CT Only: Ship Damage Drama System- Making Space Hurt

[kilemall]

As you folks can see I've been working at a lot of the assumptions underlying mechanics with a view towards making them at least make sense even if I don't IMTU-ize them.

Most that are specific to CT and IMTU I've been placing in my thread, but with some they have wider multi-version applications or they aren't IMTU 'law' yet, I'm looking for feedback.

This system is one of those, the baseline of the eventual integration of CT LBB2 and HG combat, with the idea of giving a vivid impression of what just happened to their ship and providing more engineering and ship operations drama.



The concept is simple.

Divide up the ship into ten zones of 10% of ship tonnage, preferably by whole lots of function.

Split the sections within the zone into probability of damage, so there is a subchart of damage when that section is hit.




When rolling damage location,

roll against the table for the hits ignoring internal hits except for meson guns (simplified),

or

figure out what facing the ship was oriented towards, reroll damage location hits for anything not facing the firing ship (not so simple).



Each weapon delivers x tonnage of damage.




Roll against the subchart for that section. Apply the damage. 100% damage means usually more severe then a lower damage level.

If there is more tonnage of damage left from the hit, roll in the section table again and apply it.

Repeat until a hit is obtained against an already hit area. That means then that the hit 'goes through' to another section.



Roll randomly, ignoring sections that are not adjacent (simplified), or if the general direction of the shot is known, figure out the most likely section and start rolling against and applying damage there.

If a shot 'goes through' the second section and it's not internal, the remaining damage is applied to the hull, with it's own consequences (mostly systems that are either sited on hulls, armor effects, and/or conduits that convey power, control, life support etc.).

 

[kilemall]

The ship sections are split up into six facing sections corresponding roughly to a hexside, top and bottom, and two internal spinal sections.

The internal spinal sections would not normally be damaged initially except by a meson gun, I am assuming most meson gunners would be using the select program to target the interior.

Here is the main chart in question.

2- Critical Hit
3- Port Bow
4- Starboard Bow
5- Bow
6- Top
7- Spinal Bow
8- Spinal Stern
9- Bottom
10- Stern
11- Port Stern
12- Starboard Stern

For the purposes of this thought experiment, critical hit will mean 1d6 more hits, applied as multiples of the tonnage hit by the 'parent hit', roll again for location. It will mean something different (and worse) for the actual system I have in mind.

 

[flykiller]

Divide up the ship into ten zones of 10% of ship tonnage, preferably by whole lots of function.

Split the sections within the zone into probability of damage, so there is a subchart of damage when that section is hit.

When rolling damage location,

roll against the table for the hits ignoring internal hits except for meson guns (simplified),

or

figure out what facing the ship was oriented towards and ignore damage location hits for anything not facing the firing ship (not so simple).

Each weapon delivers x tonnage of damage.

exactly precisely what I've been doing. except I divide the ship into sections equal to the base weapons effect. for determining hits based on orientation you have two choices:

1) use deckplans. this easily determines not only aspects but also weapons bearing. you'll find that placing the weapons suddenly becomes very important.

2) if all you have is dtonnages then figure out the percentage of dtonnage that must be on the "exterior", that is, will be affected by surface weapons hits (this will be based on general hull shape) and then the dtonnage that must be bow, port, starboard, ventral, dorsal, and aft - six aspects. based on hull shape there may be overlap. assign ship component dtonnages to interior, bow exterior, port exterior, starboard exterior, ventral exterior, dorsal, exterior, and aft exterior - and there are your six aspects, it's not too hard. more aspects are possible, if you want to do the work. then assign weapons placement and bearing.

ignore damage location hits for anything not facing the firing ship (not so simple).

very simple, but in running vector games using this method I've found that given most ship shapes this results in very few damaging hits. it's quite possible for a scout with a BSM turret and a q-ship with a tech 13 BBB turret to blaze away at each other for 20 turns and not achieve a significant hit. the missiles were the most interesting - three passes at the target, each time penetrating the defensive laser fire but failing to actually contact the target, until they finally ran out of maneuver fuel. (I give missiles maneuver "points" that they expend in changing vector. higher tech/cost missiles get more maneuver points.)

 

[Travellerspud]

I have always been partial to the Full Thrust mechanism, where they have "threshold checks" whenever you pass such a % of total hull damage...

every weapon does damage when they hit (1 pt, 2pt, or 1d6 pt, etc)....boxes get checked off as damage occurs (ala Star Fleet Battles)...every time a row of boxes is checked off, a "threshold check" is made for each major system and weapon on board.

The first threshold check knocks out a given system on a "6" rolled on a 1d6 (each system get's it's own roll). The 2nd threshold check is 5,6. The last threshold check is 4,5,6. Whenever possible, ships have 3 rows (requires at least 3 hull points)....

but you do sometimes get weird results, like you are 1 pt away from a check on a battleship, then a fighter comes in and shoots a 1pt weapon that results in a threshold check that knocks out systems all over the ship (although it does give you a feel like in Star Wars when that fighter pilot takes out the command ship), vs. a battleship blasting away and doing a ton of hits, but knocking out no systems...

 

[flykiller]

then a fighter comes in and shoots a 1pt weapon that results in a threshold check that knocks out systems all over the ship

in real-world navies that's sometimes exactly how it goes.

heh. I've seen one officer give one order that everyone understood, except one guy made a very slight mistake, and $6 billion of national strategic asset spent two hours dead in the water trying to recover. these ships are big and bad and powerful and can blow up half the planet, but they're also fragile.

 

[Mako]

Sounds like what I've been considering as well.

Your descriptions for "spinal bow" and "spinal stern" threw me for a minute. I think just bow and stern descriptors would be better, since I thought the others might apply to "spinal mounts" at first.

I'm a little torn on the whole external vs. internal damage issue too.

I'm thinking that perhaps the first hit (1 damage point) to an area should be to the outer skin, even if the vessel isn't armored. After that, additional damage would be internal, unless the vessel is armored.

I'm considering using 1D10, 1D20 (preferred), or even 1D100 (really 2D10 read as percentile dice) for hit location determination.

Using the percentage of tonnage to allocate the type of damage to the vessels makes sense to me.

I like the general thought of the angle you're firing at the vessel from affects the impact points, at least for beam fired weapons. I suspect missiles could probably be developed to attack from various angles, if desired, at least at higher tech levels.

One of the issues though, seems to be that for flatter vessels, I suspect that ship's captains/pilots would tend to try to minimize their profiles to the enemy. Therefore, most attacks would be from bow and/or stern (closing attacks, and/or chases), and/or side angles (not from above or below - plan view, in most cases), which will affect the compartments available to be attacked a bit.

Haven't planned to deal with the whole meson gun issue, since I'm most interested in smaller vessels.

One thing that seems to be missing, in most cases, at least in CT, seems to be the whole concept of life support for the ships. I've toyed with adding that in. For smaller vessels, it's probably equipment as rudimentary as oxygen and water tanks, air scrubbers, heaters and air conditioning systems, etc.

Another thing that seems to be omitted in CT, are Sensors. They seem to be lumped in with the Computer, so I was thinking about making them a separate piece of equipment as well, just for fun.

I like the Full Thrust rules, and their quick-play nature, though I have issues with some of the points you mention, e.g. the threshold check system. It works, but I suspect it could be improved upon a bit, so I'm pondering how to make that happen, and in some ways combine CT and Full Thrust together, for the little vessels, in order to make combat interesting, but so that the small couriers, traders, and gunboats don't just go poof in the first attack, or two.

I'm especially interested in coming up with a system where hits can be allocated by area for one on one, or small battles, and that critical hits will just affect the equipment in those, and/or possibly cascade to other related areas.

 

[mike wightman]

Back in the day when I could be bothered with this level of detail I used the d6 by d6 matrix as the base for my hit location table.

Calculate the % for each component on the ship (doesn't take long for a LBB 2 design) and then build the matrix.

 

[kilemall]

Deckplans is pretty much where I'm going, I want to be able to describe the Particle Accelerator lancing through their ship irradiating everything in sight, the bursts of a meson gun firing pattern filling space like a nuclear flak cloud but missing them thanks to the meson screen cycling, or a spinal mount railgun literally sawing their ship in half.

 

[kilemall]

I have always been partial to the Full Thrust mechanism, where they have "threshold checks" whenever you pass such a % of total hull damage...

every weapon does damage when they hit (1 pt, 2pt, or 1d6 pt, etc)....boxes get checked off as damage occurs (ala Star Fleet Battles)...every time a row of boxes is checked off, a "threshold check" is made for each major system and weapon on board.

The first threshold check knocks out a given system on a "6" rolled on a 1d6 (each system get's it's own roll). The 2nd threshold check is 5,6. The last threshold check is 4,5,6. Whenever possible, ships have 3 rows (requires at least 3 hull points)....

but you do sometimes get weird results, like you are 1 pt away from a check on a battleship, then a fighter comes in and shoots a 1pt weapon that results in a threshold check that knocks out systems all over the ship (although it does give you a feel like in Star Wars when that fighter pilot takes out the command ship), vs. a battleship blasting away and doing a ton of hits, but knocking out no systems...

Not familiar with FT, but effectively that's what I'm doing, mostly hull hits are about those systems they don't usually list such as power, control, etc. or literally systems on the hull such as sensors that will hurt in their own way just as much as losing the power plant.

Initially they won't feel the first hull hits as redundancy takes care of things, but as the hits pile up OR a serious shredding occurs, the ship will start losing vital systems.

I'm coming at this from more a naval minis perspective, particularly Seekrieg.

 

[kilemall]

very simple, but in running vector games using this method I've found that given most ship shapes this results in very few damaging hits. it's quite possible for a scout with a BSM turret and a q-ship with a tech 13 BBB turret to blaze away at each other for 20 turns and not achieve a significant hit. the missiles were the most interesting - three passes at the target, each time penetrating the defensive laser fire but failing to actually contact the target, until they finally ran out of maneuver fuel. (I give missiles maneuver "points" that they expend in changing vector. higher tech/cost missiles get more maneuver points.)

I misspoke I think when I used the word ignore, more like ignore and reroll.

 

[kilemall]

Sounds like what I've been considering as well.

Your descriptions for "spinal bow" and "spinal stern" threw me for a minute. I think just bow and stern descriptors would be better, since I thought the others might apply to "spinal mounts" at first.

Well certainly spinal mounts would have the bulk of their tonnage in the spinal areas with presumably a firing port exposed to the bow, but they are very specific locations.

Imagine the six facings I describe with bow and stern, then top and bottom, then imagine them wrapping around the core or spine of the ship, and that is where the spinal bow and spinal stern sections are.

I'm a little torn on the whole external vs. internal damage issue too.

I'm thinking that perhaps the first hit (1 damage point) to an area should be to the outer skin, even if the vessel isn't armored. After that, additional damage would be internal, unless the vessel is armored.

I'm considering using 1D10, 1D20 (preferred), or even 1D100 (really 2D10 read as percentile dice) for hit location determination.

I don't have any qualms, the hit expends itself on the exterior section and potentially penetrates internally if the area is already 'ventilated' or there is more damage then the area can absorb. But it just as likely might go through one of the other surface areas.

I like the general thought of the angle you're firing at the vessel from affects the impact points, at least for beam fired weapons. I suspect missiles could probably be developed to attack from various angles, if desired, at least at higher tech levels.

Missiles should be a little more random but still be tied to hitting areas facing their incoming vector.

One of the issues though, seems to be that for flatter vessels, I suspect that ship's captains/pilots would tend to try to minimize their profiles to the enemy. Therefore, most attacks would be from bow and/or stern (closing attacks, and/or chases), and/or side angles (not from above or below - plan view, in most cases), which will affect the compartments available to be attacked a bit.

One of the big points to using this system is the target ship captain/pilot will be able to pick a facing if they are not on full burn, so for instance a trader might roll belly to present the cargo hold and fuel tanks rather then lose staterooms or engineering. Or you may hold off a shot until the target rolls to bring turrets to bear if your target is their weapons.

One thing that seems to be missing, in most cases, at least in CT, seems to be the whole concept of life support for the ships. I've toyed with adding that in. For smaller vessels, it's probably equipment as rudimentary as oxygen and water tanks, air scrubbers, heaters and air conditioning systems, etc.

I'm assuming it's ubiquitous throughout the hull, and is the most protected hull system from loss (although it's loss may be one of the first gone, depending on the seriousness of the hit).

 

[Condottiere]

Inspired by Weber, and visualizations from Star Wars, I'd put all the weaponry on top, with some point defence on a heavily armoured bottom.

 

[flykiller]

I misspoke I think when I used the word ignore, more like ignore and reroll.

if you want the full aspect of full aspects, you need the full ignore. this brings into play ship design, weapon placement, and players orienting their ship to present the minimal cross-section to the incoming weapon. needles and cylinders suddenly look like very good choices. of course that may mean that if the ship presents minimal aspect to the laser, the maneuvering incoming missile may have a full broad-side approach ....

for example in my alpha-testing the q-ship presented nose-on to the scout. this left exposed only the bow bridge, the leading edges of the forward fuel tanks, the outboard leading edges of the aft fuel tanks, and the turret. if I rolled a hit on engineering, well, that obviously didn't happen, so it's a miss. if it's a missile it gets to turn around and try again ....

eventually the scout hit the q-ship with a missile on the bow bridge. very messy. but quite a few scenarios went by with only minor hits.

that's another question. in your games, do you want suddenly deadly combat, or long battles where no-one dies, or something in between?

 

[flykiller]

Or you may hold off a shot until the target rolls to bring turrets to bear if your target is their weapons.

well, that opens a whole can of worms. what is your engagement distance? if it's, say, 3 light seconds, then what you see of the target it what it was 3 seconds ago, and it will take a laser shot 3 seconds to get there (not counting ooda), so can you really time it that way?

 

[kilemall]

From my perspective, if the weapon hit, it hit, all the finagling about target aspect should be subsumed in the hit probability, now it's time to determine what got hurt. I'm not going to have 'misses' generated out of unfortunate rolls on the damage table. If you want to manage the hits, do it with the to-hit process.

As to pacing of battle, I am VERY focused on that, but as part of a larger package of putting the players at their stations and very busy and intent on what they are doing. So for starters I am dividing up the 1000 second turn into 10 100-second activity rounds, and ditching the Imperium-like phasing altogether.

If you are Beowulf in the middle of a fleet battle, a flick of a PA bay is likely to slice her in half and kill half your crew in one shot. If you are a 100K cruiser, that same PA bay hit will tickle, possibly not do any damage at all. Or, get a lucky penetrating critical, hit the missile magazine and kerblooey. So pacing is very much going to be a matter of situation.

For most adventure class ships as the terminology around here goes, I would expect a whole lot of generated misses, sand deployment and anti-missile work as people fight to stay alive, a critical engineering or bridge hit, then the race to repair before more hits come in or boarding commences.

Range, vector, initial detection and engagement, handling the ship for optimal facing, engineering preparation, equipment and pilot/gunner skills will determine how fast the fight is over.

A surprise ambush over a planet at sub-30,000km is going to be sharper and more vicious then a 300,000 km exchange.

One nice side effect of the percentage damage concept is that turrets are really hard to knock out. You're more likely to lose the bridge or powerplant then most of the small ship turrets. Bays launch tubes and spinal mounts are another matter, they may dominate tonnage in certain sections on a large warship.

 

[kilemall]

well, that opens a whole can of worms. what is your engagement distance? if it's, say, 3 light seconds, then what you see of the target it what it was 3 seconds ago, and it will take a laser shot 3 seconds to get there (not counting ooda), so can you really time it that way?

Sure, even if he's already rolling around to mask them again you can recognize the move (after all he's gotta shoot sometime or waste the power up or worse drain the capacitors and have to charge them again later, so you've been looking for it and so has your Select/Predict programs being fed target aspect data by the Target program and your sensors).

And at the probabilities I am imposing not much more then spinal weapons are going to reach out and touch someone that far off, that will be with firing patterns geared to hit and not damage as much. So Mr. Laser isn't likely going to be doing much at 3LS.

You get into the whole integrating HG weapons thing, you have to work in such concepts as the plasma/fusion guns only being able to fire at short range. You want a maneuver game, not just firing at each other, so toning down the range possible and making relative power/engagement capability meaningful play is important.

 

[mike wightman]

Since you are moving away from the CT only tag you put on the thread here is a thought.

Reduce the effective range of weapons and hence require ships to be closer, then you can have shorter turns where the action is more immediate.

 

[kilemall]

Since I have no idea what the later version of Traveller do, I have no idea how close I may be to other versions, other then knowing I am not going near FF&S with this stuff.

At it's core though I'm still using a 2d6 to determine hit location, just another 2d6 to what gets hit after that.

Range effects already in, but I'm not dealing with that in this thread, strictly the damage subsystem, and commentary on how that changed my thinking about a lot of the conventions of ship layout.

 

[flykiller]

all the finagling about target aspect should be subsumed in the hit probability ... using a 2d6 to determine hit location ....

ooof. +-1 in 2d6 is a lot, especially in the 10-12 to-hit range, and aspect presentation can vary a great deal.

Mr. Laser isn't likely going to be doing much at 3LS.

indeed, I decrease laser weapons factor for each ls distant - this decreases both to-hit and damage. but - getting that first hit in can be really important, especially before the target deploys sand.

You want a maneuver game, not just firing at each other, so toning down the range possible and making relative power/engagement capability meaningful play is important.

the biggest problem encountered in vector space combat is the huge distances that can be traversed. a simple m2 scout can cross 4ls in 18 turns. even if using agility if it has laid on vector then it can coast 4ls in 24 turns. the sheer distance involved means if you reduce combat range, then seldom will anything happen at all. "hey, that ship is pulling towards me instead of towards the planet, gee, I wonder why?" they'll know why, and they'll pull away. the second biggest problem is that combat then consists entirely of missile duels - missiles maneuver faster than ships, they have to, yes? - and at the distances they will be deployed and given the turn duration you have selected (100 seconds) they will have to be launched early and will require many turns to even begin to engage their targets.

 

[flykiller]

You want a maneuver game, not just firing at each other

yeah, but THAT gets REAL hairy. I've been operating my game with the assumption that a ship has (maneuver + agility) equal to its m rating - meaning that an m2 ship can change vector by 2, or it can change vector by 1 and be exercising agility 1 (-1 to hit) or it can forego all vector change and exercise agility 2 (-2 to hit). in working out my games the seemingly best approach is to lay on vector towards the target, then go to full agility to avoid hits, meaning both targets can drift right past each other. a side benefit is that this allows a sand-using ship to take full advantage of its sand, rather than running away from it trying to "maneuver" (out in space there's only two places to go - planet-side and jump point - and it's safer to drift there jinking than to run for it while presenting a more steady target).