammer rules. Though, it's unlikely to happen. since I gave up on T20 the odds of me running a Traveller campaign this year are... slim...

(on the other hand if I hadn't been so recently dispointed in d20 I might have bought Chainmail or something...funny how things work out)

Garf.

 

[tjoneslo]

Originally posted by bobbycondo:
Can everyone please weigh in with the type of miniatures (scale and brand) you use for Striker and/or Traveller?

I use Lego (TM) Minifigs. Cheap, pre-painted, poseable, configurable, lots of options for fantasy and SF miniatures. Instant vehicles, buildings, landscapes, mecha, monsters (I've got dragons, sharks, aligators, and a few parrots). I've got about 40 figures, plus a whole range of weapons. Using a 4x4 block as a "Square" for D20 combats works really well. I've yet to find a minis game where they don't work, unless some metal minis fanatic goes balistic on me.

 

[staples357]

thats all i run is C.T. I use the basic and snapshot rules and a little striker thrown in when nessessary. I can't understand why anyone would want to play D and D in space yes im refering to t20 thats coming out. my group loves C.T. and wouldnt change a thing . I also run 3rd. edition D and D and Its alright but to combine the two in my opinion is not what role playing is about.