Book Two Fleets
- Thread starter infojunky
- Start date
If I am running the game online, sure, I could use my laptop. However, at a gaming table, I want space for books, papers, dice ad a drink. That would limit me to to my 7" Fire ( or possibly my 8" Win 10 tablet), which is too small of a screen to keep track of up to 150 rolls.
High Guard basically gives both bonuses for firing a large number of weapons.
Good. Starship combat (or personal combat, for that matter) should not take hours of real time to handle in an RPG.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No, a battery of several weapons gives a better chance to hit and penetrate defences, but only a single hit.
I would consider a system that lets the first side to shoot win completely, without ever rolling a die or letting the other side to shoot back, to be quite boring.
In the example 50 turrets would fire with a DM +51, negating any difficulty to produce an automatic success, inflicting 100 hits. With Select that is 33 hits to any system the attacker desires, e.g. the power plant, leaving the target(s) drifting helplessly in space, no dice rolls necessary...
You're right, I misremembered how weapon factor affected damage rolls (a lot less than I remembered).
Fire is simultaneous unless there is total surprise.
Where did you get a +51? A triple turret is worth +2. There are 50 turrets: the square root of 50 is 7, minus one, gives a +6, for a total +8 for 50 triple turrets.
Note that this is the best (or worst, if you prefer) scenario for Book 2. Some turrets will have missile racks, some sandcasters and some pulse lasers (pulse and beam weapons are considered different for my house rule).
As for the effects of Select .... Well, that's what happens when unarmored ships get involved in heavy combat. They get crumpled like an aluminum can.
I'm afraid you forgot to tell about the square root:
I guess is from here he took the +50 (though, as I unserstand it, it should be +49, but that makes no real difference...)
Crud. I was typing faster than I was thinking. Original text fixed.
To hit bonus for battery = sqrt (# turrets) - 1
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No, each player (Intruder and Native) has a turn, only the Intruder fires in the Intruder Fire Phase. So the Intruder fires first.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Ah, that's the other reason I didn't like CT starship combat and didn't really use it. I prefer the "everyone fires, then roll for damage" model.
Add "damage is not resolved until all ships are finished firing" to my house rules.
Yes, and I said that was a mistake on my part. I left out the very important square root bit.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
OK.
Triple turret +2.
50 turrets is √50 -1 = 7 - 1 = +6.
Total +6 + 2 = +8.
Basic system, Best case:
ToHit: +3[Predict] -5[Man/Evade-6] = -2, hit on 10+ (17%). Any sand or range DM makes hits nearly impossible.
50 triple turrets is 150 weapons, 17% is average 25 hits.
Proposed system, Best case:
ToHit: +8[#] +3[Predict] -5[Man/Evade-6] = +6, hit on 2+ (100%).
50 triple turrets inflicts 100 hits times 100% is average 100 hits, target killed.
Basic system, normal case:
ToHit: +3[Predict] -5[Man/Evade-6] -2[range] -3[sand] = -7, hit on 15+ (0%).
50 triple turrets is 150 weapons, 0% is average 0 hits.
Proposed system, normal case:
ToHit: +8[#] +3[Predict] -5[Man/Evade-6] -2[range] -3[sand] = +1, hit on 7+ (58%).
50 triple turrets inflicts 100 hits on hit, so 58% killed. With Double Fire 1 - ( 1 - 58% )² = 83% chance of target killed.
I think the proposed system is still too good...
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
A simpler system would be that the attacker can group as many weapons as he likes into a single attack roll without any extra DMs, inflicting as many hits as weapons fired.
That would be the same average hits as the basic system.
That would be the same average hits as the basic system.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
You are a good bit of the way to High Guard already...
It would be easier. Only thing I really need to add is a medium range.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
A few years ago I posted something about using the boardgame combat matrices (FFW/IE) to determine number of hits from massed turret fire from big LBB2 ships.
No of lasers firing is combat factor then you roll the dice, cross reference for number of hits.
So for 150 lasers firing that would be 3 rolls on the 48 factor and 1 roll on the 6 factor.
min 21 hits, average 28 hits, max 38 hits.
DMs shift the column you use after totalling the DMs
No of lasers firing is combat factor then you roll the dice, cross reference for number of hits.
So for 150 lasers firing that would be 3 rolls on the 48 factor and 1 roll on the 6 factor.
min 21 hits, average 28 hits, max 38 hits.
DMs shift the column you use after totalling the DMs
Last edited:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
How about just dealing with each pip as it's 9% chance, no range adjustment is short range, -2 is medium range and -5 is long range, die roll +/- range/gunner/sand/computer or program DMs, multiply 2d6-1 result x .09 x potential hits.
So with a normal range of rolls, one could get 9-99%. With negative DMs, some low rolls at range or other negative DMs may not hit at all.
Example roll 7, no DMs.
7 x .09 = .63
.63 x 150 = 94.5 or 94 hits.
At medium .45 x 150 = 67 hits, long .18 x 150= 27 hits
That''s an extreme example of handling all 150 hits on one roll. I would expect grouping shots by DM mods, most notably gunner skill.
Additional thoughts to HGize CT-
Mounting bays are as per HG limits.
In addition, for EP-rated bays or screens the power plant must be a rating higher then the M-drive per bay- if power damage drops to even or below the current M-drive, the bay(s) cannot fire and the screens cannot protect (alternatively the drive can be used at a lower rating freeing up power for the bays/screens).
To determine damage from powered bays, the weapons factor is multiplied x5, and PA and Meson Guns deliver x5 factor in radiation hits using the radiation table from SS3. The 2d6 roll is then performed, DMs applied and damage determined as per above.
Missile bays are 150 missiles for 50-ton bays and 300 missiles for 100-ton bays, typically fired in 5-missile salvos if resolving missile by missile. Or if by bay, x5 per missile factor, x10 if nuclear plus x10 radiation, multiplied by the die roll +/- DMs.
The advantage of a missile bay is continuing firing, the now-empty part can start reloading from a magazine while the bay continues launching from full cells.
Anti-missile shots against incoming missiles are resolved on the hit +/- DMs x potential hits of lasers/energy weapons system.
NDs resolve individual nukes on 3+, otherwise die roll x ND factor x 5 and subtract from nuclear hit total.
Meson Screens subtract 100 + factor hits to Meson Gun hits.
All weapons use the 1977 damage table except for Meson Guns and nuclear weapons, which use the 1981 table (in other words MGs and nukes can get critical hits, the others cannot).
For high number of hit resolves, simply roll damage as normal and apply 5 hits per roll. This should get some randomized results while speeding resolution.
Energy weapons cannot fire on targets past short range, and fire with a +2 DM.
Meson guns get +2 on targets at short range, and -1 DM for every potential G the target ship is NOT using for acceleration.
Armor rating is resolved by rolling 1d6 per armor rating, that number of hits may be changed to fuel hits.
I feel pretty confident that I don't have all the ratios exactly right, but this sort of thing could be the starting point of making something workable.
Last edited:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Hmm, or Imperium.
Beam factor= lasers/10.
Missile factor=missiles/10 or missile bay factor
Shields= 1000 dtons/100 + Armor rating/3
Note while I did state book 2 for ship design, I didn't specify a combat system.
Honestly I use a flavor of Mayday combined with Book 2 and a bit from High Guard. And as such Laser fire isn't going to be the 1st shot in most combats, but a missile launch is. In that Mayday has some pretty stiff range penalties for laser fire, and as such the effectively cuts ranges to 10% of Book 2 (note the range comparison is about the relative ratios, not the specific scales of either game).
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Has anyone considered what form of ship could train 50 laser turrets on the same target at the same time? I visualize a ship looking like a pencil, with 25 turrets on one side and 25 turrets on the exact opposite side, with the ability to engage the same target with all 50 turrets in a narrow band centered on a line 90 degrees perpendicular to the axis of the turrets.
My problem with constructing warships using Book 2 or the Classic Rules is that the construction process treats warships as simply heavily-armed merchant ships, somewhat akin to the ships of the Elizabethan period. Then, the difference between a heavily-armed merchant ship and a purpose-built warship was not that great.
The above quote shows that the sensors of a military ship are considerably different from the sensors of a merchant ship. A four-fold increase in detection range is a massive difference in capability, and should indicate a massive difference in cost, if the sensor cost are lumped into the cost of the ship bridge. Likewise, a warship is going to have to have a large amount of redundancy built into it in order to absorb damage, along with a high degree of compartmentalization. Those are not going to be needed on a merchant ship. Warships should cost at least double, and more likely more than double, the cost of the same size of merchant ship. A warship is going to put a premium on high acceleration, while to a merchant ship, high acceleration just means a more expensive ship with less carrying capacity.
Remember, a merchant ship's primary purpose is to generate income for the owner. If it fails at that, it is a dead loss as a ship. A warship's primary purpose is combat and the ability to survive combat. Those two facts are pretty much mutually exclusive.
My problem with constructing warships using Book 2 or the Classic Rules is that the construction process treats warships as simply heavily-armed merchant ships, somewhat akin to the ships of the Elizabethan period. Then, the difference between a heavily-armed merchant ship and a purpose-built warship was not that great.
The above quote shows that the sensors of a military ship are considerably different from the sensors of a merchant ship. A four-fold increase in detection range is a massive difference in capability, and should indicate a massive difference in cost, if the sensor cost are lumped into the cost of the ship bridge. Likewise, a warship is going to have to have a large amount of redundancy built into it in order to absorb damage, along with a high degree of compartmentalization. Those are not going to be needed on a merchant ship. Warships should cost at least double, and more likely more than double, the cost of the same size of merchant ship. A warship is going to put a premium on high acceleration, while to a merchant ship, high acceleration just means a more expensive ship with less carrying capacity.
Remember, a merchant ship's primary purpose is to generate income for the owner. If it fails at that, it is a dead loss as a ship. A warship's primary purpose is combat and the ability to survive combat. Those two facts are pretty much mutually exclusive.
creativehum
SOC-14 1K
I see your point, timerover. But I think this comes down to the kind of setting someone wants. If one looks at the nearby thread about inspirations for Traveller/The Third Imperium, and the information about the Dumarest books specifically, what becomes apparent is that in its original incarnation the Book 2 rules create a setting where ships work exactly as you don't like -- but are still a viable option.
Boomslang touched on this with his post a while back:
For some settings (the Dumarest setting, boomslang's setting, my setting) treat "warships as simply heavily-armed merchant ships, somewhat akin to the ships of the Elizabethan period. Then, the difference between a heavily-armed merchant ship and a purpose-built warship was not that great."
This is neither good nor bad, but what it is. Different people will want different things; different people want different settings. You don't want this, and that's great. But the difference you point out might be exactly what someone else wants.
