Conventional Spaceflight

[whartung]

We have no such provision for conventional space combat in the core rules. Starcruiser presents such a mechanic for large scale stutterwarp engagements but anything closer/slower is considered immobile and just a microscopic part of one hex.

I believe we need a scale to work with, approprate stats for thrust and attitude (perhaps a simplified vector movement system aka. ) and ranges for sensors and weapons at this scale of combat. Then of course there is the matter of the damage crossover between starships and vehicles, which is the topic of another thread.

You can just adopt the TNE combat and design system for this. FF&S has rules integrating Stutterwarp with normal ships. FF&S has rules for SW in general, and the rest of the ship is the same, just pick an appropriate tech level for 2300 to build power plants, etc. This handles all the other "what if I shoot my tank at the ship" questions as well.

Pretty sure, long term, if they decided to do anything, GDW would have ported 2300 to the "house" rule set. But FF&S should let you work with any of the 2300 tech, and you can just drag and drop personal weapons (rifles, pistols, knives) from TNE to 2300. Basically, just using TNE rules on top of the 2300 background. How much did the original 2300 inspire the house rules system anyway? There's definitely a heritage there.

Obviously ships designed this way won't be compatible with stock designs, but you can try and re-design stock designs with FF&S and see what happens.

The FF&S rules don't have any considerations for weapons. They hit or don't like anything else, they don't take into account any affect the flicker might have.

 

[rgrove0172]

I apolgize, its probably obvious but.. could you identify TNE and FF&S?

 

[Cryton]

I apolgize, its probably obvious but.. could you identify TNE and FF&S?

TNE= Traveller: The New Era

FF&S= Fire, Fusion and Steel.

~Rich

 

[rgrove0172]

Im downloading both now, Ill check them out.

Giving them both a quick read. TNE seems very similar to the MTr rules as far as space combat is concerned - though MTr seems to hve cleaned it up a bit. As for FF&S... WOW! Impressive but also rather intimidating. That looks like a LOT of conversion work, on top of the already monster responsibilities of a GM. Stock full of good ideas but Im not sure a full conversion is even a consideration, unless I want to postpone my campaign for a few months!

 

[McPerth]

I apolgize, its probably obvious but.. could you identify TNE and FF&S?

You'll find most of the abbreviatioons used in this fórum in this thread (though sometimes it an be quite caotic):

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=27482

 

[McPerth]

Sorry to pick this thread back up but I think we have arrived at the core of my question. How would conventional flight, and the engagement of hostilities, be represented in your game?

Like the Vehicle Combat rules? My thoughts too but..

Looking at the combat example in the Director's guide for a minute we see that the vehicles appear to be moving, according to their given movement rates, across some sort of map or display. There are descriptions of objects being between this vehicle and that one etc. They are obviously consulting some sort of map to help invision the action as the vehicles move about and fire on one another. This is typically the way, even if abstractly, most combats are worked out.

We have no such provision for conventional space combat in the core rules. Starcruiser presents such a mechanic for large scale stutterwarp engagements but anything closer/slower is considered immobile and just a microscopic part of one hex.

I believe we need a scale to work with, approprate stats for thrust and attitude (perhaps a simplified vector movement system ) and ranges for sensors and conventional and starship weapons at this scale of combat. Then of course there is the matter of the damage crossover between starships and vehicles, which is the topic of another thread.

Does this narrow down the problem Im having? Is there a more simple solution? Maybe some conversion work on Mayday or Full Thrust? (with a downsized scale of course) But it seems it shouldnt be that involved.

Again, Three Blind Mice can give some ideas here (though IDK how much canon can it be considered):

Challenge 37, page 44.
Last paragraph on Interface and Ground combat, Three Blind Mice:

Ships attempting to land on or take off from world take a number of minutes equal to the formula (ship tonnage x G on the world/MW of power plant x lift value)*. <snip> One third of this time is considered to be in atmosphere. Atmospheric effects severely degrade the performace of weapons designed for use in space. Star Cruiser weapons fire at a ship in atmosphere at -5 to hit.**.

• Notes:
  
• * I guess the formula would be (ship tonnage x G on the world)/(MW of power plant x lift value), as, IMHO it makes it more logical. See that MW power is used here instead of thrust. This may be due to the Killiecrankie uses its nuclear reactor for thrust, by heating the fuel (like a nuclear teakette), so it may be specific for it, while shuttles should somewhat substitute it for thrust.
  
• ** Bold is original, Underlining is mine.

In general I don't use to use maps, runing combats more as description of the situations (maybe because I'm an awful painter and drawer ). IMHO those combats may well be resolved by narrative, instead that over a map, using non-Star Cruiser weapons as told before. See that interface crafts (such as armed scramplanes or shuttles) may have the advantage here, the stutterwarp ships being out of their element both in maneuverability and armament.

I personally keep thinking vehicle rules should be used, and conventional (non-stutterwarp) missiles could be used against those orbiting (and nearly immobile) ships. Beams could be used against those missiles, but I'm not sure about how to handle it, as the missiles ae not much smaller tan the space ones, if they must be able to reach orbit (maybe the beams should be factored in the evasión factor for the ship, as long as they are manned...)

 

[rgrove0172]

Upon a bit more reading of FF&S it appears its a wonderous tome on the construction of systems but lends nothing towards their application. And its the application that Im discussing in this thread. How to represent the instance of space combat and manuevering in the more conventional engagement setting.

Ill place the blaim on me, as Im probably not presenting my points very clearly... Ive become a bit rattled by weeks of looking through volumes of material.

The reference to the vehicle rules keeps reappearing but Im still at a loss. I do understand a more narrative form of combat... I actually prescribe to that myself as typically I dont want to play a wargame in the middle of a RPG session. But in this case it becomes tough when guaging distances, closure rates, attitudes and whatnot in the middle of an orbital engagement.

Do you as the GM simply "make up" the necessary rolls on a whim based on a more or less theatrical view of the action as opposed to a tactical one?

"There are 2 drones on fast approach from your ships's 3 oclock, they are several kilometers out but moving in on a intercept course... you have maybe 3 minutes before they arrive and assuming they dont launch something at you before then, they will be in laser or particle range any second. Do you want to evade? A hard burn now could net you some time but even at full thrust it looks like they will catch you, but perhaps far enough out of orbit to engage your Stutterdrive - if you can bring it online in time"

 

[McPerth]

Do you as the GM simply "make up" the necessary rolls on a whim based on a more or less theatrical view of the action as opposed to a tactical one?

"There are 2 drones on fast approach from your ships's 3 oclock, they are several kilometers out but moving in on a intercept course... you have maybe 3 minutes before they arrive and assuming they dont launch something at you before then, they will be in laser or particle range any second. Do you want to evade? A hard burn now could net you some time but even at full thrust it looks like they will catch you, but perhaps far enough out of orbit to engage your Stutterdrive - if you can bring it online in time"

Yes, this would be more or less my style of refereeing.

Like you, I want to distinguish wargaming from roleplaying (while I like both), and try to make the less use posible of wargaming while roleplaying, unless this is a mixted camapign asn the Tree Blind Mice or Lone Wolf I quoted so often in those discussions, or a CT mercenary campaign.

But see even in TBM what would be wargaming out of Star Cruiser is represented abstractly, withe the interface and ground combat rules, more akin of the CT Bk4 Mercenary abstract combat system than to Striker.

 

[rgrove0172]

ok, we are on the same page... I suppose what remains then is my belief that to engage in such a theatrical exchange, you have to have some data to make rulings. How fast are those drones? How fast is your ship's conventional drives? What are the range of their particle weapons? How fast are one of their missiles if they launch?

With some values of some kind, anything is possible but as it is now, there arent any. I suppose a house system is probably going to be necessary.

 

[whartung]

"There are 2 drones on fast approach from your ships's 3 oclock, they are several kilometers out but moving in on a intercept course... you have maybe 3 minutes before they arrive and assuming they dont launch something at you before then, they will be in laser or particle range any second. Do you want to evade? A hard burn now could net you some time but even at full thrust it looks like they will catch you, but perhaps far enough out of orbit to engage your Stutterdrive - if you can bring it online in time"

That all works fine for a boat on the water.

It doesn't work well for space.

Detection ranges tend to be vast, engagement ranges are also mind boggling long, and then on top of that you have the performance of light speed weapons, which takes everything we "intuitively" know of ship to ship combat off the table. You can not out maneuver a laser. You have to out maneuver the laser mount, which is effectively a mirror on a gimbal and needs to change in angles measured in micro arc seconds.

Those missiles coming in are trying to reach the fine line between when they can detonate their nuclear payloads (assuming they're armed of course) and when they are guaranteed to be blotted out of the sky by anti-missile laser fire.

So, you can scale them out, to farther range, to where a humans reaction time plus any mechanical operations can be performed. A laser can travel 65,000 KILOMETERs in the time a human being can even begin to react, much less actually finish the reaction task.

That's just to give you the scope of what you're trying to manifest, and trying to work with. Combine those range and speeds with something "stupid" like a computer driven warhead that will "decide your fate in a microsecond".

I posited the TNE rule set and FF&S because it has a scalable damage model. The TNE starship system uses range band and narrative, Brilliant Lances is the detailed, 2D hex based rule set. But you can use narrative and the damage system to work your encounters. You can hand wave armor comparisons between what you think they might be in 2300 and convert them to TNE, and contrast a couple of weapons to get damage values and penetration possibilities.

The key difference with TNE is that the lasers penetrate REALLY well, but don't do much damage per se. This damage model is probably quite distinct from the 2300 damage model.

Your combat needs only be consistent within your game, right? It's not a tournament or anything.

 

[shaunhilburn]

"There are 2 drones on fast approach from your ships's 3 oclock, they are several kilometers out but moving in on a intercept course... you have maybe 3 minutes before they arrive and assuming they dont launch something at you before then, they will be in laser or particle range any second. Do you want to evade? A hard burn now could net you some time but even at full thrust it looks like they will catch you, but perhaps far enough out of orbit to engage your Stutterdrive - if you can bring it online in time"

Drama should balanced with realism. IMHO, orbital combat won't be this dynamic.

Objects orbiting in the deadzone are pretty much "on rails", like trains with limited ability to switch tracks owing to the use of chemical rocketry and limited propellants. The sort of maneuvers you imagine are *very* fuel-intensive, and hard burns to avoid incoming missiles, while dramatic just aren't realistic.

Given the power of targeting computers and beam weapons in 2300, close-range orbital combat would be like sharpshooters in a tar-pit, shooting each other from 50 yards.

From close orbit around most habitable planets, the suborbital climb out of the deadzone takes around 2 hours. That's a long time to be "on rails" in a hotly contested space environment.

 

[rgrove0172]

I have only one player so no.. no tournament of any kind.. but he will want to know that my rulings are based on consistent fact, not mere conjecture and spur of the moment artistic license. There should be some consistencies.

Yes, my example was terribly "terresterial" but it made the point. A narrative handling of combat is not only acceptable but prefered in my case... Id just like the supporting data.. comparitive values, weapon and sensor ranges, relative speeds etc.

 

[rgrove0172]

Ok, Im beginning to have a change of perception here. I have never been imagining a space dogfight or anything but I suppose I wasnt quite on board with just how predictable and difficult manuevering, even in 2300, would be in space. Burns that require minutes to initiate only to alter your vector a few degrees or change your speed by a small percentage. Engagement distances of thousands of kilometers and tracking mechanisms that practically guarantee a hit.

Combat at less than stutterwarp speeds might well be a slugfest, short, violent and not very dramatic.

Would you increase the ranges of vehicle weapons in space?

 

[rgrove0172]

Im considering dropping Star Cruiser entirely and adopting Travellers "range band" approach, then working up a smaller scaled version (something like what is mentioned in "Orbit") for the conventional situations.