Classic Traveller Combat?

[aramis]

CT bk1: Too simple, range bands concept an abstraction, doesn't work well on ships AS WRITTEN.

Snapshot: Same exact attack protocols (Snapshot is a reformat of the tables, but is the SAME data). The action points slow play down just a touch, but make it MUCH more suitable for shipboard (rather than dark alley) kind of combats.

Striker: As written... shudder. too fiddly. Replacing just the to-hit and damage systems, it's a bloodier system, and tough characters lose out, while weak ones gain quite a bit.

AHL: the action point system works quite well, and not having the ordering rules makes it playable as is.

Delta Force: Uh... I've run it, yes, it's US Gun ⌧. If you're going that way, maybe, but I'd say AHL is FAR better, and it's on par with Snapshot.

Note: I'd recomend a hybrid house-rule anyway, if you want deadly but fast: use striker stats (to-hit data, pen, av), but use the striker damage roll (2d6+Pen-AV) as the number points per die of damage listed in Bk 1 (So multiply (2d6+Pen-AV)*(Bk1NumDice) )

 

[aramis]

CT bk1: Too simple, range bands concept an abstraction, doesn't work well on ships AS WRITTEN.

Snapshot: Same exact attack protocols (Snapshot is a reformat of the tables, but is the SAME data). The action points slow play down just a touch, but make it MUCH more suitable for shipboard (rather than dark alley) kind of combats.

Striker: As written... shudder. too fiddly. Replacing just the to-hit and damage systems, it's a bloodier system, and tough characters lose out, while weak ones gain quite a bit.

AHL: the action point system works quite well, and not having the ordering rules makes it playable as is.

Delta Force: Uh... I've run it, yes, it's US Gun ⌧. If you're going that way, maybe, but I'd say AHL is FAR better, and it's on par with Snapshot.

Note: I'd recomend a hybrid house-rule anyway, if you want deadly but fast: use striker stats (to-hit data, pen, av), but use the striker damage roll (2d6+Pen-AV) as the number points per die of damage listed in Bk 1 (So multiply (2d6+Pen-AV)*(Bk1NumDice) )

 

[Whipsnade]

Don,

I must agree with all the combat system 'reviews' previously posted. Any choice between them should be guided by the GM's and player's needs and nothing else.

Have you seen or tried ACQ? I've used it for some one-offs at a local FLGS, showing Heroclix and D&D kiddies how much fun guns and a more realistic combat system can be. To me at least, ACQ runs like an updated version of AHL.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Don,

I must agree with all the combat system 'reviews' previously posted. Any choice between them should be guided by the GM's and player's needs and nothing else.

Have you seen or tried ACQ? I've used it for some one-offs at a local FLGS, showing Heroclix and D&D kiddies how much fun guns and a more realistic combat system can be. To me at least, ACQ runs like an updated version of AHL.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[DonM]

I actually have ACQ, and I didn't like it. I'm really not sure why, I can't put my finger on any one thing, but I just like both Snapshot and AHL over ACQ.

Maybe it's the T4 influence. I'm really not sure.

And I'm liking the suggestions that Aramis and tbeard posted. I said no House Rules, but I may borrow those anyway.

 

[DonM]

I actually have ACQ, and I didn't like it. I'm really not sure why, I can't put my finger on any one thing, but I just like both Snapshot and AHL over ACQ.

Maybe it's the T4 influence. I'm really not sure.

And I'm liking the suggestions that Aramis and tbeard posted. I said no House Rules, but I may borrow those anyway.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:

I know that you don't want "house rules", but [...]

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).

This reminds me vaguely of the "blow-through" rule... excessive penetration equates to a bullet (for example) blowing through the target, limiting the damage.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:

I know that you don't want "house rules", but [...]

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).

This reminds me vaguely of the "blow-through" rule... excessive penetration equates to a bullet (for example) blowing through the target, limiting the damage.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:

I know that you don't want "house rules", but [...]

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).

This reminds me vaguely of the "blow-through" rule... excessive penetration equates to a bullet (for example) blowing through the target, limiting the damage. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, that's even what I call it. Although in reality, the round might not actually "blow through" the target. The mechanic is designed to minimize the distortion inherent in equating penetration with damage. Really big weapons should have a little higher maximum penetration bonus.

Awhile back, I posted my mods for using the Striker combat system in Traveller. They include a more comprehensive treatment of my suggestions in this thread.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000298

This system seems to hit the sweet spot for me and my players -- and we have LOTS of shooting in our games.

I've come around to the notion that hit points are a pretty poor way to simulate the effects of gun wounds (and maybe other kinds of wounds as well). My readings indicate that bullets tend to be rather binary in their effect -- they either stop the target cold (usually by hitting something critical) or they have comparatively little effect on the target's ability to continue the fight. Of course, the target may die in an hour or two from blood loss, or whatever, but he's not seriously impaired in the current fight.

So, the Striker system, with its series of "wounds" is a good starting point for me. One change that I made is that less serious wounds do not accumulate into more serious wounds -- this is really no different than hit points. Characters can theoretically take an unlimited number of light wounds, although the -1 modifiers are cumulative and the player character will ultimately be rendered useless. NPC rabble are knocked out by light wounds and killed by serious wounds, releiving me of having to hassle with them.

I am working on a new combat system that will work similarly to the modified Striker system above, but will use single d10 rolls for hitting, hit location and damage. This will allow "parallel processing" -- i.e., you can roll multiple shots at the same time -- which will speed things up.

I blow hot and cold on hit location. While it's important in the Real World, it slows the game down because it invariably seems to involve a hit location roll (or a really fiddly system that isn't worth the trouble in the end). One idea I've toyed with is to have the player decide where the round hit whenever he suffers a serious wound or a light wound (after the first light wound).

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tbeard1999:

I know that you don't want "house rules", but [...]

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).

This reminds me vaguely of the "blow-through" rule... excessive penetration equates to a bullet (for example) blowing through the target, limiting the damage. </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, that's even what I call it. Although in reality, the round might not actually "blow through" the target. The mechanic is designed to minimize the distortion inherent in equating penetration with damage. Really big weapons should have a little higher maximum penetration bonus.

Awhile back, I posted my mods for using the Striker combat system in Traveller. They include a more comprehensive treatment of my suggestions in this thread.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000298

This system seems to hit the sweet spot for me and my players -- and we have LOTS of shooting in our games.

I've come around to the notion that hit points are a pretty poor way to simulate the effects of gun wounds (and maybe other kinds of wounds as well). My readings indicate that bullets tend to be rather binary in their effect -- they either stop the target cold (usually by hitting something critical) or they have comparatively little effect on the target's ability to continue the fight. Of course, the target may die in an hour or two from blood loss, or whatever, but he's not seriously impaired in the current fight.

So, the Striker system, with its series of "wounds" is a good starting point for me. One change that I made is that less serious wounds do not accumulate into more serious wounds -- this is really no different than hit points. Characters can theoretically take an unlimited number of light wounds, although the -1 modifiers are cumulative and the player character will ultimately be rendered useless. NPC rabble are knocked out by light wounds and killed by serious wounds, releiving me of having to hassle with them.

I am working on a new combat system that will work similarly to the modified Striker system above, but will use single d10 rolls for hitting, hit location and damage. This will allow "parallel processing" -- i.e., you can roll multiple shots at the same time -- which will speed things up.

I blow hot and cold on hit location. While it's important in the Real World, it slows the game down because it invariably seems to involve a hit location roll (or a really fiddly system that isn't worth the trouble in the end). One idea I've toyed with is to have the player decide where the round hit whenever he suffers a serious wound or a light wound (after the first light wound).

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
NPC rabble are knocked out by light wounds and killed by serious wounds, releiving me of having to hassle with them.

I was thinking about having three kinds of NPCs: Bugs, Extras/Mooks/Grunts and Main Characters. Bugs would ignore Light Wounds but die on Serious wounds (as the Chamax were handled in JTAS IIRC); Extras would be knocked out by a Light Wound and killed be a Serious Wound; Main Characters would use the same rules as the PCs.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
NPC rabble are knocked out by light wounds and killed by serious wounds, releiving me of having to hassle with them.

I was thinking about having three kinds of NPCs: Bugs, Extras/Mooks/Grunts and Main Characters. Bugs would ignore Light Wounds but die on Serious wounds (as the Chamax were handled in JTAS IIRC); Extras would be knocked out by a Light Wound and killed be a Serious Wound; Main Characters would use the same rules as the PCs.

 

[Golan2072]

A note about T4 combat - I don't have much experience with it, but from how I understand it I see it as less lethal than CT-LBB1 combat, as armor absorbs damage rather than prevent hits. So you'll get hit far more often in T4 than in CT, but each hit would usually cause you only a little bit of damage if you have a good enough suit of armor. This eliminates the "lucky shots" which you could get in CT against armored opponents, making combat against armored opponents somewhat more predictable.

Without armor, though, T4 damage and wounding feel quite similarly to CT - getting shot HURTS, but a single shot would rarely kill you.

EDIT: On the other hand, CT weapons feel very different from T4 weapons. While T4 weapons have very few characteristic (damage, TL/cost/weight, ammo cost/weight, effective range and the skill used), CT weapons have quite alot of nuances and differences between them, reflected in the various DMs to hit. Different weapons have a different difficulty to use (reflected in the Minimum/Advantageous Dexterity/Strength), different effectiveness vs. different armor types, and different effetiveness in different ranges. This leads to each weapon having a different "feel" even though most do similar damage if they hit.

 

[Golan2072]

A note about T4 combat - I don't have much experience with it, but from how I understand it I see it as less lethal than CT-LBB1 combat, as armor absorbs damage rather than prevent hits. So you'll get hit far more often in T4 than in CT, but each hit would usually cause you only a little bit of damage if you have a good enough suit of armor. This eliminates the "lucky shots" which you could get in CT against armored opponents, making combat against armored opponents somewhat more predictable.

Without armor, though, T4 damage and wounding feel quite similarly to CT - getting shot HURTS, but a single shot would rarely kill you.

EDIT: On the other hand, CT weapons feel very different from T4 weapons. While T4 weapons have very few characteristic (damage, TL/cost/weight, ammo cost/weight, effective range and the skill used), CT weapons have quite alot of nuances and differences between them, reflected in the various DMs to hit. Different weapons have a different difficulty to use (reflected in the Minimum/Advantageous Dexterity/Strength), different effectiveness vs. different armor types, and different effetiveness in different ranges. This leads to each weapon having a different "feel" even though most do similar damage if they hit.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
[...]This eliminates the "lucky shots" which you could get in CT against armored opponents, making combat against armored opponents somewhat more predictable.

H'mm, that's a good observation. I'll have to think about that one.

EDIT: On the other hand, CT weapons feel very different from T4 weapons. While T4 weapons have very few characteristic (damage, TL/cost/weight, ammo cost/weight, effective range and the skill used), CT weapons have quite alot of nuances and differences between them, reflected in the various DMs to hit. Different weapons have a different difficulty to use (reflected in the Minimum/Advantageous Dexterity/Strength), different effectiveness vs. different armor types, and different effetiveness in different ranges. This leads to each weapon having a different "feel" even though most do similar damage if they hit.

And that is another good observation. Perhaps that's due to using FFS2 to design the T4 weapons -- there are no nuances in FFS2.

I think T5 has the means by which to remedy that.

T4 had some measure of armor type versus weapon type, with flexible versus rigid armor. And of course it retained reflec. But your point still stands.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
[...]This eliminates the "lucky shots" which you could get in CT against armored opponents, making combat against armored opponents somewhat more predictable.

H'mm, that's a good observation. I'll have to think about that one.

EDIT: On the other hand, CT weapons feel very different from T4 weapons. While T4 weapons have very few characteristic (damage, TL/cost/weight, ammo cost/weight, effective range and the skill used), CT weapons have quite alot of nuances and differences between them, reflected in the various DMs to hit. Different weapons have a different difficulty to use (reflected in the Minimum/Advantageous Dexterity/Strength), different effectiveness vs. different armor types, and different effetiveness in different ranges. This leads to each weapon having a different "feel" even though most do similar damage if they hit.

And that is another good observation. Perhaps that's due to using FFS2 to design the T4 weapons -- there are no nuances in FFS2.

I think T5 has the means by which to remedy that.

T4 had some measure of armor type versus weapon type, with flexible versus rigid armor. And of course it retained reflec. But your point still stands.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
EDIT: On the other hand, CT weapons feel very different from T4 weapons. While T4 weapons have very few characteristic (damage, TL/cost/weight, ammo cost/weight, effective range and the skill used), CT weapons have quite alot of nuances and differences between them, reflected in the various DMs to hit. Different weapons have a different difficulty to use (reflected in the Minimum/Advantageous Dexterity/Strength), different effectiveness vs. different armor types, and different effetiveness in different ranges. This leads to each weapon having a different "feel" even though most do similar damage if they hit.

I've always liked that about CT. A player will pick a weapon for his character that is best suited to his character--rather than the weapon that does the most damage (because of the Adv/DisAdv DMs).

And, like in the real world, it made it easy to create "like" weapons with slightly different specs. You can have an AK-47 and an M-16 lie side by side. In T4 terms, these are the exact same weapons. But, in CT terms, they may be the exact same weapons...but if the GM chooses, its easy to tweak a single DM by a point making the AK-47 have slightly different characteristics than the M-16 (as the weapons do in the real world).

I always thought that was brilliant about CT.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
EDIT: On the other hand, CT weapons feel very different from T4 weapons. While T4 weapons have very few characteristic (damage, TL/cost/weight, ammo cost/weight, effective range and the skill used), CT weapons have quite alot of nuances and differences between them, reflected in the various DMs to hit. Different weapons have a different difficulty to use (reflected in the Minimum/Advantageous Dexterity/Strength), different effectiveness vs. different armor types, and different effetiveness in different ranges. This leads to each weapon having a different "feel" even though most do similar damage if they hit.

I've always liked that about CT. A player will pick a weapon for his character that is best suited to his character--rather than the weapon that does the most damage (because of the Adv/DisAdv DMs).

And, like in the real world, it made it easy to create "like" weapons with slightly different specs. You can have an AK-47 and an M-16 lie side by side. In T4 terms, these are the exact same weapons. But, in CT terms, they may be the exact same weapons...but if the GM chooses, its easy to tweak a single DM by a point making the AK-47 have slightly different characteristics than the M-16 (as the weapons do in the real world).

I always thought that was brilliant about CT.

 

[aramis]

Bk1: I prefer the Snapshot tables, but yes, it's pretty good if you don't mind the table lookups.

(Snapshot is the same data in a different order.)

 

[aramis]

Bk1: I prefer the Snapshot tables, but yes, it's pretty good if you don't mind the table lookups.

(Snapshot is the same data in a different order.)