AHL vs. Snapshot

[DonM]

Ok, I've been comparing AHL to Snapshot, and while AHL is the better for combat, the AP system in Snapshot seems to be more complete -- Animals, for example, are at least considered, compared to blobs (although giving all animals 15 AP seems odd).

Then there are those actions which are defined in Snapshot but not mentioned at all in AHL: drawing and holstering weapons, picking up items, reloading and using bows/crossbows, and carrying heavy things.

Has anyone "filled in the gaps" in AHL? Other than looking at MT, of course.

 

[SgtHulka]

When I get a chance to grab my games reprint and look at the systems side by side I'll try and help.

Off the top of my head, Striker includes penetration factors for melee weapons, so I'd think you could just use those for animals, bayonets, etc. Using snapshot as a basis, they should cost the same action points as semi-automatic weapons. I'm not sure if they should be allowed to be "fired" during the covering fire phase, however. The action points of animals shouldn't be a problem, because all characters in AHL get 6 AP's per phase.

Reloading isn't included in AHL? Are you sure? I could have sworn it took an entire turn to reload, during which you were considered evading.

Drawing a weapon would probably be a Move command and a certain number of action points spent during the movement phase. Same for holstering.

Carrying heavy things is, in fact, covered in AHL, by the phrase "as in traveller". Which is exactly the same rule as in Snapshot. You can carry 1 kg per strength, and if you go over that you receive a -1 to str, dex, and endurance. Double strength takes you to one level, triple strength another, etc. The problem is, you have no way of knowing the strength characteristic of the counters unless you backwards-engineer the melee values.

AHL is even more of a boardgame than Snapshot is. It's intended for use with the specific counters and specific scenarios included with the game. They don't bother spelling out rules like encumberence because they've already been factored in to the counters' statistics.

 

[DonM]

Here's the problem with AHL being more of a boardgame -- it's harder to use with Traveller right out of the box.

But, I have found that AHL combat resolution with the TTB range band encounter setup goes VERY fast.

Of course, that's called MegaTraveller, but still...

It's interesting now that I've found what the "Traveller Advanced Combat System" was intended to be before they decided to just wrap it into MT.

 

[SgtHulka]

Originally posted by DonM:
Ok, I've been comparing AHL to Snapshot, and while AHL is the better for combat, the AP system in Snapshot seems to be more complete -- Animals, for example, are at least considered, compared to blobs (although giving all animals 15 AP seems odd).

Here are the penetration factors of animal melee weapons, taken from Striker:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Claws -1 Dfnse 3 Pen Range 1
Teeth 0 Defnse 4 Pen Range 1
Horns -1 Dfense 5 Pen Range 2
Hooves 0 Dfense 4 Pen Range 2
Stinger 0 Dfense 5 Pen Range 1
Thrasher -1 Dfense 8 Pen Range 3</pre>[/QUOTE]In Striker the basic throw to hit in melee is 7+, with the Defense factor causing a negative to the throw. To make it consistent with the 8+ throw for AHL, you probably want to change the -0 Dfense DM's to +1 Attack DM's (making it a de-facto 7+) and make the -1 Defense DM's 0 Attack DM's (making it a de-facto 8+).

Range is totally different in Striker than Book 1. It's less actual range and more melee factor as per AHL rule 17A. In Striker, you add the weapon's range to the figure's melee factor to determine the order of attacks. Here's how I'd suggest treating it:

Use rule 17. Melee. to determine when and how to resolve the animal attacks. Use rule 17A. Order of Attacks to resolve who attacks first. Give the animal a melee value of 4 plus the range of their weapon (so an animal with a thrasher would have a melee value of 7). Don't use Rule 17B. for resolution of attacks. Instead use rule 11C. to determine hits, treating the attack as effective range and aimed fire, and then use rule 12 to determine wounds.

Originally posted by DonM:
Then there are those actions which are defined in Snapshot but not mentioned at all in AHL: drawing and holstering weapons, picking up items, reloading and using bows/crossbows, and carrying heavy things.

Drawing and Holstering Weapons: I'd only allow this for counters with the Move order, during the Move phase. Drawing a gun or blade for 1 AP, reholstering for 2 AP, sheathing a blade for 6 AP, dropping a weapon for free. In other words, same as snapshot.

Picking up items: I'd only allow this for counters with the Move order, during the Move phase. Otherwise exactly like snapshot -- 1d6 is the number of AP's required.

Bows and Crossbows: 2 AP's to load bows, 6 to load crossbows, and I would allow counters with the "AIM" order to load during the Movement phase. This means that characters armed with bows ould never snapshot more than once (2 action points to load, 3 action points to fire) and characters declaring cover fire could never snapshot (could only use a single cover fire per phase -- 3 points for cover fire and 2 points for loading). Crossbows could never be used with snapshot nor with Covering fire. The difficult part is finding penetration factors of bows and crossbows, since they aren't included in Striker, either.

Reloading: See rule 25B.

Dragging Heavy Ojects: See rule 8C8. Use the traveller encumberance rules to determine weapon modifiers as per Integrating with Traveller rule E.

 

[SgtHulka]

Originally posted by DonM:
Here's the problem with AHL being more of a boardgame -- it's harder to use with Traveller right out of the box.

I'm not sure how you would integrate it without serious house-ruling (see above). Definitely doesn't integrate out of the box.

As a campaign setting -- i.e. a Battlestar Galactica-style campaign set entirely on an AHL -- it integrates fine out of the box. In that case you aren't using the game, you're just using the game components (deckplans, supplement).

Here's how I'd rate the various games, with "Boardgame" being entirely self-contained and relating little to Traveller, and "Supplement" integrating perfectly with Traveller:

Mayday: More Boardgame than Supplement. Simplifies first edition Book 2 Combat and makes the style of combat actually playable (I contend that wires, strings and planetary templates make first edition Book 2 unplayable). Between First Edition Book 2 and Second Edition Book 2, Mayday might actually have been a good replacement for Traveller Starship combat, though it would have been deadly with Special Rule 7A. However, when High Guard comes out it makes both Book 2 combat irrelevant and Mayday irrelevant. They're both totally pointless from that point forward. Which is especially odd since I think High Guard came out before Mayday. Then Second Edition book 2 comes out which "Mayday-izes" Book 2 combat, but it keeps the planetary templates and the wires and strings so it makes Book 2 still unplayable, anyway. Mayday can only really integrate with Traveller by using the High Guard/Mayday system suggested at the end of Mayday, but even there you have to figure out the houserules, because High Guard and Mayday use totally different turn sequences. None the less, as a boardgame, Mayday rocks.

Snapshot: Rocks as both a boardgame and a supplement. Can be perfectly integrated into Traveller to replace Book 1 combat.

Azhanti High Lightning: More boardgame than supplement. Too many abstractions and not complete enough to substitute it for Book 1 combat. De-emphasizes the character. Doesn't offer any real improvements on speed of play over Snapshot, so doesn't help with the "what if you have a platoon on either side" scenarios. Furthermore, if you play two identical scenarios, one using Book 1 and one using Azhanti High Lightning, the results will be completely different. I'm not sure I'm completely enamored with it as a boardgame, either.

Striker: Both boardgame (well, miniatures game) and supplement. Can be perfectly slotted in to replace Book 4 abstract combat. I'm not so enamored by it, but it does what it purports to do -- it models platoon-sized engagements to about company-sized engagements. Does a fair job of modelling the same results as you'd get from the Book 4 abstract system. It also introduces vehicle combat, which can be used out of the box, in my opinion, with Book 1 combat.

 

[etherflyer]

Personally, I'd go with <b>At Cloase Quarters</b>. The same level of integration as Snapshot, but more realistic -- and simpler than AHL.

 

[SgtHulka]

Can you tell me more about At Close Quarters? I've heard good things about it, but I'm unclear on the system. Is it Classic Traveller? T20? Or version independent.

With ACQ and Power Projection we've almost got a replacement for two of the main Traveller games. Now all we need is someone to convert Stargrunt II to replace Striker.

 

[Supplement Four]

At Close Quarters is most closely associated with T4, using T4-esque tasks.

The text says it's useable by any version of Traveller.

It's a tactical action-point system. You get "X" amount of points to spend each round, and every action you take has an associated cost. It's similar to Snapshot or Azhanti High Lightning.

-S4

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
At Close Quarters is most closely associated with T4, using T4-esque tasks.

I assume it uses the BITS task system. Which is readily converted to MT and slightly less so to CT.

 

[DonM]

Having considered several combinations, I'm starting to lean towards Snapshot, except replacing the combat engine with that from AHL. I like the Dexterity+Endurance action point combination.

ACQ looks nice, but it feels too T4-ish, and to be honest, T4 sucked hickeys on rocks.

Hmm... might be insulting rocks there.

Anyway, that combination, plus Striker for vehicles, allows me to stay Classic and yet improve massively on the combat feel.

Maybe range band combat for the roleplayers who don't want to game with miniatures, and Snapshot-level action for the close-combat miniatures gamer.

 

[SgtHulka]

Based on how you describe what you like, I'd say that sounds like an excellent idea. Essentially what you're describing is the CT action sequence and the Striker Damage Resolution which, I think, is what a lot of players switched to after Striker showed up. All I can think of that you might be missing is penetration values for bows and crossbows but I'll bet you dollars to donuts someone's come up with those in a JTAS article or something.

I've been trying really hard to like AHL, but the turn sequence is so complex I'm having a very hard time. One thing I came across that you might want to immediately house rule is the rules for cover. In Striker and AHL you gain a defensive DM for cover. However, because your head is usually what's showing, if your hit the hits gain a positive penetration DM. This creates a weird (well, in my opinion weird) situation where if you're wearing good armor and you're fighting someone with a poor weapon, you're better off standing in the open than under cover.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by SgtHulka:
All I can think of that you might be missing is penetration values for bows and crossbows but I'll bet you dollars to donuts someone's come up with those in a JTAS article or something.

There absolutely is an article in JTAS about bows, crossbows, and other archaic weapons stated out for Striker.

All the archaic weapons that appear in Supplement 4 and The Spinward Marches Campaign are listed with Striker values.

Just FYI.

-S4

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by SgtHulka:
I've been trying really hard to like AHL, but the turn sequence is so complex I'm having a very hard time.

AHL divides the turn into, what, six phases IIRC.

Basically what you get is six times the rounds (a phase acting as a round) with each character able to do less each round.

Instead of running across a room, firing your weapon, and ducking behind cover (like you can do in Snapshot), AHL is more like: You run across the room. Wait. Wait for your next phase. Wait for everyone else and the NPCs to complete their phase one. Then fire your weapon. Wait. Wait again. Then duck behind cover.

What I've found is this: Both Snapshot and Azhanti High Lightning are good games. The deal is, is that they're good for different purposes.

Snapshot is the roleplayer's tactical combat rules set. It's meant as a tactical option to the free-form option in the main Traveller rules.

And, Snapshot works well filling that roll.

Azhanti High Lighting, OTOH, is not meant for typical roleplaying. It's meant for a more wargame-style of play. In fact, AHL is best suited to indoor actions with large numbers of troops, while outdoor actions are handled with Striker. IIRC, it's two AHL rounds to one Striker round.

So, if you're wargaming--as in doing boarding actions after a High Guard fleet encounter, or doing house-to-house combat after your Striker troops have taken the village---then Azhanti High Lightning is your game.

AHL can be fun, but it works best in that role.

But...

If you're doing a typical Traveller campaign, where the action is focused on the PCs, Snapshot is better suited to that need--used as a tactical alternative to the usual free-form Traveller rpg combat system.

Striker and Azhanti High Lightning: Best for strategic outdoor/indoor encounters with faceless troops.

Snapshot and Traveller RPG Combat: Best for rpg encounters involving the player characters.

The same goes for starship combat. High Guard is best used for large fleet encounters without focus on the PCs. Book 2 Space Combat or Mayday is best used when the action is focused on the player's ship.

In fact, using the Range Band movement method from Starter Traveller, a Bk 2 space combat enounter need not use a tactical map at all. When I run space combat, I typically lay out the deck plans for the player's ship and use Range Bands to keep track of range to the enemy vessel. In this way, Bk 2 helps me, as the GM, focus on what's going on inside the player's ship during the battle instead of looking at a map with relative ship positions. I describe what the characters see on their instruments. I'll take time during the combat round for the engineer to race through the corridors, role-playing his repairs. I'll describe the sparks and air leakage and lights dimming to the ship's gunner when the turret is hit.

I'm not trying to derail the thread--it's just that, that's how I see the various Traveller games being used in the grand Traveller mix.

-S4

 

[SgtHulka]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Azhanti High Lighting, OTOH, is not meant for typical roleplaying. It's meant for a more wargame-style of play. In fact, AHL is best suited to indoor actions with large numbers of troops, while outdoor actions are handled with Striker. IIRC, it's two AHL rounds to one Striker round.

I'm skeptical AHL is really suited to that, either. Its complicated turn sequence requires you to keep track of so much during a turn that it's borderline harder to play with big numbers of troops even than snapshot. In snapshot, you move a counter and your done and you move on to the next counter. In AHL, all action within a phase is simultaneous, so you have to keep track of who's fired and who hasn't. It's easy to skip counters or have counters activate twice by mistake. It's especially complicated during the movement phase, when you have to keep track of which counters are covering and whether they've used their cover fire action yet for that phase and then have to calculate an additional snap fire after their cover fire. And then during the snap fire phase they attack twice again, while taking snap fire in return. Okay, I take it back, the hardest phase is not the movement phase it's the snap fire phase.

I'm still experimenting with AHL, so it's possible that as I grow more familiar with the rules it will go as quickly or more quickly than Snapshot, but after playing about four games (and small ones at that...eight counters versus four counters) I find myself drowning in complexity. I do have to admit it's pretty funny watching counters blow through almost full clips of auto-rifle ammunition in a single fifteen second phase, though, as it bounces off of enemy combat armor. It definitely makes me think of that art in T20 light.

The biggest improvement over Snapshot, in my opinion, are the counters themselves. Having Weapon Type, Weapon Bonus, Armor Type, Morale, Melee factor, and leadership factor all on the counter is really cool. Also, if you combine it with Striker the way you describe, it's pretty easy to generate the counters from your Striker squads using the vanilla categories of recruit, regular, veteran and elite.

I sometimes wonder if Striker would have been a more popular game if it had come with and/or been supported with more official vehicles and units. The JTAS articles gave flavor text for various units, but never any of the hard crunch data. As a result, playing Striker involves days of preperation just creating the unit statistics. The few times I've sat down to try it out have resulted in many hours of prep and then less than a single game turn when one side routes off the map the second it takes fire lol.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by SgtHulka:
In snapshot, you move a counter and your done and you move on to the next counter. In AHL, all action within a phase is simultaneous, so you have to keep track of who's fired and who hasn't.

I agree AHL takes a different approach, and it has been a while since I've read through AHL (never played it). But, keeping track doesn't seem to me to be much of a problem.

Just treat each "phase" as a "round". Go through, and everybody does phase one. Then, start with the first person again, and everybody does phase two. And so on.

Or, am I forgetting something critical about AHL?

(BTW...you know, AHL was written as a streamlined and supposedly superior version of Striker...according to one of the articles I read not so long ago in JTAS.)

-S4

 

[SgtHulka]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Just treat each "phase" as a "round". Go through, and everybody does phase one. Then, start with the first person again, and everybody does phase two. And so on.

Or, am I forgetting something critical about AHL?

No, you're not forgetting anything, but once you start playing it you realize it's easier in theory than practice (at least that's what I've realized). It's two seperate things to keep track of -- which phases your counters act in, and then specifically what they do within those phases. It's not just activate each counter in sequence because you have to keep track of two extra things in each phase -- whether the counter has an order that allows it to act in that phase and whether the counter is removed at the end of the phase due to wounding. In snapshot if a character is dropped it's just immediately removed, because action isn't simultaneous in that game. And there are no phases so you just run through your action points and are done.

Also, keep in mind, when you divide a turn into four sub-turns, the game ends up taking four times as long to resolve. That isn't exactly the case with AHL, since not all sub-turns are played every turn, but it definitely increases the time. And games take more turns, since you only get 6 movement action points per turn, and movement cost is doubled (AHL eliminates the diagonal squares problem by making moving forward 2 action points and moving diagonally 3...snapshot iirc is 1 action point for each of those). Basically you shoot a lot more in AHL, and move a lot more in Snapshot.

That all said, I'm actually getting more used to AHL and it's starting to go a bit quicker. And it certainly provides a similar range of strategy to Snapshot, and is at least equally exciting. The shift from an emphasis on shotguns and submachineguns to combat armor, gauss rifles, fgmp's and snub pistols is certainly fun, as well...basically wargaming out a whole different aspect of the traveller universe. That bit in High Guard about resolving boarding actions and the degree to which Marines are far more important than crew members makes a lot of sense once you've started fooling around with AHL.

 

[SgtHulka]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
(BTW...you know, AHL was written as a streamlined and supposedly superior version of Striker...according to one of the articles I read not so long ago in JTAS.)

-S4

Well, if that's true (and I have to admit I have a hard time believing it, but I guess you have to take the designers at their word) it points to a changing philosophy at GDW. They were moving away from a keep it simple, stupid principal toward a belief that complex=better. Thinking back on that period of time, I suppose it's not unreasonable. Wasn't that Advanced Squad Leader's heyday? And Steve Jackson seemed to be moving away from the simple bag games to more complex systems. I guess we all had a lot more time back then.

 

[DonM]

Actually, AHL was written as a close combat game derived from Striker, and intended to be *simpler*. However, they started then developing a simpler form of Striker, which evolved into the planned "Traveller Advanced Combat System", which became MT's combat engine.

Clear as mud?

 

[DonM]

By the way, having looked at both, Snapshot certain seems easier, although I like AHL's combat resolution (which comes from Striker). Any obvious problems going the other way (meshing Snapshot's turn and movement with AHL's fire and melee combat?

The main reason for this is that I don't like AHL's subturns, and I like that APs derive from characteristics. It feels more natural...

 

[SgtHulka]

Originally posted by DonM:
Any obvious problems going the other way (meshing Snapshot's turn and movement with AHL's fire and melee combat?

The only problem going the other way would be AHL's limited weapons chart. Apart from that, it should work great.

Tactics work out a little differently between the two combat resolution systems, but that's just a difference in style, not a "problem".