What's wrong with the starship combat in the TNE book?
- Thread starter Cymew
- Start date
etherflyer
SOC-12
I never used it much, but it seemed to work OK. We prefered Brilliant Lances once we figured it out. (Good rules, but poorly explained.)
jfetters
SOC-14 1K
I personally always thought that the rules in the rulebook were there to get you to buy BL in the first place.
But I wouldn't put too much faith in bad reviews of TNE - a lot of people had many axes to grind with regards to that release. Some reviews are probably justified - there are a number of oddities in the game - but I remember the TNE release mainly for the flamewars that erupted.
But I wouldn't put too much faith in bad reviews of TNE - a lot of people had many axes to grind with regards to that release. Some reviews are probably justified - there are a number of oddities in the game - but I remember the TNE release mainly for the flamewars that erupted.
One thing I love about the TNE/BL rules is that the hit locations table is based on actual tonnage. That means a ship that is mostly hold will be more likely to take a hit in its hold. The damage resolution system means that each hit tells a story: "The laser took out one turret and blew through a stateroom into the hangar, where finally it singed the paint on the ship's boat." Much more fun because, assuming they win, the PCs will still be living on their ship and might want to know which parts are now exposed to vacuum.
On the downside, generating that hit location table is a lot of work on top of the already involved FF&S sequence. Furthermore the architect is pretty much on his honor to see that the table bears some resemblance to the deckplans. ("But the turrets aren't anywhere near the staterooms!")
On the downside, generating that hit location table is a lot of work on top of the already involved FF&S sequence. Furthermore the architect is pretty much on his honor to see that the table bears some resemblance to the deckplans. ("But the turrets aren't anywhere near the staterooms!")
The only real problem as far as I can see is section 2 Detection Range. This is decided by random role with no linkage to the actual sensors of the vessel doing the detecting.
Somewhat off topic
There is also an effect based on difficulty modifiers relating to the range at which weapons are worth firing at a target (this is more a ship design issue though). Designing weapon to fire at maximum power out to 80 hexes is wasteful when most engagements opening ranges are going to be much less than that. Designing for a smaller maximum effectiveness frees up more volume on vessels.
Somewhat off topic
There is also an effect based on difficulty modifiers relating to the range at which weapons are worth firing at a target (this is more a ship design issue though). Designing weapon to fire at maximum power out to 80 hexes is wasteful when most engagements opening ranges are going to be much less than that. Designing for a smaller maximum effectiveness frees up more volume on vessels.
Rupert Boleyn
SOC-12
As I recall, the system is essentially the same as that in BL, but without the vector movement and some of the less common toys and options. IOW, BL is not more complex, merely expanded.
I agree - I've always tended to design for full damage to 40 hexes, and thus half to 80.
Scott Martin
SOC-13
I have been very impressed with BL and FF&S-1, to the point that I will spend the time doing the designs. Nice integration with sensors and a reason that weapon accuracy drops off, with a realistic dropoff and offsets based on volume of fire and enhanced fire control.
There are some sensor issues which are resolved elsewhere on the net (so "going active" results in anything with passive sensors within range getting an automatic lock on, not just a +1 diff mod)
my only remaining issue is the lack of a way to resolve massive aotofire on a close target: If I have somethiing with a very high ROF I should be able to trade diff mods for extra damage, since my "salvo" has the same number of shots in a tighter "cone" (so if I have a ROF 200 system firing as if it is a ROF 10 system, if I score a hit it should really be 20 hits)
Well, that and the lack of KKM's but I'm woring on rules for those...
Scott Martin
There are some sensor issues which are resolved elsewhere on the net (so "going active" results in anything with passive sensors within range getting an automatic lock on, not just a +1 diff mod)
my only remaining issue is the lack of a way to resolve massive aotofire on a close target: If I have somethiing with a very high ROF I should be able to trade diff mods for extra damage, since my "salvo" has the same number of shots in a tighter "cone" (so if I have a ROF 200 system firing as if it is a ROF 10 system, if I score a hit it should really be 20 hits)
Well, that and the lack of KKM's but I'm woring on rules for those...
Scott Martin
The RoF thing is partly addressed. The easier it is to hit tha target, which high RoF contributes to the higher the chance of an exceptional success (ie the equivelant of two hits) The other thing to bear in mind is that for a given weapon size the higher the RoF for a weapon (once it's past 100 per round) the lower its enery rating is due to the increase in focal array volumes required.
Scott Martin
SOC-13
Hey Anthony.
That's almost correct: the lower energy rating *for a given volume* but the area used by the array is identical. As a result high ROF weapons are getting specifically "thicker" instead of just "bigger". With X-Ray lasers (the space weapon of choice) the volume used for the weapon installation is trivial compared to the volume of powerplant required to run the weapon, so it makes sense to *massively* overdesign the focal arrays, since the increase in cost, mass and volume is very minor, and just nore that they normally have a ROF of (10,50,100 whatever) with a MAX ROF of something insane (I pity the poor folks who are trying to storm a grounded ship with one of these on board)
Unfortunately 2 hits is not 20 hits (or more)
If my volume of fire covers the target area with a target hit every 2 meters, instead of a spread every 10 meters, I should (if the target is entirely contained within the salvo) score 25 x as many hits. (25 hits for every 100 square meters of target area instead of 1 hit per 100 square meters of target area)
The "exceptional success" just doesn't do this.
Or put another way, why is is that if I put 25 lasers with a ROF of 10 on a ship, they score significantly more hits than 1 laser with a ROF of 250? The salvo density is identical, the power input is identical, and chances are that the MFD that is allocating the fire is the same system, being controlled by the same (single) gunner. The ONLY difference is that I have some additional "overhead" in adding weapons mounts.
If I am using X-Ray lasers, I can cram all 25 focal arrays into the same turret mount anyway, so their "dispersion" on my starship hull is less than 3m.
This is a rule mechanics problem.
That said, the rest of the system is well integrated, and FF&S is one of the better archietectures that I have seen in terms of reflecting the "real world" and the underlying physics therin.
Scott Martin
That's almost correct: the lower energy rating *for a given volume* but the area used by the array is identical. As a result high ROF weapons are getting specifically "thicker" instead of just "bigger". With X-Ray lasers (the space weapon of choice) the volume used for the weapon installation is trivial compared to the volume of powerplant required to run the weapon, so it makes sense to *massively* overdesign the focal arrays, since the increase in cost, mass and volume is very minor, and just nore that they normally have a ROF of (10,50,100 whatever) with a MAX ROF of something insane (I pity the poor folks who are trying to storm a grounded ship with one of these on board)
Unfortunately 2 hits is not 20 hits (or more)
If my volume of fire covers the target area with a target hit every 2 meters, instead of a spread every 10 meters, I should (if the target is entirely contained within the salvo) score 25 x as many hits. (25 hits for every 100 square meters of target area instead of 1 hit per 100 square meters of target area)
The "exceptional success" just doesn't do this.
Or put another way, why is is that if I put 25 lasers with a ROF of 10 on a ship, they score significantly more hits than 1 laser with a ROF of 250? The salvo density is identical, the power input is identical, and chances are that the MFD that is allocating the fire is the same system, being controlled by the same (single) gunner. The ONLY difference is that I have some additional "overhead" in adding weapons mounts.
If I am using X-Ray lasers, I can cram all 25 focal arrays into the same turret mount anyway, so their "dispersion" on my starship hull is less than 3m.
This is a rule mechanics problem.
That said, the rest of the system is well integrated, and FF&S is one of the better archietectures that I have seen in terms of reflecting the "real world" and the underlying physics therin.
Scott Martin
One way of dealing with this is to reduce the game turn length allowing those high RoF weapons to make attack rolls more often, or... how about this, leave the turn length unchanged but allow an attack role for each 100/turn. So your laser firing 800/turn would roll 8 attacks, if all 8 did exceptional successes that is 16 hits. Personally I would not then also give difficulty modifiers to hit past the 100/turn level in this case. Though that could be looked at.
Or you could do an additional attack role for each -1 difficulty given by rate of fire. For example at 100/turn (-2 difficulty) the attacker would role 1 base attack plus 2 attacks based on rate of fire. Again I would then temove the difficulty modifier from the to hit number to maintain play balance.
This is not because I don't think the higher rate of fire makes it easier to hit, I do, but I work on the premise that if your players can do this so can there opponents and the players are not going to be happy when their ship is hit by a battery of high RoF X-ray lasers and effectively destroyed in 1 combat round.
Antony
Or you could do an additional attack role for each -1 difficulty given by rate of fire. For example at 100/turn (-2 difficulty) the attacker would role 1 base attack plus 2 attacks based on rate of fire. Again I would then temove the difficulty modifier from the to hit number to maintain play balance.
This is not because I don't think the higher rate of fire makes it easier to hit, I do, but I work on the premise that if your players can do this so can there opponents and the players are not going to be happy when their ship is hit by a battery of high RoF X-ray lasers and effectively destroyed in 1 combat round.
Antony
I kinda like that concept of plus one "attack roll" per -1 ROF dif mod. I may have to look into that and play test the game balence question. I think I'd give the players the choice of how to implement it, ie you can have a "better" chance to hit or you can have "more" chances to hit, which do you want?
Scott I see your point about 25 individual lasers being more effective given the rules than one laser that can put out the same effective firepower. Its a conundrum. One quibble with your example though is that one MFD couldn't control 25 lasers. The number of lasers an MFD can control is equal to it's Dif Mod rating. Thus at most per MFD you'd have six for TL-15 MFDs.
In terms of game balence though I think it's necessary to do it as they have otherwise a Hi ROF modded Gazelle with four mounts of ROF 800 weapons could be more effective than a Midu Agashaam Light Cruiser with standard ROF 10 mounts. Do you really want that result in your game?
Scott I see your point about 25 individual lasers being more effective given the rules than one laser that can put out the same effective firepower. Its a conundrum. One quibble with your example though is that one MFD couldn't control 25 lasers. The number of lasers an MFD can control is equal to it's Dif Mod rating. Thus at most per MFD you'd have six for TL-15 MFDs.
In terms of game balence though I think it's necessary to do it as they have otherwise a Hi ROF modded Gazelle with four mounts of ROF 800 weapons could be more effective than a Midu Agashaam Light Cruiser with standard ROF 10 mounts. Do you really want that result in your game?
I don't have the rulebook in front of me now, but I do think there is no limit on how many turrets/barbettes a MFD can control, only the number of missiles.
Rather than making more rolls for an increased number of arrays firing at a target, I would like to see something in effect of a table with scaled success increases. Something like this.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Roll
Success Hit
-----------------
0 10%
1 12%
2 14%
etc....</pre>[/QUOTE]Zero refers to that the roll succeeded barely. Or a more easy one for those who dislikes tables.
Normal success: 10% of the shots fired from turret or MFD controlled battery hits. 1 Turret with a ROF of 10 hits once. 10 turrets with ROF 10 each hits 10 times.
Outstanding Success: 20% of the shots hits its target.
Remember that there is small margins of error as the rulebook says (quoted from memory) that vibration, changes in vector and velocity, rotation of the ship all helps to spread out the beam so that it just heats the hull area hit rather than causing any damage.
Rather than making more rolls for an increased number of arrays firing at a target, I would like to see something in effect of a table with scaled success increases. Something like this.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Roll
Success Hit
-----------------
0 10%
1 12%
2 14%
etc....</pre>[/QUOTE]Zero refers to that the roll succeeded barely. Or a more easy one for those who dislikes tables.
Normal success: 10% of the shots fired from turret or MFD controlled battery hits. 1 Turret with a ROF of 10 hits once. 10 turrets with ROF 10 each hits 10 times.
Outstanding Success: 20% of the shots hits its target.
Remember that there is small margins of error as the rulebook says (quoted from memory) that vibration, changes in vector and velocity, rotation of the ship all helps to spread out the beam so that it just heats the hull area hit rather than causing any damage.
Zparks, you're right wrt missiles that's true I just thought it was also with lasers though am ready to admit I could be wrong on that. Though why is an interesting question as they only have one commo device anyway(usually). Seemed to me that that ought to have a greater bearing on how many missiles than merely the Tech level of the thing!
Similar threads
