• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

CT Only: Book 2 vs Book 5 space combat. Choose the rules, the ACS, and post the battle.

robject

SOC-14 10K
Admin Award
Marquis
Spinward Flow said:
I have yet to see a situation in which LBB2 ship combat is a superior playtime experience than LBB5 ship combat.

^ The gauntlet has been thrown down.

If you have a dog in this fight, then here's a place where you could post your play-by-play of two ACS fighting it out, using either Book2, or Book5.
 
Last edited:
CT Book 2 rules!

I only ever used Book 5 for things like Launch Tubes and Navy CharGen. I never used the formulas for building nor did I ever use it for combat. I hate Book 5's forward and reserve line only set up. Seemed like lining up with muskets and blasting the other guy's line and not like spaceship combat. Vectors are cooler, and give the players more to do in the combat.

So always CT Book 2 for me.
 
Last edited:
HG ship combat is hopeless for PC scale combat - a couple of us fought some battles right here on these boards many years ago now and the results were not very satisfactory. If you have ever tried using the HG combat rules for PC scale ship combat you will find out what we found out.

LBB:2 vector combat takes too long and requires too much playing surface unless you change the scale.

For resolving a ship encounter during a roleplaying session then I turn to the ship's boat skill combat system to which I add stuff for the other crew members to do. If I need to abstract the movement then the CT Starter edition range band system preserves some of the Newtonian movement. To hit rolls and damage resolution are then by LBB:2 mechanics.

Oh, and the LBB:2 rules for a pulse laser are -1 to hit but roll twice for damage (CT SE), and the effects of a crew hit are to inflict a 4D damage hit to a random character on board CT SS:3).
 
Cross-posting for relevance to new thread conversation.

I have yet to see a situation in which LBB2 ship combat is a superior playtime experience than LBB5 ship combat

Them's fightin' words, mister.

I will start a new thread for THAT.

Maybe ... but think of the difference in perspective the two systems take.

LBB2 is more of a "god's eye view" of everything where you're moving ship markers around on a map to take potshots at each other. The perspective of the engagement is explicitly EXTERNAL to what's going on. The "view of the battle" is for all intents and purposes from the outside "looking down" onto the playing field where all the vector movement tracking is going on.

Contrast this with LBB5, which is more of a "bridge command view" of everything where it's all about what your ship can do (and avoid) from what amounts to inside your own ship(s). The perspective of the engagement is explicitly INTERNAL inside the respective ships that are engaging. The "view of the battle" is for all intents and purposes what you would get from the bridge "looking OUT" towards the hostile ship(s) you're engaging. Movement, range and agility are all abstracted through the long/short range determined by initiative at the start of each combat round and different weapon systems work better (or not at all) at different ranges. Plus there's armor to mitigate incoming damage if you get hit (assuming you aren't taking internal damage that bypasses armor) and radiation damage to give *fib computers a purpose for existing.

It's that difference in perspective on the battle which is (in my experience) the most fundamental. WATCHING the fight unfold from the outside, as if you were playing a videogame (on a tabletop) is very different from PARTICIPATING in a fight that unfolds from the inside of your ship.

It's the difference between watching a battle unfold using animated arrows moving on a map (from the outside) versus watching the "drama" on the bridge as command decisions are made as the combatants fight each other (seeing the action from the inside) ... which are two VERY DIFFERENT perspectives on the action.

It's a difference between a wargame map view versus a cockpit view of the battle ... if that makes any sense to you. Of the two perspectives, I've found the cockpit view to much more consistently be the more compelling gameplay experience. :cool:
Your mileage may vary, of course. :rolleyes:



HG ship combat is hopeless for PC scale combat - a couple of us fought some battles right here on these boards many years ago now and the results were not very satisfactory. If you have ever tried using the HG combat rules for PC scale ship combat you will find out what we found out.

I find this curious. I have not read the thread that you are referring to. Can a link be provided?

In my experience, particularly in a 1v1 "ship duel" I've found that in practice it's a relatively simple matter to tally up all of the dice rolls that need to be happening (roll initiative, determine range, roll this much to hit, roll this much to penetrate defenses, roll damage, apply damage effects). Once you get familiar with the system, it's reasonably quick to resolve ship combat after determining "what the dice can tell you" at each step of the process and then you just run down the checklist.

The "drama" of the combat then becomes the results of the dice rolls ... which is kind of how RPGs have always worked, really. The "trick" for the Players (and the Referee, to some extent) is to "bias" what the dice are "allowed to say" through modifiers so as to "stack the deck" of possibilities in their favor.



To be fair, there is certainly a contingent of people who would vastly prefer to break out maps and miniatures (and if there wasn't, Warhammer 40k wouldn't even exist as a franchise!) so there is certainly "room" for both methods of resolving starship combat (in space, around planetary bodies, etc.). However, from a "crew drama" perspective, I maintain that I have always found LBB5 to be the superior system for achieving that goal ... even at the personal PC starship battles level.



I hate Book 5's forward and reserve line only set up. Seemed like lining up with muskets and blasting the other guy's line and not like spaceship combat.

I can easily see how that would be the impression ... because it's a mental image that "fits" the description of how battles unfold under LBB5. However, that's simply a result of the abstraction of range to target(s) ... these ships are in range, while those ships are out of range.

Rather than thinking of lining up with muskets and blasting away, try thinking more in terms of fighters and carriers. The fighters close to weapons range while the carrier(s) stay out of weapons range in the reserve.

Vectors are cooler, and give the players more to do in the combat.

They may be cooler, as you say ... but they are also much more complex to deal with in the absence of a playing surface large enough to accommodate the mapping needed. If you have the table/floor space available, the vector maneuvering system can be fun to play ... but if you don't, it's not all that enjoyable to try and work with and isn't a system that lends itself well to abstraction.

In that respect, LBB2 vector combat is more "defined" through the vector combat system ... while LBB5 combat is more abstract, calling for participants to envision what's happening in their heads and relying on the dice to tell them how the combat is progressing.
 
As a personal oppinion, I'd never dare to compare LBB2 and HG combat system, as they are different games, at different scales and giving different solutions to diferent problems.

IMHO that would be as comparing To give Avanlo Hill games) ASL (10 man counters, with some representing a single man or support weapon) with AAC (Company /battalion level) or AAC to Third Reich (strategic, corks/army level). Each ASL scenario occurring in Crete would be a single die roll in AAC, and the whole AAC would be a single die roll in Third Reich.

This said:

HG ship combat is hopeless for PC scale combat - a couple of us fought some battles right here on these boards many years ago now and the results were not very satisfactory. If you have ever tried using the HG combat rules for PC scale ship combat you will find out what we found out.

Fuly agreed. I followed (and commented) your threads about those combats, and while they showed it was posible, all RPG was taken out of it.

LBB:2 vector combat takes too long and requires too much playing surface unless you change the scale.

Or use Mayday (I guess it can be considered LBB2 System, though that is argeable)

For resolving a ship encounter during a roleplaying session then I turn to the ship's boat skill combat system to which I add stuff for the other crew members to do. If I need to abstract the movement then the CT Starter edition range band system preserves some of the Newtonian movement. To hit rolls and damage resolution are then by LBB:2 mechanics.

Again fully agreed

Oh, and the LBB:2 rules for a pulse laser are -1 to hit but roll twice for damage (CT SE), and the effects of a crew hit are to inflict a 4D damage hit to a random character on board CT SS:3).

Well, if we start to comment the various errata of both systems we can start a new thread (or retake some old ones ;)).

In resume (again IMHO): LBB2 is for role playing, and so gives the protagonism to crewmembers, while HG is operational, and gives the protagonism to ship design (and the few effect key crewmembers might have are usually forgotten or ignored).
 
As a personal oppinion, I'd never dare to compare LBB2 and HG combat system, as they are different games, at different scales and giving different solutions to diferent problems.

Only to a point. They're both tactical, unit level, ship on ship combat.

HG abstracts the maneuver part of it, but in truth, maneuver plays little role in open space combat anyway, especially in the Traveller systems.

So, in effect, they're the same.

Book 2 is two ships closing on each other, firing over and over and over again until they screech past each other, yet still continue firing. At which point they can turn about and fly by each other again.

HG pretty much skips that fly by part of the system, save for being able to shift to the reserve line. Other than that, ships firing at each other repeatedly.

Book 2 has more detailed missile combat. On the whole, I don't know if it affects the outcome much on small battles.

Or use Mayday (I guess it can be considered LBB2 System, though that is argeable)

Outside of hexes vs rulers and string, how would you distinguish Mayday and Book 2?

In resume (again IMHO): LBB2 is for role playing, and so gives the protagonism to crewmembers, while HG is operational, and gives the protagonism to ship design (and the few effect key crewmembers might have are usually forgotten or ignored).

HG simply removes the DMs for gunners, but keeps them for pilots and such. For gunners, it's simply impractical with the large ships. Mind I don't think gunner DMs have a place in ship combat.

A bad ship design is going to lose in Book 2 just as it will for HG. Obviously a high level gunner in Book 2 will lead directly to more hits, and that can overcome a bad ship design (have 1 gun mount with a gunner garnering more hits will beat 2 gun mounts that aren't hitting anyday).

TNE gets rid of the map entirely, and uses a range band and whether ships are closing or getting farther apart.
 
Maybe ... but think of the difference in perspective the two systems take.

LBB2 is more of a "god's eye view" of everything where you're moving ship markers around on a map to take potshots at each other. The perspective of the engagement is explicitly EXTERNAL to what's going on. The "view of the battle" is for all intents and purposes from the outside "looking down" onto the playing field where all the vector movement tracking is going on.

Contrast this with LBB5, which is more of a "bridge command view" of everything where it's all about what your ship can do (and avoid) from what amounts to inside your own ship(s). The perspective of the engagement is explicitly INTERNAL inside the respective ships that are engaging. The "view of the battle" is for all intents and purposes what you would get from the bridge "looking OUT" towards the hostile ship(s) you're engaging. Movement, range and agility are all abstracted through the long/short range determined by initiative at the start of each combat round and different weapon systems work better (or not at all) at different ranges. Plus there's armor to mitigate incoming damage if you get hit (assuming you aren't taking internal damage that bypasses armor) and radiation damage to give *fib computers a purpose for existing.

It's that difference in perspective on the battle which is (in my experience) the most fundamental. WATCHING the fight unfold from the outside, as if you were playing a videogame (on a tabletop) is very different from PARTICIPATING in a fight that unfolds from the inside of your ship.

It's the difference between watching a battle unfold using animated arrows moving on a map (from the outside) versus watching the "drama" on the bridge as command decisions are made as the combatants fight each other (seeing the action from the inside) ... which are two VERY DIFFERENT perspectives on the action.

It's a difference between a wargame map view versus a cockpit view of the battle ... if that makes any sense to you. Of the two perspectives, I've found the cockpit view to much more consistently be the more compelling gameplay experience. :cool:
Your mileage may vary, of course. :rolleyes:

it's curious, but I see it totally opposite, with HG being seen as the admiral's POV while LBB2 as the crewmembers'...

So to say, and making a simil with SW, LBB2 gives me the image of the Millenium Falcon with Luke and Han on the turrets and Chewie on he con (and C3PO ranting and disturbing everyone), while the image HG gives to me is more like he Commander of a Star Destroyer, giving orders to hundreds of unnamed extras and seeing their results (OTOH, consistent with the intended scale of each one)...

In RPG situations, I'll always find a superior playtime experience the one which gives me the image of each crewmember (so LBB2). When the crewmembers are too many to know each one, then HG comes to rescue, but the we're probably not talking about an RPG anymore...
 
Only to a point. They're both tactical, unit level, ship on ship combat.

HG abstracts the maneuver part of it, but in truth, maneuver plays little role in open space combat anyway, especially in the Traveller systems.

So, in effect, they're the same.

Book 2 is two ships closing on each other, firing over and over and over again until they screech past each other, yet still continue firing. At which point they can turn about and fly by each other again.

HG pretty much skips that fly by part of the system, save for being able to shift to the reserve line. Other than that, ships firing at each other repeatedly.

Book 2 has more detailed missile combat. On the whole, I don't know if it affects the outcome much on small battles.

My main point was LBB2 is a RPG tool, and as such character centered, while HG was a battlefleet game, and more thought for squadron and up battles.

Both can be used for single ship vs single ship, and i nthis case the scale of the ship would determine wich system I would use.

Outside of hexes vs rulers and string, how would you distinguish Mayday and Book 2?

IIRC (there's years since I played any of them):

  • Missile impact system (in Mayday they didn't roll, if they were not stopped, they hit.
  • In mayday a number of hits in the same turn fully destroyed the ship, while in LBB2 (and HG, for what's worth)the damage was eroding to failure, but full destruction was rare (ships used to be relatively easy repairable

HG simply removes the DMs for gunners, but keeps them for pilots and such. For gunners, it's simply impractical with the large ships. Mind I don't think gunner DMs have a place in ship combat.
IIRC only the commander's ship tactics (that might affect computer number) and pilot (that could affect agility) affected ship to ship combat in HG (no gunners nor engineers skill mattered).

See that the fact agility can be increased while offensive rolls cannot )except by affecting the computer number, but in this case it affects both) made ships more difficult to hit (and in some cases they could even be impossible to hit)

A bad ship design is going to lose in Book 2 just as it will for HG. Obviously a high level gunner in Book 2 will lead directly to more hits, and that can overcome a bad ship design (have 1 gun mount with a gunner garnering more hits will beat 2 gun mounts that aren't hitting anyday)

In RPG good skill levels could made for a bad design or an inferior ship. In HG this was not true (but neither could you keep record of all skills)
 
Last edited:
In Mayday missiles do have a to hit roll... 5+ to hit a ship, 7+ to hit a smallcraft and 9+ to hit a missile

4 or more hits in a single turn kills a ship, with proximity missiles causing 2 hits and a contact missile causing 3

Missiles, and smallcraft, in LBB2/Mayday are a lot more dangerous than they are in HG based combat - missiles especially so if you use SS:3 rules
 
I'm a big HG5 fan, but... for anything PC related Bk2 is the way to go.

IMO HG5 is the combat resolution system for a strategic games that involves and reflects grand strategy and strategic maneouvre. Grand strategy gives the reason for the ships designed in HG to exist. The combat system merely generates the combat results in a manageable way while taking into account those design needs dictated by the grand strategy.

When considering HG5 from a role-playing perspective, the player is the Head of Government, Ship Designer and Grand Admiral all rolled into one. These roles don't fight indivdual ship combats, they build training facilities to create specialist crews for that role to fight in the ships they are provided with.

BK5 in contrast is much smaller scale and explores the detail far better. For example; managing programmes is doable in ship to ship combat where the player is the captain. Not so much in a fleet action involving hundreds of craft of varying sizes and designs on each side.

Just my 2Cr
 
See that the fact agility can be increased while offensive rolls cannot (except by affecting the computer number, but in this case it affects both) made ships more difficult to hit (and in some cases they could even be impossible to hit)

This is not entirely correct.



Agility is a -DM to be hit yourself (defense only).
Agility is a ship design factor.

Pilot/Ship's Boat is a -DM to be hit yourself (defense only).
Subtract 1 from skill level and then divide skill by 2 to determine the -DM.
Skill-3 equals -1 DM to be hit yourself.
Skill-5 equals -2 DM to be hit yourself ... and so on.



Computer model number (ignore *fib for this) is a -DM to be hit yourself and a +DM to hit your target(s).
Computer model number is therefore highly impactful in LBB5 combat since it is both a defensive AND and offensive DM and is very much a ship design factor.

Ship Tactics is a -DM to be hit yourself (depending on size of craft).
Subtract 1 from skill level and then divide skill by 2 to determine the -DM and +DM (defense AND offense).
Skill-3 equals -1 DM to be hit yourself and +1 DM to hit your target(s).
Skill-5 equals -2 DM to be hit yourself and +2 DM to hit your target(s) ... and so on.



The easiest way to think about how these modifiers interact is that Pilot/Ship's Boat skill (in sufficient quantity) in effect adds to Agility with respect to evasion/avoidance of incoming attacks in a way that is defensive only. Ship Tactics skill (in sufficient quantity) in effect adds to Computer model number in a way that is simultaneously defensive AND offensive at the same time.

This means that, skill point for skill point, Ship Tactics is more "impactful" on combat outcomes than Pilot/Ship's Boat skills are. Observe:
  • Pilot-6 / Ship Tactics-1 = -2 DM to be hit, +0 DM to hit enemy
  • Pilot-5 / Ship Tactics-2 = -2 DM to be hit, +0 DM to hit enemy
  • Pilot-4 / Ship Tactics-3 = -2 DM to be hit, +1 DM to hit enemy
  • Pilot-3 / Ship Tactics-4 = -2 DM to be hit, +1 DM to hit enemy
  • Pilot-2 / Ship Tactics-5 = -2 DM to be hit, +2 DM to hit enemy
  • Pilot-1 / Ship Tactics-6 = -2 DM to be hit, +2 DM to hit enemy
Point being that once Pilot-1/Ship's Boat-1 skill is achieved, for combat craft it is more impactful to increase Ship Tactics skill (defense+offense DM) than it is to continue to increase Pilot/Ship's Boat skill (defense DM only) in terms of throughput per skill point earned when it comes to ship to ship combat. Pilot/Ship's Boat skill may be more relevant in non-combat situations however, so the tradeoffs of skill point for skill point are not necessarily 1:1 in ALL situations and circumstances.



And yes, there is a Fleet Tactics skill in LBB5, but that's just a DM on initiative rolls at the start of each combat round ... however, whoever wins initiative gets to choose range (short/long) for that combat round ... and breaking off by acceleration can only be initiated from long range. This means that Fleet Tactics skill abstracts in such a way as to create opportunities to position your "side" of the combat at the range (short/long) that best advantages your ship(s) through winning initiative, which can also be used to prevent an opponent from disengaging if they are losing the fight (breakoff by acceleration can only be initiated from long range), so winning initiative and keeping the battle at short range can prevent opportunities for disengagement. Although winning initiative and choosing range can be impactful in 1v1 combat, it is obviously more meaningful in fleet on fleet engagements.

Cue the Legends of the Galactic Heroes theme references ... :coffeesip:
 
See that the fact agility can be increased while offensive rolls cannot (except by affecting the computer number, but in this case it affects both) made ships more difficult to hit (and in some cases they could even be impossible to hit)
This is not entirely correct.

(...)
While your post is quite informative and detailed, I don't see where it makes mine not entirely correct...

In mine, I said (or at least tried to say) that this use of skills favoured defense, making in fact ships with good pilots harder to hit. You detail it, but, as I see it, your conclusien ends up being the same.

Examples:

  1. fight among 2 ships with OC's Ship Tactics skill 3, the skil leffect is nullified (each OC overcomes the other one skill)
  2. FIght among 2 ships with Pilot's skill 3 means both fire at -1, as (effective) agility is for both increased by 1, and there's no way to counter this.

So, two SDBs as those shown in S9 (200 dton, armor 13, 1 factor 3 laser and 1 factor 4 missile batteries) fight each other.

Lasers: need 7+ to hit. DMs are -1 for size and -6 for agility: they need a 14+ to hit (so will never hit)

Missiles: need 5+ to hit, same DMs (at long range): they need 12+ to hit, so on the long run they will hit (the effect against armor 13 is another matter).

If both have a skill 3 pilot, they add 1 to (effective) agility, so they would need a 13+ to hit with misiles (at long range), and so the combat can last forever (another flaw of HG is that ammunition is not featured) and no damage would be done.

Try to fight them with LBB2 rules (armor will not be used, among other things, and crew is small enough to know all their skills). They will have each 3 beam lasers and 3 missile launchers, and son one of them wil lbe inoperative (and the other one not much better in all likehood).

So, what will give a "superior playtime experience"?

Again, not against HG, just not for this scale...
 
In Mayday missiles do have a to hit roll... 5+ to hit a ship, 7+ to hit a smallcraft and 9+ to hit a missile

4 or more hits in a single turn kills a ship, with proximity missiles causing 2 hits and a contact missile causing 3

Missiles, and smallcraft, in LBB2/Mayday are a lot more dangerous than they are in HG based combat - missiles especially so if you use SS:3 rules

Also in mayday use of the evasion programs cost one gee of thrust.

Damage Control requires the no more than one gee be used in that turn.

Honestly I think the High Guard hack is great for fleet battles in Mayday. Though it brings up the whole concept of direct fire missiles which I kinda like, it removes some of the fussiness from game play.
 
I only ever used Book 5 for things like Launch Tubes and Navy CharGen. I never used the formulas for building nor did I ever use it for combat. I hate Book 5's forward and reserve line only set up. Seemed like lining up with muskets and blasting the other guy's line and not like spaceship combat. Vectors are cooler, and give the players more to do in the combat.

So always CT Book 2 for me.


Settling on the last bit for my mashup of LBB2/LBB5 (hangup is the spinal weapon performance degradation on hits). When done, that's vector movement, tactics matter AND a reason for the line/reserve mechanic.
 
Tell you what, let's spice this thing up. Cut out any spinal weapons, make it only 1-2 ships each side, spec the scenario, ships and TL, I'll run a battle so you can see how what I have been working on works.
 
Tell you what, let's spice this thing up. Cut out any spinal weapons, make it only 1-2 ships each side, spec the scenario, ships and TL, I'll run a battle so you can see how what I have been working on works.

I'm half tempted to suggest using a LBB A1 Kinunir class starship on one side (which was an incredible ship when LBB A1 was published, but the ship kept getting nerfed with every rules update after that) and putting it up against 1-2 "blockade runner" styled ships (of some sort) that are technically "pirates" (or at least, shady dealer smuggler types) who are less interested in a fight than they are in simply getting past the blockade/obstruction the Kinunir class ship is enforcing (somewhere... could even be a literal high guard orbital scenario around a refueling point).

Is that enough of a seed for you to go on?
 
I'm half tempted to suggest using a LBB A1 Kinunir class starship on one side (which was an incredible ship when LBB A1 was published, but the ship kept getting nerfed with every rules update after that) and putting it up against 1-2 "blockade runner" styled ships (of some sort) that are technically "pirates" (or at least, shady dealer smuggler types) who are less interested in a fight than they are in simply getting past the blockade/obstruction the Kinunir class ship is enforcing (somewhere... could even be a literal high guard orbital scenario around a refueling point).

Is that enough of a seed for you to go on?


Seems kinda unfair given what the K is packing, and I think classically it's pretty darn fast.



Let's take the LBB5 version, that's



Maneuver-4 and agility-1.


2 factor-5 laser batteries.


2 factor-3 missile batteries.



2 factor-2 PA turrets.



1 BG-1
1 ND-5



Model 7fib.



It's that last bit that makes her a deadly threat. Most CT ships pirates will operate with have a Model/3 at best, +4 to hit and -4 to miss is pretty overpowered.


How about a Gazelle vs. a Corsair seeking escape instead?
 
Back
Top