AHL (loosely) based ship combat system

[McPerth]

As for reducing rolls, I really like the barrrage system in MgT1E, but it leads to very dissimilar results than CT:HG:

1. Spinals are not as decisive
2. Missiles are of little use against armored ships
3. Ffighters keep being very useful even at high TLs

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

MT system was even more suicide than HG, as Agility was a rare luxury and the way it used Tactics skill made spinals hits nearly automatic.

In any case, the system I'm trying to do is for less detail than all those other systems I told about.

 

[robject]

Opening note: in general, I always try to understand what Mike Wightman says.

General impressions:

I like the division of units. That's how I prefer to see things as well.

Unit factors (8 factors, 14 data points total). Fourteen pieces of information per unit is not unreasonable. I would suggest including Jump Rating, just because.

Damage records slow things down. But I understand the need for them here.


Thoughts:

I would suggest limiting when those 14 factors are usable. If they're always in play, then the game will be slow. But there are ways of limiting when many of those factors are used (maybe).

I like the rule for secondaries.

I worry about the three categories of secondaries. I think I understand the intent (mapping from HG requires subtlety), but I wonder if it adds enough to the game itself to justify its existence?

Ideally the Factor of the secondary is the DM, and a result of (say) 12 is an ST, 14 is STx2, 16 is STx3, and 18+ is STx4. In this way you've baked the table into the mechanic, which would be a Good Thing. Alternately, you subtract the 2D roll FROM the Factor, with the result being the number of points subtracted (you'd have to be careful how you balance that though!)

I think this is the core of a good system. I think it is missing a middle "piece" that adds interest to this particular player. That middle piece is some sort of adapter that handles the rules in an elegant way. No, I'm not quite sure what I'm asking for.

 

[McPerth]

Opening note: in general, I always try to understand what Mike Wightman says.

So do I, as I concede Mike quite mor eknowledge about HG combat among fletes than myself (I'm more a MT man, and there were no to my knowledge TCS contests in Barcelona)

General impressions:

I like the division of units. That's how I prefer to see things as well.

Glad to hear, though AnotherDIlbert found a critical flaw there...

Unit factors (8 factors, 14 data points total). Fourteen pieces of information per unit is not unreasonable. I would suggest including Jump Rating, just because.

Jump has no real impact in combat (aside from the possibility to jump away). This would be useful if anyone tried to play a strategical game on this system (As TCS Islands Campaign), but it would not need to be transposed to the combat system.

Damage records slow things down. But I understand the need for them here.

Initially it was thought to be played with counters, and I thought about using damage counters for that (as in AHL). Now I'm not so sure about using counters or making it more abstarct...

Thoughts:

I would suggest limiting when those 14 factors are usable. If they're always in play, then the game will be slow. But there are ways of limiting when many of those factors are used (maybe).

I guess not all would be. See how many factors and info is in an ASL tank counter, and the game is quite playable...

I like the rule for secondaries.

I worry about the three categories of secondaries. I think I understand the intent (mapping from HG requires subtlety), but I wonder if it adds enough to the game itself to justify its existence?

I thought about the categories as to allow non bay equiped ships to also be present (e.g. fighters). While they are of Little use against heavily armored ships, they can have their use against heavily damaged (or stunned) or unarmored ones (mostly auxiliaries).

Ideally the Factor of the secondary is the DM, and a result of (say) 12 is an ST, 14 is STx2, 16 is STx3, and 18+ is STx4. In this way you've baked the table into the mechanic, which would be a Good Thing. Alternately, you subtract the 2D roll FROM the Factor, with the result being the number of points subtracted (you'd have to be careful how you balance that though!)

The use I make of the multiplier as also a capacity to diveide it is ro give more flexibility.

About balance, I'm not sure 10 bays to be the right number (though it is an easy one) for each multiplier. I'd like people more knwledgeable on HG combat (yes, MIke and AnotherDilbert, that is for you, among others) advice on it...

I think this is the core of a good system. I think it is missing a middle "piece" that adds interest to this particular player. That middle piece is some sort of adapter that handles the rules in an elegant way. No, I'm not quite sure what I'm asking for.

Don't gorget to tell me when you find it out .

I think I undertand what do you mean, and I have such feelting to to a way. That's why I released it so son, to ask for advices i nthis (and other) senses...