AHL (loosely) based ship combat system

[McPerth]

From an old thread:

As I hinted you in the thread where you took my question you quoted, I was wondering in AHL system could be more or less adopted to it.

McP, thanks for that. So you are adapting the personal combat system of AHL to ships? Interesting!

This has taken me thinking on and off about this idea for a while, and I think I have a first draft of how this could work (or not work, I let you to opine about it). For now it's just for combat, and based on CT_HG leaving other matters (movement, strategical, etc) for latter if there's interest (and ideas, that are off course welcome).

The result is quite a deadly combat system, at least if mesons are used (but so is CT:HG) that I think (hope?) that can be played in as an alternative combat system without needing stastical results (something I've never liked, but that's a mater of taste).

So I'd like to know opinions (plese, in a non offensive way ) and criticisms (constructive, if possible) from the many authoruzed minds here.

Now ducking my head and reading myself to endure the fire...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I have just read the rules, not tried to play them or calculate results, so my critique may be completely off...


There is no movement system. The HG movement system is very abstract, but serves to give an advantage to the fleet with higher agility, which is reasonable since that fleet can control the range to its advantage.


Ships can't be screened? Very important for auxiliaries.


There is no specified order of actions. Which ship fires first? When is damage inflicted?


Nukes should be able to incinerate ships with low armour. Maybe expand the damage table to higher modified rolls?


Enough nukes should be able to mission-kill capital ships, simply by scraping weapons off the hull (until the magic limit of Armour 20). Doesn't seem possible here?


Agility should probably be the HG Agility of the ship, not the M-drive rating.


Damage augmentation is not explained?


This system is supposed to be streamlined? Multiple damage rolls per attack seems to be over-complicated?


I suspect size of escorts is severely underestimated, making it much better to have several small squadrons, rather than one large squadron. This counteracts the streamlined nature of the system.


Why can PA spinals kill armoured capital ships?


PD exponent is vastly improved for an entire squadron by a single bay or battery?


Why can't spinals attack escorts? In HG spinals is the most effective way to kill small fast escorts.

 

[McPerth]

I have just read the rules, not tried to play them or calculate results, so my critique may be completely off...

It’s untried, so don’t be afraid to be off due to that. Your critiques are not only welcome, but also thanked (as will anyone’s).

There is no movement system. The HG movement system is very abstract, but serves to give an advantage to the fleet with higher agility, which is reasonable since that fleet can control the range to its advantage.


Ships can't be screened? Very important for auxiliaries.

You're right. As I said in the opening post, this is exclusively the combat system, leaving movement and some other consideration for latter if I see enough interest (and after, I hope, hearing some ideas and suggerences).

Screening ships is quite related to it, I think, so also left for latter.

There is no specified order of actions. Which ship fires first? When is damage inflicted?

You're right order of actions should be explicited. Note taken.

Damage is applied (I guess that's what you ask) at the end of the turn (as specified in page 3, just above the ship format example).

Nukes should be able to incinerate ships with low armour. Maybe expand the damage table to higher modified rolls?

Another thing to think about... Note taken.

See that in any case, against unarmored ship a heavy barrage may easily inflict several stun results, that are likely (unless the ship is quite large) to increase to light or higher damages.

Enough nukes should be able to mission-kill capital ships, simply by scraping weapons off the hull (until the magic limit of Armour 20). Doesn't seem possible here?

The point here is how many are "enough".

How many batteries do you need to make enough damage to really affect a capital ship with armor 15, NucDamper 9 and defensive batteries?

In the game, this ship would have a -15 against secondary weapons, so you'd need to have a +9 DM to have any chance to damage it. This means 90 missile bays, with a +1 per 10 additional ones and the TH DM to aid.

If so, you can damage it (albeit temporary light damage, that is what stun means, but if enough of them are inflicted, incuiding the next turn, they may well be augmented).

Agility should probably be the HG Agility of the ship, not the M-drive rating.

Agility is defined as ship's agility (and modified by computer and size). The MD is the acceleration (to be used in movement, no emaning for now).

Damage augmentation is not explained?

It is, in the paragraph above the Damage Table (but I see I called it Damage increasing instead of Damage Augmentation. Sorry for that. Point taken).

This system is supposed to be streamlined? Multiple damage rolls per attack seems to be over-complicated?

Quite less than CT:HG system were a single spinal hit may mean many damage rolls plus several critical ones...

I suspect size of escorts is severely underestimated, making it much better to have several small squadrons, rather than one large squadron. This counteracts the streamlined nature of the system.

Several small squadrons are ineffective in combat.

if you have 10 escorts each with 5 missile bays (rated 9), you can organize them in 5 squadrons with an A1 Secondary Weaponry or as one squadron with A5 Secondary weaponry. What will be more efficient?

Why can PA spinals kill armoured capital ships?

This is probably one of the parts that diverges the most from CT:HG. But even there, a true large spinal (let’s say a T rated one) means 19-armor rolls in each, Surface explosion and radiation, tables, so 8 damage rolls against an armor 15 ship. How many missile batteries do you need for that? And, as you say, enough missile batteries may mission kill a capital ship…

In game terms, this T rated spinal would have factor 15 + computer effect. Against a 15 armor ship, it’s quite deadly. Maybe too much…

Maybe it should be rounded down and computer not added for PA (as, unlike mesons they don’t need to overcome defenses) . More to think…

But then see that the fact PA spinals are nearly ineffective against heavy armored ships in HG is one of its main criticisms...

PD exponent is vastly improved for an entire squadron by a single bay or battery?

Squadrons are thought (though you’re right, I didn’t specify) to be made of same class ships. If so, having such batteries will be for all ships.

Why can't spinals attack escorts? In HG spinals is the most effective way to kill small fast escorts.

In HG spinals are effective against a single escort, but not so against squadrons of them. As said above, I expect squadrons to represent quite large number of ships (as otherwise they re ineffective against armored ships), and spinals can only attack individual ships.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You're right. As I said in the opening post, this is exclusively the combat system, leaving movement and some other consideration for latter ...

I wouldn't design the damage resolution system without the movement system. The movement (and sensor) system will dictate typical engagement ranges modifying the behaviour of weapons. E.g. range modifiers will change the damage resolution system.

The combat system (including movement and sensor systems) and the ship design system influence each other greatly, you can't really consider one without the other IMVHO.

How many batteries do you need to make enough damage to really affect a capital ship with armor 15, NucDamper 9 and defensive batteries?

You need to fire about 1400 missile bays to scrape a Meson-J (assuming Agility 6), representing 70000 Dt of weapons, taking ~35 turn to repair.
To kill the ship with spinals it takes about 12 Mes-J representing 21600 Dt of weapons.

This is at TL-15, missiles are much more competitive at lower TLs.

So spinals are effective, yet swarms of missile boats are very resilient to damage and takes a very long time to kill without PA spinals.

Swarms of missile boats might scrape weapons quicker that the capital ships can repair them, which would cause them to win the battle. The damage to the spinals might possibly take more time and money to repair than replacing a few destroyed missile boats.

In the game, this ship would have a -15 against secondary weapons, so you'd need to have a +9 DM to have any chance to damage it. This means 90 missile bays, with a +1 per 10 additional ones and the TH DM to aid.

Sure, but would 10 squadrons of 100 missile boats be more effective than one squadron of 1000 boats? The non-linear nature of 2D rolls would probably lead to a optimal size.

Ideally 1000 missile boats should be about equally effective whether divided into 1, 10, or even 100 squadrons. This is not the case here?

Quite less than CT:HG system were a single spinal hit may mean many damage rolls plus several critical ones...

Or a simple statement that the target is destroyed by statistical combat resolution...

Several small squadrons are ineffective in combat.

if you have 10 escorts each with 5 missile bays (rated 9), you can organize them in 5 squadrons with an A1 Secondary Weaponry or as one squadron with A5 Secondary weaponry. What will be more efficient?

And if you have 100 kDt missile boats with 200 bays each?

They would fire with a damage DM of 200 / 10 = +20.

They (and battleships) would have [at TL-15]:
Attack = 9 - 6 = +3
Agility = 6 + ( 9 - 6 ) - 2 = +7
Armour: 15
PD = 9/2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5 (boni for single factor 9 batteries at trivial cost)
Defence = ( 15 + 7 + 5 ) / 2 = 13 (assuming round down)

An attack would be a damage roll of 2D +3 +20 -13 = 2D + 10, for a result of St×4.
[I don't understand the damage increase rules at all, so I can't implement them.

See done weapons have modifiers to it.

What is St×4 increased by one class? St×5? Light?]

A squadron of 10 such ships would attack for a weapon multiplier of +200, so roll about 2D + 200 for a result of St×4, same as the single ship.

But then see that the fact PA spinals are nearly ineffective against heavy armored ships in HG is one of its main criticisms...

This is not a bug, but a feature that leads to the rock, paper, scissors nature of HG. Mesons kills PAs, PAs kills missile boats, missile boats kills mesons, and no ship is superior to all other ships.

Squadrons are thought (though you’re right, I didn’t specify) to be made of same class ships. If so, having such batteries will be for all ships.

Or we can make very large missile boats filled with missile bays, easily getting the PD bonuses at trivial cost. They are still immune to spinals...

A battleship-sized missile boat would be immune to the spinal armament of a battleship by fiat and would easily damage the battleship with its massive amount of missiles. I think that is undesirable.

 

[McPerth]

I wouldn't design the damage resolution system without the movement system. The movement (and sensor) system will dictate typical engagement ranges modifying the behaviour of weapons. E.g. range modifiers will change the damage resolution system.

The combat system (including movement and sensor systems) and the ship design system influence each other greatly, you can't really consider one without the other IMVHO.

I agree, and as such this is not finished, that’s why I asked for suggestions. The thread I quoted in the OP was specifically about the combat/damage part, and that’s what I began with.

You need to fire about 1400 missile bays to scrape a Meson-J (assuming Agility 6), representing 70000 Dt of weapons, taking ~35 turn to repair.
To kill the ship with spinals it takes about 12 Mes-J representing 21600 Dt of weapons.

This is at TL-15, missiles are much more competitive at lower TLs.

TY for those numbers. See that those 1400 missile bays would represent about 140 A class secondary weapons In this game system, enough to mission kill a ship (I guess)

So spinals are effective, yet swarms of missile boats are very resilient to damage and takes a very long time to kill without PA spinals.

Even if you throw also missiles to them? That’s why the capital ships carry those secondary bays, I guess..

Swarms of missile boats might scrape weapons quicker that the capital ships can repair them, which would cause them to win the battle. The damage to the spinals might possibly take more time and money to repair than replacing a few destroyed missile boats.

And I guess this is also true here. About the cost in repairing them, I disagree, as replacing a full boat (and its crew) is usually more expensive (and sure takes more time) than repairing any damage.

In TCS (the only rules abpout repair I know about) you can repair a ship in about 2 months (8 weeks), even if it took critical damage, while you cannot build any boat in this them. And repairs may be done in many more spaceports, as even C class spaceports are defined as “reasonable repair facilities available”, and possibility there exist tenders (or repair ships, call them as you like) that can do it, while building a missile boat requires a B class (A if jump capable) spaceport to be built.

Sure, but would 10 squadrons of 100 missile boats be more effective than one squadron of 1000 boats? The non-linear nature of 2D rolls would probably lead to a optimal size.

Ideally 1000 missile boats should be about equally effective whether divided into 1, 10, or even 100 squadrons. This is not the case here?

That’s a very arguable point, as HG has no system for command and control. While I agree in theory 1000 missile boats would be as effective fighting individually or as squadrons, I guess in true combat squadrons will coordinate better their fire, and so be more effective, at least to a point where the squadron becomes too large to be controlled.

Or a simple statement that the target is destroyed by statistical combat resolution...

As I said, this is a matter of taste, but that is exactly one of the points I tried to avoid. I see statistical combat resolution as too impersonal and already decided way to play, so making the combat really unnecessary once the designs are seen.

As said, a matter of taste…

And if you have 100 kDt missile boats with 200 bays each?

They would fire with a damage DM of 200 / 10 = +20.

They (and battleships) would have [at TL-15]:
Attack = 9 - 6 = +3
Agility = 6 + ( 9 - 6 ) - 2 = +7
Armour: 15
PD = 9/2 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5 (boni for single factor 9 batteries at trivial cost)
Defence = ( 15 + 7 + 5 ) / 2 = 13 (assuming round down)

The first thing I’d say is that this design is illegal in HG, as you can only have one bay per 1000 tons of tonnage not used by other weapons (CT:HG, page 30).

But this does not invalidate your point, off course. It seems I must change the definition of Capital Ship and Squadron…

Point taken

An attack would be a damage roll of 2D +3 +20 -13 = 2D + 10, for a result of St×4.
[I don't understand the damage increase rules at all, so I can't implement them.

What is St×4 increased by one class? St×5? Light?]

I thought this was clear when I said increased by one class (and even more so in the example, where the stun is augmented to light damage).

It seems I must clarify it…

A squadron of 10 such ships would attack for a weapon multiplier of +200, so roll about 2D + 200 for a result of St×4, same as the single ship.

Or we can make very large missile boats filled with missile bays, easily getting the PD bonuses at trivial cost. They are still immune to spinals...

A battleship-sized missile boat would be immune to the spinal armament of a battleship by fiat and would easily damage the battleship with its massive amount of missiles. I think that is undesirable.

Again, It seems I must rewrite the definitions…

This is not a bug, but a feature that leads to the rock, paper, scissors nature of HG. Mesons kills PAs, PAs kills missile boats, missile boats kills mesons, and no ship is superior to all other ships.

(bold is mine)

And would not the PA spinal equipped ships be downgraded the same way as the MG equipped ones are?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I agree, and as such this is not finished, that’s why I asked for suggestions.

I will try to make suggestions...

Even if you throw also missiles to them? That’s why the capital ships carry those secondary bays, I guess..

Secondary armaments are more to punish the enemy if he skimps on armour.

Small fast missile boats are very hard to hit, it takes almost as many missile batteries to scrape a missile boat with a single bay as a capital ship. And it takes ~60 Mes-J shots to hit and destroy one boat.

And I guess this is also true here. About the cost in repairing them, I disagree, as replacing a full boat (and its crew) is usually more expensive (and sure takes more time) than repairing any damage.

Building a new missile boat is more expensive and takes longer time to build than to repair a spinal, but after a battle every single battleship will be slightly damaged and need to be cycled through a yard for a few months to be fully restored. If you have limited yard capacity that can take quite a while...

The first thing I’d say is that this design is illegal in HG, as you can only have one bay per 1000 tons of tonnage not used by other weapons (CT:HG, page 30).

Ha, you are right. I must have been playing too much Mongoose...

If the attack DM is retained for the increase roll, then the increase roll is increased linearly to battery size but Endurance is increased logarithmically meaning large ships will kill each other with secondary armaments more or less automatically as any Stun damage would easily be increased?

If the attack DM is not retained small ships would be automatically killed?

I would suggest that the Endurance mechanism needs to be rethought?

I thought this was clear when I said increased by one class (and even more so in the example, where the stun is augmented to light damage).

So, a Stun can be increased to a Light that can be further increased?

And would not the PA spinal equipped ships be downgraded the same way as the MG equipped ones are?

Quite, but PAs kills the boats much quicker, meaning each PA can win over many more boats than each Meson.



I think a system pitting number of weapons against armour with the logarithm of size of the ship as damage resistance will be very difficult to balance.

I would suggest making everything linear or logarithmic, so +1 for every 10 weapons or +1 for every ten times the weapons or size.

How about something like this:
Each missile bay does 20 pts damage minus armour. (20 = Missile factor + 5 [additional +6 if Nuke]? )
Add up all damage and multiply by 2D × 10%.
Divide by ship size (in kDt), round down.
Look in table to get a damage result from Stun to Kill.

That is too complicated I guess, but it scales nicely from 1 kDt ships to 1 MDt ships.

 

[McPerth]

I will try to make suggestions...

And they will be welcome, but for now I’ll keep centering on combat proper (what does not mean I don’t take your advices and suggestions for a future time)

Secondary armaments are more to punish the enemy if he skimps on armour.

Small fast missile boats are very hard to hit, it takes almost as many missile batteries to scrape a missile boat with a single bay as a capital ship. And it takes ~60 Mes-J shots to hit and destroy one boat.

But any hit affecting weapons nearly mission kills them, as reduces his main weapon (and for larger ones, a full battery is taken off…

Building a new missile boat is more expensive and takes longer time to build than to repair a spinal, but after a battle every single battleship will be slightly damaged and need to be cycled through a yard for a few months to be fully restored. If you have limited yard capacity that can take quite a while...

And how long and how many dtons capacity will need to recover the lost boats (not to talk about training their crews)?

Ha, you are right. I must have been playing too much Mongoose...

Traying to apply this same system to MgT would mean to fully redesign it, as in MgT spinals are less deadly compared with barrages…

If the attack DM is retained for the increase roll, then the increase roll is increased linearly to battery size but Endurance is increased logarithmically meaning large ships will kill each other with secondary armaments more or less automatically as any Stun damage would easily be increased?

If the attack DM is not retained small ships would be automatically killed?

I’m afraid I don’t understand the questions here…

I would suggest that the Endurance mechanism needs to be rethought?

Initially I thought about making it lineal, but this made either all ships equal, the smaller ones (mostly BRs) too fragile or the larger ones (e.g. a Tigris) absolutely invulnerable, and none of those cases is in HG…

Another point is if the bays needed for a Secondary multiple should be increased, as this 10 was more or less taken out of my hat...

So, a Stun can be increased to a Light that can be further increased?

Yes, but subtracting 2 from the dice. Of course, if enough stun/light damages are achieved, it may be the case…

Quite, but PAs kills the boats much quicker, meaning each PA can win over many more boats than each Meson.

Quicker than the missile bays? Quicker enough to avoid beingscraped?

I think a system pitting number of weapons against armour with the logarithm of size of the ship as damage resistance will be very difficult to balance.

I would suggest making everything linear or logarithmic, so +1 for every 10 weapons or +1 for every ten times the weapons or size.

How about something like this:
Each missile bay does 20 pts damage minus armour. (20 = Missile factor + 5 [additional +6 if Nuke]? )
Add up all damage and multiply by 2D × 10%.
Divide by ship size (in kDt), round down.
Look in table to get a damage result from Stun to Kill.

That is too complicated I guess, but it scales nicely from 1 kDt ships to 1 MDt ships.

Yes, too complex I’m afraid…

 

[mike wightman]

Some thoughts.

Reduce AHL to what it does:

action points

action phases/movement

roll to hit

roll to damage based on <random> + weapon pen - AV

To model ship combat
action points - how many? stick with 6 per phase?
action phases/movement - what do you spend the action points on? movement, sensor locks, weapon fire
covering fire - 3AP a screening ship fires, could represent point defence too.
snapshot - 3AP includes point defence
aimed - 6AP
roll to hit - effective, long, extreme should sensors be included in the hit roll or is it something we spend the action points on?
roll to damage ,<random> + weapon factor? - AV
how to handle screens? add to AV for certain weapons, should dampers and meson screens be active and therefore action points spent for their resolution?

 

[McPerth]

Some thoughts.

Reduce AHL to what it does:

action points

action phases/movement

roll to hit

roll to damage based on <random> + weapon pen - AV

To model ship combat
action points - how many? stick with 6 per phase?
action phases/movement - what do you spend the action points on? movement, sensor locks, weapon fire
covering fire - 3AP a screening ship fires, could represent point defence too.
snapshot - 3AP includes point defence
aimed - 6AP
roll to hit - effective, long, extreme should sensors be included in the hit roll or is it something we spend the action points on?
roll to damage ,<random> + weapon factor? - AV
how to handle screens? add to AV for certain weapons, should dampers and meson screens be active and therefore action points spent for their resolution?

Thanks Mike for your suggestions. Point taken for the move in APs (probably related to MD or Agility).

As for covering fire/snapshoot/ aimed fire, those are not individuals, but full crews that may focus at once on movement and fire (even at several targets). I don't believe there are such distinctions in ship combat.

As for ranges, that will go with movement, but will probably end up as you suggest...

What you suggesed was my first idea, just shooting and rolling for damage, but that left out too many things (secondaries, MG/AP, etc). After all, even AHL has two combat systems (fire and melee) and two kinds of armor (regular and anti-laser -reflec/ablat).

I guess striker has more varety on weapons and its vehicles are able to shoot more than one at once, but I don't have access to it...

 

[kilemall]

Is the goal to simplify but still have the same results of HG or to alter outcomes to something different while maintaining the build mechanism tradeoffs?

 

[McPerth]

Is the goal to simplify but still have the same results of HG or to alter outcomes to something different while maintaining the build mechanism tradeoffs?

Ideally it would be to have similar results, but, off course, ther results would be somwhat different (thouhg I'd like to more or less keep the basics),

I priorize simplicity and easy conversion from HG designs, so that just puting the USP in an Excel they might appear as a converted ships, with no judgements nore player (or referee's) decisions to take.

About movement:

Current idea would be to have a "board" as an American Footbal field, with several range bands on each side, and using Acceleration points to move closer or farther, but this is just a loose idea to be used as starting point

Sensors:

As AotherDilbert talked about them, I just name them, but I don't intend to use any, sa they are not depicted in HG (but nothing is unammovible, and listening others is the meaning of this thread).

 

[McPerth]

I would suggest that the Endurance mechanism needs to be rethought?

What about Endurance = (7 + (tonnage/50000) (rounded down) + armor)/2 (dounded down)?

So:

• a Tigris (armor 15, 500000 dton) would have endurance 16 (it needs quite a lot of minor damages to affect or misión kill it).
• a 200000 dton armor 15 Battleshis will have endurance 14
• The battleship in the example will hav endurance 12
• a squadron formed by 10 x 5000 dton escorts with armor 14 will have endurance 11
• A 30000 dton battlerider with armor 15 will have endurance 11
• a 400000 dton unarmored tender will have endurance 7

This makes it lineal and assumes that armor also helps in avoiding increased damages (as it reduces multiple rolls and, for smaller ships, criticals).

 

[whartung]

action points - how many? stick with 6 per phase?

+1 per max Ship Tactics skill on board
+1 AP per side for each max Fleet Tactics skill in the fleet, maximum of 1 per ship.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

What about Endurance = (7 + (tonnage/50000) (rounded down) + armor)/2 (dounded down)?

That sounds workable.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I agree with McPerth that action points are not really appropriate for starships with massive crews.

 

[mike wightman]

You could get 6 action points per crew factor, giving you a lot more options with larger ships.

 

[McPerth]

You could get 6 action points per crew factor, giving you a lot more options with larger ships.

Even this way, let's imagine 200000 dton ship with 200 Missile bays (130 of them bearing).

This would be represented in its Secondary Weaponry as A13.

Confronted with several lightly armored hamster squadrons, it has several options:

overkill one of them with all its missiles
divide the missiles against several squadrons (you have 13 DMs to divide)

See that I you need APs to fire, the option about dividing the fire is reduced,,,

 

[mike wightman]

One of my main aims in any variant or replacement system for HG is to reduce the number of rolls of dice required and no resorting to statistical resolution.

This would entail grouping turret weapons into batteries with bonuses so for example 10 #9 laser batteries would get a bonus to hit (+1?) and a bonus on the penetration roll (+2?). 100 #9 batteries would get a higher bonus (+2? and +4 respectively).

For point defence select the number of batteries that will fire in the point defence role and calculate a number of dice to be rolled as the number of missiles knocked out. (probably have to steal this from Striker since I don't think AHL has rules for point defence).

I'm still playing with the numbers but should have a rough draft of a fully playable system soon.

 

[McPerth]

One of my main aims in any variant or replacement system for HG is to reduce the number of rolls of dice required and no resorting to statistical resolution.

This would entail grouping turret weapons into batteries with bonuses so for example 10 #9 laser batteries would get a bonus to hit (+1?) and a bonus on the penetration roll (+2?). 100 #9 batteries would get a higher bonus (+2? and +4 respectively).

For point defence select the number of batteries that will fire in the point defence role and calculate a number of dice to be rolled as the number of missiles knocked out. (probably have to steal this from Striker since I don't think AHL has rules for point defence).

I'm still playing with the numbers but should have a rough draft of a fully playable system soon.

It seems we have the same goals, though diferent materials to work with...

And no, AHL has no point defense rules (after all, is about man-toman combat)

 

[mike wightman]

If this eventually works out we will have built the ship combat system Mega Traveller should have had