CT/HG Range Bands

[Whipsnade]

No BL, and Mayday kinda makes me queasy- vector mechanics are more portable then CT, but the time scale is annoying.

You know you can change the time scale, right? Adjust Mayday's turn lengths to LBB:2 and make the requisite adjustments to hex size and movement? It's done in miniature gaming all the time. You could also do something as easy as ruling 1 hex = 1mm and play LBB:2 on hexes.

In the vector games, I didn't get a nudging effect...

That's because you haven't played it enough. Mayday's rules about 4 hits in one turn destroying a ship and 3 hits over three turns doing the same make players very skittish about putting their ships within potential weapons envelopes.

If things go against one side, they aren't going to nudge, they are going to run.

No one is suggesting that the side getting pasted is going to "nudge" their way out of danger. "Nudging" is about all putting your opponent on the wrong foot, about placing them in a "fork" similar to chess.

You're failing to comprehend two important things about vector movement. First, any future position is just a sphere of possible positions. Second, the movement choices made previously can seriously constrain movement choices both present and future. Vector movement allows you to "bluff", "bait", or "buffalo" an opponent. You can hint at a future positions which you have no intention of occupying. Those possible future positions "express" certain weapons envelopes which an opponent may want to avoid. Because past movement decisions influence future ones, a series of feints can "lock" your opponent into a future position where you can drop the hammer.

Combat in the Age of Sail saw a somewhat similar system of nudges, feints, bluffs. Wind direction, speed, and maneuverability already constrained movement and that sometimes allowed one ship or squadron to force their opponent to chose between a few unpalatable choices.

This is Phase I...

Phase 1? You're not there yet. You need to decide on a scale first. Everything flows from that. In ASL a single MG is important, in PanzerBlitz it's not even seen. You want a system which simultaneously allows for Beowulfs and Plankwells while also not being as detailed as something like Harpoon or Seekrieg. That isn't going to happen.

And, I AM saying that you can operate separate subfleets at different ranges instead of one big blob.

And I'm saying all those different ranges are inside the One Big Blob and mostly for operational reasons.

Cause I am going for a finer scale then classic HG.

That's debatable because you haven't selected a scale yet.

If you have read what I have...

I have and it's mess. You can't fully explain what you're doing because you don't yet fully understand it yourself. Make some decisions, choose a scale, and start dropping what doesn't fit.

Harpoon can model a battle between a torpedo boat and battleship only because it's extremely detailed. Once you start to whittle away at the amount of detail, other stuff has to be whittled away too. Things are going to get granular and things are going to get lost. It can't be helped.

You want tactical maneuvering of some sort? The "sniping spinals" you keep mentioning? Then choose just what a tactical element consists of in you game and drop everything that is smaller. Panzerblitz doesn't use squads and Victory in the Pacific doesn't use destroyers even in grouped squadrons.

Now as to the differing subfleets position relative to each other, this phase is more abstracted as the range band mechanic won't necessarily capture those 45 degree angle courses to open up or cut the square to close and that action happening against 2-4 other groups, enemy and friendly. So I am looking more to the die roll to handle it.

You're describing the "tactical board" from Avalanche Press' edition of Imperium. It didn't work in that game either.

Good luck.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

At TL 13 and below, sub-100dTon "fighters" can mission kill their cost in larger ships in one combat round.

I've seen this argument a few times, but I can't recreate it.

Can you show me the fighter design, e.g. at TL-12?


As a target I can provide this fairly standard TL-12 meson rock (with Agility-0 it should be easy to hit):

BR-K9014F3-J41106-148C5-0     MCr 17 561      17 000 Dton
bear        B   1 BB11G                          Crew=176
batt        B   1 BB11G                             TL=12
                       Cargo=65 Fuel=752 EP=752 Agility=0

With tender (safely screened in the reserve):

TB-M6212F3-000000-00000-0     MCr 12 644      30 000 Dton
bear                                             Crew=141
batt                                                TL=12
                      Cargo=298 Fuel=600 EP=600 Agility=1

Totally MCr ~30 000 per meson rock.


Alternatively we can use a fast frigate as target:

FF-A1267F2-460100-34009-0      MCr 1 762       1 500 Dton
bear        1     11  1                           Crew=36
batt        1     11  1                             TL=12
                       Cargo=17 Fuel=110 EP=110 Agility=6

 

[Whipsnade]

I've seen this argument a few times, but I can't recreate it.

You can't recreate it for two reasons.

First, the meson rock you posted is a broken design because it's armor level, J, exceeds it's tech level, C.

Try using the rules as written and see what happens.

Second, as your broken design indicates, you're purposely building extreme designs to "prove" some predetermined "result". The "smoke tests" run at the ct starships Yahoo Group used published designs to see what would happen rather than specific designs meant to produce a desired result.

All systems break down at extremes, so saying an extreme design doesn't work within a system "proves" nothing. The Yahoo Group ran a statistical experiment whose results surprised some people and reminded others while your use of extreme and broken designs is just an exercise in bias confirmation.

Can you show me the fighter design, e.g. at TL-12?

The simplest and most effective carried a triple missile turret firing nukes. The other carried weapon load-outs with an eye towards the highest USP battery factor; triple lasers and double fusion gun. None carried mixed turrets.

Some designs had bridges and others didn't. In most cases the major difference between bridge/no bridge designs turned out to be having fewer of fighters due to costs rather than in the -1 DRM to To Hit rolls.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

First, the meson rock you posted is a broken design because it's armor level, J, exceeds it's tech level, C.

Buffered planetoid 6 + armour 12 = total armour 18. Perfectly valid, if somewhat expensive.

The ships represent the ships I would typically use at TL-12, so they are not extreme nor designed to prove a pre-conceived notion.

The ships I posted used armour or agility as defence, since we can't get both at TL-12. I would agree that with neither they would easily be defeated by nukes (from any source).

The simplest and most effective carried a triple missile turret firing nukes. The other carried weapon load-outs with an eye towards the highest USP battery factor; triple lasers and double fusion gun. None carried mixed turrets.

Some designs had bridges and others didn't. In most cases the major difference between bridge/no bridge designs turned out to be having fewer of fighters due to costs rather than in the -1 DRM to To Hit rolls.

You mean something like this (with bridge)?

FH-0106C60-000000-00002-0        MCr 156          72 Dton
bear                  1                            Crew=1
batt                  1                             TL=12
                       Cargo=0 Fuel=9,3 EP=9,32 Agility=6

Or (without bridge)?

FH-0106G50-000000-00002-0        MCr 140          50 Dton
bear                  1                            Crew=1
batt                  1                             TL=12
                            Cargo=1 Fuel=8 EP=8 Agility=6

Laser or Fusion fighters assume that the enemy use only light armour?

Wouldn't a mixed Fusion-Missile be strictly better than a Fusion-Fusion?

 

[Whipsnade]

Perfectly valid, if somewhat expensive.

Yes it is. I counted wrong.

Your "tests" still fail due to the second reason I posted: confirmation bias. You created a design not to test the system but to break it. All systems break down at the extremes.

Test published designs against published designs. Testing outliers proves nothing.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Your "tests" still fail due to the second reason I posted: confirmation bias. You created a design not to test the system but to break it. All systems break down at the extremes.

I posted reasonably effective designs made in a few minutes. Of course they are designed to win battles, they are warships.

Are fighters with max agility and max computers less extreme than frigates with the same agility and computer?

Test published designs against published designs. Testing outliers proves nothing.

Do we have any reasonably good TL11-13 warship designs published? The only I can think of is the Eurisko fleet and that is hardly mainstream...

 

[kilemall]

You're failing to comprehend two important things about vector movement. First, any future position is just a sphere of possible positions. Second, the movement choices made previously can seriously constrain movement choices both present and future. Vector movement allows you to "bluff", "bait", or "buffalo" an opponent. You can hint at a future positions which you have no intention of occupying. Those possible future positions "express" certain weapons envelopes which an opponent may want to avoid. Because past movement decisions influence future ones, a series of feints can "lock" your opponent into a future position where you can drop the hammer.

Combat in the Age of Sail saw a somewhat similar system of nudges, feints, bluffs. Wind direction, speed, and maneuverability already constrained movement and that sometimes allowed one ship or squadron to force their opponent to chose between a few unpalatable choices.

There are other ways to approach those battles then this solution set. A LOT depends on the scenario and also speed willing to take. Remember, I am incorporating kinetic damage coming up, so this is going to play VERY differently in that some situations will be 'skittish' trading fire in gun lines approaches, but others where there will be 'torpedo' runs and tactical sacrifice to gain strategic advantage.

Phase 1? You're not there yet. You need to decide on a scale first. Everything flows from that. In ASL a single MG is important, in PanzerBlitz it's not even seen. You want a system which simultaneously allows for Beowulfs and Plankwells while also not being as detailed as something like Harpoon or Seekrieg. That isn't going to happen.

The scale is ALREADY here, for the first three phases it will be these 200000km range bands. Phase IV is the only one that will be outside that paradigm, and again some people will likely want differing layers of abstraction Do the courtesy of reading and comprehending before dismissal.

And I'm saying all those different ranges are inside the One Big Blob and mostly for operational reasons.

Hmm, no actually in CT there is a BIG difference between +0 DM, -2 and -5 ranges. I am putting that in range band form, with a contact range plus which makes small craft and ACS potentially lethal, and big ships exploding if they close.

That's debatable because you haven't selected a scale yet.

Read again.

I have and it's mess. You can't fully explain what you're doing because you don't yet fully understand it yourself. Make some decisions, choose a scale, and start dropping what doesn't fit.

Actually no I don't have to 'scale' by dropping ship classes at all as small to large resolution is part of the design goal. I'm doing individual ships, but then again a lot of our Starfire games were 100+ ship melees so maybe my idea of individual ship scale is different then others.

And small ships are part of the equation, whether closing or swept aside as a scouting/picket force.

Harpoon can model a battle between a torpedo boat and battleship only because it's extremely detailed. Once you start to whittle away at the amount of detail, other stuff has to be whittled away too. Things are going to get granular and things are going to get lost. It can't be helped.

A game is like a book- it's about perspective, presentation, a POV. Choices are indeed made to 'tell the story' you want to tell. So yes it won't be exactly like HG, which is rather the point as HG has a level of abstraction way beyond what I am shooting for here.

You want tactical maneuvering of some sort? The "sniping spinals" you keep mentioning? Then choose just what a tactical element consists of in you game and drop everything that is smaller. Panzerblitz doesn't use squads and Victory in the Pacific doesn't use destroyers even in grouped squadrons.

I am going to end up with something like Imperium in that smaller ships can rarely hurt larger ships, but if you are willing to close to suicide range economically 'cheaper' fleets can do outsize damage, with a bit of skill and luck.

As such the smaller ships need to be able to do outsize damage, but at great cost to themselves and potential futility.

I'll also end up with simpler fire and resolution AND more choices per ship. Remember, I like having two 'scales' of resolution, big background combat, and player resolution. The Power/Tactics scheme should give more of a feel of choice without overcomplication, and the damage resolution in the later phase should reduce the rolls appreciably, and without having to do the above or MgT barrage rules.

You're describing the "tactical board" from Avalanche Press' edition of Imperium. It didn't work in that game either.

Good luck.

Friend of mine that played Imperium with me (we got so desperate we got Marc on the phone for a rules question in the 1980s, poor man) found out about the new version, and we playtested the tactical board. It was a total mess, and did nothing for the game. Told them, but I think they were too far along to consider serious changes.

The JTAS Imperium planet add-on was more fun.

So I saw it before most of you, and have no desire or conception of recreating that disaster. This isn't that system, much more like the range bands that have been in most versions of the ground tactical game since the beginning.

If you have something specific beyond 'you don't know what you want', which is patently not true, feel free to add it. Clarity of rules expression or mechanic is an historic problem for Traveller rules, I'm definitely up for improving 'assumptions' I may have about whether they are clear.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Test published designs against published designs. Testing outliers proves nothing.

This is a published TL-12 warship design:

BA-K952563-J41100-34003-0     MCr13 030.385   11 100 Dton
bear        1     11  V                          Crew=131
batt        1     11  V                             TL=12
         V=54 Troops=35 Cargo=8 Fuel=555 EP=555 Agility=2
[B]Note[/B]: L-hyd drop tanks add 5,550 tons of fuel and mass (BA-K931363), 
change the agility to 1, and cost MCr5.56. The ship is designed to 
maneuver when carrying up to 16,650 tons of drop tanks.

Can you point me in the direction of the published fighter that can mission kill it in a single round for a reasonable cost? It should only take about 6740 Miss-2 batteries...

 

[mike wightman]

I have a TL12 95t heavy fighter somewhere - m/A 6, #2 missile, model 6 computer and bridge - cost is in the region of MCr150 IIRC.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I made a design yesterday in post #84, but apparently only published designs count.

 

[Whipsnade]

If you have something specific beyond 'you don't know what you want', which is patently not true,...

Sadly, it is true. Try stepping back far enough and looking at these two statements:

I'll also end up with simpler fire and resolution AND more choices per ship.

two 'scales' of resolution, big background combat, and player resolution.

"Simpler fire" AND "more choices per ship"? There are going to be more choices but it's okay because they're only simple choices? Does make any sense to you? Those two design goals are diametrically opposed.

"Big combat with big fleets" AND individual "player resolution"? You're going to be running a large battle involving large numbers of large ships with large numbers of large weapons and yet the system is going to put a game on hold while you somehow determine the fate of the Third Assistant Vice Deputy Laundry Officer? And you're going to distort this high level game by apply DRMs based on PC skills to something as "small" as a 2D6 roll? Does that make any sense to you?

You don't know what you want because still you don't know what you don't need.

You've got a grab bag of design features you've fallen in love with, design features which operate best at different scales. While all those scales can be bashed together somewhat, doing so will require a host of rules. Despite that one of your goals is to produce a simple game. Again does that make any sense to you?

The Power/Tactics scheme should give more of a feel of choice without over complication...

Without over complication? You still haven't been able to explain the Power/Tactics scheme in a fashion which anyone other than you can understand.

It was a total mess, and did nothing for the game. Told them, but I think they were too far along to consider serious changes.

There used to be an editorial of sorts at Boardgame Geek by one of the AP bigwigs describing the failure of the Imperium development process. Essentially, they lost control of the game. Everyone involved kept adding their pet theories and no one was wielding an editorial axe so the game collapsed under the weight.

So I saw it before most of you, and have no desire or conception of recreating that disaster.

You may not be consciously recreating it, but you're sure as hell stumbling along in it's foot steps. You've got a clutch of pet theories and play mechanisms which you're going to kludge together come hell or high water and no matter what the result.

You want advice? Here it is: PICK ONE PRIMARY DESIGN FEATURE and stick to it above all else. Doesn't matter what it is. Tactical maneuvering modeled via range bands. Weapons/ranges interactions. Streamlined damage methods. Whatever. Choose ONE and one only.

Add any other the pet theories as long as they don't impact your primary design goal in any manner at all. Keep what effects a pet theory produces in mind rather than the pet theory itself. Some pet theories can be folded into "larger" rules, some pet theories will have effects which aren't "large" enough to matter, and some pet theories can only be added to the detriment of the primary goal. When in doubt, leave a pet theory out and, remember, anything which isn't your primary design goal is a pet theory.

Take a step back, try to look at what you have now as if you've never seen it before, and start using that editorial axe. Good luck.

 

[kilemall]

"Simpler fire" AND "more choices per ship"? There are going to be more choices but it's okay because they're only simple choices? Does make any sense to you? Those two design goals are diametrically opposed.

In your head but not mine.

The fire/resolution WILL be simpler, HAS to be simpler, even if it's just CT ACS ship vs. opponent. HG's achilles heel from anyone actually playing the game is all those damn die rolls, secndarily all the oddities resulting from having USPs and squirelly damage tables.

Yet, the game says fire one weapon per powered up weapon, with really no power allocation and an apparent assumption energy use will degrade gracefully at the same rate between production and consumption. I took a look at that and found it's actually pretty easy to incorporate in, building on the extant normal weapon-agility/emergency agility/jump mechanic.

I have that all handled, but I'm presenting this in phased elements so each one gets a look see on it's own merits before going on to the next one.

"Big combat with big fleets" AND individual "player resolution"? You're going to be running a large battle involving large numbers of large ships with large numbers of large weapons and yet the system is going to put a game on hold while you somehow determine the fate of the Third Assistant Vice Deputy Laundry Officer? And you're going to distort this high level game by apply DRMs based on PC skills to something as "small" as a 2D6 roll? Does that make any sense to you?

Yes.

This presumes the players are at least acting as vice admirals or commodores if not THE admiral, or skilled ship captains. They are involved and would want fleet/ship decisions to reflect on what happens, without gaming out every individual captains' power allocation/moves.

It's the same thing as having detailed Striker individual rules like I posted on, and then shifting to the Light/Serious/Mortal wound table for quick NPC resolution. So, shouldn't be a surprise for anyone following me on these rules jags.

You don't know what you want because still you don't know what you don't need.

This is where you go over the line from useful critique to curmudgeonly venting.

I DO know what I want and have even explained it. If you don't value that or think it overcomplicated, fine, but you are NOT in a position to know what I need.

I do know what I want and I do know I am putting in more tactical game then HG ever had while taking out 80% of the rolls. I haven't posted them yet because it's a big furball to digest and some people could use different elements oriented towards their 'druthers'.

SO if you can't hang with that approach, wait until Phase III with the full damage set in and tactics explained in Phase II.

You've got a grab bag of design features you've fallen in love with, design features which operate best at different scales. While all those scales can be bashed together somewhat, doing so will require a host of rules. Despite that one of your goals is to produce a simple game. Again does that make any sense to you?

Yes. But I know what the finished product is. This isn't it, I'm taking a modular review approach, that's that.

Without over complication? You still haven't been able to explain the Power/Tactics scheme in a fashion which anyone other than you can understand.

Phase II.

There used to be an editorial of sorts at Boardgame Geek by one of the AP bigwigs describing the failure of the Imperium development process. Essentially, they lost control of the game. Everyone involved kept adding their pet theories and no one was wielding an editorial axe so the game collapsed under the weight.

That makes sense given the results.

You may not be consciously recreating it, but you're sure as hell stumbling along in it's foot steps. You've got a clutch of pet theories and play mechanisms which you're going to kludge together come hell or high water and no matter what the result.

You want advice? Here it is: PICK ONE PRIMARY DESIGN FEATURE and stick to it above all else. Doesn't matter what it is. Tactical maneuvering modeled via range bands. Weapons/ranges interactions. Streamlined damage methods. Whatever. Choose ONE and one only.

Add any other the pet theories as long as they don't impact your primary design goal in any manner at all. Keep what effects a pet theory produces in mind rather than the pet theory itself. Some pet theories can be folded into "larger" rules, some pet theories will have effects which aren't "large" enough to matter, and some pet theories can only be added to the detriment of the primary goal. When in doubt, leave a pet theory out and, remember, anything which isn't your primary design goal is a pet theory.

I've already done this process. If you recall I went through about 4 different approaches starting 2-3 years ago and had a LOT of stabs at this goal of CT/HG fusion with tactical maneuvering or RPG scale as a goal.


I went to some extremes I don't want to think about, including Striker/HG, deck plan-based damage systems, proportionate damage per system percentage, etc. Threw em all out, so it's not like I am 'in love' with any given system.

I do however have goals in mind, and they are multiple goals so paring down to one overriding feature set is not in the cards.

But just for clarity's sake, it would be useful to express, so I'll boil it down to one goal statement.

The design goal for these rules is to allow CT and HG2 designed ships to play under the same tactical/fleet operation game rules, with options for range band or CT/mini style moves and dramatic PC ship/fleet operation decisionmaking.

Take a step back, try to look at what you have now as if you've never seen it before, and start using that editorial axe. Good luck.

I did that, but like our GDW forebears, assumptions can be made about what is clear or not, and unlike them I am not on a publication deadline for my meal ticket. So I'm counting on you gents to spot rules issues, and flexibility enough to follow a modular path to that goal and not a complete ready to play game.

 

[Whipsnade]

In your head but not mine.

That's the problem. This all makes sense to you and nobody else.

You've been at it what? Almost three years now? And you're still not able to successfully explain what it is and what you're trying to do to anyone but yourself. Phase this or that doesn't matter, explaining it in supposedly manageable chunks isn't working.

If it's something you want others to use, they have to be able to use it.

 

[kilemall]

That's the problem. This all makes sense to you and nobody else.

You've been at it what? Almost three years now? And you're still not able to successfully explain what it is and what you're trying to do to anyone but yourself. Phase this or that doesn't matter, explaining it in supposedly manageable chunks isn't working.

If it's something you want others to use, they have to be able to use it.

I'm only asking people to look at the range band handling this time around, because that is a base abstraction and I need to get that right before moving on to more detail. You disagree with the approach, fine, you disagree. I'm still looking for comments from people who can hang with this approach, and several have so far.


They CAN use it at this Phase, whether they do or not is another matter. The Contact range paradigm alone is rather daunting and can greatly affect fleet/ship design and resolution. I do know I want that in my version, because below 100K km there is just not enough time to even angle a ship or move tens of meters to avoid a hit. That perception of how space combat would go would not be for everyone, both old school HGers and the drama rules inherent in MgT.

 

[Whipsnade]

You disagree with the approach, fine, you disagree.

I'm not disagreeing with the approach. I'm not even disagreeing with the mechanisms. I'm pointing out that you have become lost within your development process.

Over in the Retro 'Puter thread you've been posting excellent explanations about how CT's computer rules were meant to create certain specific play effects within the overall framework of the game. They weren't meant to "model" 57th Century computing or be part of macro-economic data or anything like that. The computer rules are were written, tested, and included solely on the basis of how they effected the play of the game as a whole. The specific "nuts & bolts" of the rules didn't matter. What people might think the rules implied didn't matter. All that matter was the results of the rules.

The computer rules were selected because of the results they created and not because of anything inherent the computer rules themselves. GDW kept focused on the desired end of a design rather than focusing on any one of the many possible means to that end. If anything didn't produce the desired results, it got the axe. If anything couldn't be made to think, it got the axe too.

You have three goals:

• CT and HG2 play the same tactical/fleet operation game
• Provide range band or CT/mini style moves
• Provide dramatic PC ship/fleet operation decision making

You've also been trying to achieve those goals for about 3 years with the same "tool kit" with little progress.

It's time to refocus, select one goal, re-examine the contents of your "tool kit", and start anew.

 

[kilemall]

I'm not disagreeing with the approach. I'm not even disagreeing with the mechanisms. I'm pointing out that you have become lost within your development process.

Over in the Retro 'Puter thread you've been posting excellent explanations about how CT's computer rules were meant to create certain specific play effects within the overall framework of the game. They weren't meant to "model" 57th Century computing or be part of macro-economic data or anything like that. The computer rules are were written, tested, and included solely on the basis of how they effected the play of the game as a whole. The specific "nuts & bolts" of the rules didn't matter. What people might think the rules implied didn't matter. All that matter was the results of the rules.

The computer rules were selected because of the results they created and not because of anything inherent the computer rules themselves. GDW kept focused on the desired end of a design rather than focusing on any one of the many possible means to that end. If anything didn't produce the desired results, it got the axe. If anything couldn't be made to think, it got the axe too.

You have three goals:

• CT and HG2 play the same tactical/fleet operation game
• Provide range band or CT/mini style moves
• Provide dramatic PC ship/fleet operation decision making

You've also been trying to achieve those goals for about 3 years with the same "tool kit" with little progress.

It's time to refocus, select one goal, re-examine the contents of your "tool kit", and start anew.

I've already scratched 4 different toolkits so to speak most of which I did not post on, so just because you don't see the process doesn't mean it's not going on.


Just thought I might be able to save those damage tables since the 'value' of the weapon/system interaction is baked into those things, but I'll have to go another way IMO.



I didn't become one guy who understood the CT computer rules intent and suddenly change to being another with head in clouds. But note, I also had no problem ditching those rules if they did not suit needs. I'm not going to feel badly if others do the same to mine.


For the remaining purposes of this thread, I will ask that you and anyone else just concentrate on the actual presented rules elements- moving HG with it's designs tables and rules largely intact into an extended range band system with a deadly Contact range component, and think of this as the end product without regard to the rest of the planned elements.


I'd appreciate it, because I suspect anyone who would otherwise have been commenting has been scared off by our exchange of views and the potential for another sunk thread.