Classic Traveller Combat?

[DonM]

OK, so CT combat comes with several flavors...

There's the standard "range band" combat, with Characteristic mods, fatigue blows, and armor makes it harder/easier to hit.

Then there's that with Snapshot flavoring, adding an action point system.

Then there's the AHL/Striker combat orientation, with the armor decreases damage.

And a combination of the two... for example, as a future referee looking in, "range band" plus Striker hit/resolution using char mods appears to be a very clean way to go.

But I'm looking for experiences, and what "feels" like a better combat, vs. what "plays" like a better combat.

I don't want HOUSE RULES, or a Personal Combat system - I want opinions of the various published rules mechanisms.

Also, if anyone is using the DELTA FORCE combat system -- I'd really like some comments on that experience.

 

[DonM]

OK, so CT combat comes with several flavors...

There's the standard "range band" combat, with Characteristic mods, fatigue blows, and armor makes it harder/easier to hit.

Then there's that with Snapshot flavoring, adding an action point system.

Then there's the AHL/Striker combat orientation, with the armor decreases damage.

And a combination of the two... for example, as a future referee looking in, "range band" plus Striker hit/resolution using char mods appears to be a very clean way to go.

But I'm looking for experiences, and what "feels" like a better combat, vs. what "plays" like a better combat.

I don't want HOUSE RULES, or a Personal Combat system - I want opinions of the various published rules mechanisms.

Also, if anyone is using the DELTA FORCE combat system -- I'd really like some comments on that experience.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by DonM:
Also, if anyone is using the DELTA FORCE combat system -- I'd really like some comments on that experience.

Well, slap me with a cod. Never thought I'd come across that old game here. It's been a long time since I played it (10 years at least), but let's see what I can remember ...

It's definitely a gun-⌧ system, with the ability to customise stats for every conceivable type of weapon and ammo. In fact, given a second-generation word processor and lots of free time, I once created a Delta Force conversion for Traveller including vast weapons tables way beyond anything Striker had ever dreamed of. Halcyon days ...

The wound system went sort of light-moderate-serious, but with lots of gritty little details depending on where you got hit, and bleeding rules, and so on.

Now, it was a fun system at the time because we were all young gun freaks obsessed with simulationist combat systems. For that, Delta Force was good, as it was basically a combat system with bits grafted on. Given its premise of anti-terrorist operations, it was more of a skirmish-level wargame than a true RPG. So, if you're looking for that kind of thing, Delta Force is definitely worth a look.

There are problems with it, though. It's undeniably a US-biased game, with US characters and weapons stats being superior to everything else. You have to be very careful with the weapon stats, and a bit of research into reality is needed to rationalise them - especially as technology has moved on quite a bit since the 80s.

It's definitely quite a complex combat system at first, but IIRC we got used to it fairly rapidly, and didn't need to check the rulebook at every roll of the dice. It handled guns, grenades and wounding well. It did get very clunky if you had too many participants, though. And we hated the hand-to-hand system for reasons which escape me now.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by DonM:
Also, if anyone is using the DELTA FORCE combat system -- I'd really like some comments on that experience.

Well, slap me with a cod. Never thought I'd come across that old game here. It's been a long time since I played it (10 years at least), but let's see what I can remember ...

It's definitely a gun-⌧ system, with the ability to customise stats for every conceivable type of weapon and ammo. In fact, given a second-generation word processor and lots of free time, I once created a Delta Force conversion for Traveller including vast weapons tables way beyond anything Striker had ever dreamed of. Halcyon days ...

The wound system went sort of light-moderate-serious, but with lots of gritty little details depending on where you got hit, and bleeding rules, and so on.

Now, it was a fun system at the time because we were all young gun freaks obsessed with simulationist combat systems. For that, Delta Force was good, as it was basically a combat system with bits grafted on. Given its premise of anti-terrorist operations, it was more of a skirmish-level wargame than a true RPG. So, if you're looking for that kind of thing, Delta Force is definitely worth a look.

There are problems with it, though. It's undeniably a US-biased game, with US characters and weapons stats being superior to everything else. You have to be very careful with the weapon stats, and a bit of research into reality is needed to rationalise them - especially as technology has moved on quite a bit since the 80s.

It's definitely quite a complex combat system at first, but IIRC we got used to it fairly rapidly, and didn't need to check the rulebook at every roll of the dice. It handled guns, grenades and wounding well. It did get very clunky if you had too many participants, though. And we hated the hand-to-hand system for reasons which escape me now.

 

[The Oz]

I never used any of the official combat systems as published. I always just had characters roll "to-Hit", then roll damage. I applied modifiers to the rolls based on what I thought things should be, and most importantly I kept things moving.

I didn't want combat to drag, I didn't want it to become the focus of the gaming session. I wanted to emphasize two things when I ran combat:

1. Combat with modern and ultra-modern weapons is fast, because

2. Combat with modern and ultra-modern weapons is lethal.

PCs IMTU learned to shoot from cover, change positions, and surprise the enemy. Failure to do this meant new PCs.....

 

[The Oz]

I never used any of the official combat systems as published. I always just had characters roll "to-Hit", then roll damage. I applied modifiers to the rolls based on what I thought things should be, and most importantly I kept things moving.

I didn't want combat to drag, I didn't want it to become the focus of the gaming session. I wanted to emphasize two things when I ran combat:

1. Combat with modern and ultra-modern weapons is fast, because

2. Combat with modern and ultra-modern weapons is lethal.

PCs IMTU learned to shoot from cover, change positions, and surprise the enemy. Failure to do this meant new PCs.....

 

[SgtHulka]

If I were to start refereeing a campaign, I'd use the "whatever feels right at the time" method.

If it's a random encounter with some animals, or the characters getting shot by a sniper over two-hundred meters away, I'd use Book 1 Range Band.

If it's a shipboard combat for which I have the deck plans in miniatures scale and it's the climax of the adventure, I'd use Snapshot.

If it's a paramilitary encounter with an enemy armored fighter vehicle the characters are trying to disable, I'd use Book 1 Range Band + Striker resolution.

And if it's a big mercenary combat the characters aren't directly involved in and the outcome of which isn't the climax of the adventure, I'd use the abstract system from Book 4.

 

[SgtHulka]

If I were to start refereeing a campaign, I'd use the "whatever feels right at the time" method.

If it's a random encounter with some animals, or the characters getting shot by a sniper over two-hundred meters away, I'd use Book 1 Range Band.

If it's a shipboard combat for which I have the deck plans in miniatures scale and it's the climax of the adventure, I'd use Snapshot.

If it's a paramilitary encounter with an enemy armored fighter vehicle the characters are trying to disable, I'd use Book 1 Range Band + Striker resolution.

And if it's a big mercenary combat the characters aren't directly involved in and the outcome of which isn't the climax of the adventure, I'd use the abstract system from Book 4.

 

[DonM]

I received a PM asking why I mentioned the DELTA FORCE combat system...

The Keith brothers designed it as a rewrite of the Traveller combat system. It has to be considered as another direction the game could have taken.

And I've not been able to get my hands on a copy in over 15 years.

And Sgt. Hulka, your thoughts are real close to where I'm at right now; having both Range Band and Snapshot available, but I'm considering using the Striker hit/resolution mechanism for everything.

 

[DonM]

I received a PM asking why I mentioned the DELTA FORCE combat system...

The Keith brothers designed it as a rewrite of the Traveller combat system. It has to be considered as another direction the game could have taken.

And I've not been able to get my hands on a copy in over 15 years.

And Sgt. Hulka, your thoughts are real close to where I'm at right now; having both Range Band and Snapshot available, but I'm considering using the Striker hit/resolution mechanism for everything.

 

[Golan2072]

CT-LBB1 combat feels a bit like Firefly - fast-paced, bloody, quite lethal, but not TOTALLY lethal. Shots HURT you big time, but you'll still have a good chance of recovering after some time at the medbay and some stitches even if you're knocked out. CT-LBB1 combat is also geared towards the small group of civilian or paramilitary combatants rather than soldiers in a full-out battlefield.

Striker, on the other hand, feels like a WWII war-movie, especially if personal body armor is limited; shots KILL in many cases, bigger guns KILL MESSILY. Significant armor SAVES LIVES, and higher-tech battledresses shrug off damage, but a cheap TL-7 ATGL (e.g. RPG-7) will leave nothing but a pair or smoking boots out of you even if you'll be using high-TL battledress. Striker is also geared towards larger combat and vehicles.

 

[Golan2072]

CT-LBB1 combat feels a bit like Firefly - fast-paced, bloody, quite lethal, but not TOTALLY lethal. Shots HURT you big time, but you'll still have a good chance of recovering after some time at the medbay and some stitches even if you're knocked out. CT-LBB1 combat is also geared towards the small group of civilian or paramilitary combatants rather than soldiers in a full-out battlefield.

Striker, on the other hand, feels like a WWII war-movie, especially if personal body armor is limited; shots KILL in many cases, bigger guns KILL MESSILY. Significant armor SAVES LIVES, and higher-tech battledresses shrug off damage, but a cheap TL-7 ATGL (e.g. RPG-7) will leave nothing but a pair or smoking boots out of you even if you'll be using high-TL battledress. Striker is also geared towards larger combat and vehicles.

 

[DonM]

That's what I'm looking for... I want to run a game that plays like Firefly, but feels like something between the Big Red One and Platoon.

 

[DonM]

That's what I'm looking for... I want to run a game that plays like Firefly, but feels like something between the Big Red One and Platoon.

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by DonM:
That's what I'm looking for... I want to run a game that plays like Firefly, but feels like something between the Big Red One and Platoon.

Oh, well, that's easy - use BRP!

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by DonM:
That's what I'm looking for... I want to run a game that plays like Firefly, but feels like something between the Big Red One and Platoon.

Oh, well, that's easy - use BRP!

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by DonM:
OK, so CT combat comes with several flavors...

And a combination of the two... for example, as a future referee looking in, "range band" plus Striker hit/resolution using char mods appears to be a very clean way to go.

But I'm looking for experiences, and what "feels" like a better combat, vs. what "plays" like a better combat.

I don't want HOUSE RULES, or a Personal Combat system - I want opinions of the various published rules mechanisms.

In my opinion, the Striker combat system is best. I've never cared for the action point systems of Snapshot and Azhanti High Lightning, so I'd probably just stay with the classic Traveller "range band" system (or with the Striker movement system appropriately scaled for the 1.5 meter grid).

I know that you don't want "house rules", but there are three adjustments that are (IMHO) critical for best use of the Striker combat system.

1. I'd ditch the idea of converting Striker wounds into 3d6 damage for light wounds, and 6d6 for serious wounds. These numbers are really too high for the effects, and they add a third die roll to an otherwise clean system. I'd just use the wound effects as listed in Striker (player characters are elites) or convert the Striker modified penetration roll directly into damage points.

2. There's a fatal flaw in the Striker/AHL combat system -- penetration and damage are the same thing. While in many cases, this is reasonable, it results in high penetration weapons being unreasonably lethal against unarmored targets. (Other games, like GURPS, also have this problem). The solution is actually quite simple, though. Simply limit the maximum bonus to the penetration roll to +3 (or +4 for powerful weapons).

3. The Striker system doesn't tell you how to handle large creatures when hit by Striker wepaons. Since I don't use hit points, I give large creatures a +1 to their armor for every size code greater than 8. If you use hit points, you'll need more damage classes. I suggest that you add 3 dice for every 3 points above 11 that the penetration roll totals. I'd also raise the maximum penetration bonus in #2 above by the same modifier as the creature's armor bonus for size.

--Ty

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by DonM:
OK, so CT combat comes with several flavors...

And a combination of the two... for example, as a future referee looking in, "range band" plus Striker hit/resolution using char mods appears to be a very clean way to go.

But I'm looking for experiences, and what "feels" like a better combat, vs. what "plays" like a better combat.

I don't want HOUSE RULES, or a Personal Combat system - I want opinions of the various published rules mechanisms.

In my opinion, the Striker combat system is best. I've never cared for the action point systems of Snapshot and Azhanti High Lightning, so I'd probably just stay with the classic Traveller "range band" system (or with the Striker movement system appropriately scaled for the 1.5 meter grid).

I know that you don't want "house rules", but there are three adjustments that are (IMHO) critical for best use of the Striker combat system.

1. I'd ditch the idea of converting Striker wounds into 3d6 damage for light wounds, and 6d6 for serious wounds. These numbers are really too high for the effects, and they add a third die roll to an otherwise clean system. I'd just use the wound effects as listed in Striker (player characters are elites) or convert the Striker modified penetration roll directly into damage points.

2. There's a fatal flaw in the Striker/AHL combat system -- penetration and damage are the same thing. While in many cases, this is reasonable, it results in high penetration weapons being unreasonably lethal against unarmored targets. (Other games, like GURPS, also have this problem). The solution is actually quite simple, though. Simply limit the maximum bonus to the penetration roll to +3 (or +4 for powerful weapons).

3. The Striker system doesn't tell you how to handle large creatures when hit by Striker wepaons. Since I don't use hit points, I give large creatures a +1 to their armor for every size code greater than 8. If you use hit points, you'll need more damage classes. I suggest that you add 3 dice for every 3 points above 11 that the penetration roll totals. I'd also raise the maximum penetration bonus in #2 above by the same modifier as the creature's armor bonus for size.

--Ty

 

[Golan2072]

Another point about CT-LBB1 combat that supports the Firefly feel of it: "lucky shots". Usually you'll have some chance to hit a heavily armored opponent, even if this chance is slim. Sometimes you could luck out and take out an armored opponent with a pistol shot, as opposed to Striker where enough armor (9-10 or more AV more than your weapon's PEN) simply prevents damage. So CT-LBB1 is somewhat more conductive towards the lightly-armed underdog (i.e. the typical Firely-style adventurer with a revolver, autopistol or shotgun) than Striker.

 

[Golan2072]

Another point about CT-LBB1 combat that supports the Firefly feel of it: "lucky shots". Usually you'll have some chance to hit a heavily armored opponent, even if this chance is slim. Sometimes you could luck out and take out an armored opponent with a pistol shot, as opposed to Striker where enough armor (9-10 or more AV more than your weapon's PEN) simply prevents damage. So CT-LBB1 is somewhat more conductive towards the lightly-armed underdog (i.e. the typical Firely-style adventurer with a revolver, autopistol or shotgun) than Striker.