CT Combat Redux

[Pickles]

Extensive tests have shown that even with gun-freak grognards (a.k.a. 'my game group'), that kind of detail isn't really necessary to play. Even in the RW, hits are generally more to do with the user than the weapon. I would stick with a simpler system. You'll get more play-time in, which is what counts (as I often remind myself).

 

[Pickles]

Extensive tests have shown that even with gun-freak grognards (a.k.a. 'my game group'), that kind of detail isn't really necessary to play. Even in the RW, hits are generally more to do with the user than the weapon. I would stick with a simpler system. You'll get more play-time in, which is what counts (as I often remind myself).

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
Extensive tests have shown that even with gun-freak grognards (a.k.a. 'my game group'), that kind of detail isn't really necessary to play. Even in the RW, hits are generally more to do with the user than the weapon. I would stick with a simpler system. You'll get more play-time in, which is what counts (as I often remind myself).

So, you propose that I use my table, or the MT table?

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Bromgrev:
Extensive tests have shown that even with gun-freak grognards (a.k.a. 'my game group'), that kind of detail isn't really necessary to play. Even in the RW, hits are generally more to do with the user than the weapon. I would stick with a simpler system. You'll get more play-time in, which is what counts (as I often remind myself).

So, you propose that I use my table, or the MT table?

 

[Pickles]

Personally, I would stick with (broader) weapon groups. One of my pet peeves with CT is the proliferation of combat tables. CT has at least twice as many range bands as are needed to get reasonable granularity in play. Striker is a better base (IMO) than MT.

Just personal preference, though - it depends on how much complexity (in play and in preparation) you're happy with .

 

[Pickles]

Personally, I would stick with (broader) weapon groups. One of my pet peeves with CT is the proliferation of combat tables. CT has at least twice as many range bands as are needed to get reasonable granularity in play. Striker is a better base (IMO) than MT.

Just personal preference, though - it depends on how much complexity (in play and in preparation) you're happy with .

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I liked your tables, 2-4601. Broad enough to not get in the weeds, yet still give a bit of distinction.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I liked your tables, 2-4601. Broad enough to not get in the weeds, yet still give a bit of distinction.

 

[beowulf2044]

The system that has served me well since the early 80's was to use the Book 1&4 range tables for the 'to hit' mods, which gave nice variation to the individual weapons. Then, weapon damage was reduced via Azanti High Lightning armour values. (note: AHL has some slight differences with Striker; when they don't match I use AZH as it came first). I've managed some fast and furious multi-player combats in this manner, and from what I've seen, speed and pacing make for a better game experience

 

[beowulf2044]

The system that has served me well since the early 80's was to use the Book 1&4 range tables for the 'to hit' mods, which gave nice variation to the individual weapons. Then, weapon damage was reduced via Azanti High Lightning armour values. (note: AHL has some slight differences with Striker; when they don't match I use AZH as it came first). I've managed some fast and furious multi-player combats in this manner, and from what I've seen, speed and pacing make for a better game experience

 

[Golan2072]

Movement-wise, I am trying to decide between square grid (1.5m grid indoor, 24m grid outdoors) and a range-band system (probably divided into indoor and outdoor too - otherwise all indoor combat will be inside Close and Short range, instead of Close, Short and Medium). What's your take on this?

 

[Golan2072]

Movement-wise, I am trying to decide between square grid (1.5m grid indoor, 24m grid outdoors) and a range-band system (probably divided into indoor and outdoor too - otherwise all indoor combat will be inside Close and Short range, instead of Close, Short and Medium). What's your take on this?

 

[Supplement Four]

I use both.

Typically, I'll plot movement on standard 1.5m squares.

I've got this cork board I've mentioned before that I picked up at an office supply store...and some large-sheet graph paper that I bought from an artists' supply store.

I use a marker to draw the lay-out of where-ever the characters are, and I use pins to represent the characters.

This is very visual. I find my player like to "see" where they are.

And, positions keeps nicely in-between games as the pins stick in the corkboard.

Sometimes, I'll pop out some official deck plans and use counters (I'm thinking of trying cardboard heroes next time), because I wouldn't want to mess up my deck plans with pin holes.

And then again...

Sometimes I just use the range band method straight out of Book 1 for impromptu fights.

 

[Supplement Four]

I use both.

Typically, I'll plot movement on standard 1.5m squares.

I've got this cork board I've mentioned before that I picked up at an office supply store...and some large-sheet graph paper that I bought from an artists' supply store.

I use a marker to draw the lay-out of where-ever the characters are, and I use pins to represent the characters.

This is very visual. I find my player like to "see" where they are.

And, positions keeps nicely in-between games as the pins stick in the corkboard.

Sometimes, I'll pop out some official deck plans and use counters (I'm thinking of trying cardboard heroes next time), because I wouldn't want to mess up my deck plans with pin holes.

And then again...

Sometimes I just use the range band method straight out of Book 1 for impromptu fights.

 

[TRADE MARK]

There has always been an argument for revising the basic combat system from as far back as I can remember. Players would often point out that the basic protocol was too deadly resulting in players hiding behind N.P.C.s at every gunfight. I like Employee's ideas although I am unacquainted with the task sytem it doesn't look too unwieldy.
It was interesting to hear Runequest mentioned as I remember this game to me had the most satisfactory combat system I had ever come across in a R.P.G. Especially remembered with affection was the damage allocation method this game used, where different body parts were targetted and targettable by percentiles. Would this way of taking damage crossover into Traveller effectively?

 

[TRADE MARK]

There has always been an argument for revising the basic combat system from as far back as I can remember. Players would often point out that the basic protocol was too deadly resulting in players hiding behind N.P.C.s at every gunfight. I like Employee's ideas although I am unacquainted with the task sytem it doesn't look too unwieldy.
It was interesting to hear Runequest mentioned as I remember this game to me had the most satisfactory combat system I had ever come across in a R.P.G. Especially remembered with affection was the damage allocation method this game used, where different body parts were targetted and targettable by percentiles. Would this way of taking damage crossover into Traveller effectively?

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by TRADE MARK:
There has always been an argument for revising the basic combat system from as far back as I can remember. Players would often point out that the basic protocol was too deadly resulting in players hiding behind N.P.C.s at every gunfight. I like Employee's ideas although I am unacquainted with the task sytem it doesn't look too unwieldy.

The task system (Universal Game Mechanic, or UGM) was devised by WJP and revised by me; you could download the system in PDF-form here. In a nutshell, you roll 2D for 8+; DM+Skill and DM+/-Difficulty. If the "natural" (i.e. before applying the skill or difficulty DMs) 2D roll is equal or lower than the linked acharacteristic, add another DM of +1. A UGM task is listed like this: SKILL/CHARACTERISTIC/DIFFICULTY, for example Pistol/DEX/-2 means:

1) Roll 2D;
2) If the 2D roll is equal or lower to your Dexterity score, add DM+1;
3) Add your Pistol skill as a +DM;
4) Apply the Difficulty DM-2;
5) If the total is equal or greater than 8, you succeed; if it is lower than 8, you fail.

Hitting a target in ranged combat is a Skill/DEX/DM task, where Skill is the skill relevant to the weapon being used, DEX is the character's Dexterity score and DM is the DM to hit at the specific range, taken from the LBB1 or LBB4 Range Matrixes (copy the DMs appropriate to your weapons to your character sheet).

Hitting a target in melee combat is a Skill/STR/DM task, where Skill is the skill relevant to the weapon being used, STR is the character's Strength score and DM is the DM to hit at the specific range, taken from the LBB1 or LBB4 Range Matrixes (copy the DMs appropriate to your weapons to your character sheet).

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by TRADE MARK:
There has always been an argument for revising the basic combat system from as far back as I can remember. Players would often point out that the basic protocol was too deadly resulting in players hiding behind N.P.C.s at every gunfight. I like Employee's ideas although I am unacquainted with the task sytem it doesn't look too unwieldy.

The task system (Universal Game Mechanic, or UGM) was devised by WJP and revised by me; you could download the system in PDF-form here. In a nutshell, you roll 2D for 8+; DM+Skill and DM+/-Difficulty. If the "natural" (i.e. before applying the skill or difficulty DMs) 2D roll is equal or lower than the linked acharacteristic, add another DM of +1. A UGM task is listed like this: SKILL/CHARACTERISTIC/DIFFICULTY, for example Pistol/DEX/-2 means:

1) Roll 2D;
2) If the 2D roll is equal or lower to your Dexterity score, add DM+1;
3) Add your Pistol skill as a +DM;
4) Apply the Difficulty DM-2;
5) If the total is equal or greater than 8, you succeed; if it is lower than 8, you fail.

Hitting a target in ranged combat is a Skill/DEX/DM task, where Skill is the skill relevant to the weapon being used, DEX is the character's Dexterity score and DM is the DM to hit at the specific range, taken from the LBB1 or LBB4 Range Matrixes (copy the DMs appropriate to your weapons to your character sheet).

Hitting a target in melee combat is a Skill/STR/DM task, where Skill is the skill relevant to the weapon being used, STR is the character's Strength score and DM is the DM to hit at the specific range, taken from the LBB1 or LBB4 Range Matrixes (copy the DMs appropriate to your weapons to your character sheet).

 

[Fritz_Brown]

And, you wouldn't hide behind the NPCs (the police) IRL if it came to a shooting match?

Most folks who complain about the deadliness of Traveller combat are really only concerned about deadliness to their own characters.

Lots of folks have mentioned hit location charts around these parts. It seems most (though not all) think it takes too much time or adds too many dice rolls.

WJP, try using those ones (cutouts) that Scarecrow has put together. I think he has several sheets available by now. Why can't you make a copy of the deckplans, then put them on the cork board? Attach the cutouts to the pins, and you've got the best of everything.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

And, you wouldn't hide behind the NPCs (the police) IRL if it came to a shooting match?

Most folks who complain about the deadliness of Traveller combat are really only concerned about deadliness to their own characters.

Lots of folks have mentioned hit location charts around these parts. It seems most (though not all) think it takes too much time or adds too many dice rolls.

WJP, try using those ones (cutouts) that Scarecrow has put together. I think he has several sheets available by now. Why can't you make a copy of the deckplans, then put them on the cork board? Attach the cutouts to the pins, and you've got the best of everything.